#to be clear this is not meant to describe every aroace experience! | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

chironeis · 2 years

Text

“Loveless” perfectly describing an aroace experience

“I had a theory that a lot of people’s “celebrity crushes” were faked just to fit in.”—pg. 5

“He was more of an abstract concept—he was hot, and he was my crush, and nothing was going to happen between us, and I was perfectly fine with that.”—pg. 5

“But what we did have—a friendship of many years—was just as strong as that, I think. Stronger, maybe, than a lot of couples I knew.”—pg. 11

“And if I carried on like this…would I be alone forever?”—pg. 14

“Like, heart racing, sweating, hands shaking freaking out. This was what crushes felt like, so this was normal, right?”—pg. 19

“A random choice from when I was eleven, and a girl held up a photo and told me to choose a boy. I didn’t fancy Tommy. Apparently, I hadn’t ever fancied anyone.”—pg. 25

“I was just staring at him thinking, ‘that was my fucking jacket’ and ‘seven years’ and ‘I never liked you at all.’”—pg. 26

“It was not random that I was the one who was falling behind.”—pg. 29

“Mum regularly pointed out boys she thought I would find attractive, as if I could just go up to someone and ask them out. I never thought any of her choices were attractive anyway.”—pg. 35

“ . . . no particular romantic feelings arose for anyone I met, and I was too anxious to try and force myself to feel them.”—pg. 49

“I was really quite lonely, and I wanted to be loved.”—pg. 53

“I knew almost everything about romance. I knew the theory.”—pg. 56

“I deleted Tinder from my phone, then hit play on About Time again, wondering why picturing myself in any sort of romantic or sexual situation made me feel like I was going to vom and/or run a mile, while romance in movies felt like the sole purpose of being alive.”—pg. 77

“How was I supposed to know that? What the fuck was ‘the spark?’ What did ‘the spark’ even feel like?”—pg. 125

““When you know, you know.” That sort of made me want to scream. I didn’t know how to know.”—pg. 126

“Why would someone go to a stranger’s house and take their clothes off when you could just stay home and have a safe, comfortable wank?”—pg. 126

“What if my sexuality was just the letter X, like the Kinsey Scale had told me?”—pg. 156

“I wished she had been nosy. I wished I could find the words to talk about all of this with my best friend.”—pg. 173

““This has to be a fucking joke.” . . . “Everybody has to be fucking JOKING.””—pg. 203

“‘You’ll change your mind when you’re older. You never know what might happen. You’ll feel differently one day.’ As if we teenagers knew so little about ourselves that we could wake up one day a completely different person. As if the person we are right now doesn’t matter at all.”—pg. 222

“And she’d laughed. That annoyed me. That was how I’d expected her to react. That was how I expected everyone to react.”—pg. 250

“She was annoying me, and I realized that it was because what I was doing wasn’t “giving up.” It was acceptance.”—pg. 252

“I have always felt lonely, I think.”—pg. 275

““I’m not really interested in getting a boyfriend.” “Oh well,” she said, patting my leg again, “plenty of time, my love. Plenty of time.” But my time is now, I wanted to scream. My life is happening right now.”—pg. 279

““That would be nice. If there were lots out there.””—pg. 291

“Love ruins everything.”—pg. 300

“You deserve joy.”—pg. 301

“He was right, I supposed. All of this was for love, in one way or another.”—pg. 342

““I just care about you so much…but I’ve always got this fear that…one day you’ll leave. Or Pip or Jason will leave, or…I don’t know. I’m never going to fall in love, so…my friendships are all I have, so…I just…can’t bear the idea of losing any of my friends. Because I’m never going to have that one special person.””—pg. 374

Happy bonus quote:

“So this one’s for you, Georgia. This is a play about love.” <3

#loveless #alice oseman #ace #aro #aroace #aspec #to be clear this is not meant to describe every aroace experience!#just one version of it that I happened to relate to #loveless spoilers #aromantic #asexual #long post

27 notes · View notes

aplatonicgryphon · 2 years

Note

So I've recently discovered the aplatonic spectrum and wonder if I might be aplspec? I do feel close to the friends I have and will miss them, and as I'm aroace, I do put emphasis on my current friendships. I definitely feel some platonic attraction towards them, but I find it hard to connect to new people. I do want more friends and I find it easy to talk to strangers and be friendly, yet when I think about it, 1/2

I honestly can't tell if I ACTUALLY want more friends or if I just want social interaction. Also the fact that apparently platonic attraction is when you want a specific person to be your friend, not just friendship in general, which throws me off a bit lol. I don't often feel that way towards specific people. And, at the same time, I can't help but wonder if this is just a result of some undiagnosed mental illness I have, so that makes it more complicated. Any thoughts or advice? 2/2

(Kind of an addition to my previous 2 asks, but also it's own thing so feel free to post separately or not) One thing I do want to add is that I get really uncomfortable with people I barely know calling me their friend or people asking if they can be my friend. Usually I'm only comfortable calling someone a friend if I've spoken to and connected to them for a long time. Is that something often experienced by aplspecs?

Sorry this took me so long to answer!

I'm gonna break apart a few lines and give my thoughts!

As always, other aplatonics are welcome to chip in too!

I can't help but wonder if this is just a result of some undiagnosed mental illness

First I want to say that... having a mental illness, or being otherwise neurodiverse, doesn't disqualify you from being aplatonic. A lot of aplatonics are neurodivergent in some form and have it affect or even "cause" their aplatonicism. The original coiner of the term "aplatonic" was neurodivergent!

It's entirely up to you if you want to (1) share that you are neurodivergent, (2) take the aplatonic label or not, and (3) share that you are aplatonic. Labels are tools meant to help you and are not required in any way, and no one is entitled to know any aspect of your identity. This goes for every label and identity, and I just want to make this clear right off the top. /gen

I do feel close to the friends I have and will miss them (...) I definitely feel some platonic attraction towards them, but I find it hard to connect to new people.

Maybe look into the term Demiplatonic?

Demiplatonic is where you only feel platonic attraction for people once you've formed a bond / friendship with them, and don't feel that attraction before that bond. Just like demi-aro and demi-ace, there's no required time limit for the bond, just whatever and whenever you deem is a platonic bond.

Also the fact that apparently platonic attraction is when you want a specific person to be your friend, not just friendship in general, which throws me off a bit lol. I don't often feel that way towards specific people.

And greyplatonic is a bit more open in its definition but it describes rare platonic attraction. We don't really know yet what the "average" amount of platonic attraction is, so you kinda just have to go based on your own experiences and perceptions of how those around you view friendship.

I'm greyplatonic and I actually relate to a lot of greyromantic and greysexual experiences, just swapping out the romantic and sexual attraction they mention for platonic attraction instead. I'm also apl-spike and I relate to arospikes and acespikes, too.

So maybe that could help you as well? Looking at and comparing experiences to arospecs and acespecs? It probably would work for the other aplspec identities too, since they all use the same aspec prefixes.

(Btw, Greyplatonic can also be used as an umbrella term for any other apl identity on the grey areas of the spectrum.)

One thing I do want to add is that I get really uncomfortable with people I barely know calling me their friend or people asking if they can be my friend. Usually I'm only comfortable calling someone a friend if I've spoken to and connected to them for a long time. Is that something often experienced by aplspecs?

I'm not sure how common it is but I have heard other aplatonics say that before!

The aplatonic person who helped me realize I was aplatonic actually mentioned something like this! I can't find the original post right now, so I think it was a sort of untagged vent post... But from what I remember it was basically them saying that a coworker called them a friend despite never interacting or speaking with them outside of work, and the apl was pretty taken aback and uncomfortable by them labeling their relationship as a friendship. To the apl, they were just coworkers that talked at work, with nothing deeper to it nor any desire to be.

I know that platonic / plato repulsion is a thing, like romance repulsion and sex repulsion. It's not always a feeling of disgust, but sometimes a disconnect or aversion, so that term could probably be applicable to this situation, if you wanted a term for it. An alternate term would also be platonic / plato aversion.

#asks #apl #apl resources #aplspec resources #questioning apls #questioning aplspecs

19 notes · View notes

raavenb2619 · 4 years

Note

So, being in a platonic relationship is like "Omg we are roommates"? I'm planning on writing a story and my principal character will be an aro person, but the thing is I don't know anything about your community ( sorry 😅😓 ) so I might be asking you my doubts —Miyles

I don’t know exactly what you mean by “omg we are roommates”, but I have a feeling that it’s...wrong. (But that’s okay.) Let me back up a bit.

In the aro community, we talk about queerplatonic relationships (QPRs) a lot, in no small part because of how society pushes romance as the pinnacle of all relationships and looks down on meaningful friendships. Queerplatonic is a vague term, so there’s no clear cut definition of what a QPR looks like, but it’s meant to signify a relationship that isn’t romantic and defies the norms of what’s expected of a relationship that isn’t romantic. Queerplatonic partners might decide to move in together, buy a house together, file taxes together, go on vacation together, raise children together, commit to living and retiring together, or other activities that you’re only “supposed” to do in a romantic relationship. They also might choose to do only some of those activities, or none of them, because queerplatonic relationships don’t have a set “mold” they have to fit into. So if you decide to go down the route of showing or talking about QPRs, you should read up more about QPRs, especially the lived experiences of people in QPRs, and see if you can get some beta readers who’ve been in QPRs before.

Now, it’s worth noting a couple things. Not every aro wants a QPR, so you shouldn’t be approaching queerplatonic relationships as a relationship that “fills in” for aros “missing out” on romance and romantic relationships. Queerplatonic relationships are a relationship that some aros choose to pursue, but they’re not mandatory and some aros aren’t in (or trying to be in) queerplatonic relationships. So rather than just assuming that your character will want one, you should consider whether they want one.

Second, it can be easy to fall into the trap of “sex=romance” so if QPR=no romance, then QPR=no sex, but that’s not always the case. Some queerplatonic relationships involve sex, and some aros (alloaros, sex-favorable aroaces, and more) might explicitly search for a relationship that involves sex but not romance. It’s okay to decide that your character isn’t interested in sex, but you should intentionally make that decision, rather than explicitly assuming that your character won’t be interested in sex because they’re aro.

Third, my initial read of your question was that you were talking about QPRs, but your exact wording is “platonic relationship”, so it’s worth addressing that as well. Some (although not all aros) value their friends highly/higher than society says we’re “supposed to”, but I still don’t know that I would describe it as “omg we are roommates” (in no small part because I feel like this is a reference to something that I’m just not getting).

Although it might come across as though I’m correcting you a bunch, I’m actually really glad you asked this question. Writing representation about an identity that isn’t yours involves research and learning, and part of learning is about correcting misconceptions. That’s how you grow as a writer and as a person. It’s easy to be afraid of asking the wrong question or being accidentally rude (and I think it’s good to have those concerns), but if you approach people in good faith and you’re willing to listen, people will (usually) focus more on the intention than the execution. I’m always happy to answer more questions you might have.

#sorry for the delay; i've been busy #ask #anon #original #writing advice #aro #aromantic #queerplatonic relationship #queerplatonic #qpr #check out my new writing advice tag! apparently this is a thing i do now #Anonymous #long

62 notes · View notes

shades-of-grayro · 5 years

Text

The Relationship Between the Aro and Ace Communities: A Greyromantic Perspective

This is my submission to the Carnival of Aros hosted by @theaceandaroadvocacyproject. There are three parts: my personal journey with my ace and aro identities, a discussion of how the aro community can learn from the ace community in order to do better by gray and romance-favorable aros, and my thoughts on aro inclusion in ace communities.

Thank you for reading!

Part 1: My personal journey with my ace and aro identities

When I first realized I wasn’t straight, I played around with identity labels a bit, eventually landing on “greyromantic asexual,” which I still feel describes me well to this day. How I identify my orientation to others, however, has fluctuated over time.

For a few years, I identified solely as asexual without any romantic orientation, only occasionally disclosing my romantic orientation within ace communities with the specific intention of discussing the topic of romantic orientation. Even then, I often just called myself aromantic, because I still felt that was accurate. There were two reasons why I more strongly identified with my ace identity for this time.

The first reason is that it was easier. I absolutely hated having to explain my identity when I came out to someone. Leaving it at “asexual” meant that it was more likely that someone was familiar with the word, and also that it would be easier to explain if I needed to do that. No, this was not the best aro and ace activist approach, but it was what I needed early in my coming-out journey, and that is okay.

The second reason is that I liked the ambiguity of my romantic orientation when I only called myself asexual. My asexuality is solid. I can say with 100% certainty that I don’t experience sexual attraction. My romantic orientation is more nebulous — I am not convinced that I feel romantic attraction and I am not convinced that I don’t feel it, but either way I would still be somewhere on the aro spectrum. The identity “asexual” doesn’t imply any particular corresponding romantic orientation. When I identify solely as asexual, the amount of uncertainty others (should) have regarding my romantic orientation feels more accurate to how I feel about my romantic attraction.

A combination of entering a romantic relationship and starting to do more advocacy work changed my perspective on the first reason, and I have started actively labeling my romantic orientation again. Because I am in a romantic relationship, I now need to explain the bits I didn’t have to before. I also feel the need to assert my aro-ness in a way I didn’t before, both because I think it is important when I do ace and aro advocacy work that I clarify that I am coming from an aro perspective, but also because people (mostly other aces and aros) now assume I feel romantic attraction because I am in a romantic relationship.

Now that I have entered a romantic relationship and started actively labeling my romantic orientation again (as greyromantic), people have started assuming that I feel romantic attraction because of that identification. But I am not convinced that I do. I know I feel something — but that something is significantly different from what it seems that non-aros feel when they talk about romantic attraction. What I feel is probably more in line with what is referred to as alterous attraction, but I don’t experience any other emotion-based attraction to contrast it with, so I prefer to be more general and vague about it.

This assumption gets me to my next point:

Part 2: Learning from the ace community: How the aro community can better support gray and romance-favorable aros.

In my experience, the ace community does a better job including and discussing gray-ace and sex-favorable aces than the aro community does with including and discussing gray-aro and romance-favorable aros. I think we need to look towards the ace community in order to see how we can improve.

As was discussed a bit by Siggy in his submission and in the comments on the post, the ace community isn’t always perfect in this regard and the aro community should also look to the ace community to see what to avoid. Siggy specifically suggests avoiding empty affirmations and rather talking about specific experiences. I think that is an excellent idea, though with a caveat that sometimes the topic of sex-favorability and romance-favorability can be immensely personal and people don’t always want to share, which is okay. Honestly I think some of the empty affirmations probably come from aces who are sex-favorable and feel excluded in some way, but don’t want to share their personal experiences due to how personal they are. But that is just a guess.

Here are some personal experiences and ideas in no particular order:

Gray and romance/sex-favorable aspec people often experience attraction/romance/sex very differently from how non-aspec people experience those things. We should avoid characterizing these things (especially gray identities) as being half-allo(sexual/romantic) and half-(aro/ace), because that is not what it feels like most of the time.

As a romance-favorable aro, I grew distant from the aro community while I was single and planning on staying that way. I felt more aromantic when I entered my romantic relationship, because there is nothing quite like seeing a non-aro person experiencing the same situation to highlight just how different you are. People (aros) around me implied that I was less or only partly aromantic for being in a romantic relationship based on ~feelings~, and that just didn’t fit my experience.

I’ve seen several people who say they understand sex-favorability but not romance-favorability recently, and I think this is probably due to the fact that romance as a concept is less well defined and separated from other experiences than sex. Many people don’t understand how an aro person in a romantic relationship is any different than a qpr. Ultimately, I think it comes down to preferences on language usage, much the way the difference between bi and pan does. For me, I don’t really see a difference between my romantic relationship and an ideal qpr. But my relationship is romantic for my partner, the word romantic doesn’t bother me, and it is honestly easier to describe to people who aren’t ace/aro. Most of the time I just call them my partner, which doesn’t (or at least shouldn’t) imply one way or the other whether it is romantic.

I just want to reiterate - There is a recent trend towards using the phrase “aromantic spectrum” to refer gray aros, and specifically to separate them from people who identify specifically as aromantic. I absolutely hate this, as aromantic spectrum has always been the unifying term for the whole aro community - aromantic and grayromantic alike. Ultimately this language shift makes me feel like others are calling me less aromantic because I have a less clear-cut experience, which I really don’t like.

I think we need to stop emphasizing the non-romantic nature of qprs (when talking about them as a whole, not necessarily individual relationships) and focus more on them not fitting into the traditional boxes of friendship and romance. Many aros, and gray-aros in particular, don’t differentiate between platonic and romantic feelings and they might feel that their qpr is partially romantic and that is okay.

Gray-aro identities are almost always very complex, fluid, and hard to pin down. People who are not also gray-aro might not be able to wrap their heads around it, and that’s okay. Us gray-aros have a hard time with it too. I more or less just accepted that our language is never going to be sufficient to describe my experiences.

Part 3: Aro inclusion in ace communities

Currently in aro communities, ace communities have a bad reputation for being aro-antagonistic. Personally, I don’t think this is a fair reputation, as ace communities tend to be much less of a monolith than people think.

Besides recently, I have seen criticism regarding poor aro inclusion and poor alloro inclusion in ace communities. And after talking with a few people individually, I have come to the conclusion that it is different in different parts of the ace community. Some in-person ace meetup groups are dominated by alloromantic aces talking about struggles with romance. Others, like mine, are dominated by aroaces. As an event organizer and leader in my local ace community, I have to politely correct assumptions that negatively harm alloromantic aces much more frequently than assumptions that harm aros. I genuinely believe that this is an issue that can go both ways.

Additionally, individuals can be individuals. Not every ace person is an expert on everything to do with asexuality, and they will sometimes say not-so-great things. This doesn’t excuse it, but in these cases I think polite education is generally the way to go. There is a big difference to me between individuals saying (unintentionally) aro-antagonistic things and community leaders saying or doing aro-antagonistic things. While the latter does occasionally happen, I think it is the exception not the rule.

Conclusion

Overall, I am really happy with the new independence of the aro community, and I am really excited to see where it goes from here. I think we all (aces and aros alike) have work to do to better understand each other in this process. This carnival has been a great start, and I have really been enjoying reading everyone else’s perspectives so far!

#carnival of aros #carnival of aces #aromantic #grayromantic #gray aromantic #greyromantic #grey aromantic #asexual #ace #aro #romance-favorable #long post #mod laura #my thoughts were all over the place on this post #but it is the end of the month so I am just posting what I got

123 notes · View notes

buffintruder · 6 years

Note

Hey! I just wanted you to expand on you're controversial topic about how "podcasts only use white names for characters and treat them as if they were white". Can I have a few examples? I'm just interested on what your points are. I don't really agree on this topic, but I would love to hear more so I can understand your reasoning! (If you'd want to expand you don't have too)

First of all, I just want to make it clear that I love these podcasts, and my complaint is meant as “here’s something that can be improved” rather than bashing. (Also, I don’t want to get into a big fight or receive lots of hate, so this is going to be the only anon on this topic that I’ll answer)

I don’t listen to a whole lot of podcasts, but the ones I’ve listened to that do this are Eos 10, the Bright Sessions, and the Adventure Zone (Balance).

One of my issues is with parts of the fandom. I’ve seen a couple people say something along the lines of “the podcast creators allow fans to visualize the characters however they want, so that counts as representation.” If the creators don’t explicitly say that a character is a person of color, they can’t get points for a racially diverse cast.

That’s because the thing about the English speaking world is that the default is white. If no indications of race are given, people will generally be assumed to be white. (This isn’t universally true; one thing I appreciate about the fandom for these podcasts is that a lot of the art I see isn’t white.) But because we live in the context of a white-dominated culture, no explicit representation is pretty much the same as no representation at all.

People of color deserve to be explicitly represented, and to have their experiences specifically shown in media.

One example is with names. In these podcasts, most of the characters have a European first and last name, or a completely made up one. In real life, there are a lot of people of color with European names, but there are also lots of people who you can tell aren’t white just by seeing their name. These people deal with extra issues, ranging from being mocked for their names to being less likely to get hired. Having good representation works to normalize people having non-European names and shows them as actual human beings with feelings, which is really important.

In the same way, there are other experiences specific to people of other races and cultures, whether it’s food or language or experiencing racism or self-perception or hair or values or something else. There are a million different ways that race and culture affect people of color, and it would be so nice to actually see some of them.

Like, if there is a female character that doesn’t ever have a love interest, it’s easy to headcanon her as gay or aroace or in someway not straight. While that’s fun, it’s a million times better if the creators write her as specifically not straight: if they give her a girlfriend, have her use a specific label to describe herself, or have that awkward moment when somebody asks “do you have a boyfriend?” and you have to figure out whether or not you want to say you aren’t straight, or something else.

I’m not advocating for characters whose biggest or only characteristic is their race, but I want to have characters that I relate to in ways that I usually can’t.

A lot of people in podcasting are starting to understand that it’s important for LGBTQ+ representation to be outright stated instead of implied or never talked about one way or the other. As someone who is queer, I am super happy about that. I’m just asking that people realize that the same thing applies to people of color (and other marginalized groups too, but this post is specifically about race).

And it’s not all bad. The Bright Sessions hires actors of color, which is very important. The Adventure Zone has been doing better in more recent arcs: Irene Baker/Kardala is indigenous, Nadiya Jones is half-Bangladeshi, Gandy Dancer is Asian, Errol Ryehouse is Latino, and Aubrey Little is word of god Puerto Rican. It’s just that it could be better, and I’d like the fandom to think a little more about it.

tldr: people of color deserve explicit representation, and leaving almost every character completely up to audience interpretation gets in the way of that

#anon #my post #eos 10 #taz #podcasts #the bright sessions

139 notes · View notes

aroworlds · 6 years

Text

Because this is a very long, multi-part ask from an anon, I’ve copied the whole thing into a new post for ease of reading:

To be honest, in the past I was on the exclusionists’ side with the SAM (Split Attraction Model). It’s harmful! Stop forcing it on people! Attractions don’t need to be separated like that! Even though I myself am technically aroace. I was angry because I felt like I was being erased and spoken over in the ace community. I felt like I was being forced to separate my romantic and sexual attraction when they weren’t separate. It made me furious that I couldn’t make a post or comic calling myself asexual without some ace commenting, “no, asexuality is actually x aces can do/feel y that’s not what asexual means!” As if I’m confused.

So basically I hated that the SAM was forced on the word asexual any time someone used it. I’ve somewhat changed my mind recently: I now understand that splitting attraction is crucial to some people, but I do think we need something else because I can also understand genuine reasons why some are adverse to it and feel like its forced on them. There has been concern with using existing terminology and splitting them into romantic and sexual attractions.

Maybe instead of doing this we could create terms that are shorter and mean the same, combining the two attractions into one distinct identity. For example, a panromantic asexual is, uhh, tresexual? Not the real alternative–just to show what I mean. Arosexual or aseromantic could be umbrella terms for aspecs who feel one type of attraction and not the other. I’m not saying we should abandon the terms we have now.

Like I said, I’m not against the SAM any more (I’m sorry I ever was) and definitely think anyone can identify how they want. But I think we as a community need labels that are more concise and convey more information. I think it will make it easier for aspecs to find people that are most like them instead of just one part.

Just so folks know: you (general you) don’t need to insist to me that you’ve changed your ways. You don’t need to prove to me that you’ve learnt better. You can just say “I no longer believe that” and leave the conversation there. I dislike the purity culture tendency of having to constantly demonstrate one’s growth and resulting apology in order to reveal a less-palatable truth about the people we were, and I’m not going to demand it of the people who are doing the risky and dangerous thing of revealing their past in conversation with me.

We can’t grow as a community unless we talk about the beliefs we held and why we held them. We will fail in outreach to others if people don’t feel safe to talk about their history–we will fail to learn the unspoken undercurrents of why harmful attitudes are compelling. Folks who have learnt and changed are a vital bridge between two sides, and I think any requirement to constantly apologise or offer up reassurances for making a mistake long after is only going to stop the people we most need to hear from talking to us.

And oh is this a reason we need to better discuss and understand.

It is difficult to have conversations about aromanticism that encompass the non-split attractions of asexuals and aros who don’t use the SAM while still highlighting the experience of aromanticism as felt by folks (ace and allo alike) who do need the SAM. The fact that I’ve had to write out your identity with such a clumsy, ridiculous line to clarify your shape of ace against other shapes of ace encapsulates this in a nutshell: for crying out loud, asexuals who don’t use the SAM! That’s not your ace identity! The fact that I do not know a better way to talk about you (or the non-SAM-using ace character in an earlier ask) in clear, simple, concise language is a problem. I shouldn’t have to keep referencing the SAM just to clarify your particular identity and experiences. Anon, I know you live this and don’t need my explaining to you the exceedingly obvious, but I’m writing this out because my attempt to respond to you is such an example of the problem you’re discussing with how we use the SAM, and it only worsens when you have to endure folks correcting you in discussing your identity. When I can’t even respond to your asks to validate you without floundering, we have a problem.

Right now, we either push aside non-split aces and aros to focus on the rough groupings of aro, ace and aro-ace, or we settle on awkward attempts to include you. Neither is good enough.

I want to stress that you should feel angry, othered, alienated and hurt by the sheer degree of circumlocution needed to talk about your experience as distinct from folks who identify as aro-ace and alloromantic asexuals, and the corrections you endure when you do talk about who you are without it. I’ve felt the pain of losing a word myself: when I came out as agender in 2012, it meant genderless (other neutral-gender meanings now used for agender were covered by neutrois) and it is a difficult and alienating thing to see my identity used to include other experiences of having a gender. In my case, I do have the word genderless to fall back on, but I still feel divorced from a word that was once fully my own. I am still corrected by agender-as-neutral-gender folks telling me it isn’t a problem that agender is conceptualised as a gender instead of as the absence of one, even though said conceptualisation is a constant microaggression I endure from the non-binary community. We talk on the evolution of language in LGBTQIA+ communities and the importance of accepting these shifts to be more inclusive; we don’t talk about the pain of having one’s identity shift to mean broader umbrellas and how to manage when we’ve lost that precise word to say exactly who we are. We don’t validate each other in our feelings of losing language, and in not doing this, I think our activism falls short.

When we do try to talk on the pain of this language and identity loss, we’re seen as regressive or hateful–even exclusionary. We’re seen as holding back the LGBTQIA+ community’s progression and growth. Is it any wonder that some folks lean in exclusionist directions when there’s no space to recognise, discuss or explore our feelings?

The fact that ace means many things is a problem, and most of us, myself included, lean on aro-ace in our conversations because we don’t have the lexicon to handle aces and aros with non-split attraction.

At the same time, anon, I am so leery of conjuring words for allosexual aros to describe individually the combination of our split attractions.

My first argument against is that aromanticism already makes us less allosexual to non-a-specs. Conversely, allosexual attractions also tend to make us less a-spec in a-spec spaces where aro is treated as a second thought to the ace. Alloromantic asexuals have the advantage of ace being an aspect of their identity, the more recognised and centred side of the a-spec umbrella in a-spec spaces; allosexual aros have the disadvantage of being aro, the less recognised and actively de-centred side of the same umbrella in a-spec spaces. To have a word that doesn’t specify both the aromantic-spectrum or the allosexual attraction identities seems a thing that to me will be taken advantage of by allo-allo spaces and a-spec spaces alike, to further erase and deny whichever part of allo-aro they find inconvenient or difficult. It will also exclude us from the communities based around our allosexual attractions, communities that already erase and deny us.

The reason I tried to deny my pansexuality for so long, to ignore the fact that both grey-ace and ace didn’t fit me all the time (honestly: more of the time) was to better belong in a-spec spaces–to be included in the community in ways aro alone, at the time, didn’t grant me. I felt I had to be aro-ace because aro wasn’t enough to be heard and accepted. Even now, there’s little to no conversation on being gay and aro, bisexual and aro, heterosexual and aro, or lesbian and aro (amongst other allosexual aro identities) in aro-spec spaces, and language that doesn’t name our allosexual attraction, I fear, won’t halt that trend.

Secondly, our attractions are split, so why not the language used to describe it? Why shouldn’t the language directly encapsulate the nature of our identities and experiences by requiring two words to communicate it? My abrosexuality and my aromanticism are two different things–shaping each other, yes, but separate experiences nonetheless. I have no need to merge them together in a way that is unnatural to me. I want the world to see the component parts of who I am. I see your suggestion as a way to un-split our language, to create singular and unified terms for two experiences. While there’s every possibility that some folks will like this, I think it diminishes and disregards the reasons why many aro-aces (especially in aro-spec spaces) ID as aro-ace and why many allo-aros require two words.

Lastly, I do not see how the structures of the words you’ve offered are any improvement on already-extant language (like “pansexual aro”) in terms of communicating meaning when this is already communicated without undue difficulty. We already have umbrella terms in allo-aro and allo-ace; I don’t understand the point in replacing these with another single word.

The problem is not the existence and use of the SAM. The problem is not the terms aro-ace, allo-aro and allo-ace. Introducing specific un-split words for the combination of a person’s split romantic and sexual attraction isn’t a solution, anon, because it does not address the problem we’re facing in how we use language or how it is currently harming you.

The problem as I see it is that “ace” is used to mean, simultaneously, allo-ace, aro-ace, ace-spectrum and non-SAM-using-ace. That’s four different meanings and experiences attached to the same word! That is what we need to address: the fact that there is no distinct, non-clumsy term for depicting precisely how you are ace, because it can be used, alone, to mean four different things. That is where the lack of clarity lies, not in words like “pansexual aro” or “panromantic ace”. In fact, if using “allo-ace” were more common (as a descriptor, not an identity) in ace-spec spaces by allo-aces, I suspect it would be easier for you to exist as ace alone without using the SAM and enduring the “but aces can experience aromantic attraction!” corrections.

In that light, it seems to me that the easiest solution for clarity of language and expression of pride and identity is to crate a new modifying term before “ace” and “aro” for non-SAM-using aces and non-SAM-using aros. This is not a good answer and I will acknowledge that. I’m sure, anon, that you connect to ace as much as I connect to agender, that you want to use your own word to describe who you are. I’m not offering this lacking knowledge of what it’ll cost you to conjure a word that describes, solely and specifically, non-SAM-using ace when ace alone fits that use in your heart and history.

This way, though, better fits how the community already uses language; it doesn’t require a complete overhaul of established terminology. It also gives you space to communicate your shape of ace now without waiting on the rest of the ace-spec community to catch up.

I’d look at finding another word or prefix, so we have aro-aces, allo-aces and [invented word]-aces. In other words, every ace fits under the umbrella of ace with an accompanying prefix describing their shape of ace, so you don’t have to identify as aro-ace or reference the SAM at all. Uni-aces/aros? Mono-aces/aros? A prefix that means “only” or “wholly”? I don’t know what that prefix might be, and I am not the right person to choose it–this conversation should be had amongst a-specs who don’t use the SAM. I’m just throwing out a couple of words so folks get a sense of what I’m suggesting and how it might work.

I’ll stress that I don’t mean that you need to identify as [invented word]-ace: I don’t identify as allo-aro or aro-ace, but instead use those words to communicate my experiences where appropriate and as a reference to how I am aro-spec. I mean this usage in the same way: you identify as ace and ace alone, and when someone questions you or expresses confusion, this is a tool to describe how you are ace, just as allo-ace and allo-aro describes a way of being ace and aro.

I do want to conclude by validating you, again, anon, in your pain–and you are free to disagree with my conclusion, as is anyone else. Please, everyone, take my words as a discussion point, disregard them where necessary and get a conversation going, even if that conversation is proving me wrong, because we need a solution above all. I hate that in writing this post I must hurt you by using clumsy and alienating constructions to convey my meaning. There’s nothing right about my language in this post, and I am so sorry that I don’t know how better to refer to you as the ace you are and refer to, specifically, your shape of ace.

Whatever happens from this post on, we must do better.

94 notes · View notes