Ekaterina

Holding hands actually can have much more meanings than romantic. I hold my mother's and my sister's hands so that they'd know without loud words that I'm there, they can count on me and tell about their feelings or issues if they want to and I won't be disturbed and will try to help, at least emotionally if I can't help physically. Or that I myself am in need of emotional support right now and am trusting them. That probably does have something to do with child instincts you mentioned, allowing you or the other person to feel openly vulnerable like a child instead of bottling it, but also a promise to keep them safe, and communicate emotional support without words. I don't know how to describe better.

Sounds lovely!

Yeah, dreams can be caused by all kinds of stuff. I heard there are actual micro labels for arospecs and acespecs who experience attraction in dreams but not in real life. Also some people like the idea of romance while not wanting it for themselves.

That's adorable. Fox spirit (All the ghost animals are cute actually) This one is an outright marvel

I am not the person who sent the question, but I have similar situation with fictional "crushes", so maybe it's alterous attraction too? It isn't in my case necessarily a case of "something in their storyline affecting me deeply", when their storyline affects me deeply it's a very different kind of feeling; sometimes I experience both things to the same character (but the "real" thing outlives the "crush"), but sometimes I "crush" on someone I have no actual reason to like and stop really liking as soon as the infatuation ceases. Example: I had a "crush" once on a character who is a pettily nasty person with not a single positive trait shown, is a minor character not developed properly by the text - a mere functional one, and doesn't even have much actual charisma. The only "theoretically likable" things about him were: described as physically pretty, has a kind of bad backstory (his adoptive parent saw him as meant to be evil because his bio father was supposed to be evil, and the narrative never calls the adoptive father out on it, so my pity/indignation with injustice could contribute), has a very rushed kinda-redemption framed emotionally in an obscure adaptation and some charm in a different obscure adaptation. It isn't enough to strongly like a character objectively, but sounds like textbook reasons for a crush.

If my fictoromanticism side is anything to go by, then yes, it isn't something you choose, and when you are crushing you don't inherently know why you are crushing, but if pay a moment to reflect what is it that you like about them and analyze your tendencies about your other crushes, then you can, well not actually predict them, but have an idea of how probable is for you to develop a crush on this or that character. What the post above says about knowledge of patterns with experience. Reflecting on what you like about them is also helpful to be able to distinguish the good things from the bad things, because crushing - even on a fictional character - makes you see them in general through rose-coloured glasses, which with a real person of course can have toxic and dangerous consequences. (Even with a fictional character it can have toxic consequences, as in, toxically obsessed fans of a character exist). This kind of feelings pass with time, I guess around several months for me (apparently for alloromantics with real people it can be several years), leaving behind all kinds of stuff from mildly condescending nice memories, to sobered shame if you were being particularly unreasonable, to lasting calmer fondness on a deeper level if looking with a more sober eye you still find them interesting/admirable/either way worthy of your positive feelings. The latter case is apparently what is supposed to happen with alloromantic people in a happy marriage. (The only thing I'm aware of that differs my fictional crushes from typical ones is that I don't fantasize about romantic relationships/romantic scenarios with them, which is main reason why I'm not 100% sure that it's romantic feelings - apparently, fantasizing is supposed to be a big part of romance)

50% aroace, 33% demi, 17% aro(allo), 0% allo, 0% (allo)ace.

One of my strong interests are mystery novels by Agatha Christie, and a number of them are pretty good for an aro reader. The mystery genre in general is good for aro reader I think, since the focus is on the mystery, multiple kinds of human interactions are involved equally since each could be the possible secret behind the event, rational thinking is celebrated, by definition there's usually a "don't judge the book by the cover" theme going on and therefore deconstructions of various stereotypes (including romantic ones). The protagonists in mystery novels, especially recurring ones, are often single (or if they have a LI or a spouse, that's on the background). Love subplots among other cast are often either background, not sappy, or deconstructed/cautionary tale. In case of Agatha Christie's books, the novel that is sometimes called the greatest mystery of all time - The Murder of Roger Ackroyd - has a powerful story about fatal weakness of spirit that isn't romantic, has an interesting protagonist/narrator who isn't and wasn't in any kind of romantic relationship (the person he cares most about is his sister, who is fun and also doesn't have any love subplots by the way, and they both are middle-aged). There are two small love stories between secondary characters, one of these plot-relevant, but not that much screen time is given to them. (Just please don't start from watching the novel's film adaptation within the Agatha Christie's Poirot TV series, it basically butchered everything that makes the story special) Another novel with a very well-known title, Murder on the Orient Express, also has powerful non-romantic drama, on the themes of justice and retribution. Death on the Nile and Evil Under the Sun on the contrary have romance-related central conflicts, but it's the case of it being deconstructory and/or cautionary-tale way. Both have some fun side characters too. Watching their very worthy film adaptations with Peter Ustinov as Poirot (they aren't word-to-word loyal, but respectful to the source) actually can be more aro-friendly, since the film version of Death on the Nile omits some secondary characters who were involved in a pair-the-spares in the book, and the film version of Evil Under the Sun doesn't have, unlike the book, one of characters monologuing about how unfulfilled she feels with a career but no husband. The famous And Then There Were None isn't romantic, there's I guess a kind of sexual tension between two out of the ten characters, but not romantic. And it's also about retribution (and guilt and arrogance and some other things). The family-centered mysteries by the author tend to be deeply psychological, and if romance is present it's just one of the vast amount of diverse dynamics and personal issues going on. The Crooked House uses the protagonist's romantic relationship as pretext to get him into the story of that family, but that's basically all it does, a plot function with very little screen time. Things that matter in this story aren't romance. In Ordeal by Innocence, there are several very very lowkey romantic subplots, and again they aren't what the story is about. In Hercule Poirot's Christmas, there is a romantic subplot - one of those few media romantic plotlines I am genuinely invested in and fully ship, but maybe it's my personal taste:) And two healthy long-married couples I also support, but a long-married couple I think is something other than "romantic". Death Comes As The End is a mystery novel with a historical setting in Ancient Egypt and very interesting from the aspect of the era depiction, and another family psychology one. It has a love triangle involving the heroine, but it doesn't dominate the story. Out of Miss Marple novels I recommend A Murder Is Announced (not romantic story, interesting antagonist drama, village world, quite some humour and fun side characters), The Mirror Cracked From Side To Side (not romantic central conflict, interesting antagonist drama, cinema world, social commentary about the times). And, well, Miss Marple herself is a happily single elderly woman and an admirable one. After The Funeral from the Poirot cycle is another very good non-romantic one, also good atmosphere and interesting social commentary. Ah, and I should not forget the famous play The Mousetrap. Another powerful drama with interesting characters, central conflict isn't romantic (if you ask me what it's about... I'd say cruelty, indifference and compassion?), and the only "romance" in here is a relationship crisis between a young married couple who realize they don't understand each other that well.

Well a lot of kinds of animals have showy and complicated mating rituals, not sure if it counts. I kind of always saw stereotypical romance as a human analogy of these? Human culture uses the same association. Like, you know, doves being seen as symbol of romance because or their affectionate cooing and following each other, songbirds for singing to their partner, etc. Some birds also do symbolic/unpractical gifts to the object of courtship. Of course we cannot ask birds or other animals if they differ between attractions🙂 But maybe it would make sense to observe if there are individuals who do courting but don't do sex, and they would be basically alloaces. Trickier to find aroallos, because their partner probably wouldn't mate with them without the ritual because the instincts aren't triggered? Maybe if an individual doesn't do the rituals but behaves in a way that indicates they want to mate straightforwardly?

Sounds actually great!

I enjoy traveling with one or both of my parents. Like, travels abroad, travels to other cities/towns, travels to countryside. I love doing this sort of thing from time to time. What comes to the means of traveling - I traveled by train, plane, river boat, enjoyed all of it. Within the city, by underground, and alone if it's for business (study/work) and again with my family members if it's for leisure.

I knew since teenage years that I wasn't interested in romance, and it was one of the things that made me feel really disconnected from the modern/ Western-centric world. Because I was at the other side of the metaphorical wall from my peer group who had internalized the Western amatonormative values, and of course I saw the romance-centeredness of contemporary media, and also saw the contrast of it with both the traditional culture of my country and religion (which isn't amatonormative) and with the mentality of my family (apparently the Soviet culture where my parents grew up wasn't amatonormative either, they always were of the opinion that my peers looking down on me for the absence of boyfriend are acting stupid). So I thought that I just happened to be born in a wrong kind of era. And that if I meet any actual Western people I'd need to hide my lack of romance (together with a bunch of other supposedly "outdated" characteristics) the best I can, to avoid being humiliated or punished in some way for being "not progressive enough". Learning more about fandom culture made me even more sure of that. It's these recent several years when I did a lot of self-discovery and self-acceptance on a bunch of different layers, including my aromanticism. I was surprised and relieved to learn that in the Western world there's a whole valid self-identificator label for people like me, they don't feel "lost in time" (because history of Western culture and ideas was different altogether) and the progressive ethics actually are supposed to defend us too. Sending hugs if you don't mind them 🫂 Hope you're feeling better about yourself now 💚

Agree. Cannot say about the BBC series since I am not familiar with it, but I'm aware that adaptations and fans tend to ignore the book character's aro tendencies. There isn't that many classical characters of this level of fame and love from readers who would be explicitly not interested in romance, so in my opinion it matters a lot. Yet fans insist on shipping Holmes romantically either with Irene (who appeared in 1 - one - short story, but is constantly treated in fans' eyes as one of the central characters solely by virtue of being Potential Shipping Object, no other one-story character receives anything close to this much fan attention regardless of how interesting, relatable or admirable they are) or with Watson (because of the How Dare People Not In Love Care About Each Other So Much, even if one character - Holmes - literally said himself to be uninterested in romance and the other - Watson - has a canonical LI and these relationships are clearly very different type of relationship for him). Holmes is probably one of the best candidates to be the fictional emblem of aromanticism, and what do we get?

I think that to create something actually interesting with an AI you'd need first time come up with an interesting request, which is a type of human creativity. Some people have good ideas and imagination but need help with visualising it, for example they are good with textual imagination but not visual, or even have a good visual imagination but suck at actually drawing/painting. AI art probably can be useful for them (for example, for the first category to help them visualise their characters they write about, and for the second category to be able to show other people images that exist in their mind). It may be not as satisfying as being able to draw anything you want yourself in any possible way, but it's better than nothing for some cases.

I do care when people die in general. But if it's someone whose name has a meaning to you, for example whom you saw perform if it was an actor and you were invested in things they create - then yes, it feels more sad on a personal level. And not just in a consumer's point of view of wanting to get more content, but as in - I saw the unique thing they contributed to this world. I saw them making life better, even if it was just by creating a fun character that inspires me and others now, and enjoying it. I am grateful to them for sharing their ideas, charisma, joy, whatever, with lots of people and me too. I think it is worth to be commemorated.

I was just reading the topic about apparent controversial aspects of the term, that it apparently can be used to mean "the opposite of romantic" or "the opposite of sexual" or "the opposite of both". This topic on the contrary says it can mean anything as long as you consider it "not romantic and not platonic" but states the term says nothing about its relation to sexual. Also why it's "not platonic"? I can see that for romantic there are a lot of particular social standards/expectations, set patterns, but with platonic it isn't the case, like, platonic already means "anything that isn't romantic or sexual"? There aren't set patterns for platonic as well? So the only difference between QPR and regular platonic is that a QPR can optionally include sex? Would it be better if I simply don't use this term to avoid confusion? Like if I simply say "special non-romantic relationship", "special non-sexual relationship", "special non-romantic and non-sexual relationship"? And other more specific descriptions of situations, such as "non-romantic but loving marriage"? Is it okay?

So what Plato was describing is basically aesthetic attraction? If so, it doesn't seem aphobic, because if the point is to understand beauty and beauty of terrestrial objects is considered reflection of the higher world, then even if one is completely indifferent to physical beauty of human beings, one can find beauty just as well in a lot of things that aren't physically attractive people, such as nature and art. And, well, other kinds of interpersonal relationships aren't beauty-driven, like friendship, family or respect. These would mean that the person perceives in another person a reflection of another idea other than beauty? The point of Plato's philosophy is that all abstract ideas objectively exist and manifest in our world - that means there's an endless number of ideas to be attracted to.

I have several male online friends with whom we befriended over shared interests, whose company I enjoy and don't feel awkward about it. Maybe there's a difference with offline friends who see your physical appearance on daily basis, I don't have male offline friends and cannot tell. In online friendships possibility of romantic or sexual attraction doesn't seem to matter because you don't see each other's physical form and interact only as a person.

I am pretty comfortable with my aromanticism on itself, the only issue in my opinion is misjudgement and lack of understanding from some people (which in my case luckily happens to be in the past - I left that environment long ago) and pressure of amatonormativity in pop culture, Internet spaces and such. Being aromantic on itself is pretty cool if you don't bother with unreasonably judgemental opinions. And I agree a lot with Raininspring above about being able to see things clearer, safer from obsessions and unhealthy behaviors that alloromantic people often overlook whether being blinded by passion or convinced by amatonormative stereotypes.

Am strongly suspecting myself to be autistic, at the very least I have a big number of autistic-like experiences: obscure interests and hyperfixations, sensory sensitivities (bright light/noise, food textures, and such), obsessing with listing and classifying stuff as a kid, often taking stuff too literally, bad at reading emotions, bad at etiquette, eye contact, controlling my voice volume and some other aspects of spoken speech at times (I was also pretty disadapted socially, but not sure which is the cause and which the effect - most attempts to socialize me as a kid went bad). Also bad at remembering faces and until relatively recently - at recognising and dealing with my own emotions until they explode. With all that, never had a diagnosis. Tried to get it as an adult after something around a year ago learning properly what autism is and that it sounds really like me, but one professional I went to suggested I can be right and sent me to a test with another professional who wasn't able to prove it. I am not sure how good the test was since many questions were about very early childhood that neither I nor my mum whom I brought with me could provide certain answers for. On the contrary, online adult-aimed tests I passed (some of which had believable-sounding scientific backup) say yes.

Couldn't find a topic on that, but wanted to ask both allos and aros who experience crushes on fictional characters: how do you experience it? I'd need help to be able to determine better if the thing I experience and call crushes is that indeed.

In a very good Soviet/Russian children's book Лоскутик и Облако (Little Patchwork and the Cloud) one of the main heroes, a literal sentient cloud, is technically non-binary. Helped by the fact that the word cloud, облако, is grammatically neuter-gendered in Russian. The character is referred through the book with neuter pronoun оно (closest English equivalent would be "it"), doesn't present in a specially feminine or masculine way behavior-wise or appearance-wise; being a cloud, it changes its appearance on its mood, sometimes taking animal forms, sometimes human forms of whoever it was interacting with recently (whether male or female people). In the world of the book not all clouds are necessarily genderless - we meet the Cloud's grandmother, and she's referred to as Бабка Грозовая Туча (Granny Stormcloud), where the word туча, meaning raincloud/stormcloud, is grammatically feminine. (Existence of this word demonstrates that if the author wanted to make the central character binary she could easily use this word, its more narrow meaning would work with the story still since the Cloud's association with rain is key to the plot, but she still went with the gender-neutral облако).