Sometimes I wonder if I’m actually aromantic. I just don’t get romantic feels for just about anyone. And romance seems like a boring ritual that I don’t have the time or energy for. What do romantic feelings even feel like anyway?!
I’ve seen them described as “chest feelings”. Lizziegonastray also wrote a post on what romantic attraction/romantic feelings are like for her.
—
Scarlett Johansson,
on the lack of romantic subplot in The Avengers.
[clapping gif removed]
(via imwalkerbait)
(Source: coffeeorsomething, via greenchestnuts)
—
Laura Jayne Martin (via creatingaquietmind)
I agree with this!
(via greenchestnuts)
A large part of why I try not to think about my future relationships. It’s too scary and filled with uncertainty.
(Source: turquoisebeads, via hungryandlonelyifonlyifonly-dea)
An excellent post on the assumption of romance.
My sign language dictionary, published in 1992, distinguishes between romantic and sexual attraction.
SCREAMING.
When I was younger a of people were keen to emphasise that sex does not equal love. Now I’m seen as adult I am told that you cannot have (romantic) love without sex.
So, just to keep the conversation going, what do you want to see in terms of aromantic representation in fiction?
So I have a question for anybody who is aromantic and asexual. Do you see your ace/aro-ness as a form of sexuality, or lack thereof? I know it might defer from person to person, but just reply to this post if you wouldn’t mind, because it’s something I’ve wondered about.
I consider my ace/aro nature to be a form of sexuality, not a lack of sexuality. For some reason, saying, “I don’t have a sexuality,” feels wrong, like a lie, because I do have one … it’s just composed of not being sexually attracted to people, and not being romantically attracted to people.
IDK.
I think it’s semantics, kind of like how I had an argument with someone for 40 minutes over whether gender was innate or not, and it was only that our own personal definitions of gender was different that we argued. They thought gender referred to the label you gave the feeling, and I thought gender referred to the feeling … so. Lol.
I consider my aromantic asexuality to be a sexuality too—well, sort of. Because it’s not a blank … most people view a blank as something that’s waiting to be filled. As a thing that’s not there YET. I do have a perspective on sexual orientation, and it is that people are not attractive to me, sexually or romantically. That’s a position, even though it’s the null set.
I’m fond of saying I have “a sexual orientation of no,” not “no sexual orientation.”
I have heard some people describe their aromantic asexuality as just an aspect of life they don’t participate in, not as an identity in itself, but while I understand this too, I do consider it part of my identity. It’s important when living in a world where most people do have a sexual orientation that compels them to engage in partnerships I don’t pursue or understand (for me). And while atheism isn’t a religion, it is a perspective on spiritual/religious belief in a world where most people have a religion that involves active belief and usually practices. While bald isn’t a hair color, it is a name for what’s on your head if hair isn’t there.
Asexuality’s like that for me. It isn’t sexual. But it’s a perspective on sexuality. A name for how I see that aspect of life. It does take up space in my head and affect how I interact with other people. So I prefer to see it as a thing, not a non-thing.
^ What swankivy said describes how I experience myself as aromantic & asexual also.
(Also, unrelated: Pretty sure you didn’t mean to say this, Swankivy, but atheism/religion is a false dichotomy because there are religions that don’t involve theism or otherwise worship of deities. I think it’s more accurate to characterize atheism as a perspective on belief in god(s) rather than a perspective on religion.)
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU FOR THAT UNRELATED NOTE.
But also pretty much what everyone else said, it’s not a “blank” or a “lack of” per se. I like the way swankivy said it, “a sexual orientation of no”.
Seconding Swankivy’s ‘it’s an orientation of no’. The way I see it, most sexual/romantic orientations say who you aren’t attracted to as much as who you are e.g. Heterosexual - attracted to a different gender (but not your own gender), but no one ever feels the need to say the bit in brackets.
Rejecting amatonormativity does not mean discouraging amorous relationships, it means ceasing to encourage them at the expense of other care relationships…
Amatonormativity does not simply discriminate against nonconforming relationships; it also precludes their formation by pressuring choice. Prizing dyadic relationships discourages the pursuit of others. Social judgments as to the possibility of fulfillment in friendships and care networks, and the invisibility or marginalization of these alternatives, make amorous relationships ‘compulsory’ as Rich famously claimed about heterosexuality. Economic, legal, and social incentives exert great pressure to enter amorous love relationships, especially when other options appear less appealing or salient, as when singles are depicted as lonely rather than as surrounded by loving friends.
"— Elizabeth Brake, Minimizing Marriage: Marriage, Morality, and the Law (2012)
(Source: ace-muslim, via cupcakearrow)
Have you heard of AroPlane? It’s an aromantic forum, and as far as I’ve seen there is a higher proportion of non-ace aromantic people.
Just fyi
Being aromantic does not make you immune to painful feelings, including painful feelings about other people
It just means you are someone who does not experience romantic attraction
I’m aromantic and currently feeling some painful feels so
It can happen
(Source: swetebreeth, via greenchestnuts)
In case anyone forgot.
P.S. Aromantic doesn’t mean incapable of love/uninterested in being loved.
I’ve seen some rather unattractive shitstorming over “queerplatonic” lately and I’m wondering what drives a person to say “WTF U HAVE NEVER BEEN ATTACKED OVER A RELATIONSHIP LIKE THAT OMG HOW DARE U CALL IT QUEER.”
#1: I realize that some people’s queer identity is built upon feeling separate from the non-queer world and therefore being oppressed by it and/or left out, but even though prejudice and persecution ABSOLUTELY IS part of the queer experience more or less without exception, is it really *definitive* of it? As in, if homophobia and whatnot disappeared tomorrow, would “queer” still have an inherent meaning regardless of how we were treated? I think so.
I think it’s dangerous to base people’s “right” to queerness on whether they have been attacked over their relationships/identity or could be. It does happen and it’s serious and I’m not dismissing it. But queerness exists in people who have never been directly hurt over it too, and no one gets to decide how much hurt you have to have experienced to use this word.
#2: Really, no one gets attacked over close non-romantic relationships? Well, let me tell you some stories.
My mom is a very open and accepting person. She had a gay brother and was honest and non-judgmental about sex, for the most part. When I was a teen, she had a rule that I could not take boys in my room and shut the door. However, I was allowed privacy with my female friends, because I guess she simply assumed I probably wasn’t gay. (Even though I made it clear that I was not interested in sex with my boyfriend at the time.)
This changed a bit when my mother noticed that I held hands with, leaned against, and sometimes kissed my female friends. With one friend in particular, the “suspicion” was particularly high; we kissed on the lips, sometimes lay in each other’s laps and kissed each other’s stomachs, had a variety of cute nicknames for each other, and (this is a little weird) were dating the same guy at the same time. (That’s a long story, but it’s mostly because the guy had realized I was not going to give him sex, and was trying to guilt me by saying he wanted another girlfriend. I was completely okay with that, much to his surprise. But though she was willing to go farther, she wouldn’t do him either. Ho hum.)
Anyway, my mother noticed our closeness and started making weird little comments about how she might need to enforce the “no closed doors” rule for me with my female friends. And on several occasions she jokingly burst into my room and yelled “WHAT ARE YOU LESBIANS DOING?” (Er, probably videotaping something stupid and drinking Sprite out of a bowl with two straws, but no, we weren’t doing anything “lesbian.”)
The point is, had my mother thought lesbianism was wrong, I imagine this would have been a pretty huge issue. Even my open-minded mother thought that if I had a close relationship with a female friend, it was probably sexual—especially because we crossed some intimacy lines that most straight people wouldn’t with their “bffs.” We also sometimes got catcalled at school if we held hands or even just hung out together. Nothing bad happened to us. We were lucky.
Clearly, even this mild story indicates that people find it very peculiar if two people are close but not dating/having sex. People call friends “just” friends for a reason, and they assume that the only way for people to be “more than” friends is to start sexing each other. (Well, or at least something on the romantic/sexual spectrum.) But if the closeness allows physical, psychological, and lifestyle-related intimacy without its being romantic or sexual? The majority of society doesn’t know how to process that, and they immediately treat it like you’re not only “actually” romantic and/or sexual, but like you’re hiding it out of shame or some related reason.
I had no confusion or problem with my relationships, but I did take issue with the confusion and problems other people had with my relationships. The only words I had for two of my closest relationships with females in high school was “best friends.” There’s a really weighted division between “friends” and “romantic partners” in our society—a belief that romance ranks higher, and a belief that romantic/sexual intimacy is the pinnacle, the apex, the highest form of love and closeness. I will disagree with that until the cows come home.
The girl I shared my boyfriend with in high school moved on from our friendship eventually. We were roommates in college, but she got a different boyfriend, changed a lot, and started ignoring me, and letting her go was difficult. I haven’t talked to her in years, and even though I don’t want to talk to her now, I miss what used to be between us. People don’t understand that and they act like it’s REALLY WEIRD for me to miss her. They assign me romantic feelings that I “must have” had for her if I still think about her more than a decade later, or they treat me like my pain over the situation is inappropriate. “Big shit, you lost a high school friend, what’s the problem? UNLESS YOU WERE LESBIANS.” Sorry? My feelings should be either mocked or uncovered as romantic if they mattered to me?
And my current female best friend—whom I’ve also known since high school and whose relationship with me has sometimes been termed suspicious despite her heterosexuality—would likely agree with me that our bond isn’t something you symbolize with half-heart BFF necklaces you buy at Claire’s. (Though yeah, we did that.) We sometimes suggest we’re family. Her kids call me auntie. I’m happy with the label “best friends” with her, and I’m happy to consider her my sister, but technically we’re not family and our closeness seems to be mostly accepted only because the outside world doesn’t see the depth of it. Our relationship is platonic, but she’s not the kind of friend I would put “just” in front of. People thought it was extremely peculiar that I cried all the time when she went to college before me, and “didn’t understand” why I missed her or why I listened to her mix tape all the time, etc. They gave me a lot of “shoulds” with how I ought to be giving my boyfriend that attention. I didn’t understand their fascination with how I should be feeling about a girl who was not my girlfriend.
I think those who want to use the term “queerplatonic” are looking for a word for relationships that are not traditional—that are frowned upon, misunderstood, sometimes attacked, and thought inappropriate by society. We all get consistently told that our life partner should be our “significant other,” but when someone has a relationship of this depth outside of sexual or romantic contexts, society does not want to grant it legitimacy. Some who use this word are simply looking for a way to describe an “other” in their lives who is just as “significant,” and the people hollering about how OMG UR JUST FRIENDS AND HOW COULD U EVER CLAIM U GET ATTACKED FOR THIS are putting that “just” in front of friends for a reason—because they think they get to say that these people’s significant others are for all intents and purposes NOT significant where it counts. Which is a pretty good example of intolerance, actually—if you object to there being a term for a close relationship that is not romantic/sexual but is also functional on a level that “just” friendships are not, you’re helping enforce the belief that these relationships don’t exist or aren’t what they say they are.
I understand that there is some legitimate controversy over whether the word “queer” belongs in there, but please take into account what I’ve said about both people’s misunderstanding of relationships (especially same-sex relationships) as automatically romantic/sexual even if they’re not, and please take into account the fact that these relationships ARE attacked, misrepresented, erased, and shamed in ways very like homosexual people’s relationships are (especially, again, if they happen between same-sex friends).
(Please note that for the purpose of this post I’m using “queerplatonic” to mean “committed platonic relationship” as I know not everyone is comfortable with this term. I am talking about my own experiences, and for my own experiences queerplatonic is the word I enjoy using, although I know this isn’t the case for everyone.)
A very close friend of mine recently was questioning their romantic orientation, and asked me what the difference between a committed platonic relationship and a romantic relationship was. This gave me pause, and it’s also a question I get here at Aromantic Aardvark quite often. Usually I answer with “it’s self-defined, no one knows how you feel but you”. I still agree with this sentiment, but while talking to another friend of mine - also an aro in a committed platonic relationship - I think I came up with a definition, or at least one that works for me personally. Please note that I am not saying this definition works for everyone, however.
My idea was that queerplatonic relationships were sort of the ‘mix and match’ of relationships, which is why it’s so hard to define and articulate. If you ask twenty aro spectrum people who experience these feelings what this word means, you will get about twenty different answers. With romance, even though some of the things may vary within specific relationships and everyone has a different experience with it, there is still a narrative that is generally followed and things that are expected in a romantic relationship. For example, bed sharing, hand holding, cuddling, kissing, etc. One or two of these things might not be present in the specific relationship, of course, but there tends to be certain things that are expected in a romantic relationship before it is simply considered platonic. Likewise, there are certain things expected in strictly platonic friendships - in most friendships, if you kiss or share a bed with them, it would generally be considered unusual.
Queerplatonic to me means the breaking down of narratives. It means no rules. It means doing, essentially, whatever you are comfortable with. If you want to be best friends for all intents and purposes but also get married, that’s okay. If you want to kiss sometimes but don’t want to feel obligated, that’s okay too. This is why every person in a relationship like this has a different definition of it, because there are no rules. Queerplatonic means forging your own definition, saying “neither platonic or romantic is right”, and just doing whatever feels comfortable in the moment. It means making your own structure, mix and matching what you and your partner feel comfortable with. And I think trying to strictly define a queerplatonic narrative defeats the whole purpose of it. The purpose of it is to forge your own definition, to say “none of these words fit, so I’m going to make my own”. Queerplatonic is the breaking down of boundaries, or at least, that’s been my experience. It’s uncharted territory that has no societal bounds, that has no one making a strange face at what you do or don’t do in your relationship (or at least, not from people who understand the concept). Queerplatonic means mixing and matching, saying “I want to do this platonic thing, and this romantic thing, but not this romantic thing”.
That is, fundamentally, the most important part of a queerplatonic relationship. Breaking down boundaries, blurring the lines between platonic and romantic. The specifics may be different depending on the specific relationship, but that’s one thing I’ve found that all have in common.
Such sentiments are usually used to dismiss (assumed sexless) romantic relationships with an asexual person. However, *romantic allosexual friends and *romantic asexual people have said that the feelings they have for friends and feelings they have for romantic partners are qualitatively different, regardless of sexual attraction. I’m wondering if there are a lot more aromantic people around than we realise, due to people labelling their platonic feels as romantic ones (much how I thought my woman-leaning aesthetic attraction meant I was a lesbian).
Thoughts, fellow aromantics?
