The decreasing age of the aromantic community

[HelloThere]

1 hour ago, Apex said:

Good advice!

I'm 26 myself and was aware of aromanticism when I was 13, and knew about things like asexuality a bit earlier. But I agree age demographics are starting to skew younger, and not just irt aromantic spaces. I think it has to do with a few things

1. Increased awareness of different identities/orientations/etc
2. A push away from social media and towards things like personal websites and forums (not like a mass exodus, but more younger people being interested in these things)
3. Older members having gotten all their thoughts out, made all the posts they can think of, giving the advice they have, and then becoming less active for various reasons (life, moving towards more private spaces or friend groups, etc)

I've noticed this in other communities as well, and I can think of a few instances where I've been the young person moving in to "replace" older members who'd left

Yeah, I came on recently and saw so many dead posts that I could relate to that helped me be more confident. People are (not all just more than before) finding more niche areas of the internet to sorta enjoy and hide out in. I mean I’m glad that there’s so much more awareness but dang it, the cost is more uncertainty at a younger age. The younger one figures it out, the longer one can end up wrestling with their mind while biding their time to be more sure of themselves.

[DeltaAro]

On 5/17/2023 at 6:13 AM, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

DON'T call other people's attraction or life choices disgusting, annoying, weird, illogical, etc., at least not publicly. I know it can be tough to grow up in a world that pushes romance and sex, but be mindful of who can hear you. Many members of your own community experience sexual or even sometimes romantic attraction, and don't deserve to be demonized for that. Remember also that in the cases of queer people, people of color, people of differing religions, etc. many people have had their relationships forbidden or even been outright killed for their attraction. (Did you know that interracial marriages were not federally legal in the U.S. until 1967? That's my grandparents' generation. And gay marriage was not federally legalized until 2015, when I was 17 years old.) It's totally ok to vent in private with friends, but publicly talking shit about romance or sex in general tends to not do much other than develop an "us vs. them" mindset. People who experience romantic and sexual attraction are not some sort of science experiment for you to gawk at- They're your friends, family, neighbors, community members, and most importantly, your potential allies. Treat them as you would have them treat you.

It's no good to mock romantic or sexual attraction, I agree. BUT:

Sexuality has always been shamed and repressed by allosexuals themselves, until today, and regardless of political orientation (they shame different aspects of it). Not always just sexual minorities, any sex.

Romance on the other hand was never really shamed, because it's regarded as a sort of sublimation of sexual desire. So we shouldn't pretend there's some kind of symmetry here.

The "kids" have to make up their own mind about sexuality. There just are many powerful voices who try to influence them, so I hope they keep a healthy dose of skepticism.

I don't think that we have to believe that all consensual sex is fundamentally healthy, good and empowering. Even if it is, sexual attraction can be quite bad, because of the frustration and anger from those who feel they're excluded from it, or because it makes some people do really dumb stuff.

But has shaming and repressing sexuality ever solved anything? The track record of this approach is abysmal.

Edited May 24 by DeltaAro

[AromanticAardvark]

On 5/24/2023 at 6:50 PM, DeltaAro said:

Romance on the other hand was never really shamed, because it's regarded as a sort of sublimation of sexual desire. So we shouldn't pretend there's some kind of symmetry here.

I disagree with this: straight and white romance has never really been shamed. But queer, interracial, and polyamorous romance has been discriminated against and shamed for a very long time (especially in the West). So when you insult romance in general, you're also insulting those groups (especially in an aro space, where chances are most people experiencing romantic attraction are experiencing queer romantic attraction)

[HelloThere]

1 hour ago, AromanticAardvark said:

I disagree with this: straight and white romance has never really been shamed. But queer, interracial, and polyamorous romance has been discriminated against and shamed for a very long time (especially in the West). So when you insult romance in general, you're also insulting those groups (especially in an aro space, where chances are most people experiencing romantic attraction are experiencing queer romantic attraction)

Yeah, I don’t hate romance, I mean I don’t understand it but we’ve definitely seen people be discriminated against for loving someone different than them. Whether it be from race, gender, religion, or sometimes literally just political views there has always been romantic discrimination.

[DeltaAro]

5 hours ago, AromanticAardvark said:

I disagree with this: straight and white romance has never really been shamed. But queer, interracial, and polyamorous romance has been discriminated against and shamed for a very long time (especially in the West).

Yes, obviously. But the sentence immediately before was:

On 5/25/2023 at 12:50 AM, DeltaAro said:

Not always just sexual minorities, any sex.

So for brevity's sake, I didn't spell it out explicitly again, that I did not mean queer romance or romance involving minorities here.

5 hours ago, AromanticAardvark said:

So when you insult romance in general, you're also insulting those groups (especially in an aro space, where chances are most people experiencing romantic attraction are experiencing queer romantic attraction)

Good that I never advocated or excused "insulting romance" in my post.

I just said that romance was not even remotely as repressed as sexuality.

"If ... a man wishes to satisfy his desire, and a woman hers, they stimulate each other’s desire; their inclinations meet, but their object is not human nature but sex, and each of them dishonours the human nature of the other. They make of humanity an instrument for the satisfaction of their lusts and inclinations, and dishonour it by placing it on a level with animal nature" - Immanuel Kant

So this quote is about plain vanilla straight sex, no mention of minorities. Try to find anything like this about plain vanilla straight romance.