why is it that people treat aromanticism as a concrete and inflexible identity when they understand asexuality is a fluid/spectrum identity?
if you can wrap your head around asexuals who have sex without having sexual attraction, why can't you wrap your head around aromantics who have relationships without romantic attraction? you might say "well there's a microlabel for that! like aroflux or cupioromantic!" which is all well and fine....except those microlabels still fall under the aromantic spectrum. THEY ARE STILL AROMANTIC.
it seems to me that the same reason why people don't seem to view aromanticism as a fluid identity is the reason why people don't view asexuality as anything BUT a fluid identity, never acknowledging the asexuals who are sex-averse or repulsed in favor of always talking about those who DO have or like sex.
It's because even when talking about aroaces, you still can't help but center alloamatonormativity. you can't or won't recognize the nuances of aroace identities because you only care about the identities that can still somehow fit into your alloamatonormative world, and even just the word "aromantic" seems antithetical to that.

















