aro_elise

i wouldn't say it's important for me to call myself that, but it's important that nobody tries to tell me not to.  and the term doesn't suggest anything about who is or isn't oppressed--it groups those people together because they are in the same group of people who experience sexual attraction, that's a fact.  and i'm still waiting for a gay, bi, etc. aro to tell me they have a problem with being referred to as allo, but if they did, i wouldn't refer to that individual as such.  

while i agree aromanticism is queer, i don't use it for myself, i just use aro.  probably because i'm heterosexual and cisgender.  if i were asked a yes/no question of whether i identify as queer, i guess i would say yes.  but it's not something i have to think about much.

yup, you can be any sexual orientation and any romantic orientation.  even though for a lot of people they're connected (i guess?), they can totally be separate things.  as you can see, a bunch of us experience sexual but not romantic attraction.  

i'm domme af but it's just sexual for me, like when my fwb and i are just hanging out we're, well, just hanging out.  but yeah, that's how i am with any sexual partner, it's kind of non-negotiable.

2050

sensual isn't a separate thing for me, all those things are either romantic, sexual, or platonic, sometimes depending on context.  like my fwb and i only kiss, hold hands, or touch at all during sex, besides hugging goodbye (platonic)--i mean nothing while we're sitting around talking or whatever.  and i only want to do sexual things with guys i'm sexually attracted to, which is largely based on appearance.  i say this to point out the contrast with what it sounds like you're describing, which could be sensual attraction, idk.  but i suppose people experience sexual attraction differently, so that's also possible.  not very helpful but yeah, it doesn't matter so much what you call it as that you're both comfortable with everything.

it is absolutely possible to have such strong platonic feelings.  my best friend is my favourite person, i would unofficially marry her, and i would be completely heartbroken if she ever didn't want to be my best friend anymore.  we have been friends for almost 17 years; i don't feel such a deep connection to anyone i've only known for a few years or less, but i do love my friends and get plenty of squishes.  in my experience they're a comparatively more superficial platonic attraction, like i kind of "get over" them, like crushes (supposedly--i've never had one).  sorry to hear about the situation with your friend, i do hope you find the sort of relationship(s) you'd like.

there are plenty of us allo aros, and all of our preferences vary--our levels of interest/comfort with friendship, sex, and romance, and in what combinations.  like personally, i'm very favourable toward the former two (could be one, the other, or both with a given person, depending how i feel about them), and completely uninterested in and uncomfortable with romance--i avoid any type of relationship with someone i know or feel is romantically attracted to me.  i absolutely want to be single my whole life, and to have a lifelong best friend (i do, she's my true love).  and i hope it's encouraging to know that it is possible, as an arospec person, to have a mutually satisfactory sexual and emotional relationship (i do, he's great).  i'm not sure if by 'conflict' you mean with embracing your identity or just with navigating the life that comes with it--i certainly understand both--but i'm also certain both will get easier, probably sooner and more continually than you think. 

On 3/25/2021 at 11:38 PM, Rainy Robin said:

I've mainly heard of romance repulsion in the context of actually being in a romantic situation yourself (like being grossed out at the thought of kissing someone you're close with), though I'm sure those feelings can translate or influence your perspective on media and culture as well. 

yeah, some people have different feelings about those two situations, like someone might actually really like a depiction of a particular romantic activity but would hate to take part in it themselves.  personally, my feelings are generally the same--when i see it, it's just kind of "ugh," but the repulsion is stronger when i think about being involved, and stronger still when i actually am.  the only time i might be considered favourable is toward beautiful words which happen to be romantic; i admire writers (novel, movie, song, poem, whatever) who can string words together so nicely, but i wouldn't want someone to say the same romantic words to me, at least not in that context.  

On 3/16/2021 at 12:55 PM, Jedi said:

Is 'single' the formal term for being unpartnered in english speaking countries?

yeah, it's like, single (meaning not currently in a relationship and never been married yet*), in a relationship, married, or divorced.  

*that's what people generally mean when they say they're single.  even "single and not looking" generally still means 'currently not wanting a relationship' (focusing on other things) or 'not specifically looking but if it happens naturally, cool'.  which--side note--i feel like is a good attitude for allos to have all the time.  like, for someone to focus their life on hunting down a partner can only lead to bad things: disappointment ('watched pot never boils' kind of thing) or settling for someone who is at BEST, not ideal for them and at worst, abusive.  because they feel like anything is better than being single.  not to mention other areas of their life suffering due to neglect/apathy.  of course this is far from the first time this has been discussed in the aro community, but yeah, relevant.   

i sometimes say "single for life" to indicate that i don't ever want to be in a romantic relationship/married.  of course the sentiments of disbelief, disdain, and/or pity in response are about the same as those in response to aromanticism itself.

it was interesting.  in many cases it would depend on a few different factors, especially the specific person, but i tried to give generally accurate answers.

i had to think about that.  if by most often you mean to the highest number of different people, aesthetic.  sexual and especially platonic (emotional, i suppose) can certainly be stronger and longer-lasting, but that wasn't the question.  also, for me sexual attraction necessarily includes aesthetic, of course that's just men, and i believe i find more women aesthetically attractive, particularly the ones in the old movies i watch, so yeah.  as for the others, everything people describe as sensual is either sexual or romantic to me, or i guess a couple things could be platonic, and i guess intellectual would fall under platonic, if it was relevant at all.

yeah random people or even pictures, like that's pretty much how dating apps work for allo aros/people looking for casual sex, i swipe right on a guy if i think he's hot, which basically means i could see myself sleeping with him--with levels (as @eatingcroutons put it) varying from 'maybe' to 'yes please!'  in total it's no more than 1% of guys in my preferred age range; i believe that's more selective than most people and that it varies a lot.

i definitely found boys cute by age 7, and as i got older, that just sort of developed into sexual attraction, like 'he's cute' became 'he's cute, i'd do him.'  haha sorry, just trying to be descriptive.

sounds more like sex-neutral allo (pan, as you say), or at least gray-pansexual, since sexual orientation has to do with attraction, and sex-favourable/positive, neutral/indifferent, and negative/repulsed refer to attitude regarding having sex.

i'm unsure of whether or not i would consider you demi.

On 2/20/2021 at 2:29 AM, Blake said:

Tbh I only feel sexually attracted when I bond with the person over something or if is aesthetically pleasing for me (which is hard). If there is no bond there is zero sexual attraction.

this sounds very demi, but...

On 2/20/2021 at 2:29 AM, Blake said:

I see someone in the streets and say in my mind "yep i would have sex with you"

this does not.  being definitely allosexual myself, i can relate to that.  doing something about it is a different thing, i've yet to hit on a dude i see on the street.  

there is a difference between not wanting to have sex with someone until you form a bond and actually being unable to be sexually attracted to them until then.  i've seen people erroneously claim that "demisexuality is normal" because "most people don't have sex with strangers"--this is the difference they're not understanding.  demisexuality is not "normal," that is to say not common, in that the vast majority of people can be sexually attracted to people they haven't even met, for example celebrities. 

so anyway, maybe somewhere on the spectrum, but if you feel sexual attraction at all, that contradicts the definition of asexuality, like full-on asexual.  of course the way you label your orientation is up to you, but since you asked for insight i'm providing it based on definitions.

On 2/18/2021 at 3:59 PM, roboticanary said:

I look at someone and think 'I'd fuck them'.

yup, that's it.  i want to do sexual but not romantic things with them.  and it's pretty much immediate, unless you're demi, i guess, because for me it's mostly based on looks, but demeanour, personality, talent, or whatever can increase or decrease my level of attraction to some extent.    

a manager at my workplace (cafe) recently clarified that employees could extend their discount to "immediate family members and partner (bf/gf).  not friends."  so my best friend of 16 years doesn't get a discount but someone's bf/gf of 3 weeks does.  not that she even lives in the same city, and if she were to visit (which isn't the best idea), she surely wouldn't mind paying full price--that's not the point, it's the principle.  the way this is just an example of privileges extended to romantic partners.  and i'm not just complaining because i'm aro--my allo coworker's best friend (she does introduce him as such) comes in fairly often; i'm not sure how much he'll want to now.  i'd even be more understanding if they'd said "spouse," but bf/gf, really.  i suppose part of the (questionable) idea is that someone has one partner and many friends...my mom said they should just offer it only to the employee, keep it simple.  not a bad idea.  anyway, there are bigger reasons i'll be glad to leave that place in 10 weeks when i head to my cottage.  

On 1/28/2021 at 11:35 AM, ScarfOfSexualPreference said:

But I've read and watched and heard so many Hollywood stories of casual sex turning into something more, or one catching feelings, and that is my WORST NIGHTMARE.

same!  like i don't understand how sex and/or friendship would lead to romantic attraction (well, i guess i don't know what would) but i hope it doesn't for anyone in any such relationship with me. 

On 1/28/2021 at 10:40 AM, roboticanary said:

Its really cool to see people talk here about casual sex without expectations on what any other part of that relationship is like.

i feel like it makes sense for aros to be a very sex-positive group overall.  love that for us.

i'm so glad i could help.  certainly, labels are just what we use to help understand ourselves and connect to a community of people who feel the same way--the fact remains that whether or not i call myself heterosexual, i'm sexually attracted solely to men, and whether or not i call myself aromantic, i've never been romantically attracted to anyone, and i doubt either of these facts will change.  of course it's possible, but i'd be equally surprised if, for example, a woman who'd been attracted only to men (romantically and/or sexually) was one day, after a few decades of life, suddenly attracted in such a way to a woman.  and i don't suppose many people, upon hearing that she was straight, would tell her, as you quoted, "sexuality is fluid, you're young it might change one day".  i always hesitate to say anything to that effect to questioning aros (or aces) because of that; while i wish to assure them that choosing a label doesn't mean you have to be sure of how you'll feel for the rest of your life, i don't mean to imply that you can't be pretty sure--enough allos do that already.  but as i said, it took me a while just to identify as aro privately and without a ton of confidence--you don't have to yet or ever.  

On 1/20/2021 at 11:54 AM, candlewax said:

I also think I just needed to hear that my mental health doesn't affect my sexuality, because I had people tell me the fact I'm on meds means I can't know for sure even though my libido and love towards my friends and family have been pretty much unaffected.

mine as well.  and i knew i was aro before i started taking meds, not that that's a requirement to "prove" it.  the only thing which has changed since i've sought treatment for my depression is that i'm now better able to manage it.  people who say things like that are actually being offensive toward aros/lgbt+ people (whomever they're talking about) as well as to people with mental illness.  hypothetically, even if meds did stop you from feeling romantic attraction, are they suggesting you forgo them because it's better to be suicidal/barely able to function than to be aro?  you can see what a horrific sentiment that would be.

yup, i've had mental health professionals try to tell me i'm depressed because i don't have romantic relationships, even after i explain that being aro and romance repulsed meant that the romantic relationship i did have caused one of the most terrible periods of depression and unease of my life and i've felt so much happier and freer since accepting who i am and living in a way which is fulfilling for me.  i really can't see how i could go on with life if i had to enter a lifelong romantic relationship/marriage, especially with kids--just imagining the horrible dread of knowing that was my eventual fate, and when i met it, the absolutely soul-crushing depression into which i would fall, never to escape...no, i couldn't bear it.  thank goodness i love and trust myself enough to disregard their advice on that matter.  i know i'll always have depression (and probably trichotillomania, another very trying mental disorder with which i've been struggling for several years), but i whole-heartedly believe my life will be beautiful all the same, certainly no less so because of my aromanticism.

immediately i thought to myself that the answer to whether you felt any sort of affection/attraction to people would be a pretty good indicator, and as you said you had "strong feelings" and "a lot of love" for your friends, it's clear that your mental health issues aren't affecting that, so why would they impair your romantic attraction specifically?  as to your not being sure whether certain feelings you had were romantic, i think that in itself is a good indicator--how many alloromantics (people who do experience romantic attraction) struggle with such an uncertainty or seriously consider that they might be aro?  a year is a long time to have these thoughts--it was as long for me as well, before i started to actually identify as aro, and longer before i came out to anyone (or was truly at peace with it).  i also had the same thoughts when i was questioning: "i don't know whether i've ever experienced romantic attraction because i don't quite understand what it is."  well, in retrospect that's a very aro sentiment.  an experience plenty of aros have formerly mistaken for a crush is called a squish--basically the platonic equivalent.  i've had lots of them.  i also have depression and am introverted, but i've actually never felt that either of those could be related to my aromanticism, i suppose because again, i feel so many other emotions, including types of love.  even without being as social as other people, we've lived long enough to have unavoidably met a ton of people, and not having been romantically attracted to any of them indicates an orientation on the aromantic spectrum--i think it's hard to argue with that, though people will certainly try, for some inexplicable reason (what's it to them?)  if you're not too young to know you're straight, gay, or whatever, you're not too young to know you're aro.  and i don't think internalized homophobia is any more likely than internalized amatonormativity--the concept that the highest form of love/relationships is romantic, and no one can be happy without this.  in fact i'd argue that we're all more susceptible to being fooled into this belief because it's more pervasive--it's shared by almost all alloromantics, including lgbt+ ones, whether consciously or not, and perpetuated in virtually every aspect of society.  heteronormativity is a smaller concept within amatonormativity.  for example, observers are likely to assume a close relationship is romantic, especially but not only if it is between a man and a woman.  of course you know whether or not you're gay better than i do, but whatever you are, it's good to be aware of amatonormativity.  and finally i'll comment on these statements:

9 hours ago, candlewax said:

The only thing I can say is when I found what aromanticism was about a year ago I felt incredibly happy to realize that not having a relationship was even an option, it was freeing but I didn't necessarily consider the label for myself immediately.

that's what matters, really--not what you call yourself but that you're happy.  regardless of your orientation, if you don't want a romantic relationship you certainly don't have to enter one.  i, too, feel so free knowing that i can do whatever i want with my life, unrestrained by a partner or kids.  by the way, the fact that you, like many people, didn't even consider for a long time such a possibility is a prime example of harmful amatonormativity.  

9 hours ago, candlewax said:

I kind of don't want to fall in love with someone and I'd much rather spend my life alone, but again I can't tell if it's my poor mental health talking sometimes.

even if it did have something to do with that (i'm not inclined to believe it does), what of it?  if you want to spend your life alone, that's what you should do.

if you have any more questions or thoughts, i'd be glad to offer some insight.

i don't know whether they knew about aromanticism but i assumed so, so i suppose my question was how would you feel in that case?

12 hours ago, roboticanary said:

As for the idea of casual sex being different to, say, nonromantic sex I suppose they could be viewed as the same but to me the term casual has always implied a sort of lesser status. like casual as in informal, not really putting much care and attention in. There is a bit of me that prefers the idea of talking about nonromantic sex because in my head it seems like it better understands that I see friends with benefits as genuine friends, people I care about and am in a (nonromantic) relationship with.

i see, for me the sexual part of a relationship and whatever other part there may be, like the friendship part, are totally separate, so casual sex doesn't necessarily mean casual relationship overall, but i see how many people would interpret it that way.  similarly, when people say 'sex without feelings,' i assume they mean romantic feelings, but even if they didn't, that would still be an accurate description in my case, even if there were feelings of affection present during the rest of our time spent together--the difference is in whether the definition is no feelings of affection toward the person at all, or just none involved in sex.  but i'm sure most allos (and some aros, i guess) can't relate to these sentiments and so could easily misinterpret my meaning.  not that i talk about it much.  

i saw someone use the term 'aromantic sex' to mean sex without romantic attraction/outside of a romantic relationship, even if they're not aro.  i wondered what you guys thought of that.  i say it's equivalent to referring to bi/pan people having 'gay sex' or 'straight relationships,' which i do feel is a little off, though of course my opinion doesn't much matter.  in this case, i'm not really sure how i feel...i might prefer allos to call it 'non-romantic' or something, but it's certainly not a big deal.  i wonder too whether you think it's any different from 'casual sex'.  to my mind that includes not just hookups but like friends with benefits, where they surely like each other, it can be relatively long-term, but it can't be exclusive, right?  so that sounds pretty much the same.  clearly this is all inconsequential, but i have to wonder whether one day we'll start to hear more people use 'aromantic' synonymously with 'non-romantic'--to describe the nature of an interaction rather than a person's orientation.  (aros can go on aromantic dates, but can allos?  you see the can of worms i'm hesitating to bust open.)

lots of things i do with my best friend, hard to pick a favourite.  at the cottage we go to the beach (hers is right on it); watch the sunset; roast marshmallows, look at the stars, and talk for hours (her brother and mom join us for that, they're really great but i guess that's not date-like).  when she visits me in the city we go out to eat, watch tv/movies, play board games, and often she sleeps over and shares my bed (no physical contact).  on my 19th birthday we got a very fancy hotel room, got dressed up and went down to the lobby bar for my first legal drink, and had a pleasant sleep and breakfast in the room.  they're not dates to us, but a casual observer could make the mistake, probably more likely if we weren't the same gender--when heteronormativity and amatonormativity collide, right.  with sexual partners, including hypothetical future ones, for the non-sexual part, i like similar things, though our level of emotional intimacy surely can't ever be comparable to mine and allison's--like @El011, i'd call it casual dating.

17 hours ago, Bas said:

there was an non-ace aro youtuber, Nik Hampshire, who described it once along these lines- there's a "folder" in my brain for sexual attraction, but there isn't a "folder" in my brain for romantic attraction. My systems literally Do Not Compute along those terms. Sex is yes, romo is null.

nik is great; everything he says, i'm like, yes, exactly!  and yeah that was a good explanation.  like my folders of attraction would be sexual, platonic, and aesthetic (not sure whether i count the last since it's the same admiration one also has of inanimate objects/vistas but let's go with it).  

anyway, i don't see any similarity between sexual attraction and the concept of romantic attraction.  i've wanted to do sexual things with particular guys but just as i've never had such a thought about any woman and would be repulsed by the idea, i've never felt toward anyone a desire for anything romantic and i'm romance-repulsed (the same no matter the gender of the hypothetical other person).

@Queasy_Attention i thought that was all really well said.  in particular i'm glad you said the following:

On 12/5/2020 at 1:51 PM, Queasy_Attention said:

I'm just as allosexual as my straight friends. 

because i was thinking the same thing but wanted to hear the perspective of someone who isn't heterosexual, or asexual of course.  each of us, for example, could just as easily call ourselves aro allo, which i see we both do.  of course there's the obvious difference, but i wouldn't have the exact same experience as another aro heterosexual person--even cis woman--either. 

allosexual is just an easier way to say 'not asexual,' and i personally have no problem with it, nor with 'alloromantic,' or 'allo' (as in, both)--in each case, i use it to describe the group as a whole but would surely refrain from using it for a specific person if they preferred.