[ale-arro]

i feel like in the past year or two there's been a shift from the common aro answer to "what's the difference between romance and friendship?" from being "intention" to being "romance and friendship are social constructions" which isn't quite a different answer but it's interesting to me how much more sociology-academic the language has gotten

[itscoldinwonderland]

Ignoring the fact that op is just aphobic and the replies/notes on that post are aphobic, calling ace and aro people straight and saying we don't belong in the community...

"love loses" is very specifically a critique on how romantic relationships, and marriage, are viewed as the most valuable relationships.

And aromantic people can and frequently do love others. We form connections that are just as valuable as romantic relationships. Like I have a partner who I have sexual relations with but also view as a platonic friend. We are not boyfriends and I am not "in love with him", I do not want to marry him, I do not want to live with him. I still very much care about him and LOVE him.

I totally understand that "love wins" was a slogan adopted to celebrate the legalization of gay marriage. But I would say marriage is an oppressive institution that shouldn't legally exist!

Real equality would mean abolishing the institute of marriage as a government contract! That doesn't mean you can't have a wedding or call yourselves "husband" or "wife". What it does mean? Completely removing religion from government. Completely removing the governments ability to view certain relationships as more important than others. Letting people regardless of background or relationship status to appoint people in their life with the same rights we would currently appoint, and only appoint, a spouse. Not putting restrictions on disabled people's love. People being freely able to leave a relationship without having to go to court and wait a bunch of time or prove why they should leave. Polyamory not being a legal issues. Gay marriage not being a legal issues.

[ale-arro]

> we only achieved in 2015

WHO'S WE!!!!!!

personally if i cared about marriage equality as a primary issue in my approach to lgbt+ activism i would be less obnoxiously US-American about it when there are places where it still isn't legal but what do i know

[enderhasentered]

I think that the lack of aromantic spaces that aren't also asexual is a function of both amatonormativity and purity culture.

Either you're having sex for love, or you're a wh*re

So aroallo people struggle to proudly exist because we're labeled "shallow" or "unavailable" when we don't fit into the lines drawn for us, without us.

We're just as real and just as normal as anyone else, but the constant shame surrounding sex pushes us to label ourselves wrong.

I cannot be the only person who labelled myself aroace despite knowing it wasn't true because I was scared of what others may think of me, even in my own communities.

Well that's bullshit. I'm not going to live in the closet because of others' ignorance. I want to be loud and honest and maybe if I'm lucky, I can help someone else feel just a little bit less alone.

You don't have to be afraid of who you are. Who you are is cool as fuck.

[ale-arro]

also worth noting that purity culture and amatonormativity aren't actually separate forces. the devaluation of casual sex is an inherent element of the valorization of romantic relationships. conversely, an inherent element of purity culture is that it drives people to pursue romantic relationships

[ale-arro]

being an alloaro who doesn't fuck has given me such a funny relationship with the word slut. a word that's been used against me often enough that i've come around to reclaiming it. screaming PORQUE YO SOY SOY UN CUERO along with bad bunny. meanwhile i'm having: zero sex

[stephexmachina]

genuinely a pity that im aroace bc im always feeling the urge to cut somebody off permanently but my friends r all awesome & i love them. i want to break up with someone casual style isn't that what boyfriends are for

[ale-arro]

and i'm always saying that no intense, explicit transgender flirting session is complete without some leftist infighting

[ale-arro]

the nature of apps like grindr is that the people near you will all be mid, and while there will be beautiful transgender people who you can have effortlessly flirty conversations with, they are only passing through and are unable to meet up

[glossyshimer]

Bruh I need to flirt with someone but also I don’t want to 😔 #aromantic spectrum

[ale-arro]

[ale-arro]

while I don’t disagree that a lot of people have a negative connotation with no commitment in general, I generally think situationship is intended to convey a situation where one or both parties are not being upfront about their intentions/communication for it to not be a committed romantic relationship. Like im aro and don’t want a committed relationship but still ended up in a negative situationship with a guy who also didn’t want a committed relationship but was unable to communicate that he was seeing someone else and proceeded to decide to blow up our situation over his own internal guilt (never crossed his mind that idgaf)

i agree that the crux of the matter is that there's no communication, but i also think it's telling that the expectation in most situations is that the not-wanting-commitment party is the one who is doing the poor job establishing the relationship rather than the wanting-commitment party, who, in a world without cultural expectation, would be equally responsible for communicating what they want out of a relationship (and I may even argue that since they're the one who wants a change to the relationship, they bear more responsibility than the person who is chilling).

idk what's going on in your situation tho that sounds wack as hell

[ale-arro]

was talking with a bunch of people about if the connotation of "situationship" and it didn't... surprise me, per se, but it was interesting how many responses pointed to lack of commitment as a self-evident indication of negative connotation. like it doesn't need to be explained why that's bad bc anyone reading knows why it's bad. we really view noncommitment as a moral failing huh

[ale-arro]

From a post on r/dating asking what a "situationship" is:

All of these comments are 3 years old, which is a long time in the phrase's mainstream use lifespan, so the nuance may be solidifying slightly differently, but a strong focus on asymmetry, and an exclusive lens of mismatched commitment preferences as being something that can/will be weaponized by the person who doesn't want commitment against the person who does, with no acknowledgment that the opposite can also be true.

[veganfeministfromhell]

i don't think i'm actually as scared of relationships as i thought? what i fear is amatonormativity, but not dating in general. like of course there's still the cptsd stuff, but apart from that, thinking about being in a non-restrictive qpr that's built around the experiences of those involved and not social norms or rules is such a pleasant thought. imagining myself in a traditional relationship makes me feel trapped and stressed and overall terrible. meanwhile being in an emotionally/physically intimate relationship that supports and acknowledges my atypical attraction is a genuinely joyous thing to think about. this is certainly one of the discoveries ever. split up and discuss amongst yourselves while i ponder

[ale-arro]

was talking with a bunch of people about if the connotation of "situationship" and it didn't... surprise me, per se, but it was interesting how many responses pointed to lack of commitment as a self-evident indication of negative connotation. like it doesn't need to be explained why that's bad bc anyone reading knows why it's bad. we really view noncommitment as a moral failing huh

[endcrys]

This pride month I need every aromantic to get more annoying about being aromantic

[ale-arro]

and like to a large extent the ambiguous relationships i have with other aromantic people in my life can only exist in the form that they do because there isn't language to describe it, but also not having language to describe it makes it really inconvenient to talk about it with other people

[pukicho]

Im hopelessly in love with someone I’m not physically attracted to

I don’t give a fuck

[ale-arro]

something that being more open about being attracted to people while being aspec has taught me is that people (even other aspecs!) are incredibly quick to suggest what is, in the end, conversion therapy. the baseline assumption is that my aromantic view on relationships holds me back from my sexuality. has it occurred to anyone that my sexuality holds me back from my aromantic view on relationships? has it occurred to anyone that a normative view of relationships holds people back. not being in a normative relationship is not a deficit, not having sex is not a deficit, it is not an inherent good to be in normative relationship and have sex just because you experience attraction, i do not owe it to the attraction that i experience to compromise my aspec worldview in the name of exploring it