I'm really sorry in advance because this is probably a really ignorant/rude/maybe even somewhat offensive question, but I was wondering whether aroSPEC allosexuals (i.e. demiromantic, greyromantic, etc.) counted as aro allos? I'm assuming yes, because usually 'aro' in this kind of case is used as an umbrella term, but I've only ever really seen people talk about the aro allo experience in reference to experiencing no romantic attraction ever, so I wanted to double check whether my gut was right.
There’s nothing even slightly rude or offensive about the way you’ve asked this question, anon. You’re polite and respectful; you just want understanding and confirmation. There’s nothing wrong with that.
I’m not going to say I speak for the whole community, because I don’t, but I’d be seriously displeased if I saw someone argue that the aro part of “allo-aro” doesn’t include all folks on the aromantic spectrum (if that’s how they identify). I mean “what the hell this is not what this community is about” displeased. All aro-spectrum-identified folks are welcome.
I think we use “allo-aro” to mean “allosexual and aromantic-spec”. Unfortunately, I think we have the same problem as with words like “aro-ace” where we can’t as easily add the “-spec” on the end to be clear that it means everyone under those umbrellas. But even if it isn’t spoken or written, it’s there.
In my opinion, “allo-aro” needs a little vagueness about it: there’ll be folks with fluid orientations that include ace-spec identities (hello, me) and folks on the ace-spectrum who need support for experiences of sexual attraction that are currently not provided in ace-spec spaces along with people who fit the strict definition (some shape of aro-spec, completely allosexual). I look at “allo-aro” as an identifier that’s less about a strict definition of attraction and more a way to communicate aro-specs who need a sense of community and connection around the fact that we are on the aromantic spectrum and that is shaped by experiences of sexual attraction–that it’s more about what we need than it is about who we are. Some ace-spec aro-spec folks may need, or want, to participate in our spaces because they’re just not being supported in their sexual attractions in ace-spec spaces.
Yes, most of the time “allo-aro” means “being on the aromantic spectrum while experiencing allosexual attraction”, but I think it can also mean “and folks on the aromantic spectrum who do experience some form of sexual attraction and find it an important part of their aromanticism in ways not accommodated in ace-spec spaces”, too. I can’t speak for anyone else here, but I think that allowing people to self-identify with the labels that suit their needs is far better than being really restrictive about who is and isn’t precisely fitting the label.
I think most of us don’t see “allo-aro” as an identifier the same way “aro-ace” is. I’m abrosexual aromantic; that’s my identity. Allo-aro is just the word that I use to connect me to a category of certain other aro-spec experiences and identities. It’s a word I use to give me connection to other people and to counteract a de-centering we experience: with a term that connects us, we can tag our content, find each other, speak more loudly about what we need. I think this gives us room to play with it.
Perhaps a good working definition is “aro-spec person who experiences sexual attraction and needs this to be centred alongside their aromantic-spectrum experiences” because I think that centering is key to why we’re gathering under this label. It’s less about experiencing allosexual attraction and more about sexual attraction needing to be a factor in how our aromantic-spectrum identities are accepted and understood in a-spec and aro-spec spaces.
(I mean, I don’t identify as allo-aro anywhere but inside a-spec spaces; it feels like a label specific to this community and its activism.)
So, if I feel this way about people who experience sexual attraction and are also ace-spec but need allo-aro community, connection and information, it’d be absurd to say that aro-spectrum people aren’t allo-aro.
Does this make sense, anon? A lot of this isn’t what you asked for; I’m just using it as an excuse to mention that I see “allo-aro” as a somewhat vague category and I’m fine with ace-spec people who need to really centre their sexual attraction experiences sheltering under this particular umbrella, too. Other people can feel differently and that’s okay, but for the purposes of this blog–if you want to be in this space because it’s giving you something you’re not getting anywhere else, it’s yours.
It’s important to say that we need more conversations by aro-spec people in being on the aromantic spectrum and experiencing sexual attraction, and I hope this can grow and develop as allo-aro as a space also grows and develops. Right now, we’re so new and small that our conversations aren’t yet as diverse as they should be, but I hope people do feel welcome in exploring the many shapes of what allo-aro looks like, because we need that exploration.
That you had to ask this question, anon, is something I consider a failure on our part, so I hope aro-spectrum folks in the allo-aro community know that they’re allo-aro, they’re wanted and important, and we’re here to listen to you talk about your experiences.