Why Don't Aromantics Have Their Own Flag?

[TripleA]

Disclaimer: It looks like I have to point this out (bc otherwise people will just twist my words), but I don't think greyromantic and demiromantic people, etc. don't exist, their experiences are valid, I just think they should stick to using their own flags instead of trying to use a flag that doesn't represent them. I'm glad that there are demi and grey and lith flags for those people to use for their own labels, instead of needing to use the Aromantic flag when it doesn't represent them. Also, I don't care if demiromantics, greyromantics, etc. want to use these forums to help them learn about Aromanticism or to help support an Aromantic friend or family or whatever. This site is clearly for everyone who doesn't experience romantic attraction as conventionally as Alloromantics do, including Alloromantics in the grey area of Alloromanticism like greyromantics, demiromantics, lithromantics, etc. I also don't believe Aromanticism is on a spectrum, you either have romantic attraction (aka you're Alloromantic) or you don't.

 

At least read what I have to say and discuss this civilly. 

 

Why do Greyromantics, demiromantics, etc. Get their own flag while Aromantics have a flag in which the grey and demi romantics are just squished in when they aren't Aromantic?

 

Here is the Demiromantic flag, used only by those who only experience romantic attraction when they form a close, emotional bond with someone:

 

 

Here is the Greyromantic flag, used only by those who experience romantic attraction rarely:

 

 

This is the Lithromantic/Akoiromantic flag, used only by those who have romantic attraction but don't want to actually have a romantic relationship or have their feelings reciprocated:

 

 

And this is the Aromantic flag, which is supposed to be used by only those who experienced no romantic attraction at all:

 

 

...oh wait, no it's not, it has the grey stripes to represent greyromantic people, who have romantic attraction and already have their own flag...

 

This doesn't make any sense.

 

Why do people who have romantic attraction have to be lumped into a flag that should only be for those with no romantic attraction, if they have their own flags which are just for them that people already know about and use?

 

I don't mind Idemromantics, cupioromantics using the Aro flag because they are actually Aromantic, they have no romantic attraction at all, unlike grey and demiromantic people, who are Alloromantic. Those are just Aromantics with microlabels, and that's fine.

 

I just find it a bit unfair.

 

Why can't Aromantics get their own flag to represent no sexual or romantic attraction like how greyromantic people can get their own specific flag to represent how they only experience romantic attraction rarely?

 

It's like if a bisexual woman used the lesbian flag - it just doesn't make sense, since the lesbian flag is only for women who are exclusively sexually attracted to other women. Bisexual women are attracted to both genders, and they already have their own flag representing that.

 

You get what I mean?

 

By the way I have, in fact, designed a new Aromantic flag just for Aromantic people to use, like how demi, grey, etc, romantics have their own flags for them to use, which I will link here: http://aminoapps.com/p/fr5dgh

[Jot-Aro Kujo]

Bruh. I’m probably one of the most stereotypical no-romance-ever aromantics, and honestly, I think this is pretty rude. Why shouldn’t arospec folks be included in our flag? They’re aro too. It’s called aro-spec, not some-attraction-sometimes-spec. Why are you so determined to separate yourself from them? Why does being inclusive of our arospec siblings upset you so much? If you feel so threatened by the thought of one single stripe out of five on the flag having something to do with arospecs, that’s a you problem. Now sit down and stop being exclusionary, because that attitude is NOT what this community is about. 

[TripleA]

1 hour ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

Bruh. I’m probably one of the most stereotypical no-romance-ever aromantics, and honestly, I think this is pretty rude. Why shouldn’t arospec folks be included in our flag? They’re aro too. It’s called aro-spec, not some-attraction-sometimes-spec. Why are you so determined to separate yourself from them? Why does being inclusive of our arospec siblings upset you so much? If you feel so threatened by the thought of one single stripe out of five on the flag having something to do with arospecs, that’s a you problem. Now sit down and stop being exclusionary, because that attitude is NOT what this community is about. 

 

they aren't aromantic. if you have romantic attraction, you're allo. I don't want people searching up Aromanticism and being confused bc they found out some "aros" can have romantic attraction, it confuses me and everyone else. It just seems like they want to be special - you can be grey, or demi, etc. but that doesn't make you any less allo. 

 

Aromantic: no romantic attraction

 

greyromantic (for example): little romantic attraction 

 

How is that not contradictory...

 

It's not a spectrum. Not everything is a spectrum. Stop saying alloromantics can be aro just because they may not experience romantic attraction as often - guess what? loads of alloromantics are greyromantic or demiromantic - in fact, my best friend is demiromantic (demihomoromantic specifically), but she's still allo and she knows that, and she's fine with not being included with people who are actually aromantic. Demiromantic, Frayromantic and Greyromantic people are normal, alloromantic people. It's like when lesbians get rightfully mad when a straight man starts calling himself a lesbian, when he is clearly not. If we lump in all of this other stuff Aromanticism will lose its meaning altogether eventually. It's rude to say people are aro when they're not just to feel special or to seem different. 

 

Also, greyromantics, demiromantics, lithromantics, etc. all have their own flags for their own labels and there are many others like themselves to talk to. Aromantics don't have a flag that is just for them specifically, but these others do? I think it's fair for aros to have their own flag which is just for actual aromantics, like demiromantics have their own flag for actual demiromantics, etc. I support equality, after all.

[bananaslug]

I... don't get what the problem is? Most queer flags include more specific identity groups in this same way. The trans flag has a stripe for nonbinary people even though enbys have their own flag. The ace flag has a stripe for acespec people even though most aspec identities have their own flag. And similarly, the aro flag has a stripe for arospec folks.

 

We design flags that way so that they're more inclusive. Some arospecs prefer to simply identify as aro because more people know that term. Some people are questioning and don't know where they fall on the aro spectrum. Some people know they're somewhere on the aro spectrum but don't like using really specific labels. If we exclude arospec folks from the term "aromantic" and any flag associated with that term then we end up excluding all of the people above from having a community. So to answer your question, that's why there's no "aro specific" flag. That kind of thing would lead to gatekeeping and exclusion and nobody wants that.

 

Aromantic is an identity but it's also an umbrella term for everyone on the aro spectrum. That's been true for as long as I've been part of the aro community, and I hope it continues to be true for a long time. If that confuses some people then so be it, but I think what's most important is that we make sure all of our community members feel included.

[Jot-Aro Kujo]

Oh also hey OP, aren't you the person who got banned from the Arocalypse discord server in record time for joining and immediately proclaiming how you don't think arospecs belong in the community, right in front of all our lovely arospec members? ?

[Blue Phoenix Ace]

First of all, I'd like to point out that while I administer this site, I have no oversight over the Discord server. (I don't even have the address to go chat on it, so there's that)

 

This post has been reported, but it breaks none of the rules. The closest one it might come to breaking is:

Quote

f. Judgements of other users
Making judgments about other users, especially about the validity of their sexual or romantic orientation, is strongly discouraged. We are here to figure ourselves out, not to put each other in boxes.

 

But, since Triple A didn't call anyone out specifically, he didn't break this rule. I'd say all he did here was post an opinion that might be unpopular to many of the members of this site.

 

In my personal opinion, I find the term "aro-spec" a bit... misleading. Imagine a scale between someone who experiences zero romantic attraction, and someone hyper-romantic, just can't get enough. Aromanticism is one end of that scale. It's a single point along a continuous line. Grey-romantic, on the other hand, defines a broad range of experiences. It's hard to say where you would draw the line between grey-romantic and allo-romantic. It's not like we can assign a numerical score to our romantic attraction intensity and say anything below 73 is grey, and 0 is aro. 74 and up is allo. So, we have to use a more subjective judgement here. In my opinion, if someone feels that their peers are much different than them, and/or are struggling because of the difference in how they experience romantic attraction, then they are grey-romantic. I'd prefer to see the term "Grey-ro spec", but I won't lose any sleep over it.

 

From there, you can go into more specific buckets, like lithromantic, demiromantic, etc. Imagine this as just a smaller and smaller subset of individuals (the next smaller set something like homo-lithromantic, etc.)

 

Again, in my personal opinion, I think defining aromantic as "never or sometimes feels romantic attraction" is also misleading. The Latin/Greek (not sure) root a- means without or not. If we start to include "sometimes" folks into that term, then what term do we use for folks who are "without"? While Jot-Aro's "one of the most stereotypical no-romance-ever aromantics" makes it more clear, it's also a bit of a mouthful. Once upon a time, I called myself aromantic because I was denying that my handful of crushes made me grey-romantic. Notice that my label is now "Grey-romantic", even though I experience almost no romantic attraction. One label isn't somehow superior to another, and if we use clear definitions, then we can discard "no-romance-ever" from the aromantic label, and just start saying "aromantic". This is a site for aromantic and grey-romantic people, so nobody has to jump ship if they switch labels.

 

As for the flag, I can see Triple A's point, but immediately counter with "well the asexual flag does it too". In fact, the ace flag includes everyone who isn't actively opposed to asexuality since purple is for "allies" or "community". So in that analogy, the aromantic flag works similarly. If folks want to wave a demi-romantic flag to show that they are in that smaller bucket, that's fine, but they could also be waving the more general aromantic flag too. I'm honestly surprised that any consensus has been made over the aromantic flag. I thought that was still up in the air, so to speak.

[TripleA]

3 hours ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

Oh also hey OP, aren't you the person who got banned from the Arocalypse discord server in record time for joining and immediately proclaiming how you don't think arospecs belong in the community, right in front of all our lovely arospec members? ?

 

Well I said my opinion fairly respectively from what I remember, so idk. Also I get confused whether it was that server or another server where I got banned just because I said I don't like social justice in a political channel, whilst social justice was the actual topic of discussion, whilst everyone else were allowed to say they were for it.

4 hours ago, bananaslug said:

I... don't get what the problem is? Most queer flags include more specific identity groups in this same way. The trans flag has a stripe for nonbinary people even though enbys have their own flag. The ace flag has a stripe for acespec people even though most aspec identities have their own flag. And similarly, the aro flag has a stripe for arospec folks.

 

We design flags that way so that they're more inclusive. Some arospecs prefer to simply identify as aro because more people know that term. Some people are questioning and don't know where they fall on the aro spectrum. Some people know they're somewhere on the aro spectrum but don't like using really specific labels. If we exclude arospec folks from the term "aromantic" and any flag associated with that term then we end up excluding all of the people above from having a community. So to answer your question, that's why there's no "aro specific" flag. That kind of thing would lead to gatekeeping and exclusion and nobody wants that.

 

Aromantic is an identity but it's also an umbrella term for everyone on the aro spectrum. That's been true for as long as I've been part of the aro community, and I hope it continues to be true for a long time. If that confuses some people then so be it, but I think what's most important is that we make sure all of our community members feel included.

Well sometimes there is a line between being inclusive of every trans person for example (nb people are trans and so it makes sense they're included on the flag since they have gender dysphoria like binary trans people) and using a flag that includes aromantics and non aromantics - the latter, to me, is just being way too inclusive. Like gay is also both an umbrella term sometimes and a specific label, but the gay flag is only supposed to be gay people or just lgbt as a whole, not for gay and bisexuals, etc. So how come Aromantics only get a flag that encompasses many terms that aren't aro (having no romantic attraction) but demi, lith, fray, grey, etc. have their own specific flags that are perfectly fine to use? Also, I wouldn't call aromantic an umbrella term. 

2 hours ago, Blue Phoenix Ace said:

First of all, I'd like to point out that while I administer this site, I have no oversight over the Discord server. (I don't even have the address to go chat on it, so there's that)

 

This post has been reported, but it breaks none of the rules. The closest one it might come to breaking is:

 

But, since Triple A didn't call anyone out specifically, he didn't break this rule. I'd say all he did here was post an opinion that might be unpopular to many of the members of this site.

 

In my personal opinion, I find the term "aro-spec" a bit... misleading. Imagine a scale between someone who experiences zero romantic attraction, and someone hyper-romantic, just can't get enough. Aromanticism is one end of that scale. It's a single point along a continuous line. Grey-romantic, on the other hand, defines a broad range of experiences. It's hard to say where you would draw the line between grey-romantic and allo-romantic. It's not like we can assign a numerical score to our romantic attraction intensity and say anything below 73 is grey, and 0 is aro. 74 and up is allo. So, we have to use a more subjective judgement here. In my opinion, if someone feels that their peers are much different than them, and/or are struggling because of the difference in how they experience romantic attraction, then they are grey-romantic. I'd prefer to see the term "Grey-ro spec", but I won't lose any sleep over it.

 

From there, you can go into more specific buckets, like lithromantic, demiromantic, etc. Imagine this as just a smaller and smaller subset of individuals (the next smaller set something like homo-lithromantic, etc.)

 

Again, in my personal opinion, I think defining aromantic as "never or sometimes feels romantic attraction" is also misleading. The Latin/Greek (not sure) root a- means without or not. If we start to include "sometimes" folks into that term, then what term do we use for folks who are "without"? While Jot-Aro's "one of the most stereotypical no-romance-ever aromantics" makes it more clear, it's also a bit of a mouthful. Once upon a time, I called myself aromantic because I was denying that my handful of crushes made me grey-romantic. Notice that my label is now "Grey-romantic", even though I experience almost no romantic attraction. One label isn't somehow superior to another, and if we use clear definitions, then we can discard "no-romance-ever" from the aromantic label, and just start saying "aromantic". This is a site for aromantic and grey-romantic people, so nobody has to jump ship if they switch labels.

 

As for the flag, I can see Triple A's point, but immediately counter with "well the asexual flag does it too". In fact, the ace flag includes everyone who isn't actively opposed to asexuality since purple is for "allies" or "community". So in that analogy, the aromantic flag works similarly. If folks want to wave a demi-romantic flag to show that they are in that smaller bucket, that's fine, but they could also be waving the more general aromantic flag too. I'm honestly surprised that any consensus has been made over the aromantic flag. I thought that was still up in the air, so to speak.

Oh yeah, I actually forgot that was the case for the ace flag. However, I've never seen anywhere where it says that one of the stripes on the aro flag meant similarly.

[TripleA]

2 hours ago, Blue Phoenix Ace said:

First of all, I'd like to point out that while I administer this site, I have no oversight over the Discord server. (I don't even have the address to go chat on it, so there's that)

 

This post has been reported, but it breaks none of the rules. The closest one it might come to breaking is:

 

But, since Triple A didn't call anyone out specifically, he didn't break this rule. I'd say all he did here was post an opinion that might be unpopular to many of the members of this site.

 

In my personal opinion, I find the term "aro-spec" a bit... misleading. Imagine a scale between someone who experiences zero romantic attraction, and someone hyper-romantic, just can't get enough. Aromanticism is one end of that scale. It's a single point along a continuous line. Grey-romantic, on the other hand, defines a broad range of experiences. It's hard to say where you would draw the line between grey-romantic and allo-romantic. It's not like we can assign a numerical score to our romantic attraction intensity and say anything below 73 is grey, and 0 is aro. 74 and up is allo. So, we have to use a more subjective judgement here. In my opinion, if someone feels that their peers are much different than them, and/or are struggling because of the difference in how they experience romantic attraction, then they are grey-romantic. I'd prefer to see the term "Grey-ro spec", but I won't lose any sleep over it.

 

From there, you can go into more specific buckets, like lithromantic, demiromantic, etc. Imagine this as just a smaller and smaller subset of individuals (the next smaller set something like homo-lithromantic, etc.)

 

Again, in my personal opinion, I think defining aromantic as "never or sometimes feels romantic attraction" is also misleading. The Latin/Greek (not sure) root a- means without or not. If we start to include "sometimes" folks into that term, then what term do we use for folks who are "without"? While Jot-Aro's "one of the most stereotypical no-romance-ever aromantics" makes it more clear, it's also a bit of a mouthful. Once upon a time, I called myself aromantic because I was denying that my handful of crushes made me grey-romantic. Notice that my label is now "Grey-romantic", even though I experience almost no romantic attraction. One label isn't somehow superior to another, and if we use clear definitions, then we can discard "no-romance-ever" from the aromantic label, and just start saying "aromantic". This is a site for aromantic and grey-romantic people, so nobody has to jump ship if they switch labels.

 

As for the flag, I can see Triple A's point, but immediately counter with "well the asexual flag does it too". In fact, the ace flag includes everyone who isn't actively opposed to asexuality since purple is for "allies" or "community". So in that analogy, the aromantic flag works similarly. If folks want to wave a demi-romantic flag to show that they are in that smaller bucket, that's fine, but they could also be waving the more general aromantic flag too. I'm honestly surprised that any consensus has been made over the aromantic flag. I thought that was still up in the air, so to speak.

I clearly said that I think greyromantics, demiromantics, frayromantics etc. are valid so I don't understand how I would break that rule anyway. There's a difference between saying that a term outright doesn't exist and saying that these terms are valid but they aren't the same as something else aka, me saying grey, demi, etc. aren't aro doesn't invalidate them being grey or demi, etc. itself, but it does mean that it invalidates them being aromantic, since they don't fit the definition of what it means or what it represents. 

[Morgenfluss]

The Ace flag has the following stripes: black, grey, white and purple which are supposed to represent allosexuals, ace-spec, asexuals and community. If the Ace flag can have a stripe for allosexuals, what is the problem with the (unofficial) aro-flag having a stripe for aro-spec folks. There's nothing bad about including them. They're not harming the community or anything. And if this is such a big problem, maybe you should just ignore the meaning of the flag's stripes and use it as the Aro flag it is...

[Neir]

Hi @TripleA. I will say this bluntly because I'm not sure you've understood where others who have said this are coming from.

 

You've formed your opinion based on information that is outdated, incomplete, and/or not representative of the community.

 

The aro community has discussed this many times. It is fact that within the aro community, the word "aromantic" has two meanings:

1. Experiencing no romantic attraction ever, at all, zero times (the definition you're familiar with)
2. An umbrella term for people who do not experience romance or romantic attraction in the ways conventionally put forth by society, whether this is in terms of how often the attraction is felt, the circumstances behind the feeling, or the behaviours connected with the feeling

 

Identities are never fixed because human beings are fluid. Identity terminology, especially orientation terminology, is descriptive and not prescriptive. X-sexual or X-romantic indicate tendencies toward whatever fills the X slot. They do not indicate a rule that, upon being broken, can no longer be used as an identifier. A person who is heterosexual that had one crush on someone of their same gender but had 20+ crushes on people of their opposite are not necessarily bisexual because of one experience. For some people, the exception does change the rule, because the person and their identity have changed. For others, the exception does not change the rule; it's an exception because human beings aren't robots bound to identifiers and If/Then statements. 

 

If someone says they are aromantic and they have experienced romantic attraction before, you have no right to be saying "Yeah, but if that was me, I wouldn't use the label aromantic." Perhaps that's how you define aromanticism for yourself, and that is fine, but you cannot say "Oh everyone is valid" and then proceed to tell those people that they are wrong. You draw the line between aro and alloro for yourself in a particular way. You should not say that this line is the correct line or should be the correct line. The aro community as a whole welcomes anyone who fundamentally feels that they belong in this community, because chances are, regardless of how many times someone has felt romantic attraction in their life, if they are feeling alienated from alloromantics or from typical romantic narratives, they feel they belong in the aro community. We as a community don't believe that we should define a line for everyone. At least that's what I've noticed about inclusive queer communities in general. We don't define the line. What we do is provide examples of others' experiences with drawing the line so that questioning folks can decide where their line is and whether they identify with our community.

 

It is true that some grey and demi folks, for example, don't view themselves as being part of the aro community. Sometimes they feel they fit better in the alloro community, sometimes in neither or in-between. Ultimately, identity is relative and completely personal. Words and categories of identity never have hard lines and boxes. It's impossible. Even in sciences where we think lines and categories are very clear, you'll find that nature is not that easy to put in a box. Language is always approximation. And when feelings are involved, there is no aromantic experience that is shared by everyone in the exact same way, even for the aros who fit definition 1. Fact is, drawing a line between aro and alloro, and placing greyros, on an expansive scale is prescriptive and will never be correct. It's impossible. Lines and categories for things are always arbitrary, because nature is not and never will be black and white.

 

TL;DR: Labels are not for other people to categorize someone, they are for someone to sit themselves in relation to others. People are getting frustrated with you because you seem like you are trying to pass your opinion off as more correct than others', since, to you, it is. You can't be correct because no one can be correct, because the aro community is not trying to define an aro/alloro line on a large scale. Having conversations about this is unproductive and only serves to make some people feel excluded.

[TripleA]

2 hours ago, running.tally said:

Hi @TripleA. I will say this bluntly because I'm not sure you've understood where others who have said this are coming from.

 

You've formed your opinion based on information that is outdated, incomplete, and/or not representative of the community.

 

The aro community has discussed this many times. It is fact that within the aro community, the word "aromantic" has two meanings:

1. Experiencing no romantic attraction ever, at all, zero times (the definition you're familiar with)
2. An umbrella term for people who do not experience romance or romantic attraction in the ways conventionally put forth by society, whether this is in terms of how often the attraction is felt, the circumstances behind the feeling, or the behaviours connected with the feeling

 

Identities are never fixed because human beings are fluid. Identity terminology, especially orientation terminology, is descriptive and not prescriptive. X-sexual or X-romantic indicate tendencies toward whatever fills the X slot. They do not indicate a rule that, upon being broken, can no longer be used as an identifier. A person who is heterosexual that had one crush on someone of their same gender but had 20+ crushes on people of their opposite are not necessarily bisexual because of one experience. For some people, the exception does change the rule, because the person and their identity have changed. For others, the exception does not change the rule; it's an exception because human beings aren't robots bound to identifiers and If/Then statements. 

 

If someone says they are aromantic and they have experienced romantic attraction before, you have no right to be saying "Yeah, but if that was me, I wouldn't use the label aromantic." Perhaps that's how you define aromanticism for yourself, and that is fine, but you cannot say "Oh everyone is valid" and then proceed to tell those people that they are wrong. You draw the line between aro and alloro for yourself in a particular way. You should not say that this line is the correct line or should be the correct line. The aro community as a whole welcomes anyone who fundamentally feels that they belong in this community, because chances are, regardless of how many times someone has felt romantic attraction in their life, if they are feeling alienated from alloromantics or from typical romantic narratives, they feel they belong in the aro community. We as a community don't believe that we should define a line for everyone. At least that's what I've noticed about inclusive queer communities in general. We don't define the line. What we do is provide examples of others' experiences with drawing the line so that questioning folks can decide where their line is and whether they identify with our community.

 

It is true that some grey and demi folks, for example, don't view themselves as being part of the aro community. Sometimes they feel they fit better in the alloro community, sometimes in neither or in-between. Ultimately, identity is relative and completely personal. Words and categories of identity never have hard lines and boxes. It's impossible. Even in sciences where we think lines and categories are very clear, you'll find that nature is not that easy to put in a box. Language is always approximation. And when feelings are involved, there is no aromantic experience that is shared by everyone in the exact same way, even for the aros who fit definition 1. Fact is, drawing a line between aro and alloro, and placing greyros, on an expansive scale is prescriptive and will never be correct. It's impossible. Lines and categories for things are always arbitrary, because nature is not and never will be black and white.

 

TL;DR: Labels are not for other people to categorize someone, they are for someone to sit themselves in relation to others. People are getting frustrated with you because you seem like you are trying to pass your opinion off as more correct than others', since, to you, it is. You can't be correct because no one can be correct, because the aro community is not trying to define an aro/alloro line on a large scale. Having conversations about this is unproductive and only serves to make some people feel excluded.

people who feel excluded from what I say are probably not actually aromantic. Not everything is about inclusion. Like we wouldn't let bi people say they're gay (seriously) just because they experience same sex attraction like gay people do, so why would we let people who just don't experience romantic attraction as often (which is pretty normal) say they're aro? Also, you could consider gay as an umbrella term in a sense too. I don't relate to people who just don't experience romantic attraction as much as other allos or only under certain circumstances because I am aromantic, whilst they are not. Also, my definition (aka the actual definition) of aromantic isn't outdated or incomplete, it's perfectly accurate for every aromantic. Some definitions are best kept simple, like this one. Also, it isn't just me who believes this, I know others that do. Just because a lot of people want to be over-inclusive, doesn't mean that the whole aro community is for that, that's just arophobic in itself. 

 

If we are going to use these 2 definitions, when why not have a specific flag for the first definition for actual aromantic people to use? 

[TripleA]

4 hours ago, Morgenfluss said:

The Ace flag has the following stripes: black, grey, white and purple which are supposed to represent allosexuals, ace-spec, asexuals and community. If the Ace flag can have a stripe for allosexuals, what is the problem with the (unofficial) aro-flag having a stripe for aro-spec folks. There's nothing bad about including them. They're not harming the community or anything. And if this is such a big problem, maybe you should just ignore the meaning of the flag's stripes and use it as the Aro flag it is...

actually saying grey, demi, etc. romantic people are aromantic is harming the community. This over inclusion is harming the community. Eventually everyone will be able to say they're aro bc the word would lose its meaning if we keep letting allo people (or what you guys call aro-spec) just say they're aromantic, this then lets arophobes say that actual aromantics are just less attracted people and that they're lying about having no romantic attraction, which is not true. It's arophobia to let non aro people say they're aro just because they want to be included where they don't belong. Just because there are maybe one or two similarities, doesn't mean we are the same. Like how bi and gay people aren't the same just because they both experience same sex attraction.

 

Maybe people should just be ok with what they actually are. if you're greyromantic, great, if you're demiromantic, great. It's not bad to be alloromantic. I don't want people who aren't aromantic speaking for me when they don't understand what it's like to be aromantic themselves. I wouldn't speak for greyromantics bc I don't know what it's like to be greyromantic, because that's...I think greyphobic would be the word? People like myself are constantly silenced just because people want to virtue signal and be over-inclusive, and it's erasing aros who do not subscribe to the "aromantic spectrum" idea. Why are we favouring people who aren't actually aro over actual aros with a different opinion? It sounds like aro erasure to me. 

 

Like maybe accept that, yes, grey, demi, lith, etc. romantics can go and be in aro/ace spaces (unless it's a specific ace and aro only place) and talk about the things they relate to them on (aka not having a conventional way of feeling romantic attraction), but they aren't aro themselves. I still go to aro/ace spaces or more ace biased  "aro/ace spaces" (like AVEN) even though I'm not ace, but I understand that I am not ace. You could also just be an aro ally which is cool as well. I'd refer to myself as an ace ally. 

[Neir]

Ah, alas, you've missed my point. I think this may be something you have to sit with over time and read over for yourself.

You are very stuck on rigid definitions and specification. Just because you don't relate to some people, doesn't mean the term doesn't include them. You don't have to understand it to respect it.

 

45 minutes ago, TripleA said:

Also, my definition (aka the actual definition) of aromantic isn't outdated or incomplete, it's perfectly accurate for every aromantic.

I first joined the aromantic community because I fit in definition 1 of aromantic: not experiencing romantic attraction at all. When I talked to other people like me about what they defined as romantic attraction, I got many different answers. For some, how I described my affectionate feelings for people seemed like romantic attraction. For others, my affectionate feelings were nowhere close to how they saw romantic attraction. When I talked to alloromantics, it was the same thing. I got answers from different places. My point is that feelings are very subjective and because people interpret the definition differently, they draw the line between aro and alloro in different places. We don't feel feelings in the same way; we have no way of knowing what another person's experience with attraction is like. Therefore, we cannot make judgements. We can attempt to, but it's very easy to misinterpret and put our own biases onto things based on how we define romance.

All that to say, I'll point out that you may not relate to all other aromantics who experience 0 romantic attraction perfectly. Who, out of all of you, is the "proper aromantic" then? (This is a rhetorical question. But my saying this is to point out this is where your logic leads. That's why I and many others are reading your additions with eyebrows raised.)

 

45 minutes ago, TripleA said:

Also, you could consider gay as an umbrella term in a sense too.

Yes... Many people do. I'd encourage you to read some older queer publications.

 

45 minutes ago, TripleA said:

If we are going to use these 2 definitions, when why not have a specific flag for the first definition for actual aromantic people to use? 

I will point out there exists a not-very-popular term for definition 1 of aromantic that puts it under the broader definition 2 umbrella. Apothiromantic comes to mind, for example. Terms are in limbo right now in the community, though. Which one is most popular is sometimes just arbitrary. One word can have different definitions based on different contexts.

Honestly, if no-attraction aromantics want their own flag, they can make one. They have to acknowledge, though, that if they do, they can't parade it around as "the real aromantic community." That's... I don't know how to tell you that that's just plain elitist.

 

The aromantic community made a decision at its outset to include people who are "elsewhere on the spectrum" (i.e., not right at the end, experiencing 0 romantic attraction and having 0 interest in it, etc.). This mirrors other queer communities. The point is that a person who feels like this community is "close enough" will have relief and resources and acceptance so that they are not ostracized by society. If we kick those people out, if we gatekeep them and exclude them from the community, they don't belong anywhere. Queer communities exist precisely for the people who feels they don't belong in normative society. The aro community isn't a exclusive club. Saying "you're not queer enough" ("you're not aromantic enough") is a great way of making sure we're perpetuating the very thing queer people fight against in society. Worrying about "being invaded by not real aromantics" is not productive and not realistic, because the likelihood of people pretending to be aromantic just for funsies, just for attention, just for resources, is really low. Non-queer people just don't pretend to be queer. Non-aros don't pretend to be aro. There is more benefit to fit in with society, and greater risk to try to fit in with a group for a small resource reward that honestly isn't that nefarious.

Using the end case, the "aromantic" label, is arbitrary and honestly follows the conventions of other queer communities. Though, there are some discussions about what we should use as the umbrella term in other threads too, because some people don't seem to like how arbitrary the name is. As far as I'm concerned, the name is the simplest and most non-nuanced extreme case that is helpful to explain to people who know nothing about the concept at all.

[bydontost]

8 hours ago, running.tally said:

The aro community as a whole welcomes anyone who fundamentally feels that they belong in this community, because chances are, regardless of how many times someone has felt romantic attraction in their life, if they are feeling alienated from alloromantics or from typical romantic narratives, they feel they belong in the aro community.

Exactly my sentiment. We're never going to have the same feeling or experiences, so we can only say: "oh I'm closer to this group, their experiences resonate with me", whether the group in question is aromantics or alloromantics. If people identify with aromantic experiences, which generally include no romantic attraction, no interest in romantic relationships, etc., then no one should say that they're wrong about how they feel, even if they have in their lives experienced a crush for example.

 

6 hours ago, TripleA said:

why would we let people who just don't experience romantic attraction as often (which is pretty normal) say they're aro?

We wouldn't we?? Again, if they feel that their experiences are closer to aromantic experiences... And people have really various experiences and their own reasons for identifying with aromanticism or greyromanticism. "As often" or "not conforming to cultural norms" are also very subjective.

 

6 hours ago, TripleA said:

I don't relate to people who just don't experience romantic attraction as much as other allos or only under certain circumstances because I am aromantic, whilst they are not.

And I do relate to some of their experiences, so what? I also don't relate to all of other aromantics' experiences that concern their relationship with romance. We're all not the same.

 

6 hours ago, TripleA said:

Also, my definition (aka the actual definition) of aromantic isn't outdated or incomplete, it's perfectly accurate for every aromantic.

Oh boy, what makes you think you're the judge on this, that only you have the correct answer to everything? And it's not perfectly accurate for every aromantic, see for example: me.

 

5 hours ago, TripleA said:

Eventually everyone will be able to say they're aro bc the word would lose its meaning if we keep letting allo people

I have no idea where this fear comes from - (sarcasm) maybe from the aromantics who wish they could feel romantic attraction, bc then they'd be able to fulfill the very rewarding narrative that most of the world believes in..?? (/sarcasm) Aromanticism is not a very attractive narrative in the world that we live in and idk why people who don't see themselves seen, their experiences finally represented by this narrative would suddenly decide "oh yes, this is what I'm gonna call myself now, because...". I just can't see a reason why they'd do that.

 

5 hours ago, TripleA said:

Just because there are maybe one or two similarities, doesn't mean we are the same.

Ofc, and you and I aren't the same and no one on this forum is the same! We're all here, bc we feel this bundle of experiences is the most similar to ours.

 

5 hours ago, TripleA said:

People like myself are constantly silenced just because people want to virtue signal and be over-inclusive

Have you considered: we genuinely believe this this is the right way to see things for us, just like the right way according to you is comparing everyone to your own experience of aromanticism and deciding if they're aro or not. We're never gonna be the same and have the same experiences, and I'd rather be more inclusive than play the judge and exclude someone who could use the community with their feelings about romance. I just don't see a point too. Discussions like those take a lot of energy, resources and time that could be better spend imo.

 

5 hours ago, running.tally said:

Worrying about "being invaded by not real aromantics" is not productive and not realistic, because the likelihood of people pretending to be aromantic just for funsies, just for attention, just for resources, is really low. Non-queer people just don't pretend to be queer. Non-aros don't pretend to be aro.

Agreed

 

[Tagor]

Regardless of definitions and identities, I don't thing it is strategic to exclude grey-romantic people from the aromantic flag/term.

The aromantic community is quite small, and the only semi-recognized flag we we have is the aromantic one. (I personally couldn't have matched the other flags with their labels, and I've been in the aromantic community for well over a year). We may not like it, but to much of the LGBT community , aromanticism is a niche label, so more people using the label is benefiting it as we still need to build awareness even in the queer community. And I'm convinced that once the aro community gets big enough, it will split on its own. Humans tend to be quite good at building groups and differentiating themselves from each other.

 

The second reason why I don't think it is smart to draw a clear line between aromanticism and greyromanticism is that with aromanticism being defined by an absence, a lot of people can't be sure how aromantic they really are. We do not have a clear definition of romantic attraction, and the absence of romantic attraction can't be defined more exactly than romantic attraction itself. This would be like saying "a desert is a place without plants", but never defining what a plant is.

As a result, a lot of people which aren't heavily romance repulsed have the stance "I don't know what romantic attraction is, and I guess I would know it if I felt it? So I'm aromantic?". (At least that's my thought process). Using this reasoning, it is impossible to discern little romantic attraction from no romantic attraction and being greyromantic from being aromantic.

 

In conclusion, it neither benefits the aro community to exclude greyromantic people by implementing strict definitions for being aro nor have we the built the foundational definitions needed to create such a definition, rendering this discussion (at least at this time) quite useless. 

[nonmerci]

To talk about what the original post was about, I would nothing wrong for aro with no romantic attraction at all have their own flag. Thinking about it, it is weird there isn't any.

However, I think the actual aro flagrant should still represents the community as a whole. Because it is how I see it too. I don't view grey people as allo at all. If I follow your logic, they shouldn't be aro because their experience don't match yours; but allo could say the exact same thing, their experiences are completely different from grey people experiences.

(Anyway I don't think experiences is the best way to discuss it; for instance, there is a difference between aro ace and aro allo experiences, but I never see anyone say we should split our community, because we still share a lot in common; for me it's the same with aro and greyro)

I personally see the grey area as it's own thing, with a big difficulty though : draw the line between aro and grey, and between grey and aro. But I think aros and grey share a lot of experiences in common : rejection from amatonormative society, no romantic attraction (most of the time for grey), being alienated when they have to talk about their crushes, maybe no desire for romantic relationship (I say maybe because both aro and greyro could still desire one). For me, our actual flag and community represent all that. A safe place to discuss the pressure of amatonormativity, or share jokes about it.

 

 

Also I get your point avoir how all these labels can be confusing, I was myself very confused at first about it. But :

-I ended up understand the specificity of grey labels

-It would be very difficult to find out about grey if they vanished from aromantic website

-I'm pretty sure that an allo who put the effort to search what aromanticism is will also try to understand the grey area; the people who invalidates us don't need grey area to do so

-at the time I was doubtful about the grey area, I never doubtful aromanticism exist; so I don't see how inclusion of grey would invalidate aromantics.

[Lokiana]

There is a flag, if rarely used, for omniaromantics (people who do not feel romantic attraction, do not desire romantic relationships, etc. I'll let y'all read the definition). Found here. 

 

It's been around for more than a year because we, as a community, recognize anyone who is gray-aromantic as aromantic, and belonging in our community. Even if some people did recognize the desire for a second flag, they wanted to keep the aromantic flag for our community as a whole: that's who it was created for, after all. 

 

As a final note, I am what you might call a "true aromantic" or whatever somewhat offensive term you are using - I don't feel any romantic attraction, ever - and I think that the way you've approached this topic is slightly offensive at best. Creating separate terminology for aromantics who feel no attraction whatsoever is fine - I believe I've seen terms like "null aro" floating around, as well as omniaromantic and others - but doing so in a way that alienates gray-aromantics leaves a serious bad taste in many people's mouths. 

 

In fact, it reminds me very much of the time when I was told that "arospec" was for gray-aros (including demiromantics, lithromantics, etc.) but not for null aromantics. It made me very uncomfortable - after all, I had been using that terminology for years, and it was part of my identity. People telling me I could no longer use that term for myself was a struggle (and yes, we did come to a consensus for the opposite conclusion, but it was a discussion that was had). 

 

So while I understand you may want a term or flag for your individual identity, it comes off as offensive and rude to alienate gray-aros from our community and flag when they have been here since the beginning, and since the creation of the flag. It makes a lot of us (gray-aro or null aro) feel very uncomfortable with the discussion, and not in a way that produces positive results. 

 

In conclusion: gray-aros are aromantic, and absolutely should be able to use our flag.

[Mark]

On 11/28/2019 at 2:47 AM, running.tally said:

 Saying "you're not queer enough" ("you're not aromantic enough") is a great way of making sure we're perpetuating the very thing queer people fight against in society.

 

This is also the case for "you're not the right kind of queer/aromantic/trans/etc".
That's before considering "twue aro" metrics which only apply to minority of aros.

[DogObsessedLi]

Firstly, I hate threads like this. The written language is so limited and we all need to look after each other in that way.

 

Isn't greyromantic (including any grey-attraction covered by this like demi) RARE attraction. And as such they have much more in common with us than the average alloromantic. They are not alloromantic in that way because the large part of their life IS aromantic and their life is affected accordingly. That is why they are included because they actually have more in common with aromantism than with regular alloromantics and as such we all need to be supportive of each other in an inclusive manner. In some ways it is seriously wrong to lump them as alloromantics because the larger portion of their life is aro and it's not for us to question this. As for the flag, it could actually be argued against a million different individual flag labels and to just have one that reflects the whole non- cishet "social normal". That doesn't mean I'm arguing against any individual flag here, I'm just trying to make the inclusive point.