On the definition of "aro"

[skies]

I'm thinking about how people use the label "aro" (& other queer labels).

TL;DR: moving towards a definition of "aro" that is not based on "attraction" would benefit many people. Rather than asking yourself "is what I experience 'attraction'?", "is 'aro' a useful term for me" may be a more helpful approach.

I am resistant to labels being viewed as a one-to-one descriptor of "attraction" and something that someone inherently is, rather than the construct that sexuality/orientation labels are. I don't see my sexuality (or gender) as something that I was born with, but rather something that is highly dependent on the sociocultural context I live in & my experiences. 

I chose to label my experience of ambivalence towards a typical highly committed relationship (referred to as "normative relationship" hereafter) as "aro". It's not something I inherently am, and it's not something I "realized". It's something I am actively making the choice to label as something that is central to my worldview.

Other labels I use are deliberately broad and has connotations of resistance: queer, trans, mad. I don't think that labels are neccessarily "terms that describes your experiences as accurately as possible", but rather tools to signify that I align myself with the values & experiences of a group.

People who do experience normative "attraction" and choose not to enter normative relationships may have more shared experiences with other aro-identified people than they do with people who have normative relationships. 

If we move away from an attraction-based definition of "aro", more people may see their experiences reflected in the label. The more people identify as aro, the more the "default" of normative relationships will be exposed as being constructed.

I would love to hear other people's thoughts on this!

[Mult]

Personally I don't consider who I am as any sort of conscious choice. I am who I am and I am happy without any sort of sexual/romantic relationship and I do not want to be involved in any of that at all. There was no external pressure or environment that lead me to be that way so it is just what I happen to naturally be.

I don't particularly feel very connected to a nun or monk who are part of a religion that demands that they maintain a celebrate and unmarried position—I even had relatives in Italy who were nuns, monks, priests like this. 

I just don't really consider who I am as a lifestyle or some sort of sacrifice for religious reasons. I am simply not attracted to nor at all interested in any sort of relationship outside of a platonic or familial relationship.

Even when people choose not to or cannot enter a relationship, I don't have much to talk about with them when discussing their attraction or romantic interests.

 

Personally I just want something that describes a person who is void of both sexual and romantic attraction and interest. I'm just not someone who separates the two and there's nothing in use right now that actually describes that, so I'm actually more interested in words that are more specific rather than less. 

[Nagito]

Uhhhhh… No. Just because it "would benefit many people" doesn't mean it's a good idea. In this case it would turn aromanticism into a "fancy term that anyone fits" what isn't anything good in result. Keep in mind that queer in general isn't something that you can pick. You're queer or not, you can't "pick" it and the same counts for aromanticism which is a form of being queer.

Also, there's an obvious difference between experiencing no romantic attraction at all (or experiencing it in a non-normative way) and picking to not enter romantic relationships (or when it's forced, like it was mentioned by Mult) while experiencing it.

[Ikarus]

 

5 hours ago, skies said:

I am resistant to labels being viewed as a one-to-one descriptor of "attraction" and something that someone inherently is, rather than the construct that sexuality/orientation labels are.

 

Im just curious. Do you believe it is possible for an aro person to be inherently aromantic or that all aromantics are influenced by socio cultural contexts and thus become aro? Im just curious about why you believe that attraction definition labels are less than labels built around social construction. Is it because it will hypothetically benefit more people and challenge the social construction of romance?

Also I don't know how the term aro becoming less defined helps anyone. Allos have their terms, celibate, being single, those are lifestyles. Aro is not a choice it is a reality. Aros are hidden by the veil of amatonormativity or what I call the love monopoly. The specific definition of aro revolving around attraction gives us a light to shine through the isolating void imposed on us from the love monopoly. I tell you now remaking the aro definition would certainly not benefit aromantics for this reason. And allos don't need it. So why do it for everyone? 

 

Edited April 18 by Ikarus

[A_Mess]

5 hours ago, skies said:

I chose to label my experience of ambivalence towards a typical highly committed relationship (referred to as "normative relationship" hereafter) as "aro". It's not something I inherently am, and it's not something I "realized". It's something I am actively making the choice to label as something that is central to my worldview.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're using the term "aromanticism" to describe a lifestyle choice/preference. Not desiring a "normative relationship" could probably be considered "queer" on some level maybe, but that interpretation of aro is kind of putting the cart before the horse I think?

I am aro because I do not experience romantic attraction on any level to anybody. That's not the result of any past life events or a value system; it's just how I am and have always been. And it just so happens that no romantic attraction means no desire for a romantic relationship in any form. But I do like and appreciate the idea of those relationships, even if it would never work for me. If I did experience romantic attraction, I would probably want that. (Additionally, what you described as a "normative relationship"--"a typical highly committed relationship"--could also describe QPRs, which many aros have)

6 hours ago, skies said:

I don't think that labels are neccessarily "terms that describes your experiences as accurately as possible", but rather tools to signify that I align myself with the values & experiences of a group.

I agree that labels are good tools for connecting with others, but they have value specifically because they are not for just anybody. My understanding is that LGBTQ+ labels  are specifically meant to articulate identities that exist outside of normative romance, sexuality, and gender standards, and for me, being aro just IS who I am. Even before I knew the words to describe it, it has always been a large part of my identity and has informed how I experience and understand the world. And that's also why I don't necessarily agree with what you said here:

6 hours ago, skies said:

People who do experience normative "attraction" and choose not to enter normative relationships may have more shared experiences with other aro-identified people than they do with people who have normative relationships. 

We could probably bond over enjoying the single life a lot of the time, but there would still be a real difference in our experiences.

6 hours ago, skies said:

If we move away from an attraction-based definition of "aro", more people may see their experiences reflected in the label. The more people identify as aro, the more the "default" of normative relationships will be exposed as being constructed.

I don't see why we should want more people to see their experiences reflected in the label. Like I said, the label has value exactly because it's not for everyone. But it would definitely be good for more people to come to know about it and understand it. Also, while I can appreciate the sentiment of your last statement and think that other forms of relationships and living without relationships should become more accepted, I don't think recruiting more people to "become aro" would accomplish anything good. I think it would just result in burying and erasing a lot of people's genuine experiences of BEING aro, which would end up reinforcing the idea of alloromanticism as a default.

Please let me know if anyone has any other thoughts.

[Jot-Aro Kujo]

Political lesbianism… 2!!!!!!!!

[Ekaterina]

Agree with what the other commenters say. Not wanting relationships already has a word, it's called single by choice. Aro as term exists to describe your nature as someone who doesn't have this type of feeling that aphobes think everyone must have, its exact purpose is to let people who don't HAVE romantic feelings know they aren't underdeveloped or ill or heartless or whatever some societies say. Sure, single people who aren't aros can have some similar struggles but not all, and can be described as its own thing (and "singlism" as a type of discrimination against single people is a word that exists alongside "aphobia"). 

P. S. Also yes, highly committed relationship and romance aren't synonyms. There are tons of ways to have a highly committed relationship that aren't what is deemed romantic. 

Edited April 19 by Ekaterina

[Littleface]

14 hours ago, Nagito said:

Uhhhhh… No. Just because it "would benefit many people" doesn't mean it's a good idea. In this case it would turn aromanticism into a "fancy term that anyone fits" what isn't anything good in result. Keep in mind that queer in general isn't something that you can pick. You're queer or not, you can't "pick" it and the same counts for aromanticism which is a form of being queer.

Also, there's an obvious difference between experiencing no romantic attraction at all (or experiencing it in a non-normative way) and picking to not enter romantic relationships (or when it's forced, like it was mentioned by Mult) while experiencing it.

Agreed. I also think it would make it harder for proper, scientific research to be done on aromantics as a group if the definition was to become this loose.

[Holmbo]

I totally get what you mean. Aro really doesn't say much about a persons actions. There are many aros who are in romantic relationships. But as others have said there are other terms which describes choices about relationships. It would be interesting to write some article about this though. Looking at the intersection between aromanticism and single by choice or other labels.

[Mult]

9 hours ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

Political lesbianism… 2!!!!!!!!

Oh yeah. Actually this does make me think of the "4B" movement. It's, uh, I think it straight women who choose to not have relationships or children. Something like no boys, no babies...and two other things starting with a B.... I'm not certain about what exactly it is but I've seen people talking about it.

Anyway, apparently this started in South Korea from what I heard because of domestic violence and lack of opportunities for women among other things. So while a straight woman who is choosing to be single and live a single life would appear similar to myself on the surface, we are still very different. I'm not interested in guys or girls equally and I am just living the way I am while they are single because they want to make a statement about how single women's lives are better compared to being married and dealing with a lot of uncompensated labour and being mistreated. I do respect them for making that choice for themselves, but I don't relate to their motivations because I am single simply because I am not interested in relationships at all and am happy this way.

Ignoring the differences between being aromantic and practicing the "four Bs" ignores that there are external pressures resulting in these people choosing a single lifestyle. That reason is the entire point of their lifestyle. These women are making a statement, so lumping them in with aromantics who are just simply living the way they are just undermines the whole reason they are living a single life.

I also would not like people believing that I would get into a relationship with "the right man" because even if there was a guy or girl for that matter who is everyone's ideal and it super helpful, emotionally available and attractive, I still wouldn't want to be in a relationship with them. Me being single has literally nothing to do with the actions or personality or attractions of another person; they don't factor into the equation at all.

[Edit] just looked it up and the reason why I couldn't come up with 4 words that start with B is because obviously the words it refers to are in Korean. So yeah, me and a 4B woman would both be single but we wouldn't have any similarities past that

Edited April 19 by Mult

[Ekaterina]

Yes, and it's actually the frequent position of those who oppress all kinds of minority orientations, they think it's making a political statement or alternatively a leisure activity, as opposed to just being born with different natural feelings. I am not a member of some kind of secret cult by being aromantic, I just want to live my life the way I'm comfortable with. That's the point. 

A little off topic, on what the previous commenter says about the activists who want to prove single life is better: no I don't support the idea that being single is objectively better for everyone, just as I don't support the idea that being married is objectively better for everyone. Both are projecting your needs on people without consideration of their needs. There are disabled people and people with weak health that physically can't survive alone, there are people financially poor who won't be able to simultaneously earn enough money for quality life and take care of the household alone, there are people who emotionally and mentally cannot live alone without family support system, and not everyone has siblings or living parents or is on close enough terms with all of them to share the house forever, and don't forget this nuance that the human species needs to reproduce, and many people actively want to (and being a single parent is extremely difficult, both emotionally, financially, and finding time for everything). And yes, I often want to marry for some of these reasons, which (back on the topic) doesn't stop me from being aromantic. 

Edited April 19 by Ekaterina

[Mult]

1 hour ago, Ekaterina said:

And yes, I often want to marry for some of these reasons, which (back on the topic) doesn't stop me from being aromantic. 

This is a good point about how being single does not equal being aromantic, and I think equating being aromantic to simply being single would be a mistake.

[skies]

Hey, thanks for the responses everyone! I didn't mean to start a discussion and then not respond, it was finals week haha.

I should have phrased what I was trying to say differently. I didn't mean that the definition should be changed altogether. 

My point is that someone describing themselves as aro is a choice. I think a main cause of disagreement is that some people are using "be aro" to mean "have a specific internal experience", whereas I'm using "be aro" to mean "describe oneself as aro".

On 4/19/2024 at 2:39 AM, Mult said:

I'm actually more interested in words that are more specific rather than less. 

Yeah that's totally understandable! It'd be cool if you wanted to come up with a word for your experience, other people would probably resonate with it too. It's interesting to see how varied people's experiences can be; I'm the opposite in preferring broad labels. Thanks for sharing!

On 4/19/2024 at 3:33 AM, Nagito said:

it would turn aromanticism into a "fancy term that anyone fits"

Hmm I guess we differ on this, as I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing. I've seen "anyone can be aro (or ace) nowadays" used as an argument to exclude grey and demi people too often to find this reasoning compelling. (To be clear, I'm not saying that you're excluding anyone, just that the phrasing reminded me of that.)

On 4/19/2024 at 3:33 AM, Nagito said:

there's an obvious difference between experiencing no romantic attraction at all (or experiencing it in a non-normative way) and picking to not enter romantic relationships

Just curious, what are your thoughts on people who use "orchidromantic" labels? Would you consider them to fall under the aro umbrella?

On 4/19/2024 at 4:29 AM, Ikarus said:

Do you believe it is possible for an aro person to be inherently aromantic

I believe that people can inherently have certain experiences, but that having these experiences and identifying as (i.e. being) aro are not the same. In a hypothetical scenario where two people have the exact same experiences, and one identifies as aro and the other does not, the latter person is not aro simply because they do not consider themselves aro. 

Using a different example, are people inherently tall or inherently short? This is determined relative to the average. People are inherently their height, but whether or not they're considered tall depends on other factors. In my home country, I'm tall, but in a western country, I'm short. That doesn't mean my height has changed, just the label. This is what I'm trying to say about the label of "aro" being influenced by external factors.

On 4/19/2024 at 4:29 AM, Ikarus said:

why you believe that attraction definition labels are less than labels built around social construction

This isn't quite what I was trying to express; would you mind pointing out which parts specifically gave you this impression?

I don't think that attraction-based labels are less than other ones. They're just more common, and I wanted to offer a different perspective.

On 4/19/2024 at 4:29 AM, Ikarus said:

Is it because it will hypothetically benefit more people and challenge the social construction of romance?

Hmm not really?? My main issue with attraction-based definitions is that I often see them come hand-in-hand with the idea that someone must be born with a experience for it to be legitimate. This talks about that in more detail.

On 4/19/2024 at 4:29 AM, Ikarus said:

remaking the aro definition would certainly not benefit aromantics

If most aro people find the definition of "no attraction" useful, that's great! I didn't mean to say that we should change the definition altogether.

On 4/19/2024 at 4:29 AM, Ikarus said:

Aro is not a choice

I mean that people calling themselves aro is a choice, not that the internal experience is a choice.

On 4/19/2024 at 6:24 AM, A_Mess said:

you're using the term "aromanticism" to describe a lifestyle choice/preference

(If it matters, I would fall under the "never experienced attraction" camp if I conceptualized my experiences that way.) 

Sure, I can't choose to experience attraction, but identifying as aro is a choice I'm making. In a less amatonormative world, my experiences would be the same, but I may not feel the need to identify as aro.

The more salient aspect of my own aromantic experience is the more visible part: not being in a relationship. This is definitely affected by attraction not being as openly discussed in my culture as in western culture.

On 4/19/2024 at 6:24 AM, A_Mess said:

what you described as a "normative relationship"--"a typical highly committed relationship"--could also describe QPRs

Yeah, that was not the best choice of words on my part. I was hoping that the use of "typical" would be understood as not including QPRs. To clarify, I did not mean to imply that aro people cannot be in relationships, romantic or otherwise.

On 4/19/2024 at 6:24 AM, A_Mess said:

Even before I knew the words to describe it, it has always been a large part of my identity and has informed how I experience and understand the world.

I have a similar experience actually, and I think it's cool that the same experience can lead us to having different perspectives. I appreciate your detailed reponse!

On 4/19/2024 at 6:24 AM, A_Mess said:

I don't see why we should want more people to see their experiences reflected in the label.

I guess this is where we disagree. My reasoning is that there's power in numbers. If more people identify as or identify with (I consider these to be different) aro, it shows that just because something is the majority, that doesn't make it "normal". My view is that more people in a minority group does not "dilute" the minority, rather it weakens the majority.

On 4/19/2024 at 3:16 PM, Ekaterina said:

to describe your nature as someone who doesn't have this type of feeling

Totally a fair assumption to make based on what I shared. If it changes anything, I also do not experience attraction. Curious about your thoughts on "orchidromantic" labels!

On 4/19/2024 at 3:16 PM, Ekaterina said:

highly committed relationship and romance aren't synonyms

I responded to this above, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on whether there is a way to describe romantic relationships without using the word "romantic". 

On 4/19/2024 at 6:11 PM, Littleface said:

it would make it harder for proper, scientific research to be done

I see your point. However, many groups are heterogenous, and that's something that comes up in a lot of research and the generalizability of findings. Aro already encompasses many different experiences, from no attraction at all to grey to demi to everything else. 

In a research setting, the experiences of aro people could be anaylzed both as a whole, as well as separately based on more specific groups.

On 4/19/2024 at 9:46 PM, Ekaterina said:

making a political statement or alternatively a leisure activity, as opposed to just being born with different natural feelings

I don't see these as mutually exclusive. Everything is political. I have different feelings and I'm making a political statement that my different feelings do not make me less human.

Additionally, responding to your use of "born with", what are your thoughts on "caedromantic" labels?

[Ekaterina]

2 hours ago, skies said:

Additionally, responding to your use of "born with", what are your thoughts on "caedromantic" labels?

I may have chosen an incomplete wording, sorry for that. Caedromantic  also isn't supposed to be a choice, it is something people develop naturally. "Born with or developed naturally" should have been a better wording. The point still stands, it is the person's natural situation. 

2 hours ago, skies said:

I guess this is where we disagree. My reasoning is that there's power in numbers. If more people identify as or identify with (I consider these to be different) aro, it shows that just because something is the majority, that doesn't make it "normal". My view is that more people in a minority group does not "dilute" the minority, rather it weakens the majority.

Your approach doesn't add numbers, it shrinks numbers drastically. It excludes every aromantic who lived before the term "aromantic" was introduced (aka for most of the history of humankind), and every aromantic who lives in a place where this term isn't known or used. You invalidate their experience by making them "not really aromantic" because you literally said above that the person who doesn't identify as an aromantic isn't it. Which is... not a clever thing to say. 

What of the people who don't know yet they are aromantic? Who believe that they "need to fix themselves" or "must be just in denial" or whatever? Isn't the one of the main purposes of aromanticism awareness is to help those people realize who they are? Are they "not really aromantic" because they don't know the word or its meaning? Is it not our concern to support their validness? Was I not aromantic a year ago by your logic because I didn't know the term's meaning? 

2 hours ago, skies said:

I don't see these as mutually exclusive. Everything is political. I have different feelings and I'm making a political statement that my different feelings do not make me less human.

No, surprise but the fact I don't get crushes or want to date people is not political. 

(Also, the statement "my feelings don't make me less human" isn't political on itself either. "More human" or "less human" isn't a question that politics decide on most of the time, it's social bias and popular beliefs. What you - and I, and likely most of people here - want is spreading awareness and speaking against prejudice, not getting a spot in a government or something of this sort.) 

And repeating what I said in my post more clearly, thinking it inherently is political is literally why bigoted people are able to make orientations illegal. Because having feelings concerning your private life, and especially helping other people with same issues, is conflated with political movements. And you aren't helping it. 

A neutral analogy: some people have, let's say, red hair. Some red-haired people may start a political movement for one reason or another. Maybe it's actually to defend red-haired people against some form of discrimination when they get in power (such discrimination actually existed in some cultures by the way). Yet saying every red-haired person you see on the street is being "political" or shouldn't be called "real redhead" is stupid, right? 

Edited Saturday at 09:05 PM by Ekaterina

[Neon]

If a man exclusively falls in love with other men, he is gay. He can say he isn't all he likes, but that just means he's in denial, not that he's straight. If a man exclusively falls in love with women, he is straight. He can say he isn't, but that doesn't change the facts. The same goes for aromanticism and little to no attraction.

What you are proposing is a dilution to the point of meaninglessness.

[Mult]

16 hours ago, skies said:

Yeah that's totally understandable! It'd be cool if you wanted to come up with a word for your experience, other people would probably resonate with it too. It's interesting to see how varied people's experiences can be; I'm the opposite in preferring broad labels. Thanks for sharing!

Mm, the problem is that specific words change over time a lot like how asexual and aromantic are now "umbrellas". 

All I want and need is to clearly express that I am not and would not be interested in any relationship that is romantic or sexual. But the issue here is not the words themselves but the lack of understanding from other people that it is even possible to truly not want those things. So it doesn't matter what word I slap on it, it will be challenged.

Someone asks why I'm not dating anyone and they tell me that I'll "find someone" or they tell me I'm being "hard on myself" for saying I'm just not interested. They are under the impression that not being interested in romantic relationships is a sad thing and they want to help me "put myself out there". So it doesn't matter what I say, they don't see it as its own orientation like being straight or gay, they see it as a temporary state of loneliness or whatever. 

There isn't really any way to get most people to understand or accept it, so coining a new word is just making another one to get lost in everything.

Edited 15 hours ago by Mult
Typo

[skies]

22 hours ago, Ekaterina said:

it is the person's natural situation

I agree with this!

22 hours ago, Ekaterina said:

It excludes every aromantic who lived before the term "aromantic" was introduced

I see your point. Yes, I think aromantic can and should include people in history who were likely aromantic. 

22 hours ago, Ekaterina said:

[excludes] every aromantic who lives in a place where this term isn't known or used

I live somewhere where "aromantic" isn't known. I also think aro can include those who may identify as aro if they had the language for it.

22 hours ago, Ekaterina said:

you literally said above that the person who doesn't identify as an aromantic isn't

I phrased that poorly, my apologies. What I mean is that I would not use aro to include those who know the term and have decided not to identify as aro. See here for a more in-depth discussion on "be" vs. "identify as".

Feeling that they "need to fix themselves" isn't the only reason someone may not identify as "aro"; if someone (who knows the definition of aro) says that they're not aro, even though they fit the definition, then it doesn't make sense to me to consider them 'aro, but hasn't accepted it yet'. (I'm not saying that this is what you meant, I just using this as an example to explain my view more clearly).

22 hours ago, Ekaterina said:

Was I not aromantic a year ago by your logic because I didn't know the term's meaning? 

You absolutely were aromantic a year ago, and I'm really sorry that I made you feel otherwise.

22 hours ago, Ekaterina said:

"More human" or "less human" isn't a question that politics decide on most of the time, it's social bias and popular beliefs. What you - and I, and likely most of people here - want is spreading awareness and speaking against prejudice, not getting a spot in a government

I should have said that most things can be political. Politics isn't only related to the government. This post may explain it better than I can. 

Using the example in that post: a child drawing a house is not political, the same way an aromantic person existing is not political. However, what the child considers a house influenced by systemic factors. Similarly, what is considered a family (e.g. the nuclear family) is influenced by systemic factors. This is what I mean by political.

Moreover, aromantic advocacy is related to the government; working towards equality for aromantic people, in our current society, has to involve the government.

I appreciate your response!

20 hours ago, Neon said:

He can say he isn't all he likes, but that just means he's in denial, not that he's straight.

I... do not find this a fair assumption to make of other people. There are reasons other than being in denial that someone may choose to not use "gay" as a self-descriptor.

Being in denial would be denying that they experience same sex attraction. Saying that they don't describe themselves as "gay", possibly preferring to be unlabelled or to use a different label, is not what I would consider being in denial.

I understand that many people consider "experiencing same-sex attraction" and "being gay" to be equivalent, but I do not. I feel that I have explicitly said this, so I would appreciate if someone could help me out with how I could make this more clear! 

In addition, see this discussion about how "being" and "identifying as" may be different.

19 hours ago, Mult said:

the problem is that specific words change over time a lot like how asexual and aromantic are now "umbrellas"

Genuine question, I can't tell whether you are stating this neutrally or whether you have additional thoughts on it. Could you kindly clarify for me?

19 hours ago, Mult said:

They are under the impression that not being interested in romantic relationships is a sad thing

I'm sorry that you've experienced this, and I want to work towards a future where people don't view aro people this way.

19 hours ago, Mult said:

There isn't really any way to get most people to understand or accept it

I want to gently challenge this; I think that it's possible to increase the number of people who are accepting of aro people's experiences. Maybe not most people, but more people. I see that it's a difficult experience for you to have your loved ones not understand, and I hope that you can meet people who accept you for all of your experiences.

19 hours ago, Mult said:

coining a new word is just making another one to get lost in everything

I do mostly agree with this. At the same time, I think it depends on what someone is trying to achieve with coining a new word. Are they just doing it for fun and expect that no one else will use it? They can make all the words they want!

If they're trying to build a community, though, I agree that making a new term without discussing with other members of the community first is often a futile attempt. 

However, if no one ever came up with new words, we wouldn't have the term "aromantic". I think if someone first discussed with other people and also have a means of sharing a new term with a large group of people, it can be useful.

[Neon]

6 hours ago, skies said:

I... do not find this a fair assumption to make of other people. There are reasons other than being in denial that someone may choose to not use "gay" as a self-descriptor.

Being in denial would be denying that they experience same sex attraction. Saying that they don't describe themselves as "gay", possibly preferring to be unlabelled or to use a different label, is not what I would consider being in denial.

I understand that many people consider "experiencing same-sex attraction" and "being gay" to be equivalent, but I do not. I feel that I have explicitly said this, so I would appreciate if someone could help me out with how I could make this more clear! 

In addition, see this discussion about how "being" and "identifying as" may be different.

No one is going to be receptive to a man who exclusively experiences attraction to women calling himself gay because he feels the label fits better. No one is going to start saying "gay men and men who exclusively experience same sex attraction" because in a few rare cases there is a man who doesn't call himself gay but exclusively experiences same sex attraction.

That being said, on an individual level, people can do what they want. It's none of my business.

However, on a broader level, I think there is a major issue with expanding a definition so much that it could include nearly any given person, which your proposition does.

Incels disillusioned with relationships can fall under your definition. Old people who lose their partner and don't remarry can fall under your definition. Literally any queer person can fall under your definition. People in open relationships fall under your definition. People in the US who get into an arranged marriage fall under your definition. The list goes on.

[Mult]

6 hours ago, skies said:

Genuine question, I can't tell whether you are stating this neutrally or whether you have additional thoughts on it. Could you kindly clarify for me?

When I was growing up, I didn't have any way to articulate the disconnect I had between how I felt/didn't feel and the way other people felt. Learning about the word "asexual" finally clued me into the fact that other people were like myself: people who are not interested in relationships or sex (I want aware of the whole "split attraction" thing at the time). To be able to identify myself like how a straight, bisexual or gay person could identify themselves was very liberating because I finally had a way to articulate to other people that my lack of interest towards relationships was simply the way I was.

But with people now using asexual and aromantic as "umbrella" words to encompass many identities that can be very specific and distinct from one another, there's just no way to say "I'm Asexual Aromantic" and have people know what you actually mean. They don't mean "not sexual" and "not romantic" anymore because now they have to encompass the "little sexual/romantic" or "occasionally" etc.

Not only is there no distinct identity for "not sexual" under that "asexual umbrella", there is incredibly few options left to even bother. That's not even mentioning the fact that I dislike separating romantic and sexual attraction/interest/desire (take your pick) when describing myself. Honestly what is the point of coining some obscure word that no one is going to remember anyway? Everyone says they turned Asexual and aromantic into umbrellas so that all the other specific identifying words could just use the same label, so neither label actually describes who I am to other people any longer. 

Even if a word was coined, someone will probably feel the need to say "but people using that label could still be in a relationship if they wanted to!" Because not wanting one at all ever is still stigmatized as a bad thing to say apparently. I don't really see anyone dating the same about straight or gay people even though technically they could enter a relationship that is contrary to their orientation as well 

 

So I just don't use them. It's easier to just say "I'm not interested" or "I am not attracted to you or anyone." Except that it is possible to offend someone who will take that as saying that they're unattractive themselves which is annoying. 

It would just be nice to be able to communicate my lack of attraction and interest in any gender much like other people when they say "sorry, I'm straight" or "sorry, I'm gay." The "it's not you, it's just that I am not attracted to people of your gender and by that I mean any gender at all because I'm not attracted to anyone nor am I interested in relationships in any way".