Ghostflower

It's not a silly question! I agree with Jot-Aro Kujo :) You can do whatever you want forever, and while I don't have experience with the type of polyamory that you're describing, I'm sure that many people out there do! 🌟

I've had dreams in which I've been sexually attracted to people, which is wild, because I am incredibly asexual in real life. Oftentimes, in my dreams, I am "playing" a different character, and I imagine that my brain is just getting into some serious roleplay based on stories I've read and how I imagine sexual attraction might feel. So I don't think that being sexually attracted to a girl in your dreams is a sign that you're sexually attracted to women in the waking world. It could be, but it doesn't have to be. Honestly, I've had similar thoughts as you, in terms of thinking, "Well, if I HAD to pick, women look nicer than men, and I tend to feel more comfortable around them." And I suppose that you could always try dating, to see if it makes you happy. But to me, it sounds like we're in the same boat of wanting non-romantic, non-sexual relationships with women. You can always date someone and choose not to kiss them, but perhaps a platonic or a queerplatonic relationship would fill out all of your criteria, without as much fuss over what that type of relationship is "supposed" to entail (since QPRs are all about crafting the unconventional dynamic that's best for you). Something to consider, which I do not have an answer for myself: Do some people gender their platonic, queerplatonic, or alterous attraction? For example, do some folks only want to be in QPRs with women? That might also describe your feelings/attraction. But in the end, I would encourage you to focus on what actions and relationships would make you happy, rather than getting too bogged down by labels or whether a type of experience "exists." (Also, I love that you described this as one of your monthly identity crises. Mood, honestly!)

Yes, I can relate to this! I identified as panromantic for years before I considered the label aromantic, and I also resonate very strongly with the label WTFromantic (also known as quoiromantic). Attraction is confusing, and I've long been torn between thinking that I experience either all of it or none of it. Right now, I think that I experience no romantic attraction at all, but I would still be happy to be in a non-romantic committed partnership with someone, regardless of their gender. I still feel a bit torn between the labels "pan" and "aro," to be honest. It might be accurate to say that I'm aromantic but pan-oriented? Or maybe I'm just not oriented at all, because the "direction," so to speak, of my attraction doesn't matter much to me. I don't even know what kind of attraction I'm experiencing in the first place, and what if it's not attraction at all, but a desire for a certain outcome (being in a committed partnership)? I'm not even sure what being attracted to someone feels like; I just meet people and grow close to them because of proximity, natural affinity, and efforts to maintain and cultivate the relationship. So, yes: I am also distraught by romantic labels but ultimately considering not using them at all. For now, "aroace" may be enough to satisfy me. What is romantic attraction? I have no idea! But aromanticism is what resonates with me right now, so aromanticism it shall be!

Ghostflower is the name of my Warrior cat-sona C: I had a lot of fun designing them, because I could embrace being aroace by selecting the role in Warrior cats society that eschews romance by law (even if I disagree with that being codified and applied to all medicine cats). Ironically, my cat-themed icon is not Ghostflower, but a canon character from the main series: Feathertail, whose romance I dislike and who I strongly related to back in middle school :)

I’ve been trying to avoid romance in fiction lately, because it can make me sad, just like you described. It feels like being lactose intolerant but eating ice cream anyway; it only makes me happy in the short-term. I feel bad about myself afterward, because it reminds me that I stand apart from something that other people covet so highly and put on a pedestal. I think that it would be healthier for me to cut romance out of my life more decisively and to focus on finding examples of the kind of (romance-free) life that I want to live. That’s really interesting! I’ve never heard of Heartstopper Syndrome before :0 I actually have a lot of trouble enjoying Alice Oseman’s work, I think because so many people have hyped it up. Alice Oseman is an aroace author, and there are aroace characters in their stories, but it’s all too steeped in unattainable romance for my tastes. It’s like having to wade through a poisonous bog to get a small glimpse of a lovely aro frog :(

I'm curious to learn more about the types of partnerships that other aromantic folks desire and initiate. Would anyone here feel comfortable sharing their thoughts and experiences? Right now, I worry that I only have romantic models to emulate, when I'd like to see the existence of platonic partnerships and other non-romantic relationships that are just as committed as romantic ones. Here are a few broad questions to get the ball rolling: Is anyone here currently in a committed partnership, and if so, what is it like? Is your partner also aromantic? Have you ever been in a committed relationship with an alloromantic person, and if so, what was that like? How did you initiate these partnerships, and what sorts of guiding questions did you follow to keep things healthy and balanced? What are your thoughts on polyamory versus monogamy, and are monogamous relationships that avoid amatonormative ideals of finding "the one" possible, in your opinion? Lastly, how do you find a comfortable place in a society that doesn't readily accommodate for or acknowledge your existence? I understand that everyone's experiences will be different, so I'm not searching for any single, concrete answer here. I just hope that, by hearing about other people's thoughts and experiences, I will be able to form a better idea of what I want and how to achieve that. Thank you all so much in advance for taking the time to contribute to this discussion! C:

I relate to oscillating between wanting to speak with a therapist and thinking that I'm fine going without. But I think that mental health is like physical health in the sense that you'd benefit from regular check-ups. Even if you're doing okay right now, I think that it would be a smart idea to use your current situation to your advantage and better prepare in case things get difficult again. If you have the time and the resources to speak to a therapist now, even if you're not currently at your lowest, you might still learn tools that will help you in the future, and you will be taking a proactive stance to bolster your mental health. I say go for it! :)

I am not allo, but I assume that allosexuality and alloromanticism are just as wide of spectrums as asexuality and aromanticism. Hopefully somebody else can confirm this with their own experiences, but to me, I would imagine that kissing appeals to every allo person differently, as does the amount of affection that they're comfortable with. Kissing seems like just one way to act upon attraction, and I would nod along in understanding if an allo person drew the line there but was okay with other actions, even if they seem "more intensive" than kissing. Types of affection probably aren't hierarchical, where one is more serious than another; in my view, they're more like an array of foods where you might like some types more than others.

In my experience, it's easy to feel uncertain or guilty about adopting an identity if you're afraid that you're going to upset other people. For example, when I first thought that I might be autistic, I was afraid that my autistic friends would sneer at me and say that it was obvious that I wasn't. I didn't want to offend their identities with my own or to take the spotlight away from them. But with both aromanticism and autism, there is an infinite amount of space in the community. You won't be taking away any resources from the people who need them, and more often than not, people will be happy to welcome you into the fold. If they're not, and if they're rude or elitist in any way, then that's their problem, not yours. I'm not sure if this is part of your aromantic doubts or not, but it definitely was for me. So rest assured that you can belong to this community for as long as you want to, and you don't have to prove that you're aro in any way. I'm happy to have you here, and I believe that you are more than your doubts/fears! :)

I was a Warrior cats kid in middle school, yes! :D (And I recently caught up to Wings of Fire. It's fantastic!! 😍) When I read books like "The Hunger Games" in sixth grade, I was baffled by my friends' emphasis on the love triangle and "choosing" which guy they liked best. I would retaliate by picking a non-romanceable option, like Buttercup the cat :P And exactly, I think that my anxiety and autism come into play when I interact with humans versus other animals. Not only do humans try to hit on you sometimes, but they also gender you in uncomfortable ways; it's much easier to be a trans person around a cat! 🥰 And if you hug a big dog? It results in much less chest dysphoria than if you hug another human (at least, in my experience)!

I got my first Animal Crossing game when I was about 10 years old (City Folk for the Wii), and I remember going to Shampoodle to get my hair done. One of the questions you get asked (to determine what hairstyle you will be given) is whether or not you have a "squish." At the time, I had no idea what this meant, and I was embarrassed by the way that Harriet (the hairdresser) brought it up, as though it were a gossip-worthy secret. I suspected that it was a euphemism of some sort, and when I found out that it meant having a crush on someone, I was even more flustered. Something about the word just felt gross to me, probably because it made me think of squishy goop and other unpleasant textures. Now that I know a bit more about how "squish" is used in aromantic circles today, I wonder if my experience with Animal Crossing over a decade ago has affected my current feelings. I can't decide if having a "squish" accurately describes the way that I feel for some of my friends, and I'd almost feel more comfortable calling what I experience a "platonic crush," although I realize that this is the working definition of "squish." What are other people's experiences with the term "squish"? Does anyone dislike it or use a different term, and if so, why? I know that adopting new terminology can require a transition period to get used to it, and I wonder if I'm averse to the term "squish" for logical reasons (i.e. it doesn't actually describe my experiences) or arbitrary ones (i.e. the word itself just squicks me out a bit). I would love to hear how this term does or does not resonate with the other folks here! :)

It is not just you! I have been known to cry while meeting dogs for the first time. Even seeing them from a distance can leave me feeling all choked up.

I'm the kind of person who often feels closer to non-human animals than to humans themselves. There are no social expectations to perform a certain way, and I have less reservations about being unabashedly myself when it's a dog or a cat I'm hanging out with. In fact, I've often prioritized my relationships with pets when making big decisions in life such as moving and staying close to home. Thinking about my life more critically and imagining what it might look like without romance, I keep circling back to how important animals are to me and how I could probably be happy raising pets rather than children and how I never want to lack for dogs and cats in my life. I was wondering if any other aros feel similarly. I don't need advice, but I would love to hear about other people's experiences and the joy that you can derive from such non-human dynamics! :) (No surprise that I have a cat icon and have recently begun delving into the genre of novel dedicated to relationships between cats/dogs and humans. "The Travelling Cat Chronicles" is everything to me.)

Yeah, I get feelings like those, too, sometimes. It's hard to figure out how rigorously I should question my own thoughts, like, "You don't really want them to break up, do you? You value your friend's happiness!" Sometimes I want to give myself the luxury of thinking a "rude" thought or two, though, you know? It's not going to hurt anyone to let myself wish things were "back to normal." Of course, I want to stay supportive of my alloromantic friends, but it's like that Lord of the Rings meme: "After all, why shouldn't I be a little petty in my own head?" So long as I don't let the thoughts spiral and negatively impact my actions, I'd imagine that acknowledging the extent of my pain and frustrations might actually help. Best of luck with this situation! You're not alone in feeling these things, and I hope that navigating these complex emotions becomes easier with time. :)

I think that's why this post is in the Romantic Allies and Partners section. If anyone can answer this question, it's them! <3 One thing that's been difficult for me is that a lot of my alloromantic friends don't have to think about their attraction all that much, since it comes so naturally to them and is seen as "the norm." I've asked a couple of people who seem willing to discuss aromanticism with me, and I haven't been able to glean much from those conversations besides "romance is very distinct." Unfortunately, that does not clear things up for me at all! T_T

I honestly have no idea. I've wanted to date my "squishes" in the past, back when I mistook them for "crushes." I think that's because I wanted (and still want) the same level of commitment that you see in romantic relationships applied to platonic ones. Nowadays, I'm not sure where I stand on dating. In theory, I would love to have a modified form of dating for a platonic partner, and the fact that I want a platonic partner probably indicates that my feelings could be classified as a "squish" rather than a "crush." So for me, they're not the same feeling, because I'm not sure that I'm capable of "crushing on" anyone at this point. But perhaps someone who actively experiences both "squishes" and "crushes" would be able to articulate the difference more clearly!

I don't have much experience using the word "squish," but I did realize that a "romantic crush" on my best friend in high school wasn't as romantic as I thought it was. Looking back, my rationale is this: I loved my best friend so much, and I considered them my favorite person to be around. My brain had been so steeped in amatonormativity growing up that I thought this must mean that I had a romantic crush on them. This was compounded by the idea that you should date your best friend (or rather, that you should get along with your romantic partner as well as you do with your friends). My best friend and I brought up the idea of dating one another, but it never felt very urgent until they started crushing on someone in college. My brain panicked on me, thinking that I would be replaced not only as my best friend's closest companion but as their best friend, too. I wanted to start dating them, because I didn't want to lose what we had. What made me really recognize this as an aromantic experience was that I would have been fine staying as we were (best friends, rather than romantic partners), so long as our closeness wasn't thrown into jeopardy by a new romantic relationship. In other words, I started to suspect that my "crushes" weren't all that romantic because I only wanted to "do" something about them (i.e. start dating that person) when I felt that I would lose a precious connection otherwise. Up until that point, being "just" friends was more than enough for me, and I currently find myself yearning for commitment without romance and wishing that my platonic relationships were given as much weight as romantic ones.

I think that you can identify as aroace whenever! :) I came to the aro-spec label in my early 20s, but asexuality resonated with me when I was closer to 12 or 13. I suppose that there was always a chance that my sexuality would have shifted (it hasn't yet), but I think that's just as true when you're 13 as it is when you're 43. Life is all about changes, and your identities can shift as much as anything else. Worst case, a label that once resonated with you loses its relevance over time, and you can find a new label that you like better. Rest assured, if anyone tries to "police" your identity and is upset with you for growing into a different person, then the fault is their own, not yours! <3

I don't have experience in distinguishing crushes from squishes, but I do have a bit of experience with crushing on strangers. In my opinion, crushes on strangers (be they celebrities or random TikTok users) DO seem to be connected to attraction. I am asexual, not demisexual, but I believe that demisexual folks are less likely to be sexually attracted to a celebrity or random person online. This seems to imply that sexual attraction is at play. Similarly, I imagine that crushes, even the instant/fleeting type on strangers and celebrities, still constitute a form of romantic attraction. For instance, I used to call myself a hopeless romantic, because I would often recognize moments in real life that reminded me of meet-cutes in novels and movies, and this would lead me to daydream about a romantic relationship with someone I'd just met. I barely knew those people, and I've shared this experience with alloromantic friends, who cannot relate. Perhaps this is an example of me being aromantic (specifically WTFromantic) and idealizing romance as something greater than what it is. But it does seem like not everyone forms crushes so quickly, and even if those "crushes" disappear soon afterward, I would consider them to be a marker of some form of attraction. So, while my word is definitely not law (because this is YOUR experience we're talking about, and I barely understand romance and crushes myself at this point), I think that yes, crushing on people you see online is still romantic attraction.

"Natasha, Pierre & the Great Comet of 1812" is a musical adaptation of the eighth book in "War and Peace" (roughly a 70-page stretch of the large novel), and it's one of my favorite musicals. In the book, Anatole Kuragin is harmless enough. Compared to the others characters, he's not so bad. But in the musical, he's my least favorite character, because he's obnoxious, and his story is centered around romance. Then, I heard the headcanon that Anatole is aromantic and allosexual, and it cast his entire arc in a brand new light. I love thinking that Anatole is a victim of amatonormativity, sexually attracted to Natasha and rationalizing that he must be romantically attracted to her, as well. It makes him relatable to me in a way that he wasn't before, and it makes his actions less frustrating, since they can be recontextualized as overcompensation for his aromanticism. His love interest, Natasha, also seems to be a victim of amatonormativity. Although she presents very confidently in the romance department (proudly declaring her love for Andrey early on), the amatonormative emphasis on monogamy and on having one (1) important person in your life ensnares her. Rather than entertaining the idea that she can crush on two men at once, Natasha falls into the romantic, monogamous ideal of "all or nothing," and tracing her journey during the musical through this lens is striking. She begins with the song "No One Else," proclaiming that no one can understand her love for Andrey and that their relationship is wholly unique in the world. Then, after Anatole waltzes into her life and she's seen flirting with him and entertaining a relationship, her cousin Sonya asks, "But what of Prince Andrey?" Natasha takes this challenge and runs with it, saying, "Perhaps all is over between me and Bolkonsky." By the end of the musical, when she's ruined her prospects with both men and Pierre asks her if she ever truly loved Anatole, she says, "I don't know. I don't know at all," and then begins to cry. While Natasha strikes me as a starry-eyed romantic and I've been identifying more and more with aromanticism lately, her story resonates with me in the sense that she's chasing a romantic ideal she can't quite define. Moreover, it's easy to see how she's pulled along by those around her. Anatole's sister encourages her crush, and Natasha's family reinforces the idea that she must choose only one person in her life. So much societal pressure is placed upon her feelings that she ultimately crumbles beneath it. Neither Anatole nor Natasha are canonically on the a-spectrum. But for a musical that revolves around romantic affairs and married couples, there are a striking number of connections to be made between the characters and aromanticism/amatonormativity. Perhaps this is because their relationships are so messy and we mostly see failing marriages and the external pressure to conform to amatonormative ideals. Regardless, this musical is one of my favorites, and I've been enjoying projecting my own feelings and experiences onto it. Does anyone else on this forum love "The Great Comet" and "War and Peace" as much as I do, and if so, do you have your own a-spec headcanons to share?

Thank you for this reply! Honestly, sometimes it’s just nice to know that other people have gone through this, too. On the one hand, I wish that it didn’t happen so often; we all deserve better than that! But on the other hand, it’s comforting to be able to commiserate with others about how difficult these sorts of situations can be. Thank you for the well wishes, and I’m sending you some of my own! C:

I understand your anger. I personally find it helpful to vent my frustrations for feelings like these, because otherwise, I just feel very helpless about it all. One thing that I’m interested in reading about is the history of romance as a social construct—like, how expectations vary based on time and place. There’s a very good line in the J-drama “Koisenu Futari” (“Two People Who Cannot Fall in Love”) about it being unrealistic to enforce a set of standards on everyone when those standards are constantly changing. Sometimes it feels like so much revolves around romance that I want to find “evidence” that it’s all ridiculous and “made-up.”

I was thinking about something completely unrelated to aromanticism today, but then I realized that it does intersect with how I experience attraction and prefer to value my platonic relationships... I was listening to an audiobook where the narrator explained that there were beautiful illustrations in each chapter, but unfortunately, we wouldn't get to see those in the audiobook recording. I was upset, because there are ways to include supplementary PDFs for audiobooks and also to feature image descriptions, both good ways to work around the medium and ensure that both physical readers and audiobook listeners get an equal experience. (This is how I feel about romance, when my friends seem to value their romantic partners over our friendship. It upsets me that romance leads to a "more immersive" experience and that my friendship with them will get "left behind" and not given the same decorations.) But then, as I continued with the audiobook, there were at least a dozen moments where the narrator would presumably deviate from the script and be like, "Alright, so this is an exclusive for you audiobook folks." And it would be something where the narrator would get to use her accent or do different voices. And sometimes, she would laugh and say, "I never expected that I'd have to read this sentence out loud," or she would add a warning, like, "There is a hidden acrostic poem here that might be hard to notice if you don't have the page in front of you. So pay careful attention to the first letter of each sentence, starting now." Moments like these made me feel seen and much better overall, because it stopped me from viewing the audiobook as "the physical book with less features," but rather as "the physical book with different features, some removed and some added." I feel like if I could view friendship like this audiobook, then I wouldn't be so anxious about my friends getting romantic partners. Of course, there's still the problem of one format being societally preferred to another (in this case, romance/physical books over friendship/audiobooks). But if my friends with romantic partners not only told me that our friendship was unique but demonstrated this by making space for me in a different (yet still elevated) way, then I think that I would feel less abandoned and left behind overall.

The person who first described romance to me as "hyperfixation on a specific person" has ADHD and is also on the aromantic spectrum, like me. She was just trying to help me understand romance in terms legible to us, hence the neurodivergent analogy. Rest assured that no kicking of her shins is necessary! :) At any rate, thank you for sharing your experience! It's wild that something like seeing a movie can have so many connotations added to it. I'm wondering if maybe alloromantic folks associate romance with additional movie-going activities like holding hands and cuddling during a film. Of course, it's still possible to say, "I want to hold hands and cuddle non-romantically," but maybe in those situations, whatever romance exists might be focused into those supplementary gestures?

In high school, I started identifying as panromantic asexual, and it wasn’t until mid-college that I started wondering if maybe I wasn’t panromantic but aromantic—or at least somewhere on the aromantic spectrum. So for a while, I related most strongly to other folks who were alloromantic and asexual. It seemed easy to conceptualize romance with sexual attraction turned off, basically. But now that I’m a few years into probably being aromantic, I understand so little about romance that it’s easier to conceptualize being allosexual and aromantic than alloromantic and asexual. I’m not questioning my own lack of sexual attraction, but I almost find it easier to imagine sexual attraction than romantic attraction. It’s more clear-cut to me, if that makes sense. I think that might be because I never thought that I was experiencing sexual attraction, but I spent years confusing a desire for closeness and companionship with romantic attraction. I honestly still don’t know what’s up with me romantically: I want the commitment of a partnership, but the romance element isn’t necessary, and I’m starting to suspect that I don’t even know what romance is! I currently believe that romance is all about intention: you can hold someone’s hand platonically or kiss them platonically, and it only becomes romantic if you choose to give it that meaning. But if that’s true, then how does romantic attraction work? Do you desire not just the action but the intention? I hear people describe romantic attraction as hyperfixation on a specific person, and I’m having trouble reconciling that with the idea of romance being intentional. Is romantic attraction essentially the desire to be mutually fixated on someone else? And why couldn’t friendship fill that niche? What is it about romance that distinguishes it from friendship besides the label that you choose to give it? If it’s the level of devotion, then that bothers me, because I would love a friendship that’s as committed as a romantic partnership. What even is romance? Does anyone know? Is there a clear-cut definition, or do we all define it for ourselves?