Hi! I was wondering what the difference was between a non split attraction aromantic and then a unit aromantic?
Because they’re different things but I don’t really understand how different if that makes sense?
hi! historically speaking, unit aro was designed to be a different term for the same experience as non-sam aro. the thought was that, as aromanticism explicitly refers to a form of attraction under the non-sam model, the term was self-contradicting, and it would be nice to have a different term. there were a lot of proposed terms, including unit aro. (two links)
unit aro was defined to describe the idea of experiencing attraction as a "unit", and that unit being "aromantic". prime aro was defined as aromanticism being the "primary" lens/identity through which you experience your identity. arch aro was that aromanticism was your "overarching" identity.
ultimately, the differences are... largely linguistic, but each does have a slightly different feeling to it. our system hadn't realized we were plural yet when this discussion was happening, and had a big problem with unit aro that we couldn't articulate then that was probably because of our plurality. we mostly just call ourselves aro, and in some circles may elaborate as per individual preferences (ie, phoenix identifies as gay and aro, alexander as just aro, myself as aroqueer).
we broadly don't expand on our identity beyond being aro in spaces that aren't solely aromantic, because being aromantic is the most important part of our experience in orientation. we vibe more with the concept of prime aro, but can't stand the shortening being primaro tbh, and honestly... just don't care.
-- axel