Why is Aromanticsm so much less acknowledged than other identities like Asexuality?

[DreamSeeker]

I feel like this is a good topic to bring up. I guess like asexuality and aromanticsm are just as common as each other, and they both make up 1% of the population (from what I’ve seen anyway), so aros should be just as included as aces. In most of the lgbtq acronyms, there’s only one “a” and it’s for asexuality. I’ve also heard that aromanticsm isn’t as included in pride parades as other identities, but that’s just one example I’ve seen. I guess what I’m trying to say is that I think aros should be more included in the lgbtq community. It’s weird to me how you can come out as asexual, and everyone knows what you’re talking about, but then you come out as aromantic, and no one has even heard of it.

[DeltaAro]

Most people see romantic and sexual attraction as essentially related, like round and spherical are. They assume the same desire behind it, and romantic love + sex is just the good, wholesome manifestation of it while sex alone is the shallow, fraught and dangerous one.

So aromanticism (alone) is perhaps not striking or conspicuous enough, since allo-allos often experience sexual attraction without romantic attraction. Even if people recognized they're different, they may think of it as a mere character defect, not a legitimate orientation.

This leads fewer people to identify with it, and in turn it remains relatively unknown.

That said, I don't think it's that obscure. We've come a long way in the past few years.

[nonmerci]

To add to what @DeltaArosaid, there is also the fact that the ace community appeared first, and then the aro one. So a lot of people view aro as a subtype of ace, and think that adding asexuality is enough to include us.

Edited February 28 by nonmerci