arokaladin

27 minutes ago, DeltaV said:

Romantic love often/usually

• is based on a gendered attraction (the romantic interest must have the "correct" gender)
• is exclusionary (which can lead to jealousy)
• is strongly influenced by physical beauty or social status
• starts with an unrealistic idolization of the romantic interest
• comes with an unrealistic aspiration of happiness from the prospect of being together
• makes people, in the beginning, be quite guarded and less truthful towards the romantic interest
• starts with overthinking and nearly obsessive behavior, which in other contexts would be considered age-inappropriate
• entails showing off "commitment" with nonsensical, costly and hard-to-fake practices (from waiting hours for the romantic interest to show up ... to buying an expensive engagement ring)
• does not develop in a continuous manner but with certain "escalation" peaks (e.g. first kiss, first "I love you")
• develops in a straw fire manner at first: it becomes strong very fast but is fragile and can easily go out completely

Actually I want to challenge this a bit

I don't think what you're describing here is the differences between friendships and romantic relationships, but amatonormativity/toxic elements present in many romantic relationships. I'm not disagreeing that these things are common, but I think it's unhelpful to op to define romance like this. 

I frankly think it's rude as hell to say romantic interest is 'unrealistic', 'obsessive', or based on 'social status'. It can be, but so can friendship, sex, or any other kind of relationship. We as aros may not like how some people go about romantic dating, but romance is not inherently shallow or 'nonsensical', and it's disrespectful towards people who experience it to accuse them of automatically going around their relationships in harmful ways. Lack of attraction is neutral, and says nothing about a person. The exact same is true for experience of attraction. 

(I don't want to keep nit-picking, or misinterpret you by coming at your post with bad faith, but I'm also a little wary of the idea that gendered attraction in a romantic context involves value judgement as to 'correctness' of certain genders. I'm not sure why you would put ''correct'' in quotations apart from to call into question why someone would care about a potential partner's gender. Dating only certain genders is again, neutral. And gay/lesbian people have long been accused of close-mindedness.)

I think it's also important to point out that people within our own community experience romantic attraction. By focusing on the negative social aspects of dating, which are determined by alloromantic society, you're erasing many people who have a completely different, and much more mindful approach to it. You yourself mention that a 'polyamorous biromantic' would likely go around romance differently, and in a much more refreshing way. Why would you let your definition exclude those people, as if they do not have equal ownership of the concept? Why is the true, default experience of romance be the most normative version?

I just don't see how you can in good faith give this as an answer to op's question. It's misleading, and is not going to help anyone understand what they want for themself. It's like if a baby trans person asked a question about gender, and you gave a lecture equating gender identity to cisnormative gender roles and ignored the joy people can find in embodying their gender authentically. If you want to vent about amatonormativity, there are plenty of places to do so where it would actually be appropriate. 

Examining and dismantling amatonormativity helps everyone. Claiming amatonormative tropes as inherent to romance pushes people who experience romantic attraction out of a fight that is theirs too, allows genuinely arophobic alloromantic people to not challenge their biases because this argument paints the amatonormative way they do things as natural to them, demonises the attraction of many of the queer people we should have solidarity with, and ignores that aros can perpetuate many of these harmful relationship practices within our platonic relationships.

I'd say you're right that it's a matter of feelings, as well as just what the people involved want to label it. You could have a platonic relationship/friendship that is identical to another person's romantic relationship. The 'difference' is just that the people who are romantically dating have decided to call their relationship romantic. There's really nothing you can say about romantic love that is true of everyone or that is never true of platonic love, and vice versa. I know that sucks as an answer but I would say realising nothing is concrete allows you to decide for yourself what relationships of all kinds look like.

I second what @Jot-Aro Kujo said, and also want to say I'm sorry you're going through this. It's really tough figuring out preferences when society tells us we must like certain things. 

I went through similar confusion when I first figured out I was aro, and threw myself into a qpr in an attempt to have some kind of relationship. That was ultimately not good for me. So I think it's really good that you're thinking about this stuff. My suggestion would be that rather than 'do I want a relationship', you should ask yourself how you feel about more specific things. What affection do you like, would you want to live with a friend/partner, how would you feel most supported and cared for by people in your life? Then you can seek those things out (or not), rather than worrying about labels.

I think hopefully now that you are in aro spaces it might get easier for you to imagine a life where you don't have a partner. Many aros have wonderful fulfilling lives in different ways. We're also able to be there for each other when we're feeling lonely, which is something a lot of us relate to.

Did you say Brandon Sanderson?

Nice to meet you!

On 9/10/2020 at 9:16 PM, Violet Stars said:

Of course it is! You're never too young/too old. If you end up feeling attraction someday, it's not a big deal. If you don't, it's also not a big deal.

 

100% this! I identified as aroace when I was 14. Eventually I realised ace wasn't right for me, so I stopped using it. It wasn't a big deal, and I don't feel any regret over how I used to identify; it helped me when that label did fit, made me challenge social norms within myself so I'm ultimately able to be a better ally to aces now, and it lead me to other labels I do still use. On the other hand, I still identify as aromantic. No big deal there either. I think most teens know themselves better than people suggest. Anyone of any orientation can know from when they're very little, and orientation can change at any point in your life. I hope it helps to hear from someone who has experience changing and keeping labels into adulthood, and I wish you luck op.

52 minutes ago, Finn said:

why is aromanticism one of the only identities where you can just decide you're not privileged and it's totally socially acceptable and encouraged even by progressives? why is the aro community one of the only ones where the most privileged members are prioritized by everyone involved, including those who claim to center marginalized people?

I think you need to ask yourself why everything coming out of your mouth on this thread is something you could read on an aspec exclusionist's discourse tumblr lmao. 

I could get into how aros didn't 'decide' we're privileged. I could get into the social and legal oppression we face, regardless of other labels we have. I could explain how your experiences of being bi versus being aro are just that, yours. I could try to get you to understand, as someone who only ids as aro myself, how gross it is that you assume me straight by default and how invasive it feels that you assume you're entitled to know the ins and outs of my experience with attraction. Frankly I don't think you're worth the effort. If you reflect on the hurt you're dealing to your own community, it will be because you yourself realise you're in the wrong.

Let me instead tell you that I feel empowered as a queer person by opting out of sexual orientation. It's not a concept that helps me understand myself. Maybe it will one day, but for right now it just doesn't apply. I have no sexual orientation. I am not asexual. I am not anything other than aro. The fact that makes you so uncomfortable is honestly part of the appeal  I'm 'just aro' as in fuck you. 

Hi,

If this dream is making you doubt your identity, then there's nothing wrong with looking into those feelings. However I will say a couple things. First off, something happening in a dream doesn't necessarily mean you want it to happen. They're often just remixes of all the random things we see during the day. Secondly, if you do feel this dream was a reflection of a real world feeling, that still doesn't mean you're no longer aro. I'm not sure if by 'not someone you know in real life' you mean someone who doesn't exist or just someone you only know online, but either way your brain chose someone pretty unattainable to experiment with. A lot of aros have 'crushes' on for instance fictional characters before they realise they're aro. Again, I'm not dissuading you from thinking more about this, as it's pretty healthy and normal to keep questioning your identity, but a desire for affection in a dream with someone who isn't a part of your real life is very very different to a desire for a relationship for a specific, attainable person in the real world. I hope that helps.

On 5/24/2020 at 4:17 AM, Qim said:

Genderqueer is not a gender in itself, but more of a political instance about gender. It means your view of gender is non-normative.

As a genderqueer person, you're right that it isn't a gender 'in itself', but that's because its often used as an umbrella term that means something different to many people. However saying it's not a gender at all is a little insensitive to everyone who does identify as genderqueer. My identity is genderqueer, and genderqueer is my gender. (I use other labels sometimes to help further explain, but that doesn't mean genderqueer on its own isn't enough) It's also insensitive to those who have 'non normative' views of gender who are binary trans or cis. You don't have to be genderqueer to have political feelings about gender. That would fall under being gender non conforming, or just aware of issues with how society currently sees gender? Think of 'genderqueer' as like 'nonbinary'. You wouldn't say nonbinary can't be someone's gender, and that it's just a political stance? That line of thinking is often used to dismiss nonbinary people as genuinely trans rather than just being attention seeking or making a statement.

To address Yancy's original question: I can't speak for lesbians, but again as a genderqueer person I would fully support you identifying as a genderqueer lesbian, if that is what you decide fits best! Not all people who identify with a gender other than male or female feel totally neutral. Also, language is supposed to be helpful. If it's more helpful for you to communicate your feelings as 'I am a lesbian', than 'I am a genderqueer person with a connection to womanhood who is attracted to women' then you absolutely deserve to use it. Best of luck on your questioning journey. 

Hi! So, first off I'd say that you don't Need to be more specific than you can be. If you can only get as close as 'relationship' that's chill. 

Secondly, and I do not want to come off as harsh, just kind of gently cautioning you with what I say next. So, I agree with @Jot-Aro Kujo on you maybe needing to examine what about the term qp doesn't feel enough, but I'm gonna give you some benefit of the doubt because that could have just been weird phrasing. What I will say, and what I believe is absolute fact just based on you seeing an aro person, and especially based off you saying she's new to this, is you gotta go some research.

The fact that you've got this far, and have come to ask other aros for help and advice is awesome, and sadly more than a lot of people will do. But I've been your girlfriend in a situation like this, and I'm not gonna get in depth about it here but the tl;dr: is that any struggle she has right now figuring out what she wants is going to be amplified by any gaps in your own knowledge about aromanticism, and the fallout can really suck. Ideally you want to understand our terms and issues as well as we do. You need to be the one initiating conversations about boundaries, terminology, etc. just as much as she does, so that you're doing your part in making sure your relationship is one where those conversations feel natural and she feels comfortable talking things through with you.

Sounds like a lot, but you are initiating a relationship with someone who has a completely different experience and view of attraction and relationships than you do, and you're probably not even going to realise the subtle yet meaningful ways that manifests Until You Do. Like, you say *to you* this feels like any old romantic relationship. and maybe it feels that way to her! maybe you've talked, I don't know. But again, you say she's still exploring her identity. Sometimes you can be fine with the socially expected thing in theory until it happens. 

How do you feel about kissing? Do you rate it higher than holding hands? ...Would a person on the arospec feel that way?? Have you celebrated valentines day in prior relationships? Do you just assume it's something couples do? ...Would someone who doesn't want to be called your girlfriend feel comfy with that?? Again I have no idea! I'm not her. But if you don't know the answer to any question like this you have to ask. 

I know this isn't really what you wanted to be told, and maybe this is off topic, but this is very close to my heart, and you say you love her. I absolutely believe you and I want you two to have the best chance possible! As I said before, I'm already super happy that you're coming to a place like this to find info, so I wish you the best of luck.

You definitely *could*, but we can't tell you if it's the case. I would say, if you're wondering about something like this there's probably something that's sparked that wondering, so I would advise you to look into it a little. Specifically since you mention liking people on some level, but being 'confused', you might want to look into identities under the grey aro umbrella? (demi, grey, lith etc.) Though it could also just be that you find some people nice to look at. That can be the case even if you're aro. Depending on whether you know your sexual orientation or not you may want to look into that too, since it will be easier to pinpoint what it is that you like about people if you can narrow down a bit what other attractions you do and don't feel. 

Liking people for their physical appearance could be attributed to sexual attraction. So if you know your sexual orientation you might realise that your feeling of being drawn to physical appearance can be attributed to sexual attraction, or you might realise it's very separate, or doesn't feel like an attraction at all, or that it happens outside of the genders you're sexually attracted to etc. etc. Basically it's a starting point.

(For me, a lot of my 'crushes' on' people were jealously stemming from gender dysphoria. Don't have the info to know if that's the case for you, but it's an example of the weird places supposed attractions can come from)

Also! know that wanting to get married, have a life partnership, have kids and so on doesn't mean you can't be aro. Being aro is purely about lack of romantic attraction, not lack of the things that our society sees as coming along with romantic relationships. For some people they feel that their not wanting kids is tied up in aromanticism, so you might see people talking about things that way, but there are aros who do want them.

Reading aromantic people's blogs, social media posts and the such that explain their feelings and journeys in their own words was one of the things that helped me most when questioning, as it's easier to see if you relate to experiences than just a definition. You can find a lot of us on here over at tumblr, and of course reading through the forum could help too.

I actually made a post of aro experiences aimed at questioning people a while back, and it had a lot of additions, so it's become a good masterpost. You can find one version here, and another here! 

Good luck, and please ask more questions if you need to.

30 minutes ago, Alexrobinmc said:

Of course i understand that it's wrong because it was a violation of boundaries! I guess i'm wondering more on the emotional side of it because it sucks when my friends come to me for advice when they have been cheated on (usually i'm good at advice) and i just cannot comprehend how they are feeling and why it hurts so much that the person they are with shared an emotional connection or sexual experience with someone else or why barely any relationships are polyamorous. Maybe it will become clearer with time

Right! sorry if that came across like I was accusing you of being alright with crossing boundaries, I just wanted to explain that that's why many people feel upset by it.

I'l say though that you don't have to fully understand the emotional side of things, and I'm sure your friends aren't expecting you to if it's completely outside of your own experiences. A lot of the time when people are upset they might not need you to offer advice or get what they're going through 100%, just for you to be there, and listen to them and comfort them. 

I get why it would be annoying for you though. I often don't fully understand my friends' feelings or how to give them advice and it can be frustrating. If you really want to help when your friends come to you with this sort of scenario and don't know how, perhaps you could ask directly if there's anything you can do for them? People usually don't mind you asking and will be thankful you gave them the chance to state what they need.

There *isn't* anything wrong with being with two people. The problem is when that wasn't discussed and one person is going behind another's back. I think maybe you're mixing up cheating with polyamory, and those aren't the same at all. Cheating within a monogamous (non polyamorous) relationship is where two people have agreed to be together, and one of them sees another person without the first's knowledge or agreement. Polyamory is when multiple people all agree to be with each other, or that their partner can see other people (it can be many other things too but the agreement is what's important.)

Romantic relationships in our society are in most places monogamous by default. This is a norm we need to challenge, and the fact that romantic and platonic relationships operate on different rules is also something we need to challenge, so I see why you as someone on the arospec may feel confused about the exclusivity of romantic relationships when people are free to have as many friends as they like, but like it or not that's the norm. People assume their relationships will be exclusive, so conversations need to be had if that's not going to be the case.

Moreover 'cheating' doesn't just mean being with multiple people, and it can happen in polyamorous relationships too. If a triad lays out the 'rules' that none of them will have any more partners and one of the three does, that's still cheating. If a couple have an open relationship on the condition that safe sex is practiced whatever, and one partner has unprotected sex with a new person, that's cheating. Really try to think of it as breaking the rules.

So, tl;dr: 'cheating' isn't not being 'tied down', it's violating the boundaries another person/people in your relationship have set out. It's wrong because you've done something that you know your partner(s) didn't want you to do and will be upset by. I hope that makes sense.

24 minutes ago, sennkestra said:

First, you can see more about why pages have been changed (including edits added and edits rejected) by looking at the "View History" and "Talk" pages at the top. At the moment, it looks like the reason aromanticism does not have it's own page is because of an overall lack of content, especially a lack of wikipedia-acceptable "reliable sources" that can be cited or that information can be drawn from - this was also one of the biggest hurdles the asexuality page faced when people tried to start cleaning it up. (Instead, it is made part of an overall romantic orientation page, where you can find current talk notes).

 

Generally speaking, wikipedia editors will often reject edits that aren't linked to citations of some kind of newspaper, semi-traditional news media (huffington post etc.) or academic article  (and will often not allow pages from orgs like AVEN or AUREA, which makes things extra difficult). So before you even start editing the page, it helps to gather any news or academic article that mention the information you want to include (like flags, terms, definitions, historical events, etc.).

It would definitely be good to get a wikipedia up, and from google search results it seems like it shouldn't actually be too tricky to get a few initial sources. On the first couple pages I found a few good articles (cosmopolitan, the guardian, huffpost) that have some good definitions for aromanticism, romance repulsion, and some greyro identities. There's also a lot more discussion of allosexual aros than I'd expected in these too which is brilliant. Unsure if we'd be able to use them as sources, I'll have to look at the reliable source link much more in depth, but it's promising to see all from a surface level search. 

I also did a quick search for aromanticism on google scholar, which unfortunately brings up almost exclusively articles on asexuality that I assume must mention aromantics in passing. A search for amatonormativity gets a lot more results, but I'd have to look through them much more closely for anything relevant to aromantic basics. Brake's essay coining amatonormativity will obviously come in handy. 

I haven't heard of that! What's it about?

On 24/09/2017 at 5:42 AM, James White said:

I like the Beatles song Eleanor Rigby even though it's supposed to be about the sadness of not being in a romantic relationship. 

......wait what.

right we can add that to the list of songs my younger self wildly misinterpreted due to aromanticism then.

I personally have One ship that I'm randomly attached too and am either indifferent towards or repulsed by most others. I tend to be very stubborn within my own head about what ships are Allowed (fit with my own personal specific views about characters) due to romance and sometimes sex repulsion and am constantly having to restrain myself from unnecessary ship bashing.

2 minutes ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

 

Oookay, I know that's probably a joke, but don't ever fucking insult my years of hard work, research, and effort like that again. Please. Thanks.

Yeah I second that. fanfiction might not be something you're interested in but that doesn't mean you get to call it a lower art form. I've put a ton of time and effort into fanfiction writing, and devaluing that work (that I receive nothing for in return I might add) is very insulting. 

Your Raw Score is: -325, which indicates that overall you are Androgynous

Your appearance is Androgynous

Your brain processes are mostly that of a Androgynous person.

You appear to socialize in a androgynous manner.

You believe you have mild conflicts about your gender identity.

You indicated your were born Female.

ANALYSIS:
Female to Male Crossdresser
NOTES:

• Your Answers indicate your psychological state has likely prevailed since you were quite young.
• You are in a statistical minority as a anallophilic crossdresser. Most crossdressers are heterosexual. Your motivation for crossdressing may be driven by the undirected nature of your sexuality, as a way to more fully explore the Male gender role.

that last part was interesting to me? (though... anallophiliic? I'm so confused as to why this test had an aspec vocab all of its own). The vote results up top say the vast majority of people got androgynous too, so I can write this off as a tool for gender questioning, but to be honest I did that as soon as I saw how stereotypical the questions and answers were. I guess that's why so many people weren't male or female according to this test. I doubt anyone perfectly fits those ludicrous and archaic gender roles. 

On ‎11‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 3:51 AM, techno-trashcan said:

...I've made a mistake and forgotten two very obvious and crucial examples of aro songs.

 

this song

and Moses Sumney's album CALLED AROMANTICISM

 

idk how i forgot either of those. shame on me really

I second that Moses Sumney's album is so important I've never heard bops this relatable before

also Fullmetal Alchemist! I haven't watched the original anime (though I'm meaning to) but I've watched brotherhood and managed to slooooowly collect all the manga which I love to bits. Also Yonen Buzz which is this weird manga about some guys in a band that I honestly can't explain my attachment to? I also can't find the fourth volume in English which is sad, but I love the art style and there's a lot of really good music recommendations in the manga (for instance that's how I got into shonen knife)

Ok so Adolin Kholin from the stormlight archive is aromantic and probably allosexual, he doesn't know what makes something romantic or how to behave on dates, and has been dumped by literally every woman available for him to date.  Also (obviously) Kaladin Stormblessed from the stormlight archive is an arospec asexual. based on canon evidence about how Kal experiences attraction in my view he would canonically qualify to id as greyromantic (tho obviously there's no official standards to meet! he just has a lot of the same experiences that cause people to id that way!) and I've written more about that here! 

On ‎05‎/‎04‎/‎2016 at 4:08 AM, Spud said:

I'm not sure we want Voldemort as a figurehead for aromanticism… Kind of gives a bad image.

yeah I agree I see non aros claiming he's aro/ace sometimes and it puts a bad taste in my mouth

I thought I was straight (then hetero ace for a very short time while questioning) but I assumed everyone else was making up their crushes to seem cool and that I was... more mature than them.