On "Alloromantic"

[Nai]

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!

[Rising Sun]

I don't think that the word is totally useless. But it isn't very useful, in general. So the only context where I use it is to talk about people who are "fully romantic", like not aromantic, not grey-romantic. Same with allosexual. But even there, it's more truly nitpicking than anything else.

[SoulWolf]

I don't think most romantic people would even know what it means unless they hang out in the same corners of the internet that we do.

 

"Romantic people" seems easier for me to make sense of and pronounce in my mind than "alloromantics".

[cute kitty Meow! Mewo!]

i understand what it means very naturally if someone uses it, but i don't use the term myself. if I talk about romantic folk I always make sure to append "folk" or "people" or something after, to also avoid calling them "romantics" either because that feels kind of off too. TBH I also try to only say "aro's" as slang and not "aromantics" because I feel saying "aromantics" is also a little... unsettling, as you put it, heh. 

 

I confess I am not perfect, I am sure I slip here and there. but I try to use "aromantic" and "romantic" as adjectives, when referring to people. 

[techno]

9 hours ago, SwankyPants said:

I try to use "aromantic" and "romantic" as adjectives, when referring to people. 

 

I hadn't realized it, but I do this too. Something about referring to people as adjectives in general is off-putting. It feels like putting people into categories instead of referring to an attribute of that person. Saying "romantics" or "aromantics" feels like it's painting everyone with the same brush, while saying "romantic people" and "aromantic people" feels better. "Alloromantic" and "allosexual" kind of feel the same way. Admittedly I don't pay too much attention to all of this in context, because conversationally anything slips out, but it's important to consider how we refer to people.

 

I think I kind of digressed there? Sorry.

[brsajo]

I don't mind being called alloromantic. In fact, I'd prefer that to being called just "romantic" because I'm unsure of the extent of how romantic I am. I could be greyromantic, I could also be fully romantic, but I'm pretty sure I'm not aromantic. I identify as alloromantic as a general term, until I find one I feel fits me more specifically.

[Quinoa]

It is an interesting word. I'm not super comfortable with using the term "sexual" for other people who haven't said they are okay with it, because I think in our culture, there is a stigma attached to it, at least for women. But "romantic" doesn't have the same stigma. It's interesting that people did not want to be referred to as "allosexual." i had not heard that before. 

Some people do use allosexual as excluding grey-a's and demis, while sexual includes anyone not completely asexual.

Of course, I'm aro and ace, so I'm not the one who would be called those things. So I think this is definitely worth talking about, but I don't know what the right answer is. 

[omitef]

Maybe simply non-ace and non-aro. Abbreviated as Nace and Naro.

[Zema]

2 minutes ago, omitef said:

Maybe simply non-ace and non-aro. Abbreviated as Nace and Naro.

Except some people might read "naro" as "narrow" which is problematic. But then those shirts that say "I'm aro not narrow" would have an entirely new meaning...

 

I have personally never used the "allo" prefix in front of either sexual or romantic. I just don't really like the prefix.

[omitef]

Just now, Zemaddog said:

Except some people might read "naro" as "narrow" which is problematic. But then those shirts that say "I'm aro not narrow" would have an entirely new meaning...

 

Meaningful shirts, Zem, think of all the profit! 

[aihpen]

I didn't know there was a problem with using "allo-"... I'm fine with using sexual and romantic instead, but I've also heard about the term zedsexual/-romantic, is that maybe a better alternative?

[Jade]

I'm fine using allo, including allosexual to describe myself, personally. I'd rather be called an "allo aro" than a "sexual aro", personally... I feel like "romantic" doesn't have the same connotation as "sexual" does, so if people prefer "romantic" to describe non-aro peeps, I'm fine with that! I normally use "romantic" instead of "alloromantic" anyway, just because I'm lazy with typing. I'm also fine with zed. But I, personally, prefer being called an allo aro, an allosexual aro, a zedsexual aro, a zed aro, etc etc, than a "sexual aro", which feels kind of uncomfortable. If that's majority preference, I'll go with it, but I'd be surprised tbh.

 

I don't like non-aro though. I just... ehhh. It feels like "we don't need a word for it, that's just ~normal~."

[Nai]

Thanks for the responses so far! Looking back at my first post now, maybe my suggestions weren't that great.  I just typed the first two that came to my head that didn't bug me as much.

 

I don't mind being called a "romantic", though "romantic person" might work better. I feel like using "a romantic" has some slighty negative connotations to it. For example, the first thing my mind goes to upon reading "a romantic is "a helpless romantic", which....isn't a compliment.  I agree with Swanky that using "romantic" and "aromantic" as adjectives is a good approach.

 

Of course, slips of the tongue happen and we all have different preferences to what we like and don't like being called. If another romantic person is fine with being called "alloromantic", then that's alright. For me though, I'd rather not.

[Kojote]

I'm fine using allo as well as just romantic, I don't necessarily mind either way. 

But I'd like to ask some questions concerning the reasons named above for allosexuals. 

 

On 27.7.2016 at 5:23 PM, Nai said:

-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

 Is there a similar use for the word alloromantic already? 

Spoiler

 

-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.

 

Wouldn't we still do this? We'd still use one word for both LGBT and Hetero people. 

 

I'm really interested in seeing the results of a similar poll, now. Because in my head, if someone says "He's romantic", I picture the whole rose petals and moonlight dinner routine (aka someone who's really into romantic gestures and expression). Which is not necessarily what every person with a romantic orientation identifies with. I always liked to use the word allo in front of it to paint with a broader brush, but I certainly don't  mind not using it anymore. 

 

[Nai]

@Kojote I'm not sure if alloromantic is used the same way as allosexual in Quebec, I'll do some digging later and find that out.

 

As for the content in the spoiler I totally agree, which is why I said it can be argued. That's just an argument I've heard before, but it's literally almost impossible to avoid. That's not the reason why I don't use allosexual.

 

Haha, the same goes for saying "He's sexual". I imagine a guy sprawled out nude on a bed  Which is why I thought that "non-aro" might be a good substitute. Or maybe "those outside of/not on the aromantic spectrum", though that's a little lengthy.

[Kojote]

Yeah, I never used the word allosexual, other then for orientations, as in allo aro or allo ace.

I'm not sure though, non-aro seems a bit divisive. I mean, technically all these words are, but non-aro sound the most like "not one of us", but maybe that's just me |D" 

 

If a lot of romantic people don't like the word, I'll stop using it, but I personally find it convenient because it's short, can't be confounded with another, already existing word and still leaves the specific nature of their romantic feelings open. 

 

 

[Saaaro]

Lumping people together is pretty much impossible to avoid. Heck, I did it just then when I said "people". I tend to use allo, just because that's the word I'm used to, though I'm happy to change. Not a fan of non-aro/non-ace though. It's kind of a double negative, and is defining people by what they're not which isn't great. Also not a fan of romantic/sexual for the reasons others have mentioned above. I'd be hugely uncomfortable being called a "sexual person", but I'm totally ok with allosexual.

[Dodecahedron314]

I've also seen the zed- prefix used to avoid the problem of appropriation of Quebecois queer terminology (though to the best of my knowledge the allo- prefix was used in reference to non-ace people before it was coined in that context...?) Was that an option in the AVEN survey, or was this before that was coined?

 

I'd say that, admittedly from the perspective of someone who's both aro and ace and so doesn't quite have a personal stake in the matter, having some sort of specific term other than just "romantic/sexual" has more benefits than the alternative. Many people are indeed uncomfortable with the designation of romantic or sexual because of the connotations they carry, non-ace and non-aro both sort of have an othering connotation (either towards the people they apply to, or to aces and aros who could be construed as "not normal" under this terminology), and the argument that either allo-* or zed-* terminology is bad because it groups MOGAI people whom it applies to with straight people could just as easily be applied to "cisgender", and thankfully it appears as though the only people who haven't gotten over that one yet are Tumblr users who are generally angered by anything that dares suggest the existence of people who aren't identical to them.

 

 

[Rising Sun]

In the past, I saw  a few times "verisexual" with the same use as "allosexual". I haven't seen it being used for a while though.

Although I'm not a fan of those kind of words, I find "verisexual" / "veriromantic" (or with a y instead of the i) more positive than "allo". Plenty of people say "I'm very sexual / I'm very romantic" so it sounds exactly the same.

[Natkat]

I don't mind being called just sexual or allosexual. I am fine with both, but I do think the allo is practical somethimes.

 

the thing is word such as "sexual" and "romantic" has a deeper meaning than just what we think when we use to talk about it within the aro/ace comunity. 

 

an allosexual person may experience sexual attraction but not be what you typically consider "a sexual person" they may not be very sexual active, maybe they are celibate or a virgin, yet they still experience sexual attraction.

 

the same would be for an alloromantic person who may not fit into the stereotype of what we think of a "romantic person" yet still feel the attraction. 

 

I think the allo is pretty good to seperate and point out that we are speaking of an attraction and not on an action or stereptype which could be misleading when someone say "oh she is a romantic person" or "he is sexual".

--

I never understood the point with lgbt people. Yes I believe its very different being aro or ace and lgbt than straight, but its posible to be priviliged in some area and not in others. like if you are a ciswomen you still more priviliged than a transwoman but it does not mean being a woman is a privilige but it mean you have one less thing to stuggle with. 

 

there are many variations, experience one type of opression doent mean you cant be priviliged in other areas, and opposite. also alot of labels have grayzones within it.

 

what im trying to say is I believe some aro/ace "fit in more easly" with the norm where others may not, some may also have to deal with other issues such as disability, race, being lgbt and so on, but it doesnt mean a person cant be aro or ace as well or that one of the opression are less real than the other. 

 

the statement I have heard is that it should be more easy being aro or ace than lgbt but I think its really REALLY rare that a person who is grown up in a anti-lgbt enviroment has any benefits from being aro or ace. even those place tend to have a certain expectation that you are still hetroromantic and hetrosexual even if you have to wait "to the point of marriage" or something like that the expectation is there and if you dont fullfill it you dont and fall into the norm and will be punished. I guess its only in very few caise like maybe if you was expected to become a nun or something, that it could be beneficial to be aro or ace, but in general I dont think so.

 

the other thing I heard if that its not beneficial for women because women are sexualised. 

I dont think thats a good agument either, cause women are pretty much harmed no matter what they do. whenever if they are too sexual or not sexual enough, too romantic or not romantic enough. again the expectation is not that you NEVER are romantic or sexual, but that you are so in a certain way.

 

I think the france definition is a problem. not to the point we should stop using allo but to the point that I did wish it was another word than allo being used instead. I dont think we should be think too much of it like "OMG in France they say this so now we cant use it." honestly there are alot of language in the world and we cant be sure that one word does not mean something else in another one (which is also why I never use "bae") 

I have experience this thing. because I feel in my language word such as "queer" have a different meaning compared to english which have lead to fustration at times because I dont find what im looking for when I just type "queer" in english, and also I have to explain myself alot. I had abit simular issues with word such as "transgender and transexual in the past, but today I dont see many forums in english use "transexual" anymore so its not that much of a deal now.

------

to sum it all up, I think allo is a practical word to decribe with. I think the critique is interesting and have some good point but right now I feel they have been abit too simplified.

 

I feel allo remind me alot of "cis" in many ways. also to the point when its mentioned most allosexual dont like it.

Sure some people just prefer sexual or romantic compared with allo (it also does sound more casual), but I do think most sexuals on aven are both romantic and sexual allo people (since I seen very few allosexuals there) 

 

I somehow understand if an ace or aro prefer not to use the terms for whatever reason but I feel it somehow funny if a allosexual/romantic refuse to because it remindeds me of when cispeople refuse to call themself "cis" but still demand to call trans people "trans". but that just me.

 

 

[Rising Sun]

"Allosexuel" as a synonymous for "LGB" is used exclusively in Quebec, I never heard about it in France. 

[Blue Phoenix Ace]

"Allosexual" is apparently offensive to a majority of sexual people. They don't understand why we would need a new word to describe something that "sexual" already describes. I think it's helpful to use the word when speaking about asexuality specifically as it helps remove any ambiguity between "asexual" and "a sexual", though context should already help with that. Given that it isn't a very useful term, I personally will stop using allosexual (or alloromantic).

 

Also, these terms should never be used as a noun. Imagine if you had diabetes and someone called you "a diabetic". It reduces you as a person down to a single negative condition about you. It would be far better to say "a diabetic person" or "a person with diabetes", etc. So, please always use them as adjectives.

[iridescent-apatosaurus]

Just wondering for the purposes of this discussion, does anyone know the origion of the term? What context it was originally introduced in?

[Cassiopeia]

On 29 July 2016 at 1:31 AM, Natkat said:

I feel allo remind me alot of "cis" in many ways.

 

Yeah, those debates on the blue hellsite when some people decided that "cis" or "allistic" is a slur and felt offended by it.

I just don't get it. Was it because they ran into a few rants written by angry trans activists? Its not like its been used as a slur, there is no actual cisphobia, nobody is oppressed because they are content with the gender assigned at birth.

The same thing with allo. Are people upset because the have read a few rants about amatonormativity or about allonormativity? Come on. Throwing a tantrum because another marginalised group finally has a voice and has words to talk about their experiences shouldn't make you uncomfortable.

 

Saying simply "sexual" or "romantic" person already means a thing, and therefore it can e quite confusing. When someone describes a person as "romantic" they would expect that someone to be very intensely into romantic stuff, likes to listen to lovesongs and watches a lot of fluffy movies. As opposed to "someone who gets crushes sometimes and wants a partner and marriage someday".

 

I'm a lot more comfortable with "allosexual" than with simply just "sexual". My sexuality does get treated as a category on pornhub and often I feel like my whole existence is nsfw. There is no need to make it more difficult to explain.

 

If there is an actual, legit problem with it, its maybe how clinical it sounds (Is it latin? I think so.) Something casual would be nice.

 

Where is that allosexual/romantic majority that does not like this word? Cos these words were invented by (aro)aces, to discuss aro and ace experiences, so most allosexual alloromantic people haven't even heard these terms. Most of them don't use these words because if you are not aro or ace,  there is no need to do so? They don't really go to AVEN or any other ace sites to vote in these polls in large enough numbers?

 

I am neurodivergent but allistic. It does not offend me when I get put into the same group with neurotypical people, because it is necessary and logical in order to talk about autism.

Allistic does not mean the same thing as neurotypical, that's why we need another word to describe it.

 

Also, I'd rather be called "queer" than "non-hetero". My orientation shouldn't only exist as an alternative thing or a variant that can only be described compared to heterosexuality or heteroromanticism. The problem is with "non-ace" and "non-aro" is the same. 

 

On 1 August 2016 at 10:47 PM, Blue Phoenix Ace said:

Also, these terms should never be used as a noun. Imagine if you had diabetes and someone called you "a diabetic". It reduces you as a person down to a single negative condition about you. It would be far better to say "a diabetic person" or "a person with diabetes", etc. So, please always use them as adjectives.

 

But being allosexual or alloromantic isn't a a negative condition? Medical conditions and identities are different.

And "a person with lesbianism" sounds weird? I have heard people saying "lesbians" but "lesbian people" wasn't something I have really seen or heard in any written or spoken context? Someone teach me how to english...

 

On 27 July 2016 at 4:23 PM, Nai said:

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.

 

But why does the french and the english terminology has to match? Different languages and cultures already have their own words for "gay". If you mirror translate queer slang to other languages, you will just get some random words.

According to google translate, in Italian "allo" means "the"...

 

TL,DR: if allosexual and alloromantic aren't good enough, then we need some brand new words to describe these concepts.

[Mark]

7 hours ago, Cassiopeia said:

Saying simply "sexual" or "romantic" person already means a thing, and therefore it can e quite confusing. When someone describes a person as "romantic" they would expect that someone to be very intensely into romantic stuff, likes to listen to lovesongs and watches a lot of fluffy movies. As opposed to "someone who gets crushes sometimes and wants a partner and marriage someday".

 

I'm a lot more comfortable with "allosexual" than with simply just "sexual". My sexuality does get treated as a category on pornhub and often I feel like my whole existence is nsfw. There is no need to make it more difficult to explain.

 

If there is an actual, legit problem with it, its maybe how clinical it sounds (Is it latin? I think so.) Something casual would be nice.

Exactly, with "sexual" and "romantic" on their own there tends to be an assumption along the lines of "hyper-".
Not sure "allo" is right as a neutral prefix. It comes from Greek meaning "other". Really needs one which means "with", not sure of the Greek, though the Latin is "sin" which just wouldn't work.