[confusion]

grey aromantic & quoisexual | a sideblog that collects things related to the grey areas of aspec experiences | there is also stuff about being romance averse in fandom | icon, header

[aro-and-tired]

Loveless aro survey

Hello! I have made a survey to gather data on the loveless aro community, which you can take HERE. There isn’t a set date for when the survey will be closed, as that depends on how much data I can gather. Results will be posted on this blog.

Both loveless aros and aromantics who do not identify as loveless can participate. Loveless aros will mainly be asked their reasons for using the loveless label, and a few personal opinions regarding the community. Non-loveless aromantics will mainly be asked about their opinions regarding the label of loveless aro. Both groups will be given demographic questions. In the case of loveless aros, the demographic questions aim to find trends within the loveless community, while the same demographic questions for non-loveless aros may serve as a control sample.

Also, as I’ve been asked this before, all people on the aromantic spectrum are welcome to participate, regardless of the specific labels they use.

[aro-and-tired]

There currently are more than 700 responses, which I’m really glad for! That being said, I wanted to ask if I could have a bit of help. At this time this survey is only being advertised on tumblr, meaning responses are skewed towards tumblr’s user base, and it’s a bit of an issue in some ways - for example, I am asking where did people learn of the term loveless aro and a lot of people say “tumblr”, which is sort of expected since tumblr users are just more likely to learn about new terms on tumblr.

So, I wanted to ask, could someone who has an aro Twitter or who is into some aro discord boost the survey there? At present time I plan on keeping the survey open at least until Monday, August 2nd. However, if there is a new wave of responses I may keep it open longer. I’d be really grateful if someone could do that

[greyspec]

From this post, which I didn’t want to add more discussion to since it didn’t quite seem like the post to have it on, but pinging @just-aro and @raavenb2619 if y’all want to see this:

honestly i hope “loveless” as a label/adjective never gets an official definition because it already exists as a word that aros may resonate with for many different reasons. i want to say it’s open to any person (aro or not) who want to call themselves loveless. it’s a word we borrowed from the english language! it’s free to use!

i don’t consider myself a loveless aro in the sense that it’s not part of the orientation terminology that i’d use for myself, but i do consider myself a proponent of lovelessness as an ideology (‘you don’t need love to be good’) & i’m ‘loveless’ in the sense that i don’t consider feeling affective love personally important often (it can fluctuate i think?). tbh i feel weirdly about loveless as a label when it’s used to mean ‘someone who believes you don’t need love to be good’ because like. i want everyone to believe that.

First, clarification: “official definition” to me means something like “one true definition everyone should use” and I just consider that bad practice in principle for identity labels.

I have two more suggestions about talking about lovelessness. I don’t consider it terribly important that people take me up on them, because ‘loveless’ is a word that is free to use, labels shouldn’t have official definitions, etc.—but sometimes I do get confused about its usage & think there are easy ways for individuals to mitigate that confusion if that’s something people are interested in:

Not using ‘loveless’ to mean ‘supporting the idea that love is separate from goodness’; instead saying something like ‘supporter of lovelessness,’ ‘pro-lovelessness,’ the entire ‘supporting the idea that love is separate from goodness,’ etc.

Providing alternate definition suggestions to ‘loveless’ as a label such as:

‘sometimes/often/always feeling personally and/or deeply connected to the idea that love is separate from goodness’

‘sometimes/often/always feeling like the idea that love is separate from goodness is personally important’

‘sometimes/often/always not considering any/some feelings of love to be personally important’ (if you wanna borrow how I feel about love)

‘sometimes/often/always not feeling much or any affective love, whatever much means to you’

I want to know if this is in any way asking a lot of someone from people who use loveless as a label and if there is interest putting this usage into practice? Or if other people also get kneejerk confusion when loveless is used to mean supporting lovelessness like I do.

[raavenb2619]

Excellent food for thought.

I also think that a rigid definition of "loveless" probably isn’t a great idea. If someone finds "loveless" as a label helpful (especially if they fall into the vilified zone of "I don't feel love"), I don't think they should have to jump through hoops or consult a checklist before using it.

That said, I'm also a bit wary (maybe too proactively, or maybe not) of the meaning of "loveless" shifting a great deal. I'll admit that I'm personally biased by K.A. Cook's essay being my introduction to lovelessness, but I think there (still) is a need for a term that communicates "I don't feel love, and/or please don't (automatically) apply the word 'love' to me or my experiences" (and community spaces to talk about it). At the very least, I have a need for a word that communicates that message, and I use "loveless" to fulfill that need. The "love isn't a prerequisite for goodness" is more of a consequence of not wanting to be vilified or dehumanized than an inherent part of the label, for me.

(Additionally, voidpunk and lovelessness are both reactions to dehumanization and (as far as I know) were first talked about by alloaros, and I think it's important to remember their origins. I don't want to see the roots of lovelessness ignored in such a way that necessitates a post like this one about voidpunk.)

I also don't want to prescribe language or say that people are using words wrong, but someone calling themselves loveless to communicate "I agree with the idea that you don't need love to be good" without feeling connected to other parts of lovelessness feels a little odd to me. (It's not a perfect analogy, but I see it kind of like if cis people started saying they were trans because they thought that was the best way to show support for trans people.) I absolutely think it's possible to support loveless people while feeling very connected to love and labeling some of your experiences as love and finding love to be personally very important to you, just like how it's possible to support aros while being alloromantic and finding romance to be personally very important to you.

I guess another way to look at it is "lovelessness" as a descriptor of one's personal experiences, versus "lovelessness" as the name of an ideology rejecting the notion that love is a prerequisite of goodness and/or humanity. Using the same word for both the descriptor and the ideology can be confusing, and the ideology isn't intuitively and immediately understood just by the word "lovelessness" itself, so I think (especially when introducing people to the ideology) it's a good idea to avoid calling the ideology "lovelessness". (After all, loveless aros aren’t the only people impacted by "love is what makes us human/good", just like how aros aren’t the only people impacted by amatonormativity or trans people aren’t the only people impacted by cisnormativity.) A less confusing name for the ideology might be something like "rejecting the notion that love is what makes us human/good".

[greyspec]

I don’t worry too much about “loveless” drifting too far out from its original meaning because its original meaning is already widely used as an English word. (Google defines it as “having no feelings of love.”) Then again, “platonic” in the aro community has undergone some not insignificant semantic drift, so your higher level of wariness may be more rational.

I agree that “loveless” meaning “I don’t feel love” is a necessary and useful usage. I guess I just don’t want to make it something that is exclusive to only that meaning, because “loveless” as “I personally feel alienated from love/do not consider love personally important” sounds like a resonant experience that doesn’t necessarily require someone to not feel love at all. I think blocking people such as those from the potential loveless community would needlessly fracture discussions/spaces.

(As for asking people not to automatically apply the word ‘love’ to one or one’s appearances—I would be wary about relying on a singular word to communicate a boundary/tying an identity to a specific boundary. I think interactions go much better when people are clear about their boundaries, like saying the whole “please don’t (automatically) apply the word ‘love’ to me or my experiences.”

I also think that “loveless” meaning “personal alienation from love” communicates that boundary as well as “loveless” meaning only “not feeling love.”)

How hypothetical is my discussion? I feel like I have seen some people who feel love asking about the loveless label, but I can’t recall any specific examples, so that may just be a false impression. I’m iffy on calling myself a loveless aro because I do feel love in some cases, but I feel like narratives about lovelessness are personally resonant because I don’t consider my feelings of love significant most of the time. Like…I disidentify with affective love as a significant part of my life. In that sense I feel called toward ‘loveless.’

Or, in your example of someone who feels very connected to love, labeling some experiences as love, and finding love to be very important personally—I fit one of those criteria (I label some of my experiences as love) but not the others. I would like to talk about lovelessness as a personal experience. I don’t want to be seen as co-opting the experiences of loveless aros. I don’t want there to be boundaries around the experience of lovelessness; I disagree with the idea that one must never feel any amount of love to be personally connected to loveless experiences.

In any case, I created the above post because “loveless” as “I agree love is separate from goodness,” i.e. the ideology, is a confusing usage. Or, I entirely agree with your last paragraph (not even sure if/how we disagree with anything else). Although I was trying to think of shorter names for the ideology than spelling it all out, haha. I suppose we can make do with the entire “rejecting the notion that love is what makes us human/good.” I think it’s better than any of my suggested phrases.

(P.S.: K.A. Cook doesn’t seem to mention the word “loveless(ness)” at all in the linked essay; although I see that ze has a tag called “lovelessness” of which the linked essay is the earliest chronological entry & uses “loveless” in other posts. I am taking this to mean that the linked post was the catalyst for lovelessness as an idea. I was just a bit confused for a second; this is just a note for other people. Also, neat. I read the essay before but didn’t know/remember it was the thing that started the lovelessness conversation.)

[greyspec]

From this post, which I didn’t want to add more discussion to since it didn’t quite seem like the post to have it on, but pinging @just-aro and @raavenb2619 if y’all want to see this:

honestly i hope “loveless” as a label/adjective never gets an official definition because it already exists as a word that aros may resonate with for many different reasons. i want to say it’s open to any person (aro or not) who want to call themselves loveless. it’s a word we borrowed from the english language! it’s free to use!

i don’t consider myself a loveless aro in the sense that it’s not part of the orientation terminology that i’d use for myself, but i do consider myself a proponent of lovelessness as an ideology (‘you don’t need love to be good’) & i’m ‘loveless’ in the sense that i don’t consider feeling affective love personally important often (it can fluctuate i think?). tbh i feel weirdly about loveless as a label when it’s used to mean ‘someone who believes you don’t need love to be good’ because like. i want everyone to believe that.

First, clarification: “official definition” to me means something like “one true definition everyone should use” and I just consider that bad practice in principle for identity labels.

I have two more suggestions about talking about lovelessness. I don’t consider it terribly important that people take me up on them, because ‘loveless’ is a word that is free to use, labels shouldn’t have official definitions, etc.—but sometimes I do get confused about its usage & think there are easy ways for individuals to mitigate that confusion if that’s something people are interested in:

Not using ‘loveless’ to mean ‘supporting the idea that love is separate from goodness’; instead saying something like ‘supporter of lovelessness,’ ‘pro-lovelessness,’ the entire ‘supporting the idea that love is separate from goodness,’ etc.

Providing alternate definition suggestions to ‘loveless’ as a label such as:

‘sometimes/often/always feeling personally and/or deeply connected to the idea that love is separate from goodness’

‘sometimes/often/always feeling like the idea that love is separate from goodness is personally important’

‘sometimes/often/always not considering any/some feelings of love to be personally important’ (if you wanna borrow how I feel about love)

‘sometimes/often/always not feeling much or any affective love, whatever much means to you’

I want to know if this is in any way asking a lot of someone from people who use loveless as a label and if there is interest putting this usage into practice? Or if other people also get kneejerk confusion when loveless is used to mean supporting lovelessness like I do.

[aro-culture-is]

Aro culture is connecting more with the label loveless despite the fact that you experience squishes.

(psst. anon.)

loveless doesn't have an "official" definition yet - my pinned post on @just-aro has my personal definition, and I neither agree with nor have seen any stances saying people who experience some attraction or love cannot use it.

- mod kee

[raavenb2619]

I’m loveless and get squishes, so you can definitely feel connected to and/or use “loveless” as a label if you find it helpful

[greyspec]

honestly i hope “loveless” as a label/adjective never gets an official definition because it already exists as a word that aros may resonate with for many different reasons. i want to say it’s open to any person (aro or not) who want to call themselves loveless. it’s a word we borrowed from the english language! it’s free to use!

i don’t consider myself a loveless aro in the sense that it’s not part of the orientation terminology that i’d use for myself, but i do consider myself a proponent of lovelessness as an ideology (‘you don’t need love to be good’) & i’m ‘loveless’ in the sense that i don’t consider feeling affective love personally important often (it can fluctuate i think?). tbh i feel weirdly about loveless as a label when it’s used to mean ‘someone who believes you don’t need love to be good’ because like. i want everyone to believe that.

[aroaceandetc]

To kick off the new Carnival of Aros website, we’ll be hosting this month’s theme here! More information about the blogging carnival can be found here. Theme/Prompts June is Pride month…

Hey everyone! The Carnival of Aros is currently getting rebooted with a new site and management team (including yours truly). June’s theme is “Pride and Solidarity” and being hosted by the carnival itself.  We’re all excited to see the carnival continue and get to see everyone’s different thoughts and responses. Feel free to comment or email us with any questions or concerns!

[aro-fae]

I don’t think people truly grasp how harmful is the aphobic argument that “everyone waits to form strong bonds before having sex: it’s called having standards”, used by many demisexual exclusionists.

Not only it invalidates and excludes demisexual people, which is already awful enough, but when you note the implications this statement has it becomes even worse.

First, it reinforces the (wrong) idea that action equals attraction. Demisexuality is not a choice. Waiting to have sex is. The two situations can’t be compared. But this concept that action equals attraction harms all people in the ace and aro communities. Either by invalidating those of us who engage in sexual and/or romantic behavior, or downright incorrectly reducing our identities to a simple choice (as if we were nuns), this idea is among the most used by exclusionists and we need to get rid of it.

Second, it is literally slut-shaming? And this affects people of every sexuality. As long as there’s consent and mutual respect, there is nothing wrong with two people having sex with no other kind of bonds or feelings. The idea that a consensual sexual relationship is somehow less valid or less “pure” because of the lack of a strong bond goes against sex-positivity. You wait until the third date? Congrats! That does not make you a better person!

Third, and this idea is connected to the previous one, usually, by “strong bond” people mean romantic feelings because... amatonormativity I guess? And this is harmful due to two things: 1) It’s not supposed to be romantic feelings. A demisexual person can feel sexual attraction towards someone they’re not romantically attracted to (and in the same way, they won’t necessarily be sexually attracted to all the people they’re romantically attracted to). 2) It demonizes alloaros. By saying that it is only right to engage in sexual behavior when you have strong romantic feelings towards the other person, you are attacking alloaros who have sexual lives (again, distinction between action and attraction). And again, there’s nothing wrong with an alloaro acting on the attraction they do feel because there’s nothing wrong with people having consensual sex. Full period.

This statement, as many other used by exclusionists, is rooted in amatonormativity, sex-negativity and aphobia. It goes deeper than just your disgusting demisexual exclusionist argument.

[aro-culture-is]

i don’t know if i’m aro or not, i feel lile i am, but like what if i’m not? ykwim??

intellectually yes, but as i frequently mention, personally, no.

advice: it literally doesn’t matter. as long as you feel supported in your expression of yourself, you are okay. do you know how many identities i “tried on” for as much as months at a time before I settled with ones that, a few years later I swapped?

I started as a genderfluid lesbian (ha). then agender bi/pan. then i tried out a whole range of genders that were culminating as “anything but woman or any part being woman-like” and aroace. I’d spend years trying out literally 15+ gender identity labels. I’d realize that I did experience some sexual attraction, try for a year or so to label it, and realize wow, I actually don’t care and it doesn’t matter to me. I don’t want a label for that. Now I’m a genderqueer genderfluid non-sam loveless aro who usually shortens it to genderqueer OR genderfluid aro. Labels don’t define us - we define them for us.

- mod kee

[greyspec]

Labels don’t define us - we define them for us.

[kernsing]

comics loki is aro as hel.

don’t believe me? see exhibits a & b for evidence:

if these aren’t quintessential aro moods. consider also: green. no i will not take criticism.

bonus: asgard is quoix by default—

(on one hand: i find it hard pressed to believe that these panels were not the result of a heteronormative society having an allergy to saying the words “bi” or “pan”; on the other hand: all identities are products of the norms & attitudes of a certain time & place & culture as much as they are products of the objective diversity of subjective human experiences, and there is no reason to believe an alien society would have a similar concept to “sexual orientation” at all. this is actually the only criticism i will accept to “loki is aro” because “aromanticism” as a meaningful way to organize & navigate one’s experiences in relation to other people exists in the context of modern western society & its concept of romance. in this essay i will—)

[shades-of-grayro]

It's kind of messed up that we use the phrase "split attraction model" to talk about people using (or not using) both sexual and romantic orientations.

Like, the fact that it's called the split ATTRACTION model implies that orientation is only ever about attraction, which is untrue. Some aros are aro because they're romance repulsed or just don't want romantic relationships, and whether or not they experience romantic attraction doesn't matter. Same goes for asexuality and other orientations.

It also implies that if you use both romantic and sexual orientations, that you distinguish between those kinds of attraction. Like that's not true for a lot of aroaces, yet they still use both romantic and sexual orientations.

It ALSO implies that if you differentiate between types of attraction, then you automatically label your orientation that way. But like... there are aros who don't identify with a sexual orientation who still differentiate between types of attraction. Same goes for aces without romantic orientations.

Why do we use this word for this? I didn't use the word SAM at all in this post to refer to how we use sexual/romantic orientation and it was fine.

[cheeseanonioncrisps]

Y'know, whenever people want to talk about why aspec people 'count' as an oppressed identity, they tend to go for the big stuff like corrective rape and conversion therapy. And like, we should absolutely talk about that stuff. Obviously those things are terrible and important and we need to raise awareness and deal with them.

But I feel like people often gloss over how… quietly traumatising it is to grow up being told that there is only one way to be happy— and that everybody who doesn't conform to that norm is secretly miserable and just doesn't know it— and then to gradually realise that, for reasons that you cannot help, that is never going to happen for you.

You're not going to find a prince/princess and ride off into the sunset. Or if you do, then it's not going to look exactly the way it does in fairytales. You're not going to get a 'normal' relationship, because you are not 'normal', and everybody and everything around you keeps telling you that that's bad.

You see films where characters are presented as being financially stable, genuinely passionate about their work and surrounded by friends and family, but then spend the rest of the plot realising that the real thing they needed was a (romantic and sexual) partner, to make them 'complete'.

You absorb the idea that any relationships you have with allo people will ultimately be unfulfilling on their side, and that this will be your fault (even if you discussed things with your partner beforehand and they decided that they were a-okay with having those sorts of boundaries in a relationship) unless you deliberately force yourself into situations that you aren't comfortable with, so as to make uo for your 'defects'.

You grow up feeling lowkey gaslighted because all the adults in your life (even in LGBT+ spaces. In fact especially in LGBT+ spaces) are insisting that it's totally normal to not be attracted to anybody at your age, and then you go to school and everybody keeps pressuring you to name somebody you're attracted to because they can't imagine not being attracted to anybody at your age.

And then you get older and realise that one day you're going to be expected to leave home, and that one day all your friends are going to be expected to put aside other relationships and 'settle down' with a primary partner and you don't know what you're going to do after that because you straight up don't have a roadmap for what a 'happy ending' looks like for someone like you.

(And the LGBT+ community is little help, because so many people in there are more than happy to tell you that you're not oppressed at all. That you're like this because you don't want to have sex, and/or you don't want to have any relationships, that your orientation is some sort of choice you made— like not eating bananas— rather than an intrinsic part of you that a lot of us have at some point tried to wish away.)

Even if you're grey or demi, and do experience those feelings, you still have to deal with the fact that you're not experiencing them the 'normal' way and that that's going to effect your relationships and your ability to find one in the first place.

If you're aiming for lifelong singlehood (which is valid af) or looking for a qpp, then you're going to have to spend the rest of your life either letting people make wrong assumptions about your situation (at best that your relationship is of a different nature than it actually is, at worst that the life you've chosen is really just a consolation prize because you 'failed' at finding a romantic/sexual partner) or pulling out a powerpoint and several webpages every time you want to explain it.

This what being aspec looks like for most people, and it is constantly minimised as being unimportant and not worth fighting against— even in aspec spaces— because we've all on some level absorbed the idea that oppression is only worth fighting against if it's big, and dramatic, and immediately obvious. That all the little incidents of suffering that we experience on a daily basis are not enough to be worth bothering about.

I mean, who gives a shit if you feel broken, inherently toxic as a partner, and like you're going to be denied happiness because of your orientation? Shouldn't we all just shut up and thank our lucky stars we don't have to deal with all the stuff some of the other letters in the acronym have to put up with (leaving aside the fact that there are many aspec people who identify with more than one letter)?

So you know what? If you're aspec and you relate to anything I've said above (or can think of other things relating your your aspec-ness that I haven't mentioned) then this is me telling you now that it's enough. Even if we got rid of all the big stuff (which we're unlikely to do any time soon because— Shock! Horror!— the big stuff is actually connected to all the small stuff) we would still be unable to consider our fight 'over' because what you are experiencing is not 'basically okay' and something we should just be expected to 'put up with'.

No matter what anybody tells you, we have the right to demand more from life than this.

[jay-aro]

carnival of aros october 2020: prioritization

carnival of aros is a blogging event for aromantic (spec) people that’s hosted around a different theme every month. this month i’m hosting it and the theme is “prioritization”— specifically, prioritization of identity.

for a personal example, i’m aromantic asexual but i very much prioritize my aronticism over my asexuality, to a point where even my gender identity (which is a hot mess unbeknownst to me) is something i prioritize over my asexuality. meanwhile, i see aroaces who almost entirely prioritize their ace identity over their aro— the complete opposite of me! 

not to mention, there’s an even wider diversity of feelings and prioritization when you take into account all flavors of aros— aroallos, non sam aros, and just plain old aros (and previously mentioned aroaces). so for this month’s carnival, i thought it would be interesting to hear people’s reflections on what their labels mean to them. 

lastly, this prompt can also be extended to other parts of identity like race, religion, etc (although orientation and gender are the intended focuses)

here are some example prompts to give you ideas! (none of these are required to answer)

how important is aromanticism to you?

do you have a different orientation you prioritize over your aromanticism? what about gender identity?

do you use the split attraction model? does your identity feel split between romantic and sexual attraction or not?

if activism is something you’re interested in, how does your aromanticism play into that? is aro activism something you focus on or are interested in?

if you’re on the aromantic spectrum, how does that impact your identity? do you ever use the label “aromantic”, or just your arospec label?

how entwined is your orientation and gender?

hypothetically, if you could only choose one label to come out as, what would you choose?

to submit your entry: if you have a tumblr, post your entry under the #carnival of aros tag and dm it to this blog. if you don’t have a tumblr, put the link to your post in the comments of the call for submissions article on the carnival of aros blog [link pending] (also, if you have my discord, feel free to send your entry in a discord dm to me)

the due date is 11:59 october 31st but i will be taking entries until november 6 at the latest

[escapetheantiacebrigade]

This is your chance to Escape the Anti-Ace Brigade: an October 2020 giveaway event. Read more about the project or sign up today to request a free Pillowfort invite.

[seraphic-sapphic-safehaven]

I hope all the lithsexuals and lithromantics out there know how rad they are! While not everyone will understand how you experience attraction, that doesn’t make you any less valid! Your identity is real, unique, and downright wonderful, and you should take pride in it! No matter what others think, being lithsexual and/or lithromantic is something worth celebrating! So, lithsexuals and lithromantics, be proud of who you are because you’re freakin’ extraordinary!

[sakana-no-yama]

Another Aro Thoughts comic, because I have so many damn aro thoughts running through my head! This one's for my aro and aro-spec peoples who often have a hard time with adjusting to their orientation! We all love you!

[pinkfemme-deactivated20210608]

i actually worry a lot about some labels being created. like “lithromantic/sexual” where you only feel attracted to someone if they don’t reciprocate and you stop being attracted when they do. like… why do people want to make this LGBT? why do people think this is a sexuality? if someone only likes people until there’s an actual chance they can be together, they need to ask themself why. this could easily be a lesbian dealing with comphet, someone with trauma that needs to be dealt with because they’re too scared to be in a relationship with other people, etc. these things shouldn’t be normalized, it’s so harmful. instead, we should encourage people to reflect on why that happens. 

[greyspec]

i have no personal stake in the 'are aro/ace people lgbt conversation' because i don't feel a connection to the LGBT+ alliance unless aro people are specifically mentioned, but i would like to say that the lith label has been the opposite of harmful for me. the society i live in glorifies romantic relationships as the ultimate form of happiness; the only narratives my younger self were exposed to were those that delineated a smooth transition from attraction leads to dating leads to a relationship leads to happiness. i spent my childhood and early adolescence not being able to imagine what the future would look like for me, because the futures people presented to me all had weddings and marriages and i could not even begin to picture myself in one of those.

i thought that because i had feelings for someone, that meant i had to want to date someone, that i had to force myself to confess my feelings and get into relationships. i genuinely liked the people i had crushes on. they were kind, interesting people, and yet i was not happy trying to get myself into dating relationships with them.

it took so long for me to figure out that i actually LIKE being single, that i am happy being single, that i vastly prefer to be friends with my crushes--not because i'm nervous about romance but because i genuinely prefer platonic relationships. this singular narrative about how not having a romance is a tragedy is in fact not true for everyone, even for people who do experience attraction. this is what's harmful, to push the story that there's only one way you can be happy. we should expand the diversity of narratives surrounding happiness and fulfillment, to account for the reality of human experience, not call stories we don't understand, stories that would be harmful if they were applied to ourselves personally, harmful to everyone as a blanket statement. universal expectations are what are harmful, not particular narratives. i don't go around saying that romantic relationships are harmful full stop, even though they would be to me. i would appreciate if you afforded me the same respect.

it is not true that everyone everywhere must have romance or sex to be happy, even if they feel attraction for people. it is not true that everyone everywhere is able to be happy with romance or sex, even if they feel attraction for people. is it really so difficult to imagine that someone, somewhere actually enjoys being single? prefers it, even, as their natural state of being? is alienated and confused when they grow up in a world that calls their happiness abnormal, is glad when they come across words that let them own their own joy and existence? i don’t have to date even if i feel attraction. i get to be happy about being single. i get to acknowledge my natural preferences. i get to set my own boundaries. my younger self deserved to be able to imagine a future where they were happy.

i've thought long and hard about this. i am constantly asking myself why. i am still not sure about many things, but i can guarantee you that i am not a lesbian dealing with heteronormativity or someone with relationship trauma. in any case, the aro and ace communities from where i'm standing have always encouraged questioning and leaving behind labels if they don't fit anymore, and i'm sorry if your experiences have been different.

[aromantic-aurea]

Aro Census Analyst Application

AUREA recently launched the first English-language aro census in 2020. The survey will be closing in November and AUREA is putting together a team of analysts to look at the data collected. We plan to conduct data analysis over 4 to 5 months, beginning around December and then will be working on modifying the census according to feedback we received. If you are interested in helping out, please fill out this form.

AUREA recently launched the first English-language aro census in 2020. The survey will be closing in November and AUREA is putting together a team of analysts to look at the data collected. We plan to conduct data analysis over 4 to 5 months, beginning around December and then will be working on modifying the census according to feedback we received. If you are interested in helping out, please fill out this form.

[aromantic-aurea]

What is a QPR? What does this kind of relationship look like? What does queerplatonic mean to you? QPRs are purposefully vague in description and always subjective. In a world that is drowning under amatonormativity, that is a beautiful thing. It does mean, however, a lot of the conversation surrounding QPRs is hypothetical. Few people know what a QPR is and even fewer are in one. The amorphous structure of this relationship can make it difficult to imagine. So we want to hear about your QPR. We're looking for short submissions from people in QPRs, about their QPRs. Tell us how you met, your favourite thing about the relationship, where you see your future going. Tell us what people think of your relationship, why a QPR works for you, who asked who. Tell us a hilarious anecdote, write a love letter to your partner, or describe your relationship like the voice over in a dramatic teen movie would. Tell us whatever you want! Whether its good, bad, or neither; whether it's a single line or a couple of paragraphs - we want to create a collection that demonstrates just what a QPR can be like. We want to show people exactly what queerplatonic relationships ARE like and how they are thriving. --- For reference, the structure of this piece will mirror these previous collections: My Aromanticism - https://www.aromanticism.org/en/news-feed/my-aromanticism My Aromantic Future - https://www.aromanticism.org/en/news-feed/my-aromantic-future

Call for submissions! AUREA is looking for short written pieces from people in queerplatonic relationships. There’s so much variety to what a QPRs can be, tell us about yours!