aro_elise

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. 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: 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. 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? 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.

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: 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.

i get them often, have since i was a little kid. basically i admire them and want to be friends with them, i love to see and talk to them, i think about them a lot. what causes this platonic attraction is essentially their personality/demeanor, but it's hard to describe what exactly it is about each one--"something about them". probably my most intense and longest-lasting one was this girl who was in a few of my dance classes. she was so nice and pretty, i loved to watch her dance and just interact with her friends. on my way to the studio i'd look forward to seeing her. once when i went bra shopping i recognized one by the straps as one she'd worn so i bought it, nothing sexual about it, just to be like her in a way (i do see that that's funny). but yeah i've had tons of squishes, they're fun.

i wonder whether you might be thinking more of sex drive? like if i see a hot guy, yes, i pretty much "want to bone" him, but not necessarily at that exact moment lol like i'm not about to just go up to him and try my luck, i just think 'nice' and move on. not 5 people a day, no--i don't think 'regularly' means that often. and like when i'm with my friend with benefits, i don't want to have sex all the time of course but i don't stop being attracted to him when we're just hanging out, or when we're not together. like, to the question "are you currently sexually attracted to anyone?" i would include people i've recently slept with, people i've recently repeatedly seen and been attracted to (like a guy at my cottage whom i haven't seen since the summer but who occasionally crosses my mind), any hot celebrities i can think of...like, no person on the asexual spectrum would say that. i don't mean to be argumentative, just giving my point of view, and of course it's all a spectrum so people who identify as allosexual could absolutely have a different experience to this. @nonmerci, i can't give any insight into an aceflux experience besides to say that becoming not-attracted to a person or to people in general when you recently were does not match my allosexual experience.

a post here made me think about this. i can't remember seeing anyone say anything about gender being a factor in terms of squishes/platonic attraction but maybe that's because i don't expect to. i've always had squishes on all genders, like it doesn't make a difference. ok, if it's a guy, sometimes i'll also be sexually attracted to him, but that's unrelated--his gender isn't a factor in my platonic attraction to him. to me, gender being a factor is a sexual and romantic orientation thing, except panromantic/pansexual, of course, but i don't call myself panplatonic or whatever because i thought everyone was. so if your experience is different, would you explain that? i hope i included sufficient options. thanks.

hey! hard to speculate about your romantic orientation without much information, but the indication that your crushes/squishes have all been on guys leads me to agree that you might be on the spectrum of heteroromanticism. i say that because i don't think i've ever heard of anyone having squishes/platonic attraction where gender is a factor, like i'm heterosexual af (and aro af) and get squishes on all genders. so it seems like a sexual/romantic orientation thing, but idk, now i wonder. but your sentiment about being fine with being friends with them doesn't sound like something many alloromantics would say. maybe gray-aro or something else on the spectrum? i'd suggest just seeing how well you relate to experiences shared by aros here, and don't worry about choosing a romantic orientation label to describe your experience--if one feels right, great, if you're not sure, that's fine.

i like hugging friends and receiving flowers just because i like flowers. when my best friend and i go out to eat or whatever, if one of us were a guy, people might say it looked like a date. we occasionally sleep in the same bed. i don't consider any of this necessarily romantic. but if the other person considered it romantic/was romantically attracted to me, i'd be super uncomfortable. and there are certain things i wouldn't like in any case, like cuddling, regular kissing (i like making out because i consider it sexual), holding hands, or that freaky thing where they just look at you weirdly. ahh or my guy friend who doesn't know i'm aro asked whether i'd like a guy to hug me from behind and kiss my neck, and i shuddered, like that legit triggered my romance repulsion. i'm sure there's lots more.

?‍♀️ i like small bois. easier to manhandle. haha just kidding...kind of

i like pretty guys, you know, delicate features, no facial hair. slim and fit (i love abs ?) but not muscular. my own waist size of 28", height of 5'10", and age of 22 are practically my upper limits. i often prefer white guys but not necessarily (my fwb is from bangladesh). i like alternative guys and long hair but not important. personality doesn't play much of a part in sexual attraction, i just have to generally like their vibe. although certain talents are attractive. there's this cute guy at my cottage who's a great tennis player (everyone up there plays, i do) and watching his matches is like, wow ? also, they have to be comfortable with their masculinity. if they can put on a dress or like, jokingly flirt with a guy (or actually, if they're bi) i'm like ? we love to see it.

@DeltaV alluded to this, but i'm going to try to expain it as briefly and accurately as possible, checking some sources again--forgive me if i'm not super successful. the person who coined the (translated) term 'platonic love' was not plato, but marsilio ficino, in the 15th century. he did base it on a concept by socrates referenced in plato's symposium: forms of love exist in a ladder/hierarchy where love of a particular beautiful person (which we can interpret as an instance of sexual attraction and which i would argue doesn't belong in a classification of love at all, but anyway) is at the bottom and 'love of beauty itself'--heavenly beauty--is at the top. according to ficino: "the passion of a lover is not quenched by the mere touch or sight of a body for it does not desire this or that body, but desires the splendour of the divine light shining through bodies, and is amazed and awed by it." i can't tell whether this vision of love necessarily excludes sexual attraction or activity, or romantic, actually, but i'd guess not. (also consider that romantic love wasn't as big a thing in society back then.) it is believed that couples of the time who considered their love an example of ficino's concept prioritized the romantic aspect over the sexual. in the 17th century the concept was called neoplatonism. james howell decribed 'platonick love' as "a love abstracted from all corporeal gross impressions and sensual appetite, but consists in contemplations and ideas of mind" (so excluding sexual attraction). some people found this pretentious, and relationships which included sex more 'natural'. later, platonic lovers were described as choosing celibacy, not necessarily lacking sexual or romantic attraction to each other. in 1846, george henry lewes defined 'platonic love' as "the love of a sentimental young gentleman for a woman he cannot or will not marry". in all of this it's hard to distinguish what we (particularly we aros) currently understand as sexual from romantic, and romantic from platonic. now, the casual way people use the term 'platonic' is pretty much at the opposite end of the spectrum of importance compared to the original definition. word detective alluded to this in 2003, saying that the phrase 'platonic relationship' "turned up in english around 1630 and various people have claimed to be in 'just platonic' relationships ever since. they are, of course, almost always lying." i myself am not exaggerating when i say i'm in platonic love by the centuries-old definition with my best friend, and i'm going to use the term even if it doesn't communicate what i wish it would. i remember this being discussed here before, and i agree. i refuse to call my current sexual partner my fwb because i don't consider him a friend--not that i don't like him as a person, you understand, just that i'm not that emotionally close to him, at least not as of now--i say we're acquaintances with benefits. as i mentioned in another post, my roommate has what i'm sure we'd all agree is an actual friend with benefits. the other day we were wondering whether there was a term we could both use for our partners and i somewhat jokingly suggested 'lovers' (as @Rolo mentioned); my roommate found that hilarious so now that's what we call them (not in front of them ?). of course i have to come back to the point that i don't actually think it makes much sense since we don't love our respective lovers, or they, us. it's probably another word whose meaning has changed over time. no kidding, now that's funny. like "j'ai passé hier soir avec mon sex friend"? my study of french has been too academic to cover that one. it sounds awkward in english, but maybe it wouldn't so much if it was commonly used. hmm, would i hypothetically describe a relationship as both platonic and sexual? yeah, because there are cases where i describe my attraction to someone as platonic and sexual (two different types which happen to exist at the same time). would i call it a qpr? man, idk, it's kind of hard to imagine having sex with someone i'd consider a qpp. i guess it's like the idea from so long ago, that pure, heavenly love, incompatible with sexual attraction. summary: language is...hmm. i'm just gonna go on saying whatever, you know? whatever feels right.

only. to be fair i am also cisgender and heterosexual. i have a trans cousin, idk his orientation(s) and his brother is cis and as far as i know, straight. they're my only relatives close to my age--my mom's an only child too.

i agree that you have to be able to look at a specific person and want to have sex with them (or some sexual activity, making out or whatever). and as @CharCharChar suggested, for me at least, that's pretty much as soon as i see them, i don't have to know them or whatever. important note: that's not necessarily to say you would in actuality have sex with a stranger, or even ever with anyone--just that you find them attractive. and if there's a gender you're not attracted to, in my case women, and it sounds like yours, @Robin., the idea of sex with them will surely repulse you. even if they offered me exactly what i want, i wouldn't want it with them. i have a hard time believing people who claim to be heterosexual but express a favourable or neutral attitude toward sex with someone of their gender...but what's it to me, right. and to your other point, considering how many people are not sexually/romantically attracted to their own gender, i hardly think they're all just dealing with internalized misogyny/misandry. those things mean you don't believe men and women should get the same rights, opportunities, and respect. as for the other types of attraction brought up: aesthetic is just thinking someone looks nice, the same way a flower does. like the way i think 'wow, she's so lovely' is quite different from the way i think 'damn, he's so hot'. 'she has a great figure; i'd like to get her in my dresses' (as a model--i design them) vs. 'he has a nice body; i'd like to get his clothes off'. ? as for non-sexual physical activity like cuddling, particularly as you said that the same thing in a platonic context is "not the same," i can't speak to that except to say that some people call that sensual attraction. i don't get it at all, to me it's either platonic, romantic, or could be either depending on context, and that decides whether or not i'd want to do it. just as i'd like to go out for a friendly dinner but not a romantic dinner. then there's queerplatonic attraction, the object of which is often called a 'squish,' which i do have--to me it's almost like platonic infatuation, as opposed to the 'regular' platonic attraction/love one would have for a friend. oh, and i don't understand the "need to cuddle"--you know that 5 love languages thing, well when i took it with platonic love in mind, physical touch was last; i hug my friends but other than that it's like, whatever. but that could easily just be an individual thing. (quality time was first, btw.) well, i hope some of that helped.

yeah i'm not sure it'll become a well-known thing in society, or any standard way, just individuals can do whatever they like. i'd like to do something with my best friend, i'll kind of leave it up to her how much weddingy stuff she wants to incorporate--guests, rings, vows, formal dresses, cake, etc.