Are aromantic allosexuals "privileged", because popular culture talks about shallow sex?

[yeshomonoromo]

I have this internalized arophobia probably, but anyway.

 

Society values sex as something more forbidden than romance. So an aromantic allosexual person will dismiss the romantic part of other people, and cut straight to sex. To many other people, this seems like being a privileged sex machine, or being a hottie. As if aro-allos get everything sexy handed to them on a plate. Asexual people constantly talk about how sex is overrepresented, so therefore aromantic allosexuals feast on all this representation?

[Jot-Aro Kujo]

Ah yes. We're so very privileged. That's why my family called me a heartless robot who uses people for sex. Love that privilege

[November]

18 minutes ago, yeshomonoromo said:

Asexual people constantly talk about how sex is overrepresented, so therefore aromantic allosexuals feast on all this representation?

Some alloromantic asexuals are extremely arophobic

[eatingcroutons]

Ehhh certain kinds of media might try to pretend that everyone wants to be out there having as much sex as possible, with as little commitment as possible. But in reality that attitude is only really seen as acceptable within a very narrow demographic of society - namely straight young men. And even then, they're still seen as assholes if they just go around "using people" for sex.

 

Older men who want sex without commitment are seen as immature and unable to "settle down" like a real adult. Women of all ages who want sex without commitment are seen as sluts. People in general who are show no interest in emotionally committing to a sexual partner are seen as being callous at best, broken or heartless at worst.

 

I mean, I definitely do get people telling me they wish they could have sex without "catching feels", the way I can. And I have a great circle of friends who are completely accepting of the fact that I like sex but don't do commitment. But society as a whole is not always so accepting or understanding.

[yeshomonoromo]

On 1/20/2019 at 9:48 PM, November said:

Some alloromantic asexuals are extremely arophobic

Oh don't even say. This is partially how I got sucked into alt-right conservatism.

 

Since I am transfeminine, and "sex machine" as I said on myself, the left and the feminists don't really like me. So I decided to band with the right because even though the right hates me also, hating left together would be more powerful.

 

Eventually I gave up on politics.

[Holmbo]

On 1/21/2019 at 3:10 PM, eatingcroutons said:

Ehhh certain kinds of media might try to pretend that everyone wants to be out there having as much sex as possible, with as little commitment as possible. But in reality that attitude is only really seen as acceptable within a very narrow demographic of society - namely straight young men. And even then, they're still seen as assholes if they just go around "using people" for sex.

 

Older men who want sex without commitment are seen as immature and unable to "settle down" like a real adult. Women of all ages who want sex without commitment are seen as sluts. People in general who are show no interest in emotionally committing to a sexual partner are seen as being callous at best, broken or heartless at worst.

 

I mean, I definitely do get people telling me they wish they could have sex without "catching feels", the way I can. And I have a great circle of friends who are completely accepting of the fact that I like sex but don't do commitment. But society as a whole is not always so accepting or understanding.

Well put.

Also, many allo aros doesn't want casual sex with strangers but rather comitted non exclusive sexual relationships and those are pretty much non existent in media.

[NullVector]

7 hours ago, Holmbo said:

Also, many allo aros doesn't want casual sex with strangers but rather comitted non exclusive sexual relationships and those are pretty much non existent in media

 

Yeah, totally And pretty much non existent in life in general? Casual sex might get looked down on in popular culture, but at least it's out there as an option that we're aware of. With sexual relationships that aren't your traditional, monogamous romantic dyad, but also aren't casual sex, I dunno, it's like a language hasn't been invented yet to enable us to frame and conceptualize them as feasible options we could actually pursue and live out (or maybe it has somewhere and I just don't belong to the right sub-culture(s)?). Like I was never taught to speak aro 

[DeltaAro]

On 1/20/2019 at 8:15 PM, yeshomonoromo said:

So an aromantic allosexual person will dismiss the romantic part of other people, and cut straight to sex. To many other people, this seems like being a privileged sex machine, or being a hottie. As if aro-allos get everything sexy handed to them on a plate.

I do cut straight to sex. But who told you this is easy? ?

Not just that it's quite some work to find a “reliable” fwb, I also had to overcome some major internal barriers. I found it very, very, very, very difficult to admit to myself that I am “this kind of person”. I actually do not want to be regarded as a “sex machine” – overall I do not feel lacking in emotional depth compared to alloromantic people just because I'm not pining for Princess or Prince Charming.

 

Also sex with people you don't have some emotional connection to has some serious drawbacks which you probably can imagine. You really need a thick skin. Okay, you maybe don't need an emotional connection but mutual respect, yet that's something you can only really know after some time.

 

I just deal with all that because sex simply feels great, great enough to be intrinsically motivating. Even nervous fumbling sex. Though I had some long periods of living celibate and I didn't feel depressed or something.

[NotHeartless]

18 hours ago, NullVector said:

With sexual relationships that aren't your traditional, monogamous romantic dyad, but also aren't casual sex, I dunno, it's like a language hasn't been invented yet to enable us to frame and conceptualize them as feasible options we could actually pursue and live out (or maybe it has somewhere and I just don't belong to the right sub-culture(s)?

With the current terms available, I would consider it a friendship/connection with sex or "friendship with benefits" as they say.
But I realized, thanks to arocalypse, most alloromantics seem to think "friendship with beneftis" is only about the sex, the "friendship" is basically non-existent or consists of exchanging a few words and that's it. So, no friendship at all and it comes down to casual sex all over again.
And then it seems impossible for allromantics to not fall for someone they're banging. Which is hard for me to comprehend but that's one reason why I'm here.
Honestly, if the situation would ever came to be and I find another aromantic person I like, we'd have a non exclusive, close bond and sexual fun together, I wouldn't term it.
I would just take it as what it is. Society feels like a deadlock with their monogamous romantic relationships. 
The closest thing I got was a close friend I experimented sexually with. It was awesome - until he found himself a girlfriend and it ended.

Same, old procedure.

[DeltaAro]

38 minutes ago, NotHeartless said:

But I realized, thanks to arocalypse, most alloromantics seem to think "friendship with beneftis" is only about the sex, the "friendship" is basically non-existent or consists of exchanging a few words and that's it. So, no friendship at all and it comes down to casual sex all over again.

I use the term “fwb” because of that.

I guess @Apathetic Echidna proposed “booty call acquaintances” .

 

But seriously, that's too negative, there's a hint that there's some kind of subtle exploitation going on. In reality, pure sex relationships can be nice and respectful.

38 minutes ago, NotHeartless said:

And then it seems impossible for allromantics to not fall for someone they're banging.

And someone who doesn't do that, or at least is completely open about their feelings and doesn't create drama, is what I call “reliable fwb”. Sadly, they're very rare.

39 minutes ago, NotHeartless said:

Honestly, if the situation would ever came to be and I find another aromantic person I like, we'd have a non exclusive, close bond and sexual fun together, I wouldn't term it.

That would be perfect.

38 minutes ago, NotHeartless said:

The closest thing I got was a close friend I experimented sexually with. It was awesome - until he found himself a girlfriend and it ended.

Same, old procedure.

Oh well, in an ideal world… I simply love my friends too much to even try something like this.

[nonmerci]

I think society is very ambivalent when it comes to sex. In movies, everything is sexualized, and popularizes the idea that everybody thinks about it, in partiular males that can't live without masturbating or watching porno (I can name a lot of shows or movies with this idea). It is never questionned. And people think like that in real life : if you don't feel sexual attraction, you are seen as anormal, or ill, people refuse to believe you… Wanted to have sexx is seen as natural.

But at the same time, sex without love is diabolized. A woman who does it is seen as a slut, and a guy plays with girls feelings or is afraid of a serious relationship. Think of all this movie where it says that women Don't respect themselves because of that, or where men keep doing it until they met THE woman who will "cure" them by making them fall in love… Society really judges this kind of behavior. And when it comes to sex friends, a lot of people think this is not possible because it is not possible to have sex multiple times with the same person without falling in love. And when it comes to alloromantic, they stop doing it when they enter a romantic relationship (which is logical as it would be seen as "cheating" by society, but shows that they only consider it as something to fill the lack of sex with romance, romance is prioritize by them).

 

More, sex is always acceptable when linked to romance. Romantic love is supposed to make it better. If you truly love someone, sex will always be good. If you don't want to have sex with your romantic partner, he/she will question your romantic feelings for him/her. Sex and love are seen as complementary by most people.

 

 

So I won't say that aro allo are priviledge. Sure sexual attraction is seen as something desirable and normal by society, but if you act on this sexual attraction without being in a romantic relationship, society will condemn you. This is the huge contradiction of society : it sexualizes everything, but at the same time if you have sex you are seen as a bad person.

[The Angel of Eternity]

I would think that no, not really because some people may have a deep platonic bond with their sexual partners. Just because someone is sexually attracted to someone but not romantically attracted doesn't mean they're not more deeply connected elsewhere. And even if there is no deeper connection, it's still their preference and as long as the relationship is mutual, it's all ok and there should be no reason to judge.

[ApeironStella]

I would disagree they are more "privileged" by any means. As an AroAce, personally only time I actually need to bring my sexuality/romantic orientation up is to say I really am not into dating, which people rarely raise an eyebrow over since I'm known as that sort of weird but nice girl who is also kind of childish. Of course, being infantilized isn't good either, but it still means that only people that actually cares about my romantic life at all is some family members who are extremely into romance/sex, and aside from that, I don't get any active hatred for my orientation, mostly disbelief or "you will grow out of it" which again, isn't as good, but it is not being demonized for my orientation. (Though, it is still extremely arophobic and amatonormative which really gets on my nerves, but that's another topic)

 

Allo Aros on the other hand, often are portrayed as the heartless cis-white-male-who-just-uses-girls-because-heteronormativity or slut-who-sleeps-with-everyone-because-we-only-sex-shame-AFAB/Female passing-people, it is something they likely end up facing a lot of people who does end up developing feelings for them/making them feel guilty for their orientation far more often especially if they are sexually active, from both family/friends and sexual partners/friends they also have sexual partnership with even when they try to make things clear right off the bat. I think you are downplaying how much many cultures/especially ones with Abrahamic religions as the major belief of the population, tends to demonize sex without marriage, even if they do go "sex with your Godly partner is sacred and valuable". So both from the general sex-shaming point of view, and also from the fact that fictional portrayals of such characters are rarely shown as anything good, often having some "dealing with their 'intimacy issues' and finally 'tying down' with a good pure partner they have a monogamous relationship with and 'learning to love', and if an antagonist even turning to the 'good side' because they 'learned how to love'", no. I don't think there is any privilage there.

[Mark]

On 1/21/2019 at 2:10 PM, eatingcroutons said:

Ehhh certain kinds of media might try to pretend that everyone wants to be out there having as much sex as possible, with as little commitment as possible. But in reality that attitude is only really seen as acceptable within a very narrow demographic of society - namely straight young men. And even then, they're still seen as assholes if they just go around "using people" for sex.

It might be better described as "tolerated".
I suspect the actual demographic is narrower, excluding many "straight young men".

 

On 1/21/2019 at 2:10 PM, eatingcroutons said:

Older men who want sex without commitment are seen as immature and unable to "settle down" like a real adult. Women of all ages who want sex without commitment are seen as sluts. People in general who are show no interest in emotionally committing to a sexual partner are seen as being callous at best, broken or heartless at worst.

If anything being interested in non-romantic sexual connections and relationships is seen as worst than "no strings".

 

On 1/22/2019 at 6:10 PM, yeshomonoromo said:

Oh don't even say. This is partially how I got sucked into alt-right conservatism.

 

Since I am transfeminine, and "sex machine" as I said on myself, the left and the feminists don't really like me. So I decided to band with the right because even though the right hates me also, hating left together would be more powerful.

 

Eventually I gave up on politics.

Do you mean "feminists" or "TERFs"?
It's also often the case that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" turns out to be quite untrue.
 

On 2/9/2019 at 3:52 PM, Holmbo said:

Also, many allo aros doesn't want casual sex with strangers but rather comitted non exclusive sexual relationships and those are pretty much non existent in media.

Similarly many allo allos do want casual sex, hook ups, fuck buddies, etc. I'm sure that for, at least some of, these people a sexual non-romantic relationship is as as difficult to handle as a romantic relationship is for many aros.

 

On 2/10/2019 at 12:01 AM, NullVector said:

Yeah, totally And pretty much non existent in life in general? Casual sex might get looked down on in popular culture, but at least it's out there as an option that we're aware of. With sexual relationships that aren't your traditional, monogamous romantic dyad, but also aren't casual sex, I dunno, it's like a language hasn't been invented yet to enable us to frame and conceptualize them as feasible options we could actually pursue and live out (or maybe it has somewhere and I just don't belong to the right sub-culture(s)?). Like I was never taught to speak aro 

Even a lot of non-monogamous sub cultures can be highly couple and romance centric, at least IME.
I'd agree very much about the language issue. 

[Holmbo]

5 hours ago, Mark said:

Similarly many allo allos do want casual sex, hook ups, fuck buddies, etc. I'm sure that for, at least some of, these people a sexual non-romantic relationship is as as difficult to handle as a romantic relationship is for many aros.

That's a good point. This is a thought I often come back to with aromanticism, that it's not just a topic for LGBT+ community. So many people in general could benefit from a more nuanced understanding of attraction and different types of relationships.

[yeshomonoromo]

On 2/11/2019 at 9:34 PM, Next-Level Consciousness said:

I would think that no, not really because some people may have a deep platonic bond with their sexual partners. Just because someone is sexually attracted to someone but not romantically attracted doesn't mean they're not more deeply connected elsewhere. And even if there is no deeper connection, it's still their preference and as long as the relationship is mutual, it's all ok and there should be no reason to judge.

If only it was that easy.

[NullVector]

On 2/10/2019 at 6:27 PM, DeltaV said:

I found it very, very, very, very difficult to admit to myself that I am “this kind of person”.

SAME! I'm still coming to terms with it I reckon . And yeah, as @ApeironStella put it, it's largely because I didn't want to be:

On 2/12/2019 at 3:13 AM, ApeironStella said:

portrayed as the heartless cis-white-male-who-just-uses-girls-because-heteronormativity

Which I guess was also me partially buying into a harmful narrative that girls don't really enjoy sex for it's own sake and, as such, as a male wanting sex, you've got to barter with them for it by offering romantic gestures?

 

On 2/10/2019 at 6:34 PM, NotHeartless said:

But I realized, thanks to arocalypse, most alloromantics seem to think "friendship with beneftis" is only about the sex, the "friendship" is basically non-existent or consists of exchanging a few words and that's it. So, no friendship at all and it comes down to casual sex all over again.

Yeah, I think we all came to that conclusion in this thread!

 

On 2/11/2019 at 11:05 AM, nonmerci said:

This is the huge contradiction of society : it sexualizes everything, but at the same time if you have sex you are seen as a bad person.

Yeah. That's a really interesting observation IMO. Like, the implication is very much that you should be having sex, but only in the right way! i.e. two people, long-term, monogamous, ideally married (and formerly only with specific genders related to your own; but that one has relaxed somewhat in recent decades). Anything else is still seen as a bit beyond the pale! Allo Aros are often very much wanting sex in the wrong way from this perspective! And I very much suspect that, in this hierarchy of wrong-ness I'm constructing, wanting sex in the wrong way is seen as more wrong than not wanting it at all! I've never been much of a daring rule-breaker, unfortunately for me.

[Mark]

12 hours ago, NullVector said:

Yeah. That's a really interesting observation IMO. Like, the implication is very much that you should be having sex, but only in the right way! i.e. two people, long-term, monogamous, ideally married (and formerly only with specific genders related to your own; but that one has relaxed somewhat in recent decades). 

With "monogamy" meaning all of "sexual monogamy", "emotional monogamy", "social monogamy" and "activity monogamy". Together with cohabitation and financial entanglement/merger. As described by the "relationship escalator" model.

 

12 hours ago, NullVector said:

Anything else is still seen as a bit beyond the pale! Allo Aros are often very much wanting sex in the wrong way from this perspective! And I very much suspect that, in this hierarchy of wrong-ness I'm constructing, wanting sex in the wrong way is seen as more wrong than not wanting it at all! I've never been much of a daring rule-breaker, unfortunately for me.

Wanting sex within the context of a substantially different relationship stricture is "more wrong" than not wanting it at all. Ditto for wanting it without a meaningful, loving or emotionally connected relationship.
An analogy would be that it may be easier to be an atheist in a highly monotheistic society than following a different god/gods whilst considering the socially approved god to be part of a pantheon.

[Phoenixflame]

On 2/10/2019 at 1:34 PM, NotHeartless said:

But I realized, thanks to arocalypse, most alloromantics seem to think "friendship with beneftis" is only about the sex, the "friendship" is basically non-existent or consists of exchanging a few words and that's it. So, no friendship at all and it comes down to casual sex all over again.
And then it seems impossible for allromantics to not fall for someone they're banging. Which is hard for me to comprehend but that's one reason why I'm here.

4

I think that's interesting because most of my straight friends that do have friends with benefits are like that, it is only about the sex with them and there usually isn't much friendship involved. They also never really end up developing romantic feelings for their fwb because its a different kind of relationship than a romantic one. But I also think that is more acceptable socially for straight people to have those kinds of relationships because its only temporary. They will eventually settle down they just don't have time to go on dates until their careers are settled but they still want sex. 

 

I also think that most alloromantic aces have it easier than both aroaces and aro allosexuals. That's the whole reason I hate AVEN, my aromanticism is much more important to my long term life and adult relationships than my asexuality. In a healthy relationship not having sex should not be the first thing about it, I know a heteroromantic asexual girl who got married and moved across state lines to be with the first straight man who told her that he didn't need to have sex. He ended up cheating on her and pressuring her into sex anyway. If someone is in a healthy celibate romantic relationship then most people won't actually know how much sex they are having. Any relationship in the media where they don't have sex and don't mention them having sex explicitly could be an asexual relationship because it's mostly normal. 

 

Aromantic people, on the other hand, don't have the implied settling down later that's expected. We are seen as immature and told well want it later. It's more complex for aro allos because sex in the long term is socially connected to romance, especially after you reach a certain age. Casual sex and casual sexual partners are fine in college but people are demonized if they don't also have a romantic relationship to go along with it. Sex after college is often seen as a result of romance, where sex without romance is considered exploitative, and people who are not in romantic relationships pitied or infantilized. 

[Mark]

23 hours ago, Phoenixflame said:

I also think that most alloromantic aces have it easier than both aroaces and aro allosexuals. That's the whole reason I hate AVEN, my aromanticism is much more important to my long term life and adult relationships than my asexuality.

My feeling is that AVEN was specifically set up by and for allo aces.
It also also seems that TAAAP along with aces & aros are asexual organisations attempting to look aro inclusive. In the process being quite arophobic, especially towards aro allos.

 

IME aro aces seem somewhat split around if they regard aro or ace as being more important.
 

23 hours ago, Phoenixflame said:

If someone is in a healthy celibate romantic relationship then most people won't actually know how much sex they are having. Any relationship in the media where they don't have sex and don't mention them having sex explicitly could be an asexual relationship because it's mostly normal. 

Even in a romantic and sexual relationship the romantic part is quite public whereas the sexual part is generally private. The concept of a romantic relationship without sex is not unknown. e.g. Waiting until after marriage before having sex.

[Guest LilLover]

It’s an interesting thought. 
Until recently I would not have identified as an aro-allo because even though romance makes me deeply uncomfortable I seem to be able to easily be romantic while at the same time finding others romantic gestures towards me abhorrent. 
 

As a woman I don’t think causal sex or unemotional sex is ever glorified in the media outside Queer media, heteronormative media seem to gleefully slut shame even when it tries to be edgy about “modern” sexuality. 

[tyledgarlic]

hun thats a massive no. casual sex is seen as filler till you settle down at best, and being a whore/heartless player who leads people on at worst. i see so many people shame others for having sex with no romantic connection, not just with christians but with the lgbtqa+ community, saying they’re “the worst of the __” who gives ___ a bad name, that you can only truly be ___ if you have romantic attraction and it sucks. because people will only accept you having casual sex conditionally. only if you’ll “get a relationship soon” or if you're in an open one, hell sometimes i feel like people treat cheater better than “pathetic” people who always stick to one night stands/fuck buddies. and oh, don’t get me started on amatonormativity in fwb. then even in the aro/ace community, aro is treated like mutable with ace, the same, like you’re “weird” if you’re aro but not ace, it’s always assumed that you’re both. don’t you dare call that privilege.

On 5/26/2022 at 5:28 AM, Guest LilLover said:

It’s an interesting thought. 
Until recently I would not have identified as an aro-allo because even though romance makes me deeply uncomfortable I seem to be able to easily be romantic while at the same time finding others romantic gestures towards me abhorrent. 
 

As a woman I don’t think causal sex or unemotional sex is ever glorified in the media outside Queer media, heteronormative media seem to gleefully slut shame even when it tries to be edgy about “modern” sexuality. 

it’s not even glorified in queer media. i feel like as a community we use romantic love as some kind of softer, purer part of identity that makes us better, equal to “straights”. feels like its only glorified in the context of between relationships or in relationships, older queer medias the only place you really see that much.

[Deltalorian]

I feel like comparing the "privileges" (if you can even call it that) of alloaros and aceallos is like trying to compare apples to oranges, let alone when comparing them to the experiences of aroaces. Sex and romance are both heavily glorified in media, often together as well, which makes life harder to navigate when one isn't drawn to others in one or both of those ways. I'd say it's pointless trying to say one has it worse than the other, since both heteronormativity and amatonormativity hit anyone of any variation of acespec or arospec quite harshly in life.