Do you think there are topics still not explored fully in the aro community?

[illumi]

idt many ppl r ready for the orchidspec conversation yet. we just got to work on the exclus 1st be4 allat 

[The Newest Fabled Creature]

4 hours ago, LIVI0 said:

idt many ppl r ready for the orchidspec conversation yet. we just got to work on the exclus 1st be4 allat 

I think that the Orchidspec is really fascinating - not to diminish the reality of it though by calling it fascinating.

I identified as orchidromantic for a while, because during my questioning phase I was trying to parse out if my past alterous attraction was romantic attraction, but soon I realized the identity didn't really speak to my experience when I found I didn't experience romantic attraction at all, not even when I was younger.

The spectrum is valid and it would be cool to hear orchidromantic experiences.

[illumi]

4 hours ago, The Newest Fabled Creature said:

I think that the Orchidspec is really fascinating - not to diminish the reality of it though by calling it fascinating.

I identified as orchidromantic for a while, because during my questioning phase I was trying to parse out if my past alterous attraction was romantic attraction, but soon I realized the identity didn't really speak to my experience when I found I didn't experience romantic attraction at all, not even when I was younger.

The spectrum is valid and it would be cool to hear orchidromantic experiences.

yes it is. but itll be harder to get the wider community to listen other than this cozy lil site. ppl have been knowing aro as lil to no romantic attraction for so long and orchidspec also being part of the arospec will def confuse a shit load of em. awakening even more exclus along the way. itll suck. but inevitable 

[Fruitpunch]

I agree that the orchid conversation feels needed. 38,000,000 Americans say they're single and want to remain that way, according to the Pew Research Center (15% of US adults), so how does the aro community relate to that fact? Others outside of our space are committed to research on what's called singles studies (Bella DePaulo) and building their own online communities around them (Depaulo again) and social scientist Peter McGraw with his podcast, Slack community and upcoming book, Solo. Solo itself as a term grew out of the poly community, so how is that angle different than ours for a similar/same concept?

I wonder how we as aros relate to this concept. It's interesting to see Depaulo, McGraw, and poly authors mention aros in a way that feels to me a bit under-researched or simplified. Do we want to have a voice in these spaces? What will we do with our terms vs. their terms for the same concepts (orchid, nonamorous, single at heart, solo)? Why do we usually identify as queer while these other communities do not? What can we learn from Depaulo's years of scientific research?

I have a lot of thoughts in this arena. I agree that it seems worthy of discussion.

Edited December 10, 2023 by Fruitpunch
typoes

[Holmbo]

@Fruitpunchm

I agree it's interesting. I'll make a thread of it's own for this conversation so it doesn't get buried.

 

Edited December 10, 2023 by Holmbo

[The Newest Fabled Creature]

I do know that non-SAM aros are talked about, but sometimes people (both aspecs and non-aspecs) still get tripped up that some aros or asexuals don't differentiate their attractions.

Some people use their asexual label to explain their romantic attraction and don't really call themselves aro nor alloro, and some aromantics also use aromanticism to describe their sexuality and don't label themselves as ace or allo.

Some aromantics, like me, feel that their aro identity also effects their sexual attraction, where although I may call myself allosexual and can experience sexual attraction (and so may be considered a SAM aro by other people), I don't want to pursue sexual relationships because of my lack of wanting to pursue romantic or queerplatonic ones.

Edited February 3 by The Newest Fabled Creature