Ace_of_Spades Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 (edited) Prior to getting onto asexual online forums and spaces, I thought that the word "aromantic asexual"-indicating a lack of sexual or romantic attraction to any gender-was adequately able to convey that I am not attracted to boys, girls, or any other gender. After all, the dominant definition of an orientation is the gender to which a person experiences attraction. Most of the world does not experience split attraction (myself included), meaning that most people get to use one singular word to describe their orientation. However, I then discovered the split attraction model introduced 6 billion other "forms of attraction" and that some people who identify as aromantic asexual still seem to have a gender preference. I'm powerless to stop the micro-labeling, which means the solution might be yet another micro-label. Think about this. The average heterosexual, who is attracted to the opposite gender, does not typically have to say that he/she is a hetero-aesthetic, hetero-affectionate hetero-alterous, hetero-sensual, heteroromantic, heterosexual. The average homosexual does not typically have to say that he/she is homo-aesthetic, homo-affectionate, homo-alterous, homo-sensual, homoromantic, homosexual. The average bisexual doesn't typically have to say that he/she is bi-aesthetic, bi-affectionate, bi-alterous, bi-sensual, biromantic, bisexual. Why should I, as someone who is not attracted to boys, girls, or any other gender (and doesn't date, partner, or engage in physical intimacy with any gender) have to go around saying that I am an a-aesthetic, a-affectionate, a-alterous, a-sensual, aromantic, asexual to get the point across? I should not. I would like to separate myself from people who generally experience attraction to a gender and engage in dating, partnering, or physical intimacy. I feel like people became very understanding of me when I started explaining "aromantic asexual" as "I'm not attracted to boys, girls, or any other gender." However, if the split attraction model (which does not apply to me) is micro-labeling that away, I do not want allos to think that I could possibly still be experiencing attraction that I am simply not acting upon in a certain way. Being able to convey that I am not attracted to boys, girls, or any other gender is important to: (1) keep unwanted interest away from me (I have gotten unwanted interest from people who I could not adequately convey my lack of interest in all genders by telling them I am asexual), (2) to communicate my lack of interest in everyone (I have had people who thought that I could be interested in them because "asexual" was somehow also insufficient to communicate my lack of interest), and: (3) to prevent me from being discriminated against over misunderstanding of who I am (in law school, I was discriminated against because people thought that me being single my whole life made me a closet lesbian. My mother also insisted that I must have a medical condition for being asexual). I do not want to lose the power to convey this if aromanticism starts to become "split" too. What are your thoughts?? Edited April 10 by Ace_of_Spades 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.