Aidemattraction

[AlgieKBD]

So I was on tumblr and I saw this post.

I was wondering do any of you like the idea of it? I know there's lots of aroaces on here. 

 

Also if this is in the wrong place or I should take it down please let me know.

[SoulWolf]

Interesting concept. I can distinguish my ace-ness and aro-ness from each other though. For me the idea of love and sex are completely seperate things very far removed from each other... but that may just be me. I know of one guy who said he doesn't know how to seperate them.

[Confidential_Con]

The link didn't work for me.

[aussiekirkland]

Honestly, when I saw that post yesterday I just groaned because more tumblr terminology. Maybe it will be useful for others, idk but right now I'm happy just identifying as aromantic since I'm not sure about the rest and don't feel it's super relevant.

[Confidential_Con]

Okay, I got the thing to work. It's an interesting term, but not one useful for me- my aromantism feels pretty different (actively repulsed by romance, etc.) than my asexuality, which is more indifference and lack of any particular attraction or urge to act.

[techno]

Personally I think it just over-complicates the matter by adding in more terminology that people won't understand.

 

"Aroace" is perfectly fine for me and it's less syllables and easier to say.

[Zema]

I can't seem to get the link to work. Could someone summarise or quote it here?

[owl]

56 minutes ago, Zemaddog said:

I can't seem to get the link to work. Could someone summarise or quote it here?

Does this work?

________

 

I don't think it's entirely necessary language, honestly. As a non ace/non aro, sometimes I find it difficult to separate between between romantic and sexual feelings and I'm definitely not the only one. (Just one reason I personally don't like to use the split attraction model for everyone)

[Zema]

57 minutes ago, Simowl said:

Does this work?

Yes it does. Thank you.

 

Not only is it clunky to say, it's also redundant. Like, so what if you can't separate them? There are plenty of people with matching sexual and romantic orientations that can't separate the two. Why does not being able to separate your aro and aceness need a new word? Not being about to separate them is such a minute difference that it really has no effect on anything. I just don't understand why people think this difference is large enough to warrant a new label.

 

Also, how does one even use this word in a sentence? It looks like a noun, but I feel like it's supposed to be an adjective? This word just makes me just wonder "why?".

 

(PS. The flag is pretty ugly imo. It's also as redundant as this label.)

[Ettina]

On 12/18/2016 at 5:55 PM, Confidential_Con said:

Okay, I got the thing to work. It's an interesting term, but not one useful for me- my aromantism feels pretty different (actively repulsed by romance, etc.) than my asexuality, which is more indifference and lack of any particular attraction or urge to act.

 

I'm the reverse of you - I'm sex-repulsed but I think I'd probably enjoy a romantic relationship even though I don't feel romantic attraction.  

[techno]

In my time traversing the aroace world I think I have yet to encounter anybody who struggles significantly with whether the two are separate or not.

 

On a personal level, they are facets of the same thing, so not really inseparable but not necessarily distinct either. But I find that while both are a part of me being aro is a more omnipresent part of my life than being ace at the moment, so the separation of the two is actually useful since aro spaces are often more helpful (and more accepting -- looking at you, arophobic side of the ace community!).

 

Besides, if both communities are pushing for acknowledgement that aromanticism and asexuality are not one in the same, it feels like an over-complicated and clumsy mess to add another frankly unnecessary word just to say "they're separate except when they're not!"