so recently i made a post about loveless and lovequeer aros, and there seemed to be quite some people who never heard of lovequeer but liked the concept. so, to spread it a little bit more and also to hear other lovequeer aro's perspectives, i'd like to start a collection of lovequeer experiences, own definitions etc.
the term was coined by @raimi in this post:
I'm coining the term lovequeer. To be lovequeer is to fully reject the concept of "love" as society applies it for romance, and to redefine the word around oneself and the types of love neglected by amatonormativity.
I am a lovequeer aro. My heart is full of love for my friends, for my family, for my pets. The idea of romance is useless and irrelevant to me. I don't need romance. All I need is my strong and passionate love.
so that's how it originated. in my own experience, being lovequeer is all about having your own idea of love, completely detached from romance. i use the word love in my day-to-day life quite much, and at this point the only type i really bother to specify is romantic love, because this is the type i am not used to talking about.
i love using the word "love" for small and big warm emotions, i love to use the phrase "i've fallen in love" or "i am in love with" for abstract concepts. it makes those things that are important to me sound big and impactful, and it takes the focus away from romance as the "one important kind". i'd even say it takes away from love being that one big powerful world-moving emotion, and to be honest, i like that. i like to have love as something nearly mundane in my life, as something that improves it a lot, but that doesn't have to be the focus wherever it appears.
i like having love in my life, just for it to be there. it doesn't have to drive anything anywhere, it is just there and i can enjoy its presence. i like being in love with someone's voice, or a word, a very cool concept, and just being stunned by it without having to do anything about it.
i also enjoy having love as this all-important emotion in my life, because it can be world-moving and it deserves to be. but so deserves compassion, and kindness, and those aren't put on a pedestal like love is. so being lovequeer for me means being in a world surrounded by my self-defined love, without love being the one thing that defines my thoughts and actions.
as a partnering aro, I always second guess myself like... am I actually alloromantic bc I like being in an intimate relationship? and then I hang out with alloros and I feel this difference in the way they feel about people and I’m like... oh
I hate the definition of romantic attraction that’s “you’ll know it when you feel it” but like, I very definitely clearly feel the absence of it. I like being aro though and don’t want to define it as a lack of something. I wish we had more vocabulary to talk about our experiences and really admire everyone out there coining new terms.
Carnival of Aros - Sept. 2019: Aromantic in spirit, never in name
As both a life-long writer and avid consumer of stories, there are a whole host of things I could talk about regarding aromanticism and fiction. I could talk about the (admittedly limited) characters and stories that have meant a lot to me, or what I would like to see in fiction, or my own creative process as an aromantic creator. But what I would like to focus on is the way aromanticism is portrayed in fiction and media, both explicitly and implicitly, as well as the need for aromantic narratives as told by aromantic people, rather than by outsiders seeking to commodify our experiences for diversity points (and often doing so disrespectfully).
It is first necessary, of course, to point out that when I refer to the way aromanticism is portrayed, I’m largely referring to the fact that is isn’t. I know of zero--yes, zero--aromantic characters in mainstream media that have been explicitly referred to as aromantic within the source material (not by word-of-god or by common fan interpretation; so no, comics Jughead doesn’t count until his aromanticism is explicitly named on paper--more on this later). But that doesn’t stop creators from invoking aromanticism, either intentionally or unintentionally, positively or negatively. I’ve written previously about the way aromanticism (or more specifically, nonamory) is invoked in soulmate narratives, so I won’t get into that here, but it is worth mentioning that the idea of not falling in love is far too often demonized, pitied, or turned into tragedy, with aromantic-coded characters being dehumanized as a result.
Aromantic or aromantic-coded characters are typically treated one of three ways: (1) They eventually “find the one” and “learn to love”, (2) they act as “shipper on deck” for the narrative’s main romantic pairing(s), or (3) they are used as angst fuel for alloromantic characters whose love is woefully unrequited. The first treats our orientation as something to be fixed, cured, or outgrown; the second trivializes and tokenizes our experiences for diversity points rather than present a narrative that we can actually relate to; and the third demonizes us and blames us for not returning romantic feelings--which we can’t help.
The closest we aromantics get to mainstream representation is characters that are either strongly aro-coded but not confirmed, or characters that have been confirmed as aromantic by the creator but have never been explicitly described as such within the source material. I mentioned Jughead earlier, and he is a prime example of this. (Yes, I’m talking about Jughead again. Find me some more aromantic representation to talk about and I’ll stop. Regardless, we won’t be talking about Riverdale today.) I own and have read all three volumes of the most recent run of Jughead comics (which have been discontinued indefinitely, so rest in peace to the only scrap of representation we have ever received), and the careful but unambiguous references to Jughead’s aromanticism speak to my soul every time I read them. But despite Zdarsky’s confirmation of Jughead’s romantic orientation on Twitter, I take issue with his portrayal and those that followed--namely, the fact that despite admitting to viewing Jughead as aromantic, he seemed to refuse to invoke it by name. One could argue that perhaps he would have included it in future chapters, or that Ryan North would have (I think it’s safe to assume Mark Waid wouldn’t have), having Jughead become more comfortable with that part of himself, which would have been a compelling narrative if done right--but that never happened, and the fact of the matter is Zdarsky never brought up Jughead’s romantic orientation at all until prompted. Forgive me if I’m quick to distrust alloromantics in their ability to acknowledge us without us begging first.
This points to a larger issue when it comes to the portrayal (or lack thereof) of aromanticism in media: Nobody wants to call us by our name. The bisexual community has been speaking about similar issues for ages; creators will unambiguously put characters in their stories for praise but refuse to openly name queer identities to avoid backlash. When it comes to aromanticism specifically, our orientation is often danced around, as if calling it by its name would unleash some sort of evil. And the truth of the matter is, it’s because to alloromantic creators our existence is so insignificant, a minority within a minority, with our stories falling flat and unsellable with nothing to fetishize and nothing to gain. The only benefit to writing aromanticism respectfully is providing representation to an underrepresented group and gaining our support as audience members--but our stories, our struggles, our experiences don’t matter to these people. This was evident when Cole Sprouse, initially vouching for Jughead to be represented correctly in Riverdale (I lied when I said I wasn’t going to talk about Riverdale), was quick to throw aromantics under the bus when it became convenient for his career.
This why aromantic creators need support, not just from our fellow aromantics but from our allies. We are the ones who can speak to our own experiences, and while there is no one way to be aromantic, we all have greater insider knowledge as to what it means to live as an aromantic than alloromantics do. We deserve to have our stories told, and our aromanticism explicitly named. We are not an insignificant minority, nor are we something to be censored, euphemized, or hidden away.
I would be totally ok with kissing someone platonically(/alterously?), It might make me a little nervous for a bit, so I’d probably start with cheek, forehead, nose kisses etc. But I would be totally ok with it.
i sort of feel that (usually young) aros think aromanticism is just not being "girly." 'i don't like flowers uwu so i'm aromantic but i want a relationship maybe and think it's all cute uwu'
that sounds possible. looking at our culture alone, its clear that romance is girly. although its also very girly to fawn over romances as well, so iunno.
ugh i just want to thank you for having an actual romance free blog. you're seriously making me consider saying "romance free" instead of aro just to get the point across to people. you rock.
(1/2) Hello! First off, I would like to say that I agree with you on a lot of points you've made, and you are very polite (for the most part) when doing so. I appreciate this blog and definitely don't think it should be targeted for take-down. However, I am curious on what you believe an appropriate age to determine aromanticism. For instance, I'm 15 and identify as aro, but what if I'm a late bloomer? Do you believe I have to be older? And what if I do change my mind?
(2/2) Does that mean what I feel now is not valid? I suppose the core of what I'm trying to get across is identities can change. I'm not expecting to necessarily, but the possibility exists. Again, thanks for the blog, you bring up good points that are probably good for the aromantic community to hear.
When it comes to identity and labels, i think its important for everyone to realize that your teen years (and arguably even your early twenties) is one of the most turbulent times for your identity in your life. That being said,
when it comes to non-fluid identities that rely on a "forever" scenario and a lack of attraction to something, we can never know "for sure". You cant really measure a lack of something. But sometimes it really feels like you could never get into romance, and its ok to trust that feeling. Because its ok to be wrong, as long as when youre wrong you admit it.
People will question your identity regardless of age (unless if its an identity they want you to have, like being straight). People will assume you just "dont know better" or will change, regardless of your age. To people like that, when it comes to aromanticism, the best response to that is "so what?" Romance isnt required for a good, happy life. But people get so afraid youll miss out on something "inherently important", as if romance is. Some of these people might even be closet aros, who think everyone has to force themselves into romantic relationships. But the thing is, there's NO reason to pressure someone into trying a thing that doesnt look attractive to them, especially romance. Romance is something that should happen organically, not be forced. If you truly arent aromantic, then youll realize it, so theres nothing for those people to really be worried about anyway. Youre not gonna miss out on some "soulmate" in highschool or whatever because you identified as aro. Like, c'mon people.
Some people may tell you not to label as ANYTHING when youre fifteen. But thats.... just.... silly? Maybe im missing something, but i dont see the harm in identifying as something while youre fifteen and taking it back when youre twenty. This is a time for exploration.
So i say, go ahead and identify as aro! It's like they say... if the shoe fits, wear it! :)
