What is the "a-spectrum"?

[Coyote]

42 minutes ago, John Rando said:

Sorry to bring this about, but as we are already in the meta discussion ... May I suggest that we open two fresh topics about a-spec and agenders and about a-aspec and apls, because it seem that arguments tends to differ sometimes between the two. It could also help to not push away new readers that would not like to read 4 pages of segmented, with inconsistant subjects and definitions and quite a few personnal arguments and maybe restart the conversation in a little more discursive way.

Okay. Atm I'm unclear on which of those is something people would still like to discuss, so if someone else would like to make a new thread (on either or both), they can be my guest.

[LauraG]

On 6/5/2020 at 10:27 PM, Magni said:

On 6/5/2020 at 1:12 PM, Coyote said:

That's the question though, would an alloromantic allosexual have any reason to want to identify with the ace & aro umbrellas like that? I mean, if someone's like "I don't love my friends," I don't see what that necessarily has to do with me. I'm not preemptively ruling it out, just asking what the rationale is supposed to be.

@CoyoteI don't like how you seem to be equating aplatonic with, like, just some allo person going "I don't love my friends"? It reminds me of exclusionist rhetoric and the ways people have ridiculed the term aplatonic.  (idk how to word this better rn but can try to elaborate later if needed)

@Magni Is there something wrong with the idea of an allo person identifying as aplatonic because they don't love their friends? I don't see how there's anything wrong with what @Coyote said unless you're assuming that there's something wrong with saying "I don't love my friends," or assuming that Coy thinks there is something wrong with saying "I don't love my friends."

I can see how maybe you might have interpreted "I don't see what that necessarily has to do with me" as being flippant about aplatonic as an identity, but I'm fairly certain that's not how Coy meant it - I think you're misinterpreting the tone (which again, is understandable). But in the future it might be better to assume positive intent, and ask for clarification on the tone before jumping to conclusions.

22 hours ago, Magni said:

Exclusionists would say stuff like "oh a cis heteroromantic heterosexual person who doesn't have friends can just say they're aplatonic and pretend to be lgbt" and just generally ridicule it as a term a lot.  Do you understand how what you said comes across similarly to that?

Again, I don't see how what Coy said could possibly come across similarly to that unless you're agreeing with exclusionists that it's bad/harmful for allo folks to identify as aplatonic? I think you're falling into the trap of thinking something's harmful because it gives a bigot an "excuse" to harm people, rather than challenging the whole notion of that quality being a valid reason to harm people in the first place.

22 hours ago, sennkestra said:

With regards to exclusionists though, I just want to gently push back on "exclusionists will make fun of us" alone as a reason to avoid certain phrasing - because I do know people who would describe themselves as not feeling "love" for their friends in very similar terms, and I don't want to throw them under the bus just to avoid stupid exclusionist opinions by saying "we're not like those weirdos". (ace and aro communities already have problems with silencing straight-identified aces and aros and basically throwing them under the bus to more easily win flame war arguments, instead of pursuing more nuanced takes  - I don't want to see that happen to other groups)

Ah Sennkestra already said what I was trying to say above in a much more easily understandable way.

[VoidArcana]

1 hour ago, LauraG said:

@Magni Is there something wrong with the idea of an allo person identifying as aplatonic because they don't love their friends? I don't see how there's anything wrong with what @Coyote said unless you're assuming that there's something wrong with saying "I don't love my friends," or assuming that Coy thinks there is something wrong with saying "I don't love my friends."

I can see how maybe you might have interpreted "I don't see what that necessarily has to do with me" as being flippant about aplatonic as an identity, but I'm fairly certain that's not how Coy meant it - I think you're misinterpreting the tone (which again, is understandable). But in the future it might be better to assume positive intent, and ask for clarification on the tone before jumping to conclusions.

Except at least 2 other people chimed in to say that they also had problems with how the statement was worded. If it was just the one then yeah, maybe it was a tone misread on their part, but when multiple people are like 'hey I have an issue with this', that might mean that, at the very least, the statement was poorly thought out. 

Instead of thinking 'hey, actual people who identify as this label I'm talking about were offended, maybe I should apologise and think things through more next time', @Coyote has been dismissive of @Magni, and ignored my comments. Not exactly something that makes me want to assume good faith. Whatever Coyote's personal beef with Magni, ze is an aplatonic person who took issue with the comment. That was never really addressed. 

I am someone who doesn't love my friends. I, as one of these people, think the post was worded in a way that says that's a bad thing. The way I read that post basically amounted to 'why should those people count? They've got nothing to do with me, so why should we include them?'. 

I've already explained why that bothers me, so I won't go over that again. I'm just wondering why people are so focused on defending what Coyote said, and ignoring that people were hurt by Coyote's statement.

I'm newer here. I don't always keep up on topics. I don't have that much history with people, and I don't know Coyote very well. I have no reason to assume that Coyote's post was made with positive intent. Coyote's reaction to Magni really doesn't scream positive intent either. I commented on how the post read to me, and I was apparently not alone in my interpretation. I don't think it's too much to ask for an apology, instead of devolving the conversation into a debate about why we shouldn't be hurt.

This literally could have been solved in a single post saying 'oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise it could be taken that way. I'll reconsider how to word it next time'. Instead it turned into a debate, and derailed this topic even more. 

 

Edited June 9, 2020 by VoidArcana

[Coyote]

So it seems trying to take one thing at a time here is... just resulting in a more quickly amassing backlog.

1 hour ago, VoidArcana said:

Coyote has been dismissive of Magni, and ignored my comments.

Your phrasing it this way tells me something important. At the time, I figured the best approach was to address Magni first, prioritizing things in the order they happened, and put the rest on hold in relation to that. I didn't realize you were raising issues that you wanted me to address separately. Now I see that that left you feeling ignored, so I will apologize for that. I made a wrong call about how to prioritize all the different things to reply to.

1 hour ago, VoidArcana said:

I'm just wondering why people are so focused on defending what Coyote said

I really don't know why Laura and Sennkestra are doing that either. I'll let them speak for themselves, of course.

1 hour ago, VoidArcana said:

This literally could have been solved in a single post saying 'oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise it could be taken that way. I'll reconsider how to word it next time'. Instead it turned into a debate, and derailed this topic even more. 

Since you prefaced this part with a reminder that you're new here, I'd like to please ask that you not tempt me with this kind of irony.

In any case. Let me make sure I understand the grievance, since I think I mistook it for something else the first time. Will you answer some clarifying questions?

[VoidArcana]

35 minutes ago, Coyote said:

In any case. Let me make sure I understand the grievance, since I think I mistook it for something else the first time. Will you answer some clarifying questions?

It might end up saying the same things I already have with different words, but sure, I don't mind answering some clarifying questions, as long as you're aware there's only so many ways I can explain my feelings. 

I also recognise that just because your pace isn't matching mine doesn't mean you're ignoring what I said, so for that I'll apologise as myself being over hasty. 

[Coyote]

20 minutes ago, VoidArcana said:

I also recognise that just because your pace isn't matching mine doesn't mean you're ignoring what I said, so for that I'll apologise as myself being over hasty. 

Thank you. I wasn't trying to get you to apologize for that, but I appreciate it. I hope you will continue to let me know when I've overlooked something.

23 minutes ago, VoidArcana said:

It might end up saying the same things I already have with different words, but sure, I don't mind answering some clarifying questions, as long as you're aware there's only so many ways I can explain my feelings. 

Okay. I will start with summarizing some of what I'm hearing so far, and then I will ask some questions about how those things connect. I'll also use quotation marks instead of quote boxes for this just for the sake of making the formatting more condensed, but I'll reserve these quotation marks for direct quotes only.

Here are the sections that I am looking at:

• "I didn't see Magni's comment as throwing me/people like me under the bus, but rather a request, from someone who identifies as aplatonic, to think more carefully about how that definition might affect those who identify that way, especially when coupled with the example of the alloallo person."
• "I'm going to be honest, Coyote's example rubbed me the wrong way a little. It hits a little too close to the fictional examples exclusionists pulled out of nowhere to try and prove some gotcha about why aro and ace people couldn't be part of any iteration of the wider LGBT/queer community."
• "Saying 'I don't see what that necessarily has to do with me' when talking about 1) including a label in general and 2) including a certain combination of identities (in this case alloallo aplatonic) reminds me of both my experiences with exclusionists denying my queer identity because it stems from being aromantic, and conversations I've had where aces have refused to acknowledge my aro identity separate of (and having nothing to do with) asexuality."
• "The example used felt a little more like saying 'well these people have nothing to do with me, so all aplatonic people can be excluded'."
• "at the very least, the statement was poorly thought out."
• "The way I read that post basically amounted to 'why should those people count? They've got nothing to do with me, so why should we include them?'"

I trust you to let me know if I have missed anything important.

So here are some paraphrasings/takeaways that I draw from the above quotes:

• You see Magni's comment as a request to think more carefully about how that definition* might affect people who identify as aplatonic.
  • Implicitly: You are asking the same.
• My example rubbed you the wrong way because it reminds you of other things that people have said.
• You interpreted my post as essentially saying "Aplatonic people can be excluded" [from ... unspecified]

*Phrase in question = "I don't love my friends"

It could be that I am interpreting something here incorrectly. In that case, what I ask next may be irrelevant.

Otherwise, this is one of the things I am wondering.

You implied you would like me to think more carefully about this, and so I'd like you to point me toward which conclusions you hope will come of it: How does that definition ["I don't love my friends"] affect people who identify as aplatonic?

[LauraG]

1 hour ago, Coyote said:

3 hours ago, VoidArcana said:

I'm just wondering why people are so focused on defending what Coyote said

I really don't know why Laura and Sennkestra are doing that either. I'll let them speak for themselves, of course.

Mostly I just feel like people so often choose to interpret the things you say with the worst possible interpretation (for @VoidArcana's reference, since you mentioned being new here, this has a broader context than just this thread). Assuming positive intent of others is a value of mine, and as a result this pattern frustrates me.

12 minutes ago, Coyote said:

You implied you would like me to think more carefully about this, and so I'd like you to point me toward which conclusions you hope will come of it: How does that definition ["I don't love my friends"] affect people who identify as aplatonic?

@VoidArcana I'm curious what your answer is to this question before I respond to the content of your response.

[Magni]

55 minutes ago, LauraG said:

Mostly I just feel like people so often choose to interpret the things you say with the worst possible interpretation (for @VoidArcana's reference, since you mentioned being new here, this has a broader context than just this thread). Assuming positive intent of others is a value of mine, and as a result this pattern frustrates me.

....I wasn't assuming negative intent or looking to interpret it negatively because it was coyote? Rather, I'd assumed good intent that happened to be poorly worded in a way that unintentionally came across as harmful.  If anything, the fact is was coyote made me less inclined to say anything because I generally try to avoid direct interaction since it never seems to go well.  However, I as an aplatonic person felt a need to say something because I was uncomfortable with what was said, I'd have addressed it regardless of who said it, it's just that most people wouldn't have responded with such passive aggressive hostility, which if anything did indicate bad intent.
***

16 hours ago, Coyote said:

@Magni If I take the time to type out a response to that, will you answer it?

5 hours ago, LauraG said:

@Magni Is there something wrong with the idea of an allo person identifying as aplatonic because they don't love their friends?

(idk if I missed anywhere else that people tagged me expecting answers to stuff but this is like general answer to all questions directed at me that are still left "open")

I don't think it's a good idea for me to continue debating this topic further? but I feel the need to acknowledge things in some way so my brain will stop dwelling on it/stop feeling obligated to reply. I was upset with initial comment regarding aplatonicism as an aplatonic person (which, I realize in hindsight I hadn't specifically mentioned me being aplatonic in that initial comment but I do know I'd mentioned it on a previous thread y'all were involved in where the definition of aplatonic was discussed).  Sometimes it is difficult to pinpoint exactly why something bothers me beyond just that it does but I do generally try to attempt an explanation, though apparently my explanations aren't very clear.  The responses I received just made me feel dismissed and made me defensive such that I end up trying to defensively overexplain myself, which if anything probably makes my explanations less clear, so then people find more problems with what I say to pick apart to debate me making me defensively explain even more, etc, it cycles like that and goes nowhere productive. 

 

4 hours ago, VoidArcana said:

Except at least 2 other people chimed in to say that they also had problems with how the statement was worded. If it was just the one then yeah, maybe it was a tone misread on their part, but when multiple people are like 'hey I have an issue with this', that might mean that, at the very least, the statement was poorly thought out. 

Instead of thinking 'hey, actual people who identify as this label I'm talking about were offended, maybe I should apologise and think things through more next time', @Coyote has been dismissive of @Magni, and ignored my comments. Not exactly something that makes me want to assume good faith. Whatever Coyote's personal beef with Magni, ze is an aplatonic person who took issue with the comment. That was never really addressed. 

Yeah, this still hasn't been addressed, it seems like people would rather pick apart everything I say and debate other things rather than actually acknowledge that hey multiple people including those who identify with aplatonic have an issue with what was said so maybe there's an issue here. ( @VoidArcana seems to word the points I'm trying to make better than I can/I generally agree with aer.) I'm not gonna further participate in this debate bc it seems pointless for me to do so and having to justify why I feel upset by something while having my emotions dismissed and my words misinterpreted is distressing to me.

 

[VoidArcana]

2 hours ago, Coyote said:

So here are some paraphrasings/takeaways that I draw from the above quotes:

• You see Magni's comment as a request to think more carefully about how that definition* might affect people who identify as aplatonic.
  • Implicitly: You are asking the same.
• My example rubbed you the wrong way because it reminds you of other things that people have said.
• You interpreted my post as essentially saying "Aplatonic people can be excluded" [from ... unspecified]

*Phrase in question = "I don't love my friends"

For the first point, I was less asking the same, and more providing my viewpoint in response to Sennkestra's comment to Magni. As one of the people who fit the given description, aka 'doesn't feel love for their friends', I read Magni's response not as an attempt to throw people like myself under the bus, but a request to consider aplatonic people who either don't use or don't fit the given definition. 

The other two are fairly on point however. 

2 hours ago, Coyote said:

Otherwise, this is one of the things I am wondering.

You implied you would like me to think more carefully about this, and so I'd like you to point me toward which conclusions you hope will come of it: How does that definition ["I don't love my friends"] affect people who identify as aplatonic?

Like I said above, I wasn't really asking anything with my comment. While I do use aplatonic for myself occasionally, I'm aware that not every aplatonic will agree with or use my personal definition (fairly well described with 'doesn't feel love for my friends'). I also rarely participate in discussions or keep up to date with conversations about aplatonicism, so if you're looking for a more in depth response, you'd be better off finding someone who is more up to date then I am. 

My personal view would be similar to how the definition of aromanticism has evolved since I became involved with the community. My personal definition is just that, my definition. I know there are other people who ID as aplatonic who see things differently, as evidenced by Magni's response. Your comment, at least to me, implied a singular way to define aplatonic, or at least that single definition warranted the exclusion of all aplatonics. (I'm very aware that the inclusion/exclusion is hypothetical, and I'm not here to debate it. Simply offering how your comment came across to me.) 

1 hour ago, LauraG said:

Mostly I just feel like people so often choose to interpret the things you say with the worst possible interpretation (for @VoidArcana's reference, since you mentioned being new here, this has a broader context than just this thread). Assuming positive intent of others is a value of mine, and as a result this pattern frustrates me.

I mentioned being new simply because I don't have the broader context you're talking about. I came into this with a kind of outsiders perspective, so to speak. Like I said, I have little reason to assume either the best OR worst of people here, because I don't know them very well at all. 

[LauraG]

45 minutes ago, VoidArcana said:

I read Magni's response not as an attempt to throw people like myself under the bus, but a request to consider aplatonic people who either don't use or don't fit the given definition. 

Re-reading Magni's response, I personally don't see how how this connects with what ze was saying, since ze said multiple times that what upset zem was more than just the definition. However, if the complaint was just that the definition used was not broad enough, that's fair. I'm a strong supporter of broad, inclusive definitions.

--

For the record, I'm also coming to this conversation as someone who ostensibly could identify as aplatonic. I personally don't find the label itself useful, as I don't distinguish between romantic/platonic feelings and I find my aromantic/grayromantic label to cover those experiences personally.... But still given that, no one in this conversation identifies with the set of identities I was referring to in my original comment: allosexual, alloromantic, and aplatonic. I was trying to ensure that we weren't automatically labeling those (currently hypothetical) folks as bad or harmful to aros in some way, because that just reinforces the whole idea that being aplatonic (or more specifically in this context - not loving your friends) is bad in general, and if those folks are more than hypothetical, it's not a good look to say the least. (I'm also not trying to imply that Magni was necessarily saying that - I tried to ask to clarify but ze doesn't want to respond, it looks like.)

Edited June 9, 2020 by LauraG

[Coyote]

So the answer to "If I take the time to type out a response to that, will you answer it?" sounds like a "no."

@VoidArcana If you're wondering why I asked first instead of just going ahead with it, that is why. Twice bitten, thrice shy and all that.

10 hours ago, VoidArcana said:

Your comment, at least to me, implied a singular way to define aplatonic,

No, there are many ways that people use that word. It was a hypothetical example of one person. We can also talk about other combinations in addition to that one, if you'd prefer.

I don't.... sssssee if you answered the question there, so I'll break it into two questions: 1) Are you (still) saying that [that use/definition] affects people who identify as aplatonic (ostensibly, negatively)? 2) And if so, how so?

If those questions are now irrelevant, then I'm confused and don't know what's going on here.

[Guest BlackAndWhire]

To me, ace and aro are the only things on the a spectrum. Because, to me, their oddly opposites. Or maybe just partners that can be used separately. So the a-spectrum to me has ace on one side and aro on the other. These two being on a spectrum allows all those debatable terms like cupioA and greyA.

"What's the middle of the spectrum?" That's a wonderful question, random questioner. The exact middle would be the combined identity of AceAro. The flat out AceAro. AceGreyAro or CupioAceAro or even AceAlloAro are the one I'm talking about. Just plain old AceAro.

Thank you for coming to my TEDTalk.

[Mark]

On 6/7/2020 at 12:01 AM, John Rando said:

You can be aplatonic and have some platonic relationships. Not all friendships are based on platonic attraction but alloplatonics usually have some relationship that are based on platonic attraction. I don't.

There's this survey I put up last year about squishes and platonic attraction., (Which is also about the only other example of "alloplatonic"...)

Like far too many terms "platonic attraction" often seems to lack clear definition.
There's this AVEN thread.
This LGBTA Wiki page which has, at least, three different definitions and treats it as an umbrella term.
This Carnival of Aces piece which questions the linking to friendship.
This Typography Central thread.

The term "platonic" is likewise, somewhat, ambiguous.
Dictionary.com references Plato, "platonic love",  spiritual and non sensual.
Vocabulary.com also references Plato, spiritual and non physical.
Urban Dictionary non sexual.
yourdictionaly.com non sexual.
Cambridge English Dictionary non sexual.
Oxford Learner's Dictionary non sexual.
Collins English Dictionary non sexual or related to Plato.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary non romantic or non sexual.

It's notable that mainstream society uses  terms like "platonic friend", "platonic relationship" or "platonic love" without using "platonic attraction" much at all.

The term "aplatonic" isn't exactly an antonym to "platonic" or "platonic attraction".
LGBTA Wiki
Urban Dictionary
AVEN

Edited June 10, 2020 by Mark

[Coyote]

12 hours ago, Guest BlackAndWhire said:

To me, ace and aro are the only things on the a spectrum. Because, to me, their oddly opposites.

huh? If ace and aro were opposites, then "aro ace" would be an oxymoron.

 

5 hours ago, Mark said:

Like far too many terms "platonic attraction" often seems to lack clear definition.

On 6/9/2020 at 1:50 AM, LauraG said:

I personally don't find the label itself useful, as I don't distinguish between romantic/platonic feelings

So as long as we're talking about this:

I don't use emotional attraction as a concept, personally. As a quoiromantic I don't care for the romantic/nonromantic division in the first place, and I don't personally apply the concept of "attraction" to nonphysical things. So I wouldn't say I "experience platonic attraction," either, because that's not how I talk and it's not a model I use. I greatly hope that nobody is implicitly thinking of me as an "alloplatonic" here.

[DeltaAro]

15 hours ago, Guest BlackAndWhire said:

To me, ace and aro are the only things on the a spectrum. Because, to me, their oddly opposites.

don't you think you mean they are "orthogonal"?

[Guest BlackAndWhite]

3 hours ago, DeltaV said:

don't you think you mean they are "orthogonal"?

Not quite but its getting close to the non-language based definition.

 

5 hours ago, Coyote said:

huh? If ace and aro were opposites, then "aro ace" would be an oxymoron.

Not opposites as in "opposites". More like how binary suns are "opposites" of each other.

[VoidArcana]

On 6/10/2020 at 3:18 AM, Coyote said:

So the answer to "If I take the time to type out a response to that, will you answer it?" sounds like a "no."

@VoidArcana If you're wondering why I asked first instead of just going ahead with it, that is why. Twice bitten, thrice shy and all that.

No, there are many ways that people use that word. It was a hypothetical example of one person. We can also talk about other combinations in addition to that one, if you'd prefer.

I don't.... sssssee if you answered the question there, so I'll break it into two questions: 1) Are you (still) saying that [that use/definition] affects people who identify as aplatonic (ostensibly, negatively)? 2) And if so, how so?

If those questions are now irrelevant, then I'm confused and don't know what's going on here.

TBF, your initial response to Magni didn't exactly invite open discussion. I don't blame zem for stepping away from the discussion. 

I know there are many ways people use the word. My point was it didn't seem like that from your example. My problem was the narrow scope of your example combined with how it seemed to judge all aplatonics based on that scope. I will stress again, this is just how it came across to me (but also I didn't seem to be alone in that regard). I really can't make that part any clearer. Whatever your original intent with the post, it's come across poorly explained at best, and hurt some aplatonic people. 

As to your questions 

1. Yes, it can, depending on how its used. There was at least one aplatonic who didn't like the description and spoke up about it (aka Magni). The problem ze had was apparently similar to myself, in that it seemed you were defining all aplatonics by the singular description. However you meant it, it came across differently, and therefore became a problem. 
2. In this case? I'm going with erasure. In general? You'd have to ask aplatonics who don't use that description, because, as I mentioned, that's how I describe myself, and also I'm not involved in any kind of wider aplatonic community or discussion. I can hardly talk about how that definition hurts me if I use it, and I won't presume to speak for other kinds of aplatonics. 

The problem arises not from the definition itself, but when that is used as the only definition. Or seems to be used as the only definition. 

On 6/9/2020 at 4:50 PM, LauraG said:

For the record, I'm also coming to this conversation as someone who ostensibly could identify as aplatonic. I personally don't find the label itself useful, as I don't distinguish between romantic/platonic feelings and I find my aromantic/grayromantic label to cover those experiences personally.... But still given that, no one in this conversation identifies with the set of identities I was referring to in my original comment: allosexual, alloromantic, and aplatonic. I was trying to ensure that we weren't automatically labeling those (currently hypothetical) folks as bad or harmful to aros in some way, because that just reinforces the whole idea that being aplatonic (or more specifically in this context - not loving your friends) is bad in general, and if those folks are more than hypothetical, it's not a good look to say the least. 

I mean, my problem was never the hypothetical allo allo aplatonic person. Any such person who chooses to use the label and feels it's important enough to want to try find a community based on that, I'm more then happy to welcome. 

It was the implication from Coyote's example that

1. by default that just means someone who doesn't love their friends (I know I use that definition, but it's fair from the only one and from what I've seen there's lots of people who use more nuance then that), and
2. that this hypothetical person had nothing to do with any form of aspec community unless they were some kind of aro and/or ace aplatonic, erasing the importance of the aplatonic label for some people. (and this is also where I get the 'mirroring exclusionist argument' problem, aka 'your ace and/aro identity doesn't count unless you're some kind of actual LGBT as well')

Like I've said multiple times, this may not be what Coyote meant, but it's kind of how it came across, at least to myself. TBH it seems like we're in agreement here, at least when it comes to aplatonic people. 

 

[nonmerci]

3 hours ago, VoidArcana said:

that this hypothetical person had nothing to do with any form of aspec community unless they were some kind of aro and/or ace aplatonic, erasing the importance of the aplatonic label for some people. (and this is also where I get the 'mirroring exclusionist argument' problem, aka 'your ace and/aro identity doesn't count unless you're some kind of actual LGBT as well')

You describe why I felt upset with the comment of @Coyote. Immediately speaking of the possibility of an allo allo person using the term as an argument for not having them in the a-spec community, gives me the feeling that aplatonic struggles don't matter in themselves, or that they matter p ly if you are aro or ace. Which is why I said I read the commet as "these people don't have real problems".

 

Now, I get that's not what @Coyote meant. So, to answer the original question ("what does an allo allo person who doesn't love their friends has to do with me?"), I would say that : the problem face are similar. People are supposed to need each other company. For instance, in the aro community, loving our friends is seen as something that humanizes us, because "we don't love romantically, but platonically". And to take the same example as @John Rando did, if you tell someone "I didn't miss my friends during the confinment", you will be seen as weird because you are suppose to love them and so miss them.

Also, as @DeltaV said, aplatonic people are often invalidated as being "sociopath", or they are laugh at... which is a similar problem (aromantic is still synonymous with psychopath for some people, both aro and ace people are outside of the society noms when it comes to relationship...). Aplatonicism could be regarded as a mental problem or, a scare for intimacy, commitment... like aromanticism and asexuality.

 

And that's why for me I wouldn't mind an allo allo aplatonic being included. Because this person won't be there because "I don't like my friends", but because "I don't like my friends and because of that I share similar problems with you". Because if not, I don't think an allo allo people would feel the need to identify with the label in the first place.

(I hope I am clear)

 

Edited June 11, 2020 by nonmerci

[Coyote]

 

9 hours ago, VoidArcana said:

In this case? I'm going with erasure.

Hold on, it's "erasure" to talk about one person?

6 hours ago, nonmerci said:

Immediately speaking of the possibility of an allo allo person using the term as an argument for not having them in the a-spec community, gives me the feeling that aplatonic struggles don't matter in themselves,

?

All sorts of struggles matter. Trans struggles matter, for instance. The question is which groups it makes sense to group together, not a question of making an exhaustive list of which people have problems. This interpretation just sounds like injecting stuff that isn't there by relying on a flawed implicit metric (that declaring someone "a-spec" is the only way to acknowledge their struggles matter).

[Mark]

On 6/10/2020 at 4:46 PM, Coyote said:

I don't use emotional attraction as a concept, personally. As a quoiromantic I don't care for the romantic/nonromantic division in the first place, and I don't personally apply the concept of "attraction" to nonphysical things. So I wouldn't say I "experience platonic attraction," either, because that's not how I talk and it's not a model I use. I greatly hope that nobody is implicitly thinking of me as an "alloplatonic" here.

I find "romantic", "sexual", "sensual", "aesthetic", "intellectual", "protective" or "social" to be useful and meaningful attraction concepts.
Whilst for "platonic", "alterous", "queerplatonic". They make little sense used in that way. With the term "quoi" being a good description of how I feel about them applied to attraction.(With "emotional attraction" my feelings are more "too vague".)
Something I can often struggle with is understanding how QPRs are non-romantic when they are described. Especially when they involve monogamy, co-habitation, financial entanglement, etc.
I seems as though there can be a mis-assumption that everyone is using the same set of attraction concepts. As well as conflation between the "quoi" and "a" prefixes.

[nonmerci]

2 hours ago, Coyote said:

All sorts of struggles matter. Trans struggles matter, for instance. The question is which groups it makes sense to group together, not a question of making an exhaustive list of which people have problems. This interpretation just sounds like injecting stuff that isn't there by relying on a flawed implicit metric (that declaring someone "a-spec" is the only way to acknowledge their struggles matter).

I say later that why I reacted that way was because for me, aplatonic, aromantic and asexual problem are similar, and that's why it makes sense to group together, to fight against the issue and discuss about their experiences. Of course a-spec is not the only way to acknowledge struggles matter and the purpose is not to make a list of people who has problems, or everyone would fit in the label and it will make no sense at all.

[rabbitastic]

On 5/31/2020 at 3:02 PM, Coyote said:

Apology accepted. Thanks for listening.

Really? huh. I don't hear that every day. I've been kind of unclear on how aromanticism makes a point of commonality that way. Can you say more?

I have some ace allorom pals who are sex-repulsed while I am an allosexual aro romance-repulsed person. When we deal with folks who are both alloromantic AND allosexual, we often interact and feel things are going well! My chums and I have bonded over a turning point we almost always reach with double allos. They withdraw, becoming less kind overall, or they completely avoid us for not offering sex or romance when they need or want both.  I guess it's a form of rejection...? :C We understand we all need different things in relationships but the sting of this very specific sort of rejection is still very real. People who aren't somewhere on this spectrum aren't kind to us for speaking up about it.

[LauraG]

Also as perhaps a point of clarification, I don't think @Coyote, by asking why aplatonic should be included in aspec, means to imply that there isn't a reason why aplatonic could be grouped with ace and aro, but rather that aplatonic should only be included in that grouping if it makes sense and there's a reason for it, so Coy is asking about what that reason is in a legitimate sense. Coy you can correct me if I'm wrong here.

For example, ace and aro inclusion in the broader queer and LGBTQ+ community makes sense because that's already a broad coalition of groups that defy cishetero norms. Ace and aro folks already defy those norms as well, and it makes sense for our communities to support other LGBTQ+ communities and vice versa. We're stronger together and all that.

To play devil's advocate (and I legitimately mean that - I think you could probably argue against this pretty easily), an alloromantic aplatonic person might love their romantic partners, but not love their friends (note: this is a specific example, not a broad generalization). For them, the idea of being "more than friends" might make some inherent sense to them, and so they're not exactly defying amatonormativity there. In fact, they may actively be confused by aro frustrations with things like that phrase, because they can't relate, and aros might be frustrated with them because they feel like they're upholding a system they find harmful. In this case, it might not make sense to group these two groups together.

Edited June 11, 2020 by LauraG

[DeltaAro]

On 6/8/2020 at 12:18 AM, nonmerci said:

I don't think it is necessary less neutral trait? I mean, you talk about how people confuse aplatonicism with sociopathy, but there are still a lot of people who thinks that aromantic means psychopath, so... can you elaborate please?

Of course, association with sociopathy* isn't a reason for it to be negative.

As said before: a few relationships are "compulsory". Obviously parent-children. To a minor degree siblings you grow up with. If aplatonicism even extends to those, I'd regard it as negative.

* interesting that aromantics are the "psychopaths" here, not sociopaths (who are overt). It's like aros are the sneaky ones who put up a facade of a normal life, but all their relationships are shallow, because they don't involve romantic feelings.

[John Rando]

1 hour ago, LauraG said:

To play devil's advocate (and I legitimately mean that - I think you could probably argue against this pretty easily), an alloromantic aplatonic person might love their romantic partners, but not love their friends (note: this is a specific example, not a broad generalization). For them, the idea of being "more than friends" might make some inherent sense to them, and so they're not exactly defying amatonormativity there. In fact, they may actively be confused by aro frustrations with things like that phrase, because they can't relate, and aros might be frustrated with them because they feel like they're upholding a system they find harmful. In this case, it might not make sense to group these two groups together.

To play devil's satan*, first you don't need platonic attraction to have friends.

Second, It would makes total sense to me to say "more than friends" when you mean "the relationship I have with them is based on romantic attraction in addition to the platonic one" (not all romantic relationship are like that). But most people would understand it as "this relationship counts more in the absolute relationship hierarchy because ... amatonormativity !", and that doesn't make any iherent sense, regardless of your orientation.

And third, serendipity and the gray area of the aro spectrum make that some aplatonics having a romantic orientation are already inside the aro community and the civil war has not happened yet.

* satan = prosecutor

1 hour ago, DeltaV said:

As said before: a few relationships are "compulsory". Obviously parent-children. To a minor degree siblings you grow up with. If aplatonicism even extends to those, I'd regard it as negative.

Why though ? If I don't have obsessive thoughts and fantasies and a desire to maintain a relationship (aka limerence) for my parents am I a sociopath ? Because freudian pseudopsychologist could argue the exact opposite (and still agree with you at the same time^^). You don't need to emotionally love your parents to be part of a healthy and mutually enjoyable parent/children relationship. And you can hate totally your parents or be indifferent to them and still be a healthy person (a lot of parents are ******).