Mult

Definitely would not marry nor date. I ain't about any of that

The Eternal Rivals Kakashi and Gai are absolutely peek QPR to me. 

Kakashi is the badass ninja who is actually a goofball while Gai is the goofball ninja who will kick your ass

Are you upset about not experiencing attraction or desperately want a "normal" relationship? If not then I don't see why you should keep yourself "open" to a relationship. 

Scream. No explanation, just scream 

1 hour ago, skies said:

feel you on this (if that’s ok to say). It sucks to be thrown under the bus by people you thought would understand you to make themselves more palatable to people of the majority/“default”. I imagine that the way I feel when people say “aro people still love their friends” or “aro people still feel empathy” as someone who doesn’t experience those things may be similar to how you feel when people say that aro/ace people can still experience attraction or have relationships.

I really appreciate you sharing your experiences; it’s helped me understand a different perspective!

Yeah, it's just exhausting at this point. I've mentioned it to other people here but there were legit people in the Ace community who told me that I can't/shouldn't say that I won't ever have a relationship because I'm "not a fortune teller" and that I'll be "embarrassed" if/when I do have a relationship. Granted there are a lot more people in the Ace community who have/want romantic relationships and there are people who see romance as this "pure" "amazing" thing or whatever.

So whether someone is "allo" or not, a lot still feel the need to tell me that I have to be "open" to relationships. Personally I wish people wouldn't try to bring up the topic with me at all, but they get more uppity the older I get (hopefully they'll leave well enough alone after I hit menopause and then I can pursue the cool single old lady life).

6 hours ago, skies said:

Genuine question, I can't tell whether you are stating this neutrally or whether you have additional thoughts on it. Could you kindly clarify for me?

When I was growing up, I didn't have any way to articulate the disconnect I had between how I felt/didn't feel and the way other people felt. Learning about the word "asexual" finally clued me into the fact that other people were like myself: people who are not interested in relationships or sex (I want aware of the whole "split attraction" thing at the time). To be able to identify myself like how a straight, bisexual or gay person could identify themselves was very liberating because I finally had a way to articulate to other people that my lack of interest towards relationships was simply the way I was.

But with people now using asexual and aromantic as "umbrella" words to encompass many identities that can be very specific and distinct from one another, there's just no way to say "I'm Asexual Aromantic" and have people know what you actually mean. They don't mean "not sexual" and "not romantic" anymore because now they have to encompass the "little sexual/romantic" or "occasionally" etc.

Not only is there no distinct identity for "not sexual" under that "asexual umbrella", there is incredibly few options left to even bother. That's not even mentioning the fact that I dislike separating romantic and sexual attraction/interest/desire (take your pick) when describing myself. Honestly what is the point of coining some obscure word that no one is going to remember anyway? Everyone says they turned Asexual and aromantic into umbrellas so that all the other specific identifying words could just use the same label, so neither label actually describes who I am to other people any longer. 

Even if a word was coined, someone will probably feel the need to say "but people using that label could still be in a relationship if they wanted to!" Because not wanting one at all ever is still stigmatized as a bad thing to say apparently. I don't really see anyone dating the same about straight or gay people even though technically they could enter a relationship that is contrary to their orientation as well 

So I just don't use them. It's easier to just say "I'm not interested" or "I am not attracted to you or anyone." Except that it is possible to offend someone who will take that as saying that they're unattractive themselves which is annoying. 

It would just be nice to be able to communicate my lack of attraction and interest in any gender much like other people when they say "sorry, I'm straight" or "sorry, I'm gay." The "it's not you, it's just that I am not attracted to people of your gender and by that I mean any gender at all because I'm not attracted to anyone nor am I interested in relationships in any way".

16 hours ago, skies said:

Yeah that's totally understandable! It'd be cool if you wanted to come up with a word for your experience, other people would probably resonate with it too. It's interesting to see how varied people's experiences can be; I'm the opposite in preferring broad labels. Thanks for sharing!

Mm, the problem is that specific words change over time a lot like how asexual and aromantic are now "umbrellas". 

All I want and need is to clearly express that I am not and would not be interested in any relationship that is romantic or sexual. But the issue here is not the words themselves but the lack of understanding from other people that it is even possible to truly not want those things. So it doesn't matter what word I slap on it, it will be challenged.

Someone asks why I'm not dating anyone and they tell me that I'll "find someone" or they tell me I'm being "hard on myself" for saying I'm just not interested. They are under the impression that not being interested in romantic relationships is a sad thing and they want to help me "put myself out there". So it doesn't matter what I say, they don't see it as its own orientation like being straight or gay, they see it as a temporary state of loneliness or whatever. 

There isn't really any way to get most people to understand or accept it, so coining a new word is just making another one to get lost in everything.

I think people should consider which came first: entertainment media "addiction" or social isolation.

Think about your commute (if you commute to work) and what you do on your time off of work. How many people to you converse with and hang out with ? How easy is it for you to get together with other people? Do you have to coordinate time off work or travel a long distance just to meet up?

When I was in university, I was studying music in a small department, so we all really got to know each other and we would all be frequenting the same small university building for out classes. I talked with all sorts of people daily, but now? Haven't seen anyone since I graduated. Everyone is so far out of the way, the university is 3 hours from where I live now, and I work full time.

So how correct is it to say that people are not being social because they are addicted to media and fantasy? Or perhaps our society makes it difficult for people to get together and just hang out? When someone cancels plans with you are just simply cannot visit you, what do you do? Go out somewhere to find someone to talk to or put on a movie? Scroll the internet? 

Social media and other online stuff is definitely addictive but people generally gravitate to the path of least resistance. Seeing someone face to face is difficult because of work, travel, money. Scrolling through the internet is easy and you're paying for your device and internet bill anyway.

Imagine having to travel to a library just to watch a YouTube video? You wouldn't be doing that as easily or as often as you would with a smartphone in your hand connected to a cell tower.

Cars play a large part of making life quite isolating where millions of people each day spend some time of their day stuck in traffic, alone in a car. One could live alone, commute alone, talk at work, return alone, and spend their evening alone. If that person has work early the next day, would they go out to socialize or just turn on some music and scroll through the internet until they go to bed?

Besides how expensive it is to live in developed places around the world, I also believe that our very society is reinforcing lonely behaviors. Online communication is where a lot of people spend a lot of their socializing time which isn't inherently bad, imo, but if you want people to meet face to face, then they need more opportunities to casually run into people they know or to get to know people around them which has quite a bit of resistance against it due to the way our communities are structured and the way labour is structured. 

The largest drive of a reduction of births in developed countries is the cost of living and lack of available child care.

Japan especially has notoriously long waiting lists for daycares. This means that a parent has to stay out of work to raise a young child which is why Japanese children are raised quite young to be independent since Japan is an expensive place to live. Japan is also known for a high suicide rate in men and very toxic working conditions.

A lot of people do want children but don't have them because they don't have the means to afford it. Rental units are also expensive especially those with multiple bedrooms.

So many people are quick to blame selfishness of individuals rather than address the obstacles that are impacting when or if people decide to raise kids. Lack of job opportunities also make an impact as young adults may leave to find better opportunities rather than raise children in their home country.

On 4/18/2024 at 9:29 PM, Guest Vii said:

And if I AM aroace, I like I'm missing out on this wonderful thing that the majority of others have. 

If you feel this way believing that romantic attraction is a wonderful thing, then it is likely worth it not to fret so much and just be open to romantic relationships. Media greatly exaggerates romance as well, so I don't think you should consider it as a baseline for how you should feel.

My parents met on a blind date set up by their friends/family and they're a great match who've been together 30 years, so if you want a romantic relationship, just look out for someone who fits with your interests and life style rather than trying to find the mythical "spark" the movies always showcase. You don't need to get butterflies to be in a romantic relationship, so don't let that hold you back if you want a romantic relationship. You might just psych yourself out expecting something spectacular when life is often much more chill than the movies.

On 2/21/2023 at 3:58 PM, Themathlover said:

Women can't visit graveyards because they're hyper-emotional.

-Isn't it the point of visiting graveyards to cry and mourn your loved ones ?

-Yes, it is, but women are special beings, so sensitive and fragile it could severely damage them. They just better not do that, it's for men, they're braver."

Um, wow. That's just...literally horrible.

I'm an atheist, so I can't give advice, but this part just stuck out to me because my aunt died last year and I wrote and presented her eulogy in place of my father because he would not be able to do it and cried a lot at his sister's funeral. To bar women from attending funerals for being "too emotional" is just... absolutely horrible. I assume the men who enforce that just don't want women to see them cry. Men who suppress women because of their own superiority complex bother me to no end.

Are you concerned this has something to do with him being aromantic? Although you say the only issue is your sexual relationship, so that's suggests to me that your romantic relationship is not a problem, is that right? 

If you are looking for advice about how he could last long in a sexual encounter then you've come to the wrong place. This forum is about aromantic relationships rather than sexual relationships.

8 hours ago, Neon said:

Must have never been asked out

Ngl I wish this were true about me. 😶

1 hour ago, nonmerci said:

Well reddit apilogized and the post is nacknso everything turned out ok.

 

i guess this the end of nonmerci drama ! It didn't last long. 😄

I'm glad someone on the Reddit mod team has some sense to see that the ban was ridiculous

3 hours ago, Neon said:

Yeah, ngl, I do not feel safe in a lot of asexual spaces. They can get really hostile to aro people really quickly. I've ended up just avoiding internet places that are primarily focused on asexuality as a result.

There's a bit of a thing where some people suggest that being romantic but not sexual in a relationship is more "pure" or "genuine" and there's definitely an emphasis on having relationships which doesn't align with who I am. Some people get a little defensive when I suggest that I don't see much of a difference between sexual and romantic attractions and they are equally unimportant to me. There's definitely belittling going around based on age too where certain people insist that young people can't call themselves ace or aro unless they've have "experience" while being vague about what that is supposed to entail, and it just ends up being about their age and the commenter projecting their own experience onto others.  

1 hour ago, Dobby said:

But I keep thinking "how do I actually know I'm aromantic ? Maybe I've just never met the right one etc" (also some people have told me that)

Blame the utter stupidity coming from those who say that. Imagine saying the same thing to a straight person: "maybe you just haven't met 'the one' who's of your gender." 

A lot of things people say to non romantic and non sexual people wouldn't be said to anyone else because too many people hold the belief that everyone wants a relationship and would be happier in one.

Personally I believe that there isn't a point in humouring that idea as long as you are happy the way you are. Why waste time thinking about it when it doesn't matter? There's nothing wrong with not being interested in a relationship.

The only issue is with those who feel upset over not having a relationship. Personally I don't believe those people should wallow in self pity for believing that they are aromantic because they're likely just psyching themselves out and convinced by media that portrays romance as some supernatural mind blowing experience. They're expecting all these fantastical feelings and believe they'll die alone and sad because they don't have that. In that case, exploring the idea that they may not be aromantic is worth it because they are clearly unhappy and I don't think people simply saying "it's okay to be aro" helps their situation. 

You're the only person who knows how you feel and what you think, so if you are comfortable the way you are, there's no reason to wonder so much about whether you are "actually" aromantic. 

For some of us, it is easy to know because our wants in life and our innate feelings of self match up very clearly. I don't experience attraction and I have no interest in engaging in any relationships that are not platonic or familial. This is how I am and I am comfortable that way. Having to reject people and get them to understand that I am not and would not be interested in a romantic relationship with them is not a necessary step in identifying who I am. 

Consider what you want in life and how you feel now, and you can address this at any time in the future. If there is no conflict with how you feel and what you want, why bother thinking about something that hasn't happened like catching feelings for someone?

2 hours ago, Rinpochard said:

Yeah, I wrote a very long rant just to have it removed because I said that I'm "fully aromantic" to specify my label :/

So they punish everyone who tries to express that they experience zero romantic attraction since declaring aromantic as an "umbrella term". 🙄 I shouldn't be surprised. Sounds like they've effectively censored anyone who specifies that they don't experience romantic attraction at all.

There's similar issues in the Asexual community. Strangely some people act like experiencing no attraction at all is either not possible or somehow offensive to those who experience some attraction. I've been told by certain people in the Ace community that I shouldn't say that I will never fall in love because I'm "not a fortune teller". They act like we have to be open to being in a relationship because some people realize they actually do experience attraction later in life and they say that I have to avoid saying "never" or else I'll be "embarrassed" in the future. I have to wonder why they feel like that's their business.

I can't really think of any either but I also never really looked to characters as reflections of myself.

2 hours ago, nonmerci said:

reddit for 7 days cause they think this term is encouraging division in the community

Uh...what the what...

They want aromantic to be an umbrella but don't want people who experience no attraction to have any specific identity? Do they think saying you're "fully aromantic" or "totally aromantic" is not "divisive" or do they want you to just use the "umbrella"?

Ugh 🤦

1 hour ago, Ekaterina said:

And yes, I often want to marry for some of these reasons, which (back on the topic) doesn't stop me from being aromantic. 

This is a good point about how being single does not equal being aromantic, and I think equating being aromantic to simply being single would be a mistake.

9 hours ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

Political lesbianism… 2!!!!!!!!

Oh yeah. Actually this does make me think of the "4B" movement. It's, uh, I think it straight women who choose to not have relationships or children. Something like no boys, no babies...and two other things starting with a B.... I'm not certain about what exactly it is but I've seen people talking about it.

Anyway, apparently this started in South Korea from what I heard because of domestic violence and lack of opportunities for women among other things. So while a straight woman who is choosing to be single and live a single life would appear similar to myself on the surface, we are still very different. I'm not interested in guys or girls equally and I am just living the way I am while they are single because they want to make a statement about how single women's lives are better compared to being married and dealing with a lot of uncompensated labour and being mistreated. I do respect them for making that choice for themselves, but I don't relate to their motivations because I am single simply because I am not interested in relationships at all and am happy this way.

Ignoring the differences between being aromantic and practicing the "four Bs" ignores that there are external pressures resulting in these people choosing a single lifestyle. That reason is the entire point of their lifestyle. These women are making a statement, so lumping them in with aromantics who are just simply living the way they are just undermines the whole reason they are living a single life.

I also would not like people believing that I would get into a relationship with "the right man" because even if there was a guy or girl for that matter who is everyone's ideal and it super helpful, emotionally available and attractive, I still wouldn't want to be in a relationship with them. Me being single has literally nothing to do with the actions or personality or attractions of another person; they don't factor into the equation at all.

[Edit] just looked it up and the reason why I couldn't come up with 4 words that start with B is because obviously the words it refers to are in Korean. So yeah, me and a 4B woman would both be single but we wouldn't have any similarities past that

I'm neither romantic or sexual and I don't crush on characters, so I can't answer this question, but growing up I found this confusing as well.

I really could not understand why kids would get possessive over and be so interested in fictional characters. I could never understand the existence of character/person content like people drawing their personas with the characters in a romantic way or people writing fanfiction about characters where the person reading it is involved in the story and involved with a character romantically.

It was just very bizarre to me. I could understand people "shipping" characters with each other as there's a competitive aspect to that where people would get very defensive over fictional relationships, but inserting oneself into fiction wasn't something that I understood.

Now I think it's about fantasizing about a relationship for oneself. They like that character and they want a relationship, so they fantasize about themselves being in a relationship with that character.

I'm probably the one people would consider weird because I actually really enjoy characters rejecting me in videogames and I want more of that. I just really enjoy a character telling me that they just want to be my friend because personally platonic relationships are much more meaningful and important to me, so someone telling me that they don't want romance and just want to be friends is literally the best thing ever. This is most likely tied to how I hated being confessed to and still hate dealing with someone's unrequited romantic/sexual feelings for me.

The whole reason I played Undertale was because my twin was playing it and she chose the flirt option with Papyrus as a joke which resulted in an adorable set of events where he clearly didn't understand romance either but determined that he just wanted friendship. I've only seen a similar scenario in the video game Hades where you can romance Dusa as Zagreus but she also determines that she only wants to be friends and she realized that she was idolizing Zagreus rather than actually being in love with him romantically. I haven't actually been able to get to that point in the game but eventually I want to play through that scenario. So I will pursue romantic options with fictional characters in videogames to get rejected. 

So I suppose romantic interest in fictional character is like a role-play of sorts. An avenue for fantasizing about something one wants.

Personally I don't consider who I am as any sort of conscious choice. I am who I am and I am happy without any sort of sexual/romantic relationship and I do not want to be involved in any of that at all. There was no external pressure or environment that lead me to be that way so it is just what I happen to naturally be.

I don't particularly feel very connected to a nun or monk who are part of a religion that demands that they maintain a celebrate and unmarried position—I even had relatives in Italy who were nuns, monks, priests like this. 

I just don't really consider who I am as a lifestyle or some sort of sacrifice for religious reasons. I am simply not attracted to nor at all interested in any sort of relationship outside of a platonic or familial relationship.

Even when people choose not to or cannot enter a relationship, I don't have much to talk about with them when discussing their attraction or romantic interests.

Personally I just want something that describes a person who is void of both sexual and romantic attraction and interest. I'm just not someone who separates the two and there's nothing in use right now that actually describes that, so I'm actually more interested in words that are more specific rather than less. 

Not having my self worth based on the attention or affections of another person.

After rejecting someone who cried and wanted me to just pretend to be in a relationship with her to make her feel better about herself, I am really not missing anything honestly. 

On 3/24/2024 at 1:10 AM, A_Mess said:

I'm not some puzzle to solve where you get a prize at the end, so kindly shoot your shot at a range that's actually open.

I absolutely love this.