It really pisses me off that so often “platonic relationship” is seen as synonymous with “a form of relationship you have with lots of people at once.”
Like, one of the greatest struggles as an ace spectrum blurry-romantic person looking for a partner is that the moment you say “platonic” to someone, they assume “non-exclusive, non-committed, non-important” and in part that’s because platonic relationships in general are devalued compared to romantic ones, but it’s also because despite the obvious bullshit here, people imagine all platonic relationships/friendships must be essentially the same and fail to allow for any variation of intimacy levels or setting of boundaries. (Frankly, most people don’t allow for the possibility that a platonic relationship could have boundaries that are worth discussing.)
It just drives me mad that even people who support platonic relationships will automatically portray that as non-exclusive, which in our culture is tantamount to non-negotiated (obviously negotiated non-exclusive relationships exist but it’s equally obvious that that’s not what’s going on here) and not see the glaring problems with that.
wow...I didn't actually realize that you didn't have to have a romantic orientation. as soon as I joined the ace community I felt like thats all everyone was asking me and it just didn't seem right for me. I've been so stressed about finding what my own romantic orientation is that I didn't even consider that I didn't have to have one. I know exactly what you mean about each relationship feeling unique, but I haven't found anyone else that felt like that. thanks for making me feel less alone :)
Thank you! I had the same experience, which is why I’m so vocal about the fact that not everyone in the ace community has one. :)
I’ve seen a number of posts lately criticising language which originated in the asexual or aromantic community - compulsory sexuality, romantic, platonic and aesthetic attractions, new orientation labels etc.
I have my own opinions on various parts of this language, but that isn’t what this post is about. This post is about people from outside these communities engaging with the language they create - and, all too often, mocking it.
What people so often fail to understand is that language in the asexual community is created to fulfil a cultural need within that community. When we talk about compulsory sexuality rather than compulsory heterosexuality, it is a shorthand for the exclusion asexual people feel in sex-positive movements which are inclusive of LGB people but often fail to account for sex-repulsion. When we talk about an aesthetic orientation, it is a way of trying to make sense of feelings for which we have no cultural touchstone, which the existing framework of attraction utterly fails to account for - a way of saying that it is possible to feel for someone without wanting to have sex with or date them.
But taken outside of this context - glimpsed in a text post that’s part of a discussion you haven’t followed, skimmed from the description on a blog you have already decided to hate - yeah, it doesn’t make much sense. It’s easy to see the creation of a new model as an attempt to discredit the old, rather than an attempt to create a range of alternatives. It’s easy to see a new identity as attention-grabbing because you have to Google its meaning, rather than understanding that self-description isn’t always aimed at you. But that doesn’t mean that you’ve understood the intent and the context of what you’ve seen.
And oh goodness, there is discussion in the ace and aro communities that gets it wrong, and thoroughly deserves criticism. But when that criticism comes from outside the community, it’s all too easy to cross the line between “this way of conceptualising things is troubling” to “how dare you try and conceptualise things differently!”
Because too often that’s what I see when those outside the community try to engage with it: outrage that those who are not served by existing language have tried to create their own, rather than accepting that their emotions cannot be spoken, and therefore don’t really exist.
And when you’re getting mad at ace and aro people for daring to exist, that’s the point where you and I are going to have a problem.
Hello! You reblogged a post decrying the erasure of other identities on the aromantic spectrum, one of which was cupioromanticism. However, I came across articles on thethinkingasexual (tagged cupioromantic) that make a case for cupioromanticism being an identity arisen solely from amatonormativity. If it really were born of the ingrained belief that only romantic relationships have true passion/value, would it still be a valid identity? What do you think makes an identity valid?
Disclaimer: I’m not cupioromantic or any kind of authority on the topic, I am simply presenting my own opinion, since that’s what was asked for.
I mean, first things first, I think most labels for oppressed groups arise from the fact that there is a system of oppression against them. After all, one of the biggest parts of privilege is not having to think about how privileged you are.
But to be clear, the argument that thethinkingasexual has made is that cupioromanticism - an orientation for those who do not experience romantic attraction, but still desire romantic relationships - cannot exist except in wishful thinking which originates from a desire to fit into an amatonormative world. This is because thethinkingasexual believes that no action is intrinsically romantic; relationships are only made romantic by the experience of romantic attraction from both parties. I agree that, under this definition, the idea of cupioromanticism makes no sense. It’s the definition of romance that I take issue with.
Unlike sexual activity, which is fairly well-defined (albeit a bit fuzzy around the edges), our culture is startlingly vague on what exactly constitutes romantic activity. It’s generally given a ‘you know it when you see it’ handwave, which of course means that everyone is left to piece together ideas from what other people seem to consider romantic and is left with a unique viewpoint on the topic. No-one quite agrees on the colour of the invisible elephant.
Defining romantic activities as those performed by someone experiencing romantic attraction is one way to get around the problem, and a perfectly reasonable definition at that. But that doesn’t mean it’s the only definition. If you want to say that for you, only romantic relationships can involve kissing, or exclusive commitment, or candlelit dinners on Valentine’s Day, then that also seems perfectly reasonable within our culture. Perhaps that’s because our culture has a skewed view of what romance is, but since romance is a cultural invention anyway, I don’t see any problem with using whatever definition your interalised amatonormativity has generated, just like everyone else in society does.
Thethinkingasexual argues that this devalues other relationship models by ignoring the possibility that these needs could be met by a queerplatonic or committed platonic relationship - which, frankly, I think is bullshit, in exactly the same way that same sex marriage can in no way ruin the marriages of those who define marriage differently. Labels are a very personal thing, and there’s nothing wrong with choosing one label over another which might suit for reasons of personal preference.
That said, I do think that thethinkingasexual has a good point about all of this, which is that you should model your relationships based on what you want, not what society tells you you want. Figuring this out can be a long, slow process because societal pressure runs deep, but it’s important to be open to happiness wherever you might find it, and not cling to labels which are no longer helping you.
Which brings me back to the original question you asked: what makes an identity valid? For me, barring the odd messy situation of appropriated labels and so forth, any identity is valid where identifying that way improves the life of the person with the identity. That might be by granting understanding of your behaviour, or by giving access to a broader community of those with similar experiences, or simply by giving the peace of mind of “there’s a word for it.”
In general, I’m in support of labels, and the freedom to move between them without judgement, just as I’m in support of the freedom not to use labels at all.
Hello, can you explain me what romanticism, non-binary, pansexual, asexual, genderqueer and genderfluid are, please?? I don't understand
Okay, I understand the desire to ask me, but seriously? Google them. Literally all of these terms will bring up definitions as one of the top Google results.
If there’s anything you’re still confused about after that, come ask me for more details. But at least do the bare minimum of research yourself to make sure the answers aren’t already very easily accessible elsewhere.
Hello! I was wondering whether you wouldn't mind explaining to me how you "don't have a romantic orientation"? I'm sitting here wracking my brains trying to understand, but I simply can't wrap my head around it (I'm tired though, so that could be it), and keep equating it to aromanticism in my mind, which I'm sure isn't right. Therefore, if you are willing and comfortable to, could you help me to understand? If not though, then that's fine too. Thank you! :)
No problem!
What I mean when I say I don’t have a romantic orientation is that I don’t find ‘romantic attraction’ a useful concept for explaining my feelings. When I am attracted to someone, it is a fluid jumble of romantic and platonic and sensual and aesthetic, to the point that most of those terms feel meaningless to me because they are never experienced independently of the rest, and so do not feel like separate emotions at all. I do occasionally desire a close relationship with someone, but each relationship feels unique, and none of them exactly fit the typical ideas of “platonic” or “romantic”.
I’m not the only person who feels this way, and I know some people use the labels “quoiromantic” or “wtfromantic” to describe this experience. However, I feel that since “romantic” is not really in my emotional dictionary, it shouldn’t be in my identity either. I am not willing to give myself a romantic label that I do not relate to so that I can fit in, and so I would describe myself as simply not having a romantic orientation.
Reasons why I identify as 'bi ace' but don't use the term 'biromantic':
I feel that 'romantic attraction' is a very subjectively defined term, and not something I am certain I could distinguish from other forms of attraction.
I experience attraction in any form only very rarely, and am uncomfortable identifying as 'romantic' when I frequently agree with posts about aromantic-spectrum identities.
I'm uncomfortable with the developing culture in which asexual-spectrum people are expected to express a romantic orientation but allosexual people's identities are taken as sexuality only (unless they identify as aromantic-spectrum).
I feel that 'bi' and 'ace' are often presented as mutually exclusive and want to emphasize that my attraction to multiple genders is not secondary to my asexuality; they are both equally important parts of my identity.
I am happy with my current level of labelling and do not feel a need to further interrogate the kind of attraction I feel in order to satisfy those who expect me to identify differently.
Reasons why I nevertheless support people like me who prefer to use the label 'biromantic ace':
Everyone has a right to choose their own labels for their own reasons.
