Nai Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Sorry if I put this in the wrong spot, I wasn't exactly sure where to put this. I've noticed that some number of members here use the term "alloromantic" to describe someone who is not aromantic. So I thought it's worth a shot to talk about it. But first, allow me to compare it to "allosexual", which is used by some asexuals to describe a person who is not asexual. Sexual members were polled on AVEN about whether or not they are okay with being called "allosexual". The majority of sexuals there said "No, I do not like it". The AVEN admod team does not use the term and instead simply calls them "sexual". Reasons vary, but here are a few: -The French LGBT community uses the term allosexual to mean queer, allo meaning "other", so "other-sexual" and would like to have this word for themself without a different meaning, as it is very important to them. -Many LGBT folk specifically said that they do not want to be called allosexual. -Though this one can be argued, queer individuals do not want to lumped into a group with heterosexuals. -Relations with the ace community and the LGBT community are still kind of rocky, sadly, and since using "allosexual" doesn't really help our goals some asexuals (like myself) do not use the word. I feel like maybe the term "alloromantic" should be treated the same. The term "allosexual" didn't really affect me since I do not fall into that category, but being called an "alloromantic" is kind of...unsettling, I suppose? It's not something I like very much, haha. Maybe just calling us "romantics" or "non-aros" would work better. Would like to hear your thoughts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.