aro_elise

i feel like it does in that i take them more seriously, like we discussed: when i make a commitment to my friends, even to hang out, i follow through (unless there's a good reason i can't).  not many people i know are like that.  maybe it's my generation, but it seems to be an expectation to be with your partner all the time, but acceptable to blow off your friends for no reason.  i do fear that friends will leave me especially when they find romantic partners.  i won't stand to be their back-up plan when they break up.  my biggest concern down the road (probably way down) is about my best friend getting married, though i trust that she'll have time for me no matter what--she's such a good friend that it would be insulting to think otherwise--i just have to keep reminding myself of that, and of course that i want her to be happy.  

not really, or maybe i don't understand the question.  i mean, there's the stereotype that women are into romantic stuff, especially compared to men, but that's not the only female stereotype i don't fit.  i still definitely identify as a cis woman, though, without really being able to say why.  i've just never had any problem with it.  i agree with 'choice feminism': don't feel like you have to conform to or defy gender roles, presentation, etc.; just do what you want and identify how you want, pretty much.

yeah, idk whether i consider my polyamory to be part of my orientation, i mean, i guess it's a choice, but like...an obvious choice.  i don't think it makes me lgbt+; again, all i'm looking for is respect.  realizing i'm poly was much less monumental than my journey to identifying as aro.  i guess i didn't think much about it--i didn't think much about relationships at all, but i was exposed to the idea and thought, well, that makes more sense than the alternative.  in the ways in which i can see myself being attracted to someone and/or forming a relationship, i can imagine that happening with more than one person at once.  i believe it's like you said--it's not necessarily a goal as i'm not even really looking for one partner, but i wouldn't restrict myself from the possibility.  monoamory seems to involve a fair amount of jealousy and possessiveness--often linked with amatonormativity--the whole notion that people aren't supposed to find anyone but their partner attractive, that some aren't allowed to spend much time with friends or with anyone of the opposite gender (in a heteronormative context), and of the 'one true love'/soulmate thing in which one person perfectly fulfills all your needs is quite as bizarre to me as the concept of romantic attraction itself, and makes no more sense than a restriction to one friend.  so yeah, it's kind of related to my aromanticism in that i reject that whole narrative and don't inherently prioritize any type of relationship over any other.  i just want to be able to love someone, or simply to enjoy their company, without immediately assigning a set of arbitrary rules to our relationship; to define it or not to, in whatever way works for us.  i have encountered the term 'relationship anarchy' before (on here, actually) and i believe it fits my mindset well.  my close friend and two of her housemates are poly (and lgbt+; one of them's aro and is my friend's sexual partner) and their various relationships to each other are all clearly full of love, trust, and freedom.  this is the sense i get from the poly community overall.  

i'm enjoying the conversation as well.  oh, and no, i just discuss aromanticism on here.

well, that's hard to say.  i don't really feel too strongly about it either way.  being part of the lgbt+/queer community isn't like, super important to me, but i do dislike people who take it upon themselves to say that i'm not (or that anyone who's on the a-spectrum(s) but not same-gender-attracted or trans isn't).  to exclude us all on that premise is to say that our experiences are the same, so it logically follows that all gay people, for example, have the same experience with their identity, which of course could hardly be less accurate.  this whole line-drawing, gatekeeping thing does far more harm than good.  personally, the 'aromantic' label is pretty important because it's a fairly significant part of my identity--certainly more so than 'heterosexual'--and saying i "just don't like dating" really doesn't cover it, but i could take or leave the 'queer' label.  i guess as long as my identity is acknowledged (by those with whom i choose to share it) and respected, i'm happy.  that extends to the aro-spec community as a whole.  i will defend its rights to awareness, respect, and yes, interaction with the lgbt+ community, because that should be an option.   

to me, the word 'intimacy' is associated much more with emotional closeness than physical.  meaningful relationships are important to me, and require profound emotional connection, trust, and respect.  we must be able to be completely ourselves, unafraid of anything but losing each other--i'll go out on a limb and say i often fear this more since they're more likely to find a life partner and spend the majority of their time with them, so that's an aro thing.  my best friend and i have been friends for 14 years and i love her more than anyone.  while being around her and loving her is so easy and comfortable, i take our friendship seriously; i always try to be a better friend, to be more attentive to her feelings and needs, and to show her how much i care about her, because she deserves it and because i want to.  my promise to be with her forever is equally natural and sincere.  i have other friends, of course, and family members, who also mean a lot to me.  i can't say for sure, but i have a feeling i take these relationships more seriously and gratefully than most allos, who seem to prioritize even short-term romantic relationships over long-term platonic ones.  as for the physical aspect, simple proximity is often enough, but i love hugs.  that's about it.  it could well be that i find kissing, cuddling, holding hands, etc. too romantic.

boy, these questions don't get any easier--this one's all hypothetical (well, i guess my relationship with my first and only boyfriend was somewhat sexual?...but...it was a mess.)  ok, so, hypothetically, i could see myself in a range of situations with a sexual partner, including having more than one, since i'm poly.  no matter what, i would need to feel comfortable with the guy, and to be sexually attracted to them.  assuming that, i would have no problem with a one-time (or few-time) thing, in which emotional connection wouldn't be necessary.  i see it as quite separate from sexual relations, even if the two are elements of the same relationship.  if emotional connection were included, i imagine a friends-with-benefits sort of situation would be cool.  to be able to share both types of experiences without feeling obligated to each other (either to spend a ton of time together or to be exclusive) seems only positive.  i'm unsure whether i would call the person my boyfriend at this point, but i don't see that it really matters.  if i met someone i really cared about and we wanted to take our relationship to the next step, it could be a qpr.  the difference, i imagine, would be a commitment to spending more time together and strengthening our emotional bond.  i wouldn't go into it with the mentality that it could end anytime, with little impact on me.  the main hesitation i have with spending more time with someone and developing the emotional aspect of our relationship to any degree is the possibility of them developing romantic attraction towards me, resulting badly for both of us (like the aforementioned mess).  i would have to ask myself whether it was worth it.      

thanks for the questions--they were thought-provoking and, i agree, uncommon.  i'd like to hear your answers as well, if you want.