Why can't people get the definition? Just a rant

[nonmerci]

I hesitated because it nos a big thing, but I am still furious and I need to complain lol.

 

So, I am French, so I watched English-speaking show dubbed in French or with French subtitles. I can read English but it is harder to understand when people speak, though the more I hear th more it gets easier.

 

I was watching Bojack Horseman (which is an awesome show by the way) with English subtitles. In this show, a character is discovering his asexuality. So there is the episode where this character thinks that asexual can't get married. Another character explains that some characters do get maried, and that « some are aromantic ». That's exactly what she says « some asexual are also aromantic ».

Now, if you speak French, you may think : the subtitles probably wrote : « certains asexuels sont aussi aromantiques ».

Well, no.

The subtitles wrote : « some asexuals are against any relationship » (« certains asexuels sont contre toute relation »).

 

1) If the person who make subtitles thought « aromantic » was not clear for people who are not a-spec, why didn't they write something like « they don't fall in love ». That simplifies things but it is more accurate.

2) I am not against relationship. If instead of « some asexuals are in couple like anyone else », the character said « some asexuals are alloromantic », would they have translated that as « some asexuals are against singlehood » ? Would they define heterosexuality as « being against homosexuality » ? I don't think so.

3) Where this « any relationship » came from ? Is romance the only relationship that exist ? (or romance and sex as I suppose it was implied « against romantic or sexual relationship ») Friendship is a relationship. Family is a relationship. And I am probably forgetting others too. The definition is « not attracted to romance », not « being an hermit » (though if an aromantic person is also an hermit, they are totally valid).

 

And the weirdest thing is : it is only the case in the subtitles. If you listen to the dubbed French version, she says the same thing as in English. So this is just the people who write subtitles that decided they will spread wrong ideas. And that's what makes me furious. There is this show that wants to be inclusive, and the subtitles were like « nope, let's ruin it for all the people who watch in vostfr ». That's not fair.

 

And I'll add it is not the first time something like this happen. It is related to asexuality, not aromanticism. But I remember a show (I think it was The end of the fucking world) that mentions briefly asexuality, and the French version didn't say the word. That's so weird.

 

As I said it is not a big thing, but my, that made me so angry for some reason.

[vinniebandit]

Some US/UK shows have english subs that tweak the original speech - probably in part due to the length of the subs and time needed to read them before the next sentence.

Youtube auto subs are the worst for that.

[Blake]

4 hours ago, nonmerci said:

As I said it is not a big thing, but my, that made me so angry for some reason.

It is still valid and I would categorize it as a microaggression.  It is the small things that can accumulate and make in the future a bigger problem. Aro erasure is a thing that happens daily, we can only hope to bring awareness so the world knows about us and the future generations do not have to suffer the same things we do in the present.

[roboticanary]

yeah this is something it is fair to be annoyed with.

The phrasing makes it seem like it is a choice rather than an aspect of who you are which is really frustrating. 

 

[PeepsInTheChiliPot]

That is frustrating. I’m hard of hearing and have an auditory processing disorder so I use captions most of the time. The amount of stuff that is paraphrased, cut out, and changed from the audio drives me crazy. Sometimes the meaning is still there, they just reworded it and other times they change what was said enough that the meaning is different. And I’m watching original English audio with English captions so there is no translation needed. 

[Nagito]

I'm personally fed up with one psychologist who created 'the definition™' of aromanticism saying that 'aromanticism means a person who doesn't want to have a romantic relationship' and doesn't want to correct it to the one made by AUREA. The worst is that people prefer to listen to him instead of me who is aromantic and activitist. It looks like allos in general prefer to listen to themselves instead of us while the topic is about us.

[mewix]

Ngl in some ways I prefer aspects of 'the aro is someone who is not interested in relationships' becauase its somewhat easier to define. It's clear to see who is interested who is not. I guess it's kind of simplistic.

Then again there is the problem that includes too many people and some aros do have normative relationships. Many single by choice people wouldn't consider themselves aro and have other reasons for it like prioritising self growth or political.

For some people being romantic is more a relationship style and that some people do get relationships without romance, in fact I seen relationships centered only around sex, does it make it aro?

By allo I assume you mean alloromantic rather than allosexual who can be aro. It gets confusing at times. 

Aromantic defintion does talk about those who cannot feel romance well it's hard to define what that is.  And it sort of implies it's innate but is romance really something innate to people in the same way as sexuality? Or more a personal trait or a choice, unless it is ofc neurological issues which cause it. I don't do romance because I don't like it but does being repulsed mean theoretically I could participate in the act. 

Maybe its somepart political or just seeing that it's not the right thing for me. I also think romance is at least in part socially constructed though I guess you could look to nature and things like birds dancing in courtship could be "romance". I just don't think romance tho is innate to people tbh, maybe the want for emotional connection and how you express it differently. But if culture changed could many romantic acts dissapear? Or is it a sign of a developed culture, I say because romance didn't exist in some cultures.

I can do many the actions of "romance" outside of that context of trying to get a relationship like even with friends its nice to get them gifts and that. But since its not in the partnered context and that I don't consider it romance and I don't know I think some "romance" is a little overwhelming and kinda eeh. I mean some societies things like gifts are the backbone of their economy so yeah any of these things are not necessarily romance more the context of it.

I assume that definition of not wanting a relationship and aro comes from the fact like in bojack "some asexuals want relationships and some don't", and a simplified understanding of that.

I guess like it could be defined like sexual attraction like not having romantic attraction to someone but then its still confusing what romance is lol. Like is it the desire for partnership cuz its possible to have such without romance so I guess its more the courtship behaviours and things between it. For all I know I might not be aro at all but the defintion is confusing so I don't know who is and who isnt including only that I relate to some of the experiences and romance or relationships do not interest me. But that isn't removed from my views and that.

Edited July 28, 2021 by mewix

[nonmerci]

@mewixthe problem is that as aro are the one who came with that definition, they are expected to define what romantic attraction is, except that it is already very hard to describe a feeling that we feel, so a feeling that we don't feel... impossible lol.

For me, even if sure there is a part of social construction in romance (as in any kind of relationship), the feeling in itself is not socially constructed, it does exist. And that's why I prefer a definition that refer to that feeling. Because as you said, anybody can chose to engage or not engage in a romantic relationship, but they can't chose to feel or not to feel the romantic feelings.

The simple definition I use with people is "I don't fall in love (and I don't have crushes)". To include grayros we could add "rarely or under specific circumstances". For me it describes what "romantic attraction" means without using a word I would have to define. Sometimes I talk about "attirance amoureuse" (love attraction) because in French "amoureux" only refers to romance so everybody gets it.