Why is asexual so much more represented than aromantic?

[Queasy_Attention]

I'm a little late to the party and I don't have an answer, but I wanted to chip in my two cents in solidarity-- I was way more aware of the asexual community than I ever was of the aromantic one-- I knew that asexuality was a valid identity (I also knew I definitely wasn't asexual) and I sort of viewed aromanticism as some not-really-real microlabel to describe someone's personal preferences, rather than an actual orientation. (I was maybe 16 or 17 at the time, and had already come to terms with being bi, so I'm well aware it was an unhealthy viewpoint and have since definitely changed my mind.) It wasn't until I went through a lot of relationship-related hardships that I remembered that term that I used to know, and I looked it up again and realized there was an actual legitimate community of people. Their experiences matched up with mine and I realized that "aroallo" was, yknow, a thing. And I was that thing.

If I'd known about it as a serious identity and community sooner, well, I don't know what would have happened. Maybe things would have turned out differently. Maybe I'd still have a few friends that I lost. I'm not sure. 

[Jot-Aro Kujo]

2 hours ago, Asteroid said:

Aromantic sexuals are represented in every guy who just has one night stands and never gives a shit about love.

If you really believe that, you've never actually spoken to one of us.

[Rolo]

3 hours ago, Asteroid said:

Aromantic sexuals are represented in every guy who just has one night stands and never gives a shit about love.

Those guys aren't necessarily aromantic, just in a stage in their lives where they want sex but not romance. "Too busy having fun to have a relationship" =/= aromantic. "Not ready for commitment yet" =/= aromantic.

However I think this misconception may be part of why aromantic people are underrepresented, because it is totally normal for some people to not be interested in a relationship for reasons other than being aromantic, especially when they're young. Plenty of people are too busy with studies or their career, don't want commitment when their futures are uncertain, are scared of commitment in itself, simply have other priorities in their life etc. and I think some aromantic people may think that is the case for them, think that the reason they don't want romantic relationships is they are just not ready or in the right stage of their life just yet. Not wanting sex is pretty hard to overlook once you reach an age where "late bloomer" isn't an option, not wanting romance may be something that many people don't even notice as an issue until much later, or find it much easier to put aside as "things will change when I'm not overwhelmed by work I'm sure".

Edited August 12, 2020 by Rolo

[Asteroid]

6 hours ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

If you really believe that, you've never actually spoken to one of us.

Ok, wise one who knows who  I talk to...  How do you personally know the difference between a movie character who is just at a life stage and might one day become romantic, and a genuinely aromantic person (assuming here that they don't otherwise just blatantly announce that they're aromantic or just in a phase.)  I don't think there's anyway to know for sure, no matter who I have or have not talked to. 

[treepod]

16 minutes ago, Asteroid said:

Ok, wise one who knows who  I talk to...  How do you personally know the difference between a movie character who is just at a life stage and might one day become romantic, and a genuinely aromantic person (assuming here that they don't otherwise just blatantly announce that they're aromantic or just in a phase.)  I don't think there's anyway to know for sure, no matter who I have or have not talked to. 

I think she was expressing the fact that not all representation is good representation. A male character who isn’t ready for commitment is seen as immature until a particular woman comes along and ties him down. Writers could be basing that trope off of real life people who *might* actually be aro, but they aren’t writing the character with that in mind. So it’s not representation at all, really.

Regardless, since it’s a negative trope, it has potential to impact how a person perceives someone who is aro and allosexual. They might not take the orientation seriously, think they need to grow up, and assume they have an unhealthy sex life, which often couldn’t be further from the truth.

Also, please, there’s no need to get defensive. We’re all friends here but if you say something that suggests a negative generalization of a person’s identity, expect to be corrected. And no one is suggesting that we youngins are smarter or wiser than you. Lifelong learning, right?

[Mark]

On 8/9/2020 at 2:45 PM, nisse said:

i've a feeling, too, that it is in a way easier for aces to figure out if we're aro as well or not. hence, i think, the over-representation of aroaces within aro communities @Mark mentions. i wouldn't be surprised if it's substantially harder to nail your aroness when you're allo-sexual, and maybe even feel even more "broken"

There is also self perpetuation involved here.

On 8/9/2020 at 2:45 PM, nisse said:

than us aroaces. just because i think when you've figured out aceness, you've kind of passed that hurdle - not to say we don't have that internal struggle as well, i know i had a MUCH harder time accepting my aroness than my aceness, which is partly why i identify so much more with that part of me now, it took so much energy from me. but i hope my thought process here makes sense?

Something is unusual about the ace community is recognition of variorientation. Whilst in straight, LGBTQ+ and even many aro (and aspec)  communities periorientation is assumed as a default. With it even being possible to find LGBTQ+ and aspec communities which variorientation is somehow an "ace thing".  (It's also commonly the case with kink, polyamory, relationship anarchy, etc communities are "perinormative.) 

On 8/9/2020 at 2:45 PM, nisse said:

i don't want to speak over aro-allos here, and no experience is uniform, but i wouldn't be surprised if this was the case for many.

It's very hard to find information about aro-allos even when you know the right terms to look for. Even then it's still easier to turn up aro-ace and (even) allo-ace writings.

 

[Mark]

7 hours ago, Rolo said:

Those guys aren't necessarily aromantic, just in a stage in their lives where they want sex but not romance. "Too busy having fun to have a relationship" =/= aromantic. "Not ready for commitment yet" =/= aromantic.

They might be "between relationships".
There are also allos for whom promiscuity  is their method to "find the one(TM)".

1 hour ago, treepod said:

I think she was expressing the fact that not all representation is good representation. A male character who isn’t ready for commitment is seen as immature until a particular woman comes along and ties him down. Writers could be basing that trope off of real life people who *might* actually be aro, but they aren’t writing the character with that in mind. So it’s not representation at all, really.

It's a fictional cliché, maybe one which only makes sense in an amantonormative culture.
Leaving aside the (cis) hetero stereotypes of this both of the characters involved have to be allo.
Even allos tend to see romantic behaviour from people they are not romantically attracted to as creepy.

Edited August 12, 2020 by Mark

[Jot-Aro Kujo]

1 hour ago, Asteroid said:

Ok, wise one who knows who  I talk to...  How do you personally know the difference between a movie character who is just at a life stage and might one day become romantic, and a genuinely aromantic person (assuming here that they don't otherwise just blatantly announce that they're aromantic or just in a phase.)  I don't think there's anyway to know for sure, no matter who I have or have not talked to. 

Does the movie character self-identify as aromantic? Has the movie character been stated to be aromantic?

Does the movie character constantly get assumed to be asexual? Does the movie character struggle with feeling like they don't belong? Does the movie character struggle with feeling like they're a monster for their attraction? Is the movie character told they're a monster? Does the movie character feel sick every time they hear the phrase "love is what makes us human"?

Does the movie character have to choose between fulfilling their sexual desires, putting themselves in a romantic situation which makes them deeply uncomfortable, or entering an outright dangerous environment? Does the movie character constantly have to affirm their identity to others, who are determined to make them "grow out" of their own soul? Does the movie character get told that they should not seek support for the discrimination that they face, and that their identity is TMI?

Be sarcastic all you want, but frankly? ANYONE who has the wisdom not to compare a marginalized group to fictional sex offenders is wiser than you. I will not be continuing this conversation any further, as frankly I am sick and tired of trying to explain to people that as an allosexual aromantic queer woman I am not equivalent to a straight man who likes having a lot of sex, but I encourage you to reflect on your biases and think about why it is that you believe that's what we are.

[nonmerci]

15 hours ago, Asteroid said:

Ok, wise one who knows who  I talk to...  How do you personally know the difference between a movie character who is just at a life stage and might one day become romantic, and a genuinely aromantic person (assuming here that they don't otherwise just blatantly announce that they're aromantic or just in a phase.)  I don't think there's anyway to know for sure, no matter who I have or have not talked to. 

Because these movies are always about a guy being immature or using women until the right woman comes and "cures" him. I never saw any movie where it is not the case. So say that aromantic allosexual are represented by character that are seen as asshole who need to and will change thanks to true romance... that's weird. Like saying aro ace are represented by any psychopath or character unable to feel emotions. We all know aromanticism are not about that.

 

Also, for reading some aro allo experiences, they seem far from that cliché. On the contrary, a lot of them seem not interested in one-night-stands, I even see some of them said they were still virgins because they want committed relationships, and it-s hard to find a sexual committed relationship that isn't romantic.

[Asteroid]

Well I've known many, many men, who by they own words, were not interested in romance at all.  Some of them were very sexual, and some of them weren't, at least as far as I know.  Were some of the sexual ones going through a phase and not genuinely aromantic?  Probably!  Were all of the non-romantic, highly sexual guys just going through a phase?  I have no idea  No one has the right to just openly declare that, beyond "maybe."  

[Mark]

On 8/13/2020 at 1:35 PM, nonmerci said:

Also, for reading some aro allo experiences, they seem far from that cliché. On the contrary, a lot of them seem not interested in one-night-stands, I even see some of them said they were still virgins because they want committed relationships, and it-s hard to find a sexual committed relationship that isn't romantic.

Very often alloromantics conflate "committed", "meaningful" and so on with "romantic." 

[nisse]

On 8/13/2020 at 7:38 PM, Asteroid said:

Well I've known many, many men, who by they own words, were not interested in romance at all.  Some of them were very sexual, and some of them weren't, at least as far as I know.  Were some of the sexual ones going through a phase and not genuinely aromantic?  Probably!  Were all of the non-romantic, highly sexual guys just going through a phase?  I have no idea  No one has the right to just openly declare that, beyond "maybe."  

you were talking about movie characters before though, not real people. 

[eatingcroutons]

On 8/14/2020 at 3:38 AM, Asteroid said:

Well I've known many, many men, who by they own words, were not interested in romance at all.  Some of them were very sexual, and some of them weren't, at least as far as I know.  Were some of the sexual ones going through a phase and not genuinely aromantic?  Probably!  Were all of the non-romantic, highly sexual guys just going through a phase?  I have no idea  No one has the right to just openly declare that, beyond "maybe."  

No-one has the right to declare anything about anyone else's orientation, full stop. And many people's orientations shift or fluctuate over the course of their lives.

It looks like some posts have been removed from this thread so maybe I'm not getting the full picture, but I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Why is it important to you to know exactly how every person you describe as a "non-romantic, highly sexual guy" identifies in terms of orientation?