Neir

4 minutes ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

implies a partnership than a single unified community, imo

You've articulated this perfectly. Exactly my sentiments.

Coyote, you've beat me to it! I was just about to make this forum topic.

I personally like "a-spec" as a term I can use for my aro and ace-ness simultaneously. I also think, though, that this is entirely personal preference for highly specific terminology. It may come back to that question - what are people's preferences on labels in terms of broadness vs. specificity? There are people who, for example, have a gender identity that often is considered part of the non-binary umbrella, but they don't identify with the non-binary umbrella label. We may have a similar thing going on.

We probably can't ever define a-spec's broadness prescriptively, because the use of labels is always up to a specific person (i.e., if someone feels like a-spec captures their experience, they can modify the definition as they wish and claim the label). But I am curious about demographics: how far does the a-spec label stretch, like you've said. We may never know where it will 'stop' but it would still be interesting to know where it continues.

For me personally, when I think of a-spec, I think of any identity - an orientation - that can have an "a" prefix. Asexual, aromantic, aplatonic, asensual, etc. But it may include other identities that are defined by "a" (absence/queer) and "spectrum."

Beta testing sureys is difficult because the only way we'll be able to foresee everything is if we open beta to everyone. Not many people have that time.

It may help to know that this survey was looked at by more than just me and Magni. I suspect that aro and aro-related surveys are having a lot of growing pains right now because there aren't many out there yet. This is very common in the beginnings of research.

As for comments, some of these we may be aware of but haven't had the means to respond to yet (I've been away the whole weekend with only limited mobile access). Go right ahead and PM me though, Coyote, and I would definitely encourage individuals to PM or contact me via email if they want to as well.

Ultimately there is no way a survey will be perfect, no matter the number of iterations/replications, beta testers, years of forethought, or makeup of the research team. But there is always room for improvement and things we can learn that will be useful for future work (even if not on the exact same topic).

Thanks everyone for your interest in this current research and in helping us understand our communities better.

@Coyote Yes! The aro and ace mentions were examples.

Though, full disclosure, I hadn't thought about the possibility of someone being a-spec and not aro or ace (e.g., aplatonic but not aro or ace). There is a write-in possibility and commenting as an option in the general a-spec category but you make a good point about explicit inclusion we had missed when planning. Thanks for the comment - I like running surveys precisely because I can get feedback like this.

@Mark Thanks for the feedback! The problem with the second question is that are non-aros to whom that question could apply. Or, feelings that an aro might have had that are different from their aro experience that would fit into those words. E.g., People who vow to be single regardless of their attraction (bachelors, spinsters, etc.). I fit that example before and after identifying as aro, and it's not an aro-specific experience for me. Using the identity-centered question is a way we could be explicit that this was about aro-ness.

The reason we have the years go back so far is for between-question consistency (ace and a-spec questions have the years go back that far). It's entirely arbitrary.

Here is the second survey @Magni and I are running. This is a broad a-spec survey, so it’s not just for aros - it’s for aros, aces, a-specs, and all grey or questioning folks on any of those spectra. If you are aro only, ace only, or a-spec only, you are just as welcome to participate as aroaces - there will be questions about your other identities as well. 

The survey will ask you about your experiences learning about your identity. The purpose of this survey is to understand how a-spec people came to learn about their identities and how they define them for themselves. We want to collect data and narratives so that we can understand how best to engage each demographic in things like outreach and discussions.

It is entirely optional to participate. There are a few questions in this survey that require you to write in your own words - feel free to be as brief or as lengthy as you’d like, using whatever kind of register you’re most comfortable with. It does not have to be a formal essay or in complete sentences - just your thoughts. You may also stop participating at any time, for any reason.

If you are interested in participating, CLICK HERE.

Feel free to boost this survey on other channels. If you do, please include the blurb above.

Thank you.

As a follow up to last year’s survey of the same name, I want to poke the aro community with a new, improved, expanded survey that is more inclusive. This time around, I have @Magni collaborating with me (huge thank you to zem for being an awesome research partner).

Anyone who identifies with the aro community in some way, including grey and questioning people, is welcome to take this survey. 

Participating in this survey is, as always, completely optional. If you wish to stop participating at any time, you may do so, for any reason.

This survey will ask you about your experiences with microaggressions, oppression, and stigmatization as an aro. Therefore, some of the questions may be distressing for you. You have every right to stop participating or to not participate at all if you are uncomfortable.

If you are interested in participating, CLICK HERE.

Feel free to boost this survey on other channels. If you do, please include the blurb above.

Thank you for your time.

Welcome and congrats on making your introduction post. The wanting to be special to someone but not necessarily pursue a traditional romantic relationship is extremely relateable and I hadn't thought about that until you said it. I hope these forums can give you support, and I know you've already helped someone else figure something out (i.e., me) so thank you.

A fellow Bagged Milk Land dweller! Welcome. Have some aro ice cream to celebrate finding words that made your experiences make sense to you: 

It's awesome to see a name for this. From my experience, there is a very harmful and unhealthy trend of people leaving relationships when they require work or "get hard" or change/grow in any way. We often say amatonormativity harms everyone but the hedonic treadmill here is a perfect example of an unhealthy component or structure of a relationship that often comes hand in hand with amatonormativity. It's something specific we can point to.

It also makes sense why so many people have problems with aros and our experiences. If we don't engage in relationships at all, people are worried we're never going to achieve some sort of nirvana or ultimate happiness. Like what @NullVector said, even with non-religious people in some places, there is an almost religious dedication to romance or a spiritual type of enlightenment given to romance and those who interact with it.

But then even when some aros are in relationships, the way we navigate relationships is often questioned too. If we commit and don't have that feeling of hedonism regarding relationship baselines, I've seen some alloros just be completely baffled when we talk about navigating relationships hiccups and troubles. I hear a lot of advice that's "just drop them if there's a problem" instead of "here's a way to navigate your issues and changes." 

I definitely don't think it's an aro-specific issue but it's certainly aro-relevant.

This is always entirely up to you, but I can be a board to bounce your feelings and thoughts off of.

"Is this a squish, crush, or alterous attraction?" is a question I have found myself asking a few times before (pretty recently actually) and the boundaries around these things are so up in the air that it's extremely confusing for all of us, whether aro or allo or anywhere else on the spectrum.

You said a few times in your post that you're happy being friends with her and don't imagine yourself in any relationship other than a platonic one. I think that's a good clue that your feelings might not be romantic. I know alloromantic friends of mine who talk about the "nervousness" and "butterflies" as being part of romantic attraction sometimes, so that part you mentioned may be why you're still unsure. You being nervous, though, could be related to you not knowing how to categorize your current attraction, not necessarily feeling like a crush. Especially since your girlfriend said that, for her, the feelings your describing seem romantic. But what counts as romantic is very subjective. I know an alloro friend of mine who has never experienced "nervousness" or "butterflies," for example. Your nervousness could also be related to your sensory issues. It could also be sign of a crush, but from what you've said about your other feelings, this is the feeling you're most unsure about categorizing. If everything else points to non-romantic for you, then it's probably non-romantic.

I should also mention that I often have friends on my mind (specific ones) almost constantly, during periods where I'm feeling particularly close with them, so that may also be non-romantic.

In the end, it looks like you're relatively sure about this being alterous or at least not entirely romantic (even if there are elements that seem more romantic or kind of on the cusp for you), and from how you've described how you feel attraction, your conclusion makes sense to me. Alterous attraction can include elements of romantic attraction and other types of attraction (like platonic or sexual) and the feeling doesn't have to be the same every time you experience it. After all, the targets of the attraction are different people, so the situation may make your feelings different. Your feelings don't have to be identical to still be in the same category.  I hope this helped a little bit.

This is a very relateable term, to be honest! It hits points that are subtly different from similar terms like quoi/WTF-ro.

There are days I feel like this too, as part of being aroflux. Most of the time I can pinpoint where I am on the aro spectrum, but occasionally I'll just feel like this, where I won't know if I'm even aro in the first place but also won't feel I need to commit to figuring it out. Just a big shrug.

Great thread!

I second anagnori's questioning list, and all the resources @raavenb2619 suggested - I used those when I was questioning as well.

AUREA has a general FAQ that includes resources for questioning as well HERE. They're more a starting point.

As for specific identities and suggesting words, it's not foolproof, but I try to gauge what the poster/asker seems to want on a case by case basis.
Sometimes if it seems like they're looking for a word (e.g., are talking around it) I'll try to point them to ones that I can think of off the top of my head. I know that having a word was very important to me personally. And like @Cristal Gris said, approaching people with a list or making sure to say that terms suggested are just guides and not 100% certain is a good way of going about it.
If the poster/asker seems to be more worried about aromanticism generally (i.e., questioning aro but not looking to label beyond that; rather, asking whether their experiences are shared by the general community), then I usually approach them by giving examples of aro experiences I've heard that might resonate with theirs (e.g., "Yes, I know aros who feel like you do too, so if this community seems to fit for you, you're welcome to identify with it").

Resurrecting this thread again because I want to poke other aroflux folks on these forums.

How do you define aroflux for yourself? Or, what experiences made you drawn to the aroflux label?

For me (and I realize I've talked a lot about this in other forum posts already, so sorry about that), it's about my relationship to aromanticism and to romance. My tolerance of romance - in terms of behaviours associated with it, the actual attraction feeling, amatonormativity -, whether it's directed at me or just something I see around me, fluctuates a lot and sometimes very wildly. Some days I'm romance-repulsed. Other days I'm neutral, or even on the cusp of favourable. Some days I know 100% that I have never and will never feel romantic attraction. Other days I question my definition of romantic attraction and whether some of my alterous feelings are actually romantic. In the end I always conclude that, no matter my uncertainties about where I fall on the aro spectrum, my relationship to romance as a concept is inherently queer and the aromantic label is kind of all about that questioning of romance as a concept for oneself. The -flux part is just a way I can indicate to myself and to others that my understanding of romance varies quite often, as do my feelings.

Welcome!  Here's some aro ice cream as a (belated) welcome gift: 

Very relateable on that textbook scientific outlook - I'm much the same. Also, dogs > romantic love, always haha. I'm also very excited about the Liverpool a-spec group; more of us popping up and organizing around the world is excellent.

It's a pretty flag.  I like that you chose six stripes - it departs from both the aro and ace flags and makes it unique. The greater number of stripes also makes sense for a big community.

I think the grey could maybe be a little lighter to better differentiate it from the black (perhaps #999999) but it's otherwise nice in terms of contrast. The green and purple might be a bit too much of a contrast, but for me personally, only the green is a little too bright.

One thing I'm worried about is that the inclusion of blue makes it look similar to @Magni's aroace flag.

In general, though, there is a longstanding debate about what should be used as a-spec (umbrella) flag colours vs. aroace (specific identity) flag colours. So as far as I'm concerned, you can do whatever you want hahaha.

There are a few other a-spec flags out there, yes. I compiled a post of the ones I knew of recently HERE.

Hi Orion. Welcome! Here's some aro ice cream as a welcome gift: 

I'm really curious about these pin designs.

I'm really angry that this person couldn't take no for an answer. I'm proud of you for sticking your ground and trying your best to make things work. I think you also know inside that none of this was your fault. There are people who just don't understand and I'm sorry you had to deal with that.

From interacting with the alloros I know (so, all of my in-person friends), I think he didn't tell you honestly because he took things for granted. A lot of alloros take any sort of intimacy as inherently romantic, even when you say it's not. It's just what they were taught growing up. Being close to someone emotionally means being in love, or something. It takes re-training on their part to get rid of these assumptions. Alternatively, he really was just manipulating you into liking him back, which is a shitty move on his part, but to do that he had to get you to trust him. I think what happened was that you were just being yourself, he took your words and actions as romantic when they weren't, and then he was nice back (i.e., "reciprocated"), and you took it as him being nice/being comfortable around you as a friend.

I'm unfortunately a cynical person when it comes to reacting to people having crushes on me. It happens often that they have a crush on me and when I say I'm not interested, they still try to woo me (whether at that moment or just try again in the future). When I talk through things with those people, our relationship usually dies.

So I try to be very careful when I interact with people, making sure that I punctuate being "friends" (by saying "You're a good friend" and things like that as often as I can). This seems to be mostly successful, but I don't really get to be my genuine self.

I also sometimes run away though. If it really stresses you out, you aren't obligated to stay and try to make it work. You have the right to choose.

But also know that I (and some of the people above) have had very successful friendships with people that had crushes. For me, they've been pretty rare, but there do exist people who will respect you when you say no.

Ultimately, you're not responsible for anyone else's feelings. I know it can feel like you've done something wrong or that you can do better, but it really isn't up to you. They are the ones experiencing attraction and attraction isn't action. They make the choice whether or not to act on their feelings, knowing full well how you might feel or react, so the responsibility to deal with their feelings is on them. Keep being you, because I think you have been handling situations like these wonderfully, and if they don't respect you, they need to be better.

Hi fellow Trekkie! A huge welcome to you. Have some aro ice cream: 

What you've said is very very relateable. I never thought about it until now but I think I'm very similar with regards to liking relationship building a lot but not liking established relationships that often. The latter are often portrayed as repetitive and end-goal with no development during the relationship and I find that boring and/or annoying.

I'm glad you've found a space (and a word!) that has made you feel more comfortable.

Hi, welcome.  Have some aro ice cream as a welcome gift to these lovely forums full of many other hermits like yourself: 

@Coyote I am late to reply to this because I was abroad for the past week and a half (I'm also quite tired so apologies if I have a weird tone in this response) but AUREA did implement the RSS feed (as mentioned by @Lokiana in this thread - thanks!).  

Quote

From my POV, some conflict is inevitable. It's just a matter of figuring out which enemies you'd rather have.

Definitely.

And also thank you for the sympathetic ice cream. ?

As for what I encountered, 

Quote

"Can we extend this program to aromantics?"

^^ this is most often what I started with. It would typically then lead into my trying to explain aromanticism to them and if I started giving too long a nuanced speech, they would shut me down with "OK, don't need to know that much, just give me a quick spiel." This would then either lead into the experiences I described earlier (where aromanticism would be shut down because of my inadequate short definition) or, in the nice instances, someone saying "That sounds complicated and I don't really get it but I'll read up on it later" (which is the ideal response for me - someone genuinely interested in aromanticism but perhaps not having to spoons to explore it at that particular moment). Thing is, even with this latter case, sometimes people just aren't prepared for some reason or other to engage right away in a big discussion.

Quote

I'll ask a question though: Do you think the people you're thinking of can be successfully shut up with a single-instance response? ...where "single-instance" here means "saying one thing," as opposed to dialogue and back-and-forth requiring multiple responses and responses-to-responses over time.

No, I don't. Usually I try to open up dialogue. Problem is, what you lead up to that dialogue with (i.e., the introductory sentence or two) is important. That's why I've been asking the question of this thread. People need a starting point.

I, like Loki, like your outreach strategy though. It may be better to not mention the "aro" word outright, but lead up to it with some major themes instead. Or at least start with other common ground that isn't terminology-related. Honestly, I already do that with a lot of people. Though, always having to lead up to "aro" without being able to just say "I'm aro" and instead having to explain its intricacies is not feasible for a lot of us who simply don't have the spoons.

I should also mention I'm in no way an expert on this topic. I haven't mentioned aros to queer organizations that often, simply because being out isn't always something I want to be in every context. I typically test the waters in the organizations first, to see if I can be safe. Unfortunately, I don't always get it right and it leads to the awkward situations I've described earlier in the thread.

A lot of what everyone's said makes a lot of sense in theory and will work for a lot of people. But what I'm asking in this thread is one way to go about it - starting from a definition that we can all agree is 'good enough.'

If I say "I'm aromantic" and someone says "What does that mean?," I'm not always going to launch into a discussion. Sometimes (often) I am constrained by time and need to give a brief.

At the moment, the definitions we have up on the AUREA site are what we have as 'good enough' definitions. If anyone has suggestions for these, that's what I'm looking for in this thread (for AUREA but also for my own personal understanding of how people define "aromantic"). Other discussions about how AUREA or how aromantics in general should approach queer organizations to include aros are separate from this topic (though I find these equally interesting ). Thank you, though.

@SnowWolffy If you click the emoji icon while typing, you can scroll down to see the Arocalypse-specific emojis.

On 6/27/2019 at 12:49 PM, assignedgothatbirth said:

Of course, I doubt that queer orgs will be quite this hostile but I think we should maybe take that as an opportunity- why not go the whole way and try and get as much support for everyone in our community as we can?

Quote

Presumably this is something that AUREA is meant to help with, no?

You both have an excellent point. If AUREA sets a precedent for defining aromantic as something necessarily vague or variable from person to person and complex (hard to use language to define), and we as a community fight for acceptance of this kind of rhetoric as inherently queer, we could do a whole lot of good. I like this idea. I wonder how to implement it so that there are still terms for those who like to have specifiers/definitions as starting points. Perhaps we can say somewhere that our definitions are just that - simplifications and starting points that stand in for more nuanced discussion that interested persons are encouraged to become involved in.

I think y'all can tell that it's been my own personal experiences that have made me wary of this kind of thing. Such a shift in defining a queer community will definitely be met with resistance by someone or other and my own experiences with conflict regarding these things is why I've appeared so hesitant in this thread. @Coyote, believe me, I would love to show you evidence because I know that taking things at face value online is dangerous (especially with people who, like you've said, are just looking to rile me up), but some of my experiences have been in person. I've heard very well-meaning individuals who are genuinely afraid that aros will take away resources from everyone else "just because they don't feel romantic attraction," saying that queer people need resources for "having queer experiences, not for lacking them." (This is a misunderstanding of the "not feeling romantic attraction" definition, i.e., that not having romantic feelings is not in and of itself a queer experience, but the 'lacking' narrative is pretty common in my spheres.) It's difficult to explain to these people that, no, aromanticism is inherently queer and aros face oppression, and aros won't steal everyone's resources (especially since the resources we need are probably different from those other queer folks need, but that is a fact conveniently forgotten by many of these people I encounter). Anyway, that was a tangent, but I think that I'll be all right personally if enough of us defend where we want to go as a community in terms of self-definition. I just want to be able to have a coherent response to these types of people when they do inevitably come along and go "Uh, but that's confusing and doesn't make sense! So it can't be queer!"

As for perspectives (essays, articles, etc.), 100% yes. We plan to have our News Feed be dedicated to that. Right now, what you see in the feed is general and has been curated by the AUREA group because we just started. We have a general monthly What's Going On post we plan to do, to talk about what is being discussed or debated in the community. Apart from that monthly AUREA-curated summary article, we also plan to have posts on specific issues, definitions, discussions, and et cetera. We have a few lot of ideas for these but we also would like volunteer contributors to approach us with their own ideas (as guest writers - individuals or teams).

I also like the idea of having specific stories. We want to include interviews with people (or have those people guest-write themselves) about the nuances of their experiences. Whether that's commentary about debates going on in the community or how they define a particular term that may have its definition disputed/confusing or anything else. For some people, definitions are helpful because they're grounding, and for others, the narratives are what really illuminate things. It's good to have a mix of both so we definitely will have both.

Generally, the test got my political leaning as left-liberal, yeah; I'm left libertarian. The middle of the bottom left square in that four-square intersecting-line political leaning chart [whose name I have evidently forgotten].

Very much agreed that this test would have benefitted from more context. I was surprised at my results considering how many questions I put a Neutral answer for.

Your scores:
Care 97%
Loyalty 39%
Fairness 69%
Authority 28%
Purity 44%
Liberty 64%

Your strongest moral foundation is Care.

Your morality is closest to that of a Left-Liberal.

My Care and Authority scores I expected but my Loyalty score I did not.