skies

I'm thinking about how people use the label "aro" (& other queer labels). TL;DR: moving towards a definition of "aro" that is not based on "attraction" would benefit many people. Rather than asking yourself "is what I experience 'attraction'?", "is 'aro' a useful term for me" may be a more helpful approach. I am resistant to labels being viewed as a one-to-one descriptor of "attraction" and something that someone inherently is, rather than the construct that sexuality/orientation labels are. I don't see my sexuality (or gender) as something that I was born with, but rather something that is highly dependent on the sociocultural context I live in & my experiences. I chose to label my experience of ambivalence towards a typical highly committed relationship (referred to as "normative relationship" hereafter) as "aro". It's not something I inherently am, and it's not something I "realized". It's something I am actively making the choice to label as something that is central to my worldview. Other labels I use are deliberately broad and has connotations of resistance: queer, trans, mad. I don't think that labels are neccessarily "terms that describes your experiences as accurately as possible", but rather tools to signify that I align myself with the values & experiences of a group. People who do experience normative "attraction" and choose not to enter normative relationships may have more shared experiences with other aro-identified people than they do with people who have normative relationships. If we move away from an attraction-based definition of "aro", more people may see their experiences reflected in the label. The more people identify as aro, the more the "default" of normative relationships will be exposed as being constructed. I would love to hear other people's thoughts on this!