somanyflowerss

[somanyflowerss]

There was a period of time of time where I identified as aroace, and felt like certain people were less likely to want to get to know me for the subconscious notion that I wasn't in the dating pool

Similarly, something I noticed among a different group of people is that when I told them I was taken it felt like there was a similar emotional barrier. Presumably again because I was out of the dating pool

I've always been a little worried as coming off as romantically interested in someone, even when they knew I wasn't. Saying either aromantic or taken tends to assure people that I'm not

The real kicker is that even if both experiences led to the same result, saying I was the second was the first time it felt like people actually believed me

[somanyflowerss]

Dating in the broad sense

Journal entry I wrote back in July on defining 'dating' as a general term, reformatted to fit a post format:

Structurally one of the key things I've noticed separates dating from the average friendship is that while friendship tends to be built on trust, dating is often a commitment that the trust will eventually be built. In that sense there's a bit of magic to it, but I think that's also why friendship fallouts can hit as hard or harder than a (shorter term) romantic breakup might - it's a betrayal of the trust directly, as opposed to the commitment falling through. Obviously long term romantic relationships falling through have a comparable weight to them, but the way they're built up feels different.

At this point my definition of dating is just like. "A mutually committed relationship where the primary descriptor of every party within denotes this relationship in particular." People are friends with their partners, but in descriptions it's always 'partner' (or term of choice). It's denoted under a different category. This is probably pretty obvious when stated but I wanted to compare it to how standard friendships are viewed. Friendships may have more concrete definitions about how they're described between the person, but it's more rare for the person who's friends to have a different term described to them, unlike in dating/a more structured relationship

Similar to how you don't have to have empathy to be compassionate, you don't have to experience a certain type of attraction to be dating either. I think I see dating, structurally, sorta feels more action focused than feeling focused? I don't think it's impossible for an aro and alloro person to date each other and be happy I think it'll just look different from what other people might expect. Or maybe it won't. It's fine either way. Conversely there are plenty of cases where the attraction IS mutually reciprocated and the people aren't dating

This definition of dating probably catches within it a subset of QPRs (not all of them). But I guess that's because I'm more concerned about structure than specific feelings with this definition. Because that's what makes most sense to me to focus on and the best way to conceptualize them within my life.

I hope all this made sense! Most of this info probably seems obvious laid out but it was something I wanted to dissect a bit. This is my first long-form post so if there are better ways to format it let me know (Also if anyone has any thoughts (positive/negative/otherwise) I'd love to here them too)

[somanyflowerss]

Terms

Terms you might see on this blog

Amatonormativity

From Smith College: "The assumption that all human beings pursue love or romance, especially by means of a monogamous long-term relationship"

(Paraphrasing - the idea that there is a 'correct' way to fall in love or have a relationship that can be attained)

Relationship anarchy

From polyamorytoday: "There is no hierarchy, not just between different romantic relationships or partners, but also between family relationships or friendships."

From The Attachment Project: "In relationship anarchy, there is no standard definition or expectation of what a romantic relationship should look like – meaning there is no reason to use sex to differentiate or prioritize a romantic relationship from a platonic one."

(Paraphrasing - relationships aren't inherently more important than one another regardless of type. Eg: A romantic relationship wouldn't be considered more 'important' than a platonic one/it being romantic doesn't automatically give it more value)

[somanyflowerss]

Intro

At the start of 2024, I gained a vested interest in the dynamics of different interpersonal relationships. As someone who frequently questioned conventional standards of them, I wanted to be able to explain in words how things worked. Throughout the year I've figured out quite a bit, and wanted a place to put them all. While non of this follows much of a scientific process the data is influenced by the people and world around me, and written in a way that is hopefully easy to digest. A lot of these opinions are unconventional. There's a good chance they provide a knee-jerk reaction. But if you're willing have a read, if nothing else I hope I give you something interesting

About the author (which has probably influenced how I go about things)

Adult

On a couple different spectrums (autism included)

Aromantic

A strong believer in relationship anarchy and the rejection of amatonormativity

You can call me Flower/Flowers (either works!)

(I'm not a professional in any sense, this is just a place for me to put my thoughts)