Jump to content
parodace

Guide to attraction types

Recommended Posts

I did my best so people outside a-spec community could understand it, therefore you can show this infographic to your friends, family or potential partners. I recommend visit this post if forum doesn't provide proper image quality.

guide-min.png

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to do this when it's such a well designed informative infographic. But it seems like you've made the scale go from stranger to romantic partner, which positions romantic partners as the closest possible relationship between two people. A lot of aros want to fight this perception. It might be better if stranger/romantic partner were removed from the ends. I also noticed some typos but that's probably just nitpicking.

I just want to stress that I'm amazed that you made this. I was impressed by your ability for design in the original posts but this is something else. What do you use to make things like this if you don't mind me asking?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with @Stoneandglass's point about the relationship scale, but I also agree that this is beautiful design! Very nicely done. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stoneandglass said:

I hate to do this when it's such a well designed informative infographic. But it seems like you've made the scale go from stranger to romantic partner, which positions romantic partners as the closest possible relationship between two people. A lot of aros want to fight this perception. It might be better if stranger/romantic partner were removed from the ends. I also noticed some typos but that's probably just nitpicking.

I just want to stress that I'm amazed that you made this. I was impressed by your ability for design in the original posts but this is something else. What do you use to make things like this if you don't mind me asking?

I couldn't find a proper place to put in what this scale is measured, therefore I decided to put these ones so people could understand what I'm trying to tell. I actually see scale of relationship differently with more axes but this wasn't the point I was trying make. Also you should remember that this infographic is more for people outside of a-spec community who isn't really familiar with aromantic culture, so it's just oversimplified for better understanding.

I like creating things and aspec culture is really inspiring, like I've completely changed my worldview on some things. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with previous comments. Personally, I'm not wholly fond of the idea that the closest you can be with someone is as a romantic partner. But otherwise, it looks really great! It's really clean, informative, and refreshing, also super easy to read! Kudos to you! Most of all, I think it'll be really effective for those who choose to use it!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, parodace said:

Also you should remember that this infographic is more for people outside of a-spec community who isn't really familiar with aromantic culture, so it's just oversimplified for better understanding.

Isn't it precisely why it is important to not put romantic partner at the top, to fight this idea?

 

Anyway I am also amazed by your work. This infography is beautiful!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, nonmerci said:

Isn't it precisely why it is important to not put romantic partner at the top, to fight this idea?

 

Anyway I am also amazed by your work. This infography is beautiful!

Okay, let me explain my point of view in another way. 

I don't put this as the fact, the image itself tells that position of relationships is subjective. But it's not about romantic relationship, it's about queerplatonic and friendship relationships. Notice that there aren't any other kinds of  relationships on the scale. In my opinion they can be over romantic partner on the scale but again this wasn't the point I was trying to make. 

My priority was to make it clear for everybody (like this is what infographic is supposed to do). So if I remove these or put something else, some people would be confused, considering that they deal with unknown, vague term. Like I could put family on the top but all people have different experience living in a family. 

Also as you and stoneandglass mentioned that aros would argue with that. But:

1. Arguments can long forever.

2. It still would be subjective.

3. The guide isn't about this, it's not about aromantic culture. 

And you know what all people reading this guide on the internet have in common? They all live in the society, so even true relationship anarchist aros would be familiar with society's standard view on relationship scale. 

So again, if you wanna argue, do this but the guide isn't about this. If you all really want it and have something to tell, we can create another infographic about all this stuff. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, parodace said:

I don't put this as the fact, the image itself tells that position of relationships is subjective.

When you put relationship types on an axis that lists "stranger" and "romantic partner" as opposite ends of a spectrum, that carries a strong implication that "romantic partner" is the polar opposite of "stranger", and therefore the closest possible kind of interpersonal relationship. That implication is actively harmful to aromantic people.

I think it's misleading and extremely unhelpful to rank relationship types in the way that you have, as though "Queerplatonic" is closer than "Friend", and as though "Romantic partner" is closer than anything else. You've done great work on the rest of the infographic but I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with that panel.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, eatingcroutons said:

When you put relationship types on an axis that lists "stranger" and "romantic partner" as opposite ends of a spectrum, that carries a strong implication that "romantic partner" is the polar opposite of "stranger", and therefore the closest possible kind of interpersonal relationship. That implication is actively harmful to aromantic people.

I think it's misleading and extremely unhelpful to rank relationship types in the way that you have, as though "Queerplatonic" is closer than "Friend", and as though "Romantic partner" is closer than anything else. You've done great work on the rest of the infographic but I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with that panel.

I'm really tired repeating the same thoughts again and again. It's NOT about aromantic culture and its view on relationship scale. It's an image explaining queerplatonic and platonic relationships to everyone including people OUTSIDE aspec community. They don't wanna know what every aromantic think about relationship scale and make researches to understand the whole aromantic culture and its philosophy. It just explains attraction types in the most simple way, so more people could understand the point, since misunderstanding can be harmful too. The purpose of infographic  is to present information clearly and quickly. If I would choose another scale it will be subjective and misleading too and it just won't be the most common point of view. Every option is subjective and based on own experience, there's NO "true" options. The thing is that this implication already exists in society and I use this to explain things to people who live in this society. They don't wanna discuss their views, look at other options, they wanna know more about attraction types, the main topic of this guide and that's all.

Again, this guide is NOT about arguing position of romantic relationship, if you wanna show world your point of view then create your own infographic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen, that is your infography and you do what you want.

But what we point out is not about aromantic culture. It is about amatonormativity. That the problem we have with the scale. Now if you don't see it as a problem, fine, but please don't call that "aromantic culture" because this way you are avoiding the real issue we are pointing out. Also, don't tell me you can't explain attraction without being amatonormative. I thought about it and find a way to do it. I wanted to write a long message about how you could improve your scale, and why it was problematic in the first place. But you don't seem to accept criticism nor be willing to listen. So I'LL stay with this message.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nonmerci said:

Listen, that is your infography and you do what you want.

But what we point out is not about aromantic culture. It is about amatonormativity. That the problem we have with the scale. Now if you don't see it as a problem, fine, but please don't call that "aromantic culture" because this way you are avoiding the real issue we are pointing out. Also, don't tell me you can't explain attraction without being amatonormative. I thought about it and find a way to do it. I wanted to write a long message about how you could improve your scale, and why it was problematic in the first place. But you don't seem to accept criticism nor be willing to listen. So I'LL stay with this message.

Yes, it is and you make remarks on MY topic, I explain it. If you have nothing to say, don't write me about it, I don't force you to keep commenting. I explained my point of view THREE times why it's most likely the best option. But you all just ignore my arguments writing the same thing again and again. I don't remember when such thing became criticism. I would write how criticism etiquette works but you all will ignore it anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, parodace said:

Yes, it is and you make remarks on MY topic, I explain it. If you have nothing to say, don't write me about it, I don't force you to keep commenting. I explained my point of view THREE times why it's most likely the best option. But you all just ignore my arguments writing the same thing again and again. I don't remember when such thing became criticism. I would write how criticism etiquette works but you all will ignore it anyway. 

If you're getting the same criticism multiple times- From people who have been perfectly polite to you, I may add- Maybe that's a sign that your point of view isn't as correct as you think it is. The point of critiques is to help people improve and see problems they might not have noticed themselves.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

If you're getting the same criticism multiple times- From people who have been perfectly polite to you, I may add- Maybe that's a sign that your point of view isn't as correct as you think it is. The point of critiques is to help people improve and see problems they might not have noticed themselves.

Well, I answered three times and you all still don't understand what I was trying to tell, I try to have a dialogue but it's useless. There can't be any discussion if you all just keep ignoring my arguments. "It's bad. Fix it" is not criticism, I explained why it's not bad and what purpose it serves.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, this talk is going nowhere. Yeah, I know that amatonormativity is not a good thing but explained why I chose this scale. I'm not going to change it because nobody has answered my arguments. I've talked to other people (including aromantics), they understood my point of view and they're okay with that. Move on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2020 at 7:03 PM, Stoneandglass said:

I hate to do this when it's such a well designed informative infographic. But it seems like you've made the scale go from stranger to romantic partner, which positions romantic partners as the closest possible relationship between two people.

This also doesn't make much sense when the first part describes six different types of attraction (or orientation).
Though it is hard to represent six dimensions in two.
Even more so with this article which described 37 types of attraction not all of which are independent.
 

On 8/20/2020 at 7:03 PM, Stoneandglass said:

A lot of aros want to fight this perception. It might be better if stranger/romantic partner were removed from the ends

Many aros might consider romantic relationships to be "less than" any type of non-romantic relationship.

On 8/21/2020 at 5:47 AM, parodace said:

I don't put this as the fact, the image itself tells that position of relationships is subjective. But it's not about romantic relationship, it's about queerplatonic and friendship relationships. Notice that there aren't any other kinds of  relationships on the scale. In my opinion they can be over romantic partner on the scale but again this wasn't the point I was trying to make.

Giving only two examples easily leads to false dichotomies even where this is unintentional.

15 hours ago, eatingcroutons said:

When you put relationship types on an axis that lists "stranger" and "romantic partner" as opposite ends of a spectrum, that carries a strong implication that "romantic partner" is the polar opposite of "stranger", and therefore the closest possible kind of interpersonal relationship. That implication is actively harmful to aromantic people.

I think it's misleading and extremely unhelpful to rank relationship types in the way that you have, as though "Queerplatonic" is closer than "Friend", and as though "Romantic partner" is closer than anything else. You've done great work on the rest of the infographic but I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with that panel.

I think the idea of ranking of relationships is inherently problematic. Including involving multiple logical fallacies.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, parodace said:

Yes, it is and you make remarks on MY topic, I explain it. If you have nothing to say, don't write me about it, I don't force you to keep commenting. I explained my point of view THREE times why it's most likely the best option. But you all just ignore my arguments writing the same thing again and again. I don't remember when such thing became criticism. I would write how criticism etiquette works but you all will ignore it anyway. 

Well, as I said, I DID have something to say but I didn't because I had the feeling that you will react badly, so instead I shut up. But as you asked so politely, here's my answer.

1. Principal argument, your scale is subjective.  And yes, the point you want to make is that people see relationship differently. And you show it by putting friends, queerplatonic and acquaitances at different place according to the characters. But, you position stranger and romantic partner at the sale level for both, as if for these two values it is not subjective. And ok, maybe for romantic partner people usually discussed it, but still, it seems that romance (and stranger) are somehow outside the subjective part.

2. You could have put something else. Ok, but at the end of the day, you still put this, and the person who'll watch it are not in your head.

3. You didn't know where to put it. You could have put it on the side of a character, as for the other. Or just don't put it at all. Why do you need something at the end of the end of the scale, after all? And the same thing for both characters?

4. You decided to put this one on top because people share this representation, and you don't want them to be confused by words they don't know. But you explained what queerplatonic meant. You didn't need to put romantic in the balance. In fact, I was even confused about why you include it at all, I just don't understand how it helps your explanation.

5. What you want was to explain attraction, not "aromantic culture" as you word it. You wanted to explain what it queerplatonic, platonic, etc. But if the point is to explain that, what does a scale about relationship (and not attraction) add? Why include romantic on that scale, as this is something people can easily understand? And why a scale where most of the attraction you mentionned above is ignore? That doesn't serve the goal of the infography.

6. It is easier to explain. Maybe. But then, what are you explaining? That queerplatonic is between romantic and platonic. Not something different, but something less. And also that friendship naturally leads to romance. Maybe that's not what you mean, but at the end of the day, that's why alloromantic will think when they see you scale.

7. This is your topic and your infography, if we don't like it we should write our own. Believe me, I won't use it; but yes, I am concerned by the fact that with it you can unwillingly spread amatonormative idea, just like I am concerned when I see a homophobic movie. If you don't want people to tell you when they are hurt by your work, keep it for yourself. Instead you present it as something to show people to explain attraction. Well, I am explaining to you why I won't do that, because I think it wil be hurtful. And that's a shame because I think you did a great job for the rest, it is clear and beautiful to watch.

8. You talk to aro who don't see any problem with it, so no problem. Well of course, if you only talk to people who agree with you, problem will never exist. And th fact that some aros agree don't mean it is ok. My mother say sexist things about girls dressing sexy. Does that means this is not sexist, because she is a woman? I don't think so. That's the same here.

9. We didn't listen to your arguments. I hate to do this but I have to point you didn't listen neither. We explain why we consider the scale hurtful, and you ignore it, because "this is was not what you mean", which is a way of denying people feeling, by saying they didn't get your point. Well, maybe if we didn't get it, it is because you didn't express it well (and yes, I do think you didn't reach your goal with your scale, which was to talk about subjectivity in perception of relationship, I already explaine why). Also, we didn't only say "this amatonormative, fix it", we explained why, in a polite well actually.

Now, as I said in my previous comment, that's your infography, you do what you want about it. That's your freedom. And this is our freedom to tell you if we are hurt.

 

Edited by nonmerci
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with @nonmerci. And frankly, the fact that this infographic is intended to educate alloromantics on aromanticism is exactly what makes it so dangerous that the infographic does include amatonormative- And, if I’m being completely honest, arophobic- concepts.

You’ve explained your viewpoint, yes, and we’ve explained why it’s not a good one. If you want to educate people about aromanticism, don’t get all butthurt when aros try to educate you. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, nonmerci said:

Well, as I said, I DID have something to say but I didn't because I had the feeling that you will react badly, so instead I shut up. But as you asked so politely, here's my answer.

1. Principal argument, your scale is subjective.  And yes, the point you want to make is that people see relationship differently. And you show it by putting friends, queerplatonic and acquaitances at different place according to the characters. But, you position stranger and romantic partner at the sale level for both, as if for these two values it is not subjective. And ok, maybe for romantic partner people usually discussed it, but still, it seems that romance (and stranger) are somehow outside the subjective part.

2. You could have put something else. Ok, but at the end of the day, you still put this, and the person who'll watch it are not in your head.

3. You didn't know where to put it. You could have put it on the side of a character, as for the other. Or just don't put it at all. Why do you need something at the end of the end of the scale, after all? And the same thing for both characters?

4. You decided to put this one on top because people share this representation, and you don't want them to be confused by words they don't know. But you explained what queerplatonic meant. You didn't need to put romantic in the balance. In fact, I was even confused about why you include it at all, I just don't understand how it helps your explanation.

5. What you want was to explain attraction, not "aromantic culture" as you word it. You wanted to explain what it queerplatonic, platonic, etc. But if the point is to 

6. It is easier to explain. Maybe. But then, what are you explaining? That queerplatonic is between romantic and platonic. Not something different, but something less. And also that friendship naturally leads to romance. Maybe that's not what you mean, but at the end of the day, that's why alloromantic will think when they see you scale.

7. You don't explain aromantic culture but attraction. Then again, I don't see why you included a scale about subjectivity of relationship, and most of all romantic partner, something people are familiar with.

8. This is your topic and your infography, if we don't like it we should write our own. Believe me, I won't use it; but yes, I am concerned by the fact that with it you can unwillingly spread amatonormative idea, just like I am concerned when I see a homophobic movie. If you don't want people to tell you when they are hurt by your work, keep it for yourself. Instead you present it as something to show people to explain attraction. Well, I am explaining to you why I won't do that, because I think it wil be hurtful.

9. You talk to aro who don't see any problem with it, so no problem. Well of course, if you only talk to people who agree with you. And th fact that some aros agree don't mean it is ok. My mother say sexist things about girls dressing sexy. Does that means this is not sexist, because she is a woman? I don't think so. That's the same here.

 

Now, as I said in my previous comment, that's your infography, you do what you want about it. I

Well, you didn't have to acknowledge me about it and make provocative comments. I just thought when people shut up, they don't say anything. 

1. I didn't prolong the scale because it takes place on image and explanation wasn't targeted on it. 

2. I've already explained option with putting something else and removing completely. 

3. If I put something next to the scale, it would have look completely out of place and fail composition (I know what I'm doing). Also again, infographic should give clear information, so I do it. I see it as the best option. 

4. If I included more unknown words to explain my point it would confuse users reading this and they just will lose interest reading it. So I kept to explaining it through words and terms most people already know. 

5. I think it just cut off, so I can't read the whole argument. 

6. If I can change the whole person's opinion on relationship with one scale (that's not even the main topic of the guide) then it's something wrong with them, not the guide itself. 

7. I included it because it's infographic, people understand things better with pictures and it's easier, so you don't have to write paragraphs (people don't like to read big texts too). Originally it was inspired by meme about colors. 

8. People now can be insulted by everything, so I'm not surprised. I was irritated by the fact that we couldn't have a some kind of dialogue. 

9. We're talking about subjective things. Some aros can think that's OK or just really don't mind it. Just accept that different opinions exist and move on. 

Guys, really just move on because I'm getting bored from it. 

24 minutes ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

I agree with @nonmerci. And frankly, the fact that this infographic is intended to educate alloromantics on aromanticism is exactly what makes it so dangerous that the infographic does include amatonormative- And, if I’m being completely honest, arophobic- concepts.

You’ve explained your viewpoint, yes, and we’ve explained why it’s not a good one. If you want to educate people about aromanticism, don’t get all butthurt when aros try to educate you. 

Don't start with all that arophobic stuff because I'm sure aros are better than that. It's not about aromanticism, I said it four times already. You said that amatonormativity is bad, I explained that I used oversimplified amatonormative scale to explain things to people who live in amatonormative society. I think you just exaggerate things: people don't change their opinions because one scale showed them so. I think it has something to do with the fact that they lived all their life in amatonormative society. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the fifth argument. I've already tried to make you pay attention in the first messages that there are no other types of relationship because it's oversimplifies. Most people know what romantic love is (even kids). Again it's how infographic supposed to be: concise and clear. 

On 8/21/2020 at 7:47 AM, parodace said:

Notice that there aren't any other kinds of  relationships on the scale. In my opinion they can be over romantic partner on the scale but again this wasn't the point I was trying to make.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, parodace said:

Well, you didn't have to acknowledge me about it and make provocative comments. I just thought when people shut up, they don't say anything. 

Provavocative? I think people here were polite. They praised your infography and then express what disturb them in a polite way. Some people were less polite after seeing their arguments ignored, but that's part of discussion.

 

Now, I con't answer everything because I already explain it clearly in the previous post. But here's some thoughts.

8 minutes ago, parodace said:

1. I didn't prolong the scale because it takes place on image and explanation wasn't targeted on it. 

That didn't really answer my first point, which was about how your decision leads your scale to misses it point.

9 minutes ago, parodace said:

4. If I included more unknown words to explain my point it would confuse users reading this and they just will lose interest reading it. So I kept to explaining it through words and terms most people already know. 

But I didn't say you had to add any new words so I don't realy get it.

15 minutes ago, parodace said:

6. If I can change the whole person's opinion on relationship with one scale (that's not even the main topic of the guide) then it's something wrong with them, not the guide itself. 

Nobody said that. But two things here.

The person who will read your infography probably will be introduced to the concept of queerplatonic relationship for the first time. You are not changing their view, you are creating them. So yeah, if you present it as something between friend and romantic partner, using the ladder from stranger to lover and the traditional hierarchy so they can understand... Then yes, they'll learn that it is between romantic and platonic in the hierarchy. Though for what I saw people say about QPP, it is not the case.

You won't change their view but you will confort it and add to it.

 

10 minutes ago, parodace said:

8. People now can be insulted by everything, so I'm not surprised. I was irritated by the fact that we couldn't have a some kind of dialogue. 

Please, just don't say things like this. It leads to the idea that if people are hurt, it is because there are too sensible, and not because something hurtful was made.

11 minutes ago, parodace said:

9. We're talking about subjective things. Some aros can think that's OK or just really don't mind it. Just accept that different opinions exist and move on. 

I already explain why "some aros can think that's OK" is not a proper argument. I've got a lot of things to say here, but I don't have the time to do it right now, and not really the energy. But at least, I'll say that being hurt is not an opinion.

Also, why we have this discussion is because we thought you are unintentionally hurt the aro community and add to amatonormativity with your scale. And personnaly, if I do that, I will be glad to have other aros point it to me. Then of course, I could decide with my own consciousness if what they are pointing is valid or not. Sometimes people are just misreading.

Really, it reminds me a discussion I had in the writing forum I am, about sensitivity reader and hurtful novels. One thing that comes out of this discussion is that it is really hard to discuss this calmly lol. But also to accept criticism on this subject. Because I'm pretty sure you are aware of how amatonormativity is hurtful, and that's normal that your first reaction is anger and denial if someone comes and says "hey, you are spreading amatonormative ideas". But one thing also we say in the importance of acknowledging why people are hurt, so we won't hurt them again. I don't have experience in infography, but I have a lot in beta-reading, and I can tell you : usually, if a lot of people interpret something one way or are hurt by something, then the way you did it could have been improved. I'm sure you think a lot about what your choice and work a lot on your infography (we can see it in the result), but it doesn't mean that you necessarily achieve your goal, and that's what this thread is trying to say. You explained very well your intentions as an infographer, but as the people we are receiving it, we don't get it. That's why art is difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, go to sleep. I already have said that I'm not going to change it and all my explanations go to how art, infographics and bringing information to people work (it can be earned only with experience) or you just ask me questions which I've answered before and "it's wrong because some people don't think so". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, parodace said:

Don't start with all that arophobic stuff because I'm sure aros are better than that. It's not about aromanticism, I said it four times already. You said that amatonormativity is bad, I explained that I used oversimplified amatonormative scale to explain things to people who live in amatonormative society. I think you just exaggerate things: people don't change their opinions because one scale showed them so. I think it has something to do with the fact that they lived all their life in amatonormative society. 

No, but one scale can reinforce that idea. Especially when you're presenting something that is supposed to teach them about relationships.

Anyway, since you're so concerned about presentation, I figured I'd put my graphic design degree to good use. Here you go.

135617956_Relationshipsfixed.png.1de8c8ff37286cbd9d0394fe1540e520.png

Also,

12 minutes ago, parodace said:

Guys, go to sleep. I already have said that I'm not going to change it and all my explanations go to how art, infographics and bringing information to people work (it can be earned only with experience) or you just ask me questions which I've answered before and "it's wrong because some people don't think so". 

First of all, it's 4:57 PM where I am, I'm not going to go to sleep. Secondly, you keep saying you're done with this discussion, yet you keep responding- If you're so tired of it, why don't YOU go to sleep? Nobody's holding you at gunpoint forcing you to read our replies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, nonmerci said:

 

Provavocative? I think people here were polite. They praised your infography and then express what disturb them in a polite way. Some people were less polite after seeing their arguments ignored, but that's part of discussion.

 

Now, I con't answer everything because I already explain it clearly in the previous post. But here's some thoughts.

That didn't really answer my first point, which was about how your decision leads your scale to misses it point.

But I didn't say you had to add any new words so I don't realy get it.

Nobody said that. But two things here.

The person who will read your infography probably will be introduced to the concept of queerplatonic relationship for the first time. You are not changing their view, you are creating them. So yeah, if you present it as something between friend and romantic partner, using the ladder from stranger to lover and the traditional hierarchy so they can understand... Then yes, they'll learn that it is between romantic and platonic in the hierarchy. Though for what I saw people say about QPP, it is not the case.

You won't change their view but you will confort it and add to it.

 

Please, just don't say things like this. It leads to the idea that if people are hurt, it is because there are too sensible, and not because something hurtful was made.

I already explain why "some aros can think that's OK" is not a proper argument. I've got a lot of things to say here, but I don't have the time to do it right now, and not really the energy. But at least, I'll say that being hurt is not an opinion.

Also, why we have this discussion is because we thought you are unintentionally hurt the aro community and add to amatonormativity with your scale. And personnaly, if I do that, I will be glad to have other aros point it to me. Then of course, I could decide with my own consciousness if what they are pointing is valid or not. Sometimes people are just misreading.

Really, it reminds me a discussion I had in the writing forum I am, about sensitivity reader and hurtful novels. One thing that comes out of this discussion is that it is really hard to discuss this calmly lol. But also to accept criticism on this subject. Because I'm pretty sure you are aware of how amatonormativity is hurtful, and that's normal that your first reaction is anger and denial if someone comes and says "hey, you are spreading amatonormative ideas". But one thing also we say in the importance of acknowledging why people are hurt, so we won't hurt them again. I don't have experience in infography, but I have a lot in beta-reading, and I can tell you : usually, if a lot of people interpret something one way or are hurt by something, then the way you did it could have been improved. I'm sure you think a lot about what your choice and work a lot on your infography (we can see it in the result), but it doesn't mean that you necessarily achieve your goal, and that's what this thread is trying to say. You explained very well your intentions as an infographer, but as the people we are receiving it, we don't get it. That's why art is difficult.

I was talking about your comment. Because your part about not taking criticism came out of nowhere after I tried to explain the same thing three times. Even your questions show that you didn't really read that I've answered you the first time. 

Again, I explain vague term with something that people know because even resources I used couldn't give a clear image of it  and why it's not considered just friendship. Everyone experience is different as it was shown. 

I used everything I could to bringing information to people. You keep saying about some other ways but I don't see any. 

Well, that's why I tried to keep the scale that way: for people to understand that. That's the point of infographic.

1 minute ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

No, but one scale can reinforce that idea. Especially when you're presenting something that is supposed to teach them about relationships.

Anyway, since you're so concerned about presentation, I figured I'd put my graphic design degree to good use. Here you go.

135617956_Relationshipsfixed.png.1de8c8ff37286cbd9d0394fe1540e520.png

Also,

First of all, it's 4:57 PM where I am, I'm not going to go to sleep. Secondly, you keep saying you're done with this discussion, yet you keep responding- If you're so tired of it, why don't YOU go to sleep? Nobody's holding you at gunpoint forcing you to read our replies.

I'm really talkative tonight, also I just care about your sleep. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, nonmerci said:

The person who will read your infography probably will be introduced to the concept of queerplatonic relationship for the first time. You are not changing their view, you are creating them. So yeah, if you present it as something between friend and romantic partner, using the ladder from stranger to lover and the traditional hierarchy so they can understand... Then yes, they'll learn that it is between romantic and platonic in the hierarchy.

They are likely to do this unless you try very hard to stop them. Since progression/escalation along with relationship hierarchy is a part of amantonormativity.
Odds on the typical allo will conflate the whole thing with "friends first" or "romo lite".
 

36 minutes ago, nonmerci said:

Though for what I saw people say about QPP, it is not the case.

It's not that hard to find definitions of QPRs which strongly imply "in between". As well as descriptions which are very much romance like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, parodace said:

was talking about your comment. Because your part about not taking criticism came out of nowhere after I tried to explain the same thing three times. Even your questions show that you didn't really read that I've answered you the first time. 

I read what to say. If I didn"t, how could I have response to it? I may not remember everything you said, but I did read it and explain why I think your arguments don't work. Then you aswered me with the same arguments you used before, as if I didn't get it the first time.

And yes, I did said you don't take criticism because basically, all you do is to justify yourself. I'm sorry but this is true. I don't see anywhere in your post somewhere that shows that you take criticism into account and try to understand why people are hurt by what you are saying. You get angry about and said we didn't answer your argument after @eatingcroutons did respond to your argument. Excuse me, but yes, that part made me think that you don't want to hear what we have to say and just ignore our arguments. In other words,that you don't take into account the criticism we are making.I have experience in beta-reading, and what you say remind me of some people I see that were not reading to admit they may have done something wrong and refuse to listen yet because they need time to accept whatwas said. Sorry if this was not the case.

 

Also, I want to point why the discussion is going in circle right now. We are talking about how the message can be hurtful, but you answer by talking about infographic technics. Basically, it seems like you say that yes, the message is amatonormative, but you don't care because it serves your infographic purposes. Maybe that's not what you mean, but that's why I get from your message. Do you confirm?

 

Edited by nonmerci
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...