Ace_of_Spades

Welcome!

The correlation between asexuality (and aromanticism) and autism is not as strong as people think. Here's an article on it (I used to have a full copy of the article, but I cannot find right now) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355392871_Beyond_the_Label_Asexual_Identity_Among_Individuals_on_the_High-Functioning_Autism_Spectrum The article explains that many autistic people identify as asexual not based on the original definition of the asexuality - a lack of sexual attraction - but based on a lack of desire to engage in sexual activity or lack of desire for interpersonal relations. Aromantic asexuality means that you have a non-split orientation, so the same logic would still apply. What YOU are describing is clearly a lack of attraction, which does not have as strong of a correlation with autism. I am not autistic, and I am an aromantic asexual. On the other hand, I have an autistic brother who is heterosexual. Now, he still does not engage in sexual activity because he has no desire to engage in that type of intimacy. However, he is still clearly, plainly attracted to girls and not asexual; he simply does not have the desire to act upon his attraction in that way.

Wow, this really sucks. I remember all the pressure to date in high school, between my family and growing up in the small-town Midwest. Not dating always makes you the subject of family pressure and gossip. Just know that you will get through it. At the end of the day, while her bickering you is incredibly annoying, she cannot force you to date anybody.

Mint chocolate chip!

Me! I wasn't diagnosed until I was in college though.

"Oh, you're an aromantic asexual? Why do you choose not to date?" "You think that until you find the right person."

Welcome to Arocalypse! Nice to meet you!

Thank you for your response! I do agree that some people will have a general disrespect for anybody who does not live a traditional "heterosexual marriage with children" life. To clarify though, I know that the SAM is the reason that some people do not understand me even though the SAM does not apply to me personally (and I make it clear to people that the SAM does not apply to me personally). Thank you for your response! Yeah, I suppose that granted the history of the asexual community, this makes sense. Thank you for explaining. To clarify, I am not touch-averse. However, because I am not attracted to boys, girls, or any other gender, I tend to not engage in non-platonic touching. I just mean non-platonic activities like kissing, cuddling, sexual activities, etc. A friendly hug or something is fine though! Granted that an orientation is intended to be the gender(s) to which someone is or is not attracted, and we do not have another specific word to describe what I am looking for, I am still well within my right to just use "aromantic asexual" or "asexual" to mean that I am not attracted to boys, girls, or any other gender. My orientation is simply non-split.

I cannot figure out how to split up the quote, so I hope that you can follow this. Thank you for the response. Yeah, I probably would not use the "panaspec" because that word sounds like pansexual, even though the meaning is the opposite haha I do not trust most people to look up the definition of that word. Anattractional could be a possibility, but looks like that term includes "asocial," which I am not - I am quite social when I can be. Anattractional also nixes the desire to form friendships (that is technically called platonic attraction, but I do not use the term because I do not find it useful to label desires to be friends with people - that is not standard in society). I do love my friends and family; I'm just not attracted to boys, girls, or any other gender in any aesthetic, dating, partnering, or physical intimacy way. As to the aphobia, that is true and discouraging. I do not understand why "aromantic asexual" is not as respected or understood as other orientations. Like, if someone says that he/she is straight or gay, that is usually adequately able to keep away certain interest from the unattractive gender and communicate disinterest in the unattractive gender. I am not sure why that is not the case for aromantic asexuality.

I have definitely been discriminated against for being an aromantic asexual. Also, look at Yasmin Benoit's recent article posted on International Asexuality Day about the asexual African woman who had to flee her country to avoid forced marriage and corrective rape: https://pathwaystg.org/asexual-woman-fled-home-over-forced-marriage-and-corrective-rape-threats/. You could revisit the conversation if and when you are ready. But honestly, some people are hateful and unwilling to listen no matter what you tell them. If he is one of those people, avoid him. You do not need the hatefulness in your life.

Prior to getting onto asexual online forums and spaces, I thought that the word "aromantic asexual"-indicating a lack of sexual or romantic attraction to any gender-was adequately able to convey that I am not attracted to boys, girls, or any other gender. After all, the dominant definition of an orientation is the gender to which a person experiences attraction. Most of the world does not experience split attraction (myself included), meaning that most people get to use one singular word to describe their orientation. However, I then discovered the split attraction model introduced 6 billion other "forms of attraction" and that some people who identify as aromantic asexual still seem to have a gender preference. I'm powerless to stop the micro-labeling, which means the solution might be yet another micro-label. Think about this. The average heterosexual, who is attracted to the opposite gender, does not typically have to say that he/she is a hetero-aesthetic, hetero-affectionate hetero-alterous, hetero-sensual, heteroromantic, heterosexual. The average homosexual does not typically have to say that he/she is homo-aesthetic, homo-affectionate, homo-alterous, homo-sensual, homoromantic, homosexual. The average bisexual doesn't typically have to say that he/she is bi-aesthetic, bi-affectionate, bi-alterous, bi-sensual, biromantic, bisexual. Why should I, as someone who is not attracted to boys, girls, or any other gender (and doesn't date, partner, or engage in physical intimacy with any gender) have to go around saying that I am an a-aesthetic, a-affectionate, a-alterous, a-sensual, aromantic, asexual to get the point across? I should not. I would like to separate myself from people who generally experience attraction to a gender and engage in dating, partnering, or physical intimacy. I feel like people became very understanding of me when I started explaining "aromantic asexual" as "I'm not attracted to boys, girls, or any other gender." However, if the split attraction model (which does not apply to me) is micro-labeling that away, I do not want allos to think that I could possibly still be experiencing attraction that I am simply not acting upon in a certain way. Being able to convey that I am not attracted to boys, girls, or any other gender is important to: (1) keep unwanted interest away from me (I have gotten unwanted interest from people who I could not adequately convey my lack of interest in all genders by telling them I am asexual), (2) to communicate my lack of interest in everyone (I have had people who thought that I could be interested in them because "asexual" was somehow also insufficient to communicate my lack of interest), and: (3) to prevent me from being discriminated against over misunderstanding of who I am (in law school, I was discriminated against because people thought that me being single my whole life made me a closet lesbian. My mother also insisted that I must have a medical condition for being asexual). I do not want to lose the power to convey this if aromanticism starts to become "split" too. What are your thoughts??

When I was in primary and elementary school, my parents would tell me that when I was older, I would have to have a boyfriend and get married. I insisted that this would never happen - I would stay single forever and have 50 dogs instead. While I've given up on my childhood dream to have 50 dogs, obviously the "stay single forever" still stands (at age 26).

I usually just explain to whoever develops romantic interest in me that I'm an aromantic asexual, not attracted to either sex/any gender, don't date, and don’t desire physical intimacy, and then hope that the person is understanding. Even if the person isn't fully understanding of the concept of aromanticism or asexuality, that is usually enough to make whoever it is understand that you are off limits. As far as dealing with people having feelings for me, I usually don't avoid or unfriend people for having crushes on me unless they aren't respectful of my wishes to be nothing more than platonic friends.

Since you're aromantic, you're always welcome on Arocalypse! Also, I must say, as an aromantic asexual, that I appreciate you because you recognize that aromanticism + sex-repulsion isn't the same thing as asexuality. Lately, I've seen many people mistaking "experiencing sexual attraction but being sex-repulsed" as asexuality, and it drives me crazy. You have no idea how glad I am to see that people are still able to recognize that. Side-note: Not that I've had sex before, but I'm simply saying that asexuality is more than not wanting sex and people don't seem to realize that nowadays. (Kind of like how aromanticism is more than not wanting romance, but people don't understand that either.) Anyway, welcome!