Jump to content

Good article for aro visibility


Mark
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 4 months later...

Nice to see something, but I'd just like to comment that I've seen many descriptions of aro as 'little to no romantic attraction' and I believe I've only ever seen ace defined as 'no sexual attraction'.  It may be that since I'm not ace, I pay less attention to it, but it almost feels like they're making total aromanticism out to be less likely, as opposed to elsewhere on the spectrum.  Idk, just something I noticed.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I'm inclined to agree with the article. Labels may be linguistic approximations for extremely complicated neural chemistry, but they serve a function in alerting people to other ways of existing and identifying oneself. 

Kudos to the authors. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

very short sharp and sweet, for an inner margin article it has quite concise definitions for a nice selection of labels. I do have to agree with @aro_elise though, it seems the variation of definition values between asexual and aromantic makes romantic attraction seem more intrinsic to the human condition than sexual attraction. Maybe it is because we do romantic coded things?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a great article for spreading awareness, but agree with others in that the definition for aromanticism is a bit wishy-washy, especially since the predominant thought was 'aromantics experience very little romantic attraction'. I think that gives the impression that aromantics themselves 'could be convinced in romantic love' as it leaves a little bit of wiggle room, so to speak. I think it might have been more accurate to say something like: Aromantic people do not experience romantic attraction, and it exists as a spectrum where others might only experience romantic attraction occasionally, or in certain situations. 

 

I think it really comes down to semantics, and what sentence fit best in a restricted word count. As well, I think a looser definition might just be more appealing to alloromantic people who want to see the possibility in love 'finding a way' (like Jurassic Park, but less fun). 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ladyasym said:

like Jurassic Park, but less fun

Haha. Are you saying that from now on I can think of any unwanted female romantic attention directed at me as like the velociraptors escaping their cages and hunting me down?! Clever girl! :gasp:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2017 at 6:51 AM, James White said:

I'm inclined to agree with the article. Labels may be linguistic approximations for extremely complicated neural chemistry, but they serve a function in alerting people to other ways of existing and identifying oneself. 

Kudos to the authors. 

Good, comprehensive models have obviously more scientific value and can be connected better to objective reality (neural chemistry etc.) than labels ever can. But OTOH models are probably more authoritarian, because they are, well, imposed from above and there's a danger that they function like a Procrustean bed (what if the “axis” that corresponds to your experience is completely left out in the model? Like asexuality in the early Kinsey scale – the most widely known model).

 

So it's labels (contra the claims presented here) which are more egalitarian, because anyone can create them based on their experience. One doesn't have to wait for neuropsychological research to finally catch up. Of course that's also a drawback of labels, because their status ranges from accepted-even-by-Mike-Pence (e.g. “gay”) to “nah that's something made up by teens on tumblr”. So while labels are great and I'm very “liberal” about labels, I admit there are some which strain even my credulity. xD Why such a “big, broad” label like “aromantic” is subject to so much skepticism is pretty weird, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "but that doesn't mean they don't experience romantic/sexual attraction!!!" at the end of the aro and ace descriptions is kind of annoying to me as someone who is both....  It just makes them seem mutually exclusive.  Like one or the other is still required to be acceptable....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/12/2017 at 12:59 PM, Apathetic Echidna said:

it seems the variation of definition values between asexual and aromantic makes romantic attraction seem more intrinsic to the human condition than sexual attraction.

The wording has a curious asymetry.
 

16 hours ago, starstuff said:

The "but that doesn't mean they don't experience romantic/sexual attraction!!!" at the end of the aro and ace descriptions is kind of annoying to me as someone who is both....  It just makes them seem mutually exclusive.  Like one or the other is still required to be acceptable....

I'm wondering if they have tried to counter the myths of all aces being also aro and all aros also being ace. In the process managing to erase aro aces :(

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. 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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...