#and i feel like alloromantic people do not understand that as much???

[skeletonfromthecloset]

fun side effect (thats so not the right word but idc) of being aro is that while everybody else is in love with fictional characters, i just really want to be their friend!!! i just really really really want to give them a hug & make them a nice warm drink (yes i am one of those people that makes drinking tea their whole personality. what about it.) like. i just. i want to listen to them rant about their life & how their day was. I WANT TO LISTEN TO THEM INFODUMP‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️ ugh. just please be neurodivergent with me for a minute. please. guys. autism. please.

[ceilidhtransing]

I've cropped out the username because I have absolutely no desire to start drama or make a personal “callout” or have people go harass someone or anything like that (and if you take this kind of thing as an opportunity to go and be horrible to another Tumblr user then that is terrible and you should stop), but wow, I have never seen such a clanging example of amatonormativity. I don't think OP necessarily meant it this way, I don't think they meant any harm, I don't think they're consciously arophobic or something - it's far more likely that they're simply unfamiliar with aspec issues, and I always prefer to assume good faith - but I want to talk about this post anyway because it provides a really good and explicit example of the way society just sort of... asserts the centrality of romantic attraction and entirely forgets aromantic people exist.

I do want to first say that I actually agree with the initial point this post is making. Romance as a genre is unfairly derided as some kind of “lesser” form of art, and this derision very frequently comes with generous helpings of misogyny. I totally agree that romance is not at all an unintellectual or superficial thing to write about, and it's bad that it gets treated that way and that readers and writers of romance get so often mocked and condemned. Romance is a totally valid genre and enjoying it doesn't make you vain or stupid or superficial.

HOWEVER. As an aromantic person I find the rest of the post just... I don't know, it's just so perfect as a probably unwitting expression of baked-in cultural amatonormativity. It's brilliant. It's so funny to me. I can almost do a line-by-line breakdown of the way it so completely forgets the existence of aromantic people. In fact, let's do that.

It is so fundamental to us. The issue here should be pretty obvious. The assumption that romance is some integral part of The Human Experience and that it's fundamental to All People is pretty much amatonormativity 101. It reinforces the idea that people who don't experience romantic attraction are “lacking”, forever sitting apart from The Human Experience, and possibly in some way not quite fully human, since we don't experience the thing that is apparently so fundamental to humans.

To want to love and be loved. The post seems to be incorrectly equating “romance” with “loving and being loved”, when in fact there are many people who don't experience romantic attraction yet absolutely love and want to be loved. (And of course loveless aros, aplatonic people, various folks who don't “want to love and be loved” also exist, and it's important to emphasise that this desire, just like romantic attraction, is also not necessarily integral to all people.) “Love” is not automatically “romantic love”, but this post seems to imply that romance is the only, or default, form in which love can exist.

If you don't think every great work of literature. philosophy. metaphysics. was ultimately about romance. I don't think you were paying enough attention. OK this is the line that elevated this post from “sigh, more casual amatonormativity to scroll past” to “I just have to respond to this”. Where to even begin with this assertion. This is a level of “assuming romance is central to everything humans ever do and ever create” that I've almost never encountered before. It feels like a manifestation of the tendency for alloromantic people to declare that, because romance is very central for them, it is thus central to Everything. And I'm homing in on “romance” because the post doesn't say “ultimately about love” - which would still be a reach, but less of a reach - it specifically says “ultimately about romance”. As an aromantic person who is an academic at heart and highly educated in the humanities and social sciences, the idea that my ability to understand literature and philosophy and metaphysics is somehow greatly hampered by the fact that I don't experience or relate to romantic attraction is just... what??? This idea is really very funny to me but also genuinely pretty insulting, even though I'm sure it wasn't meant that way. Not only does it feel like the summation of every patronising “oh, you couldn't possibly understand” directed to aromantic adults who are, in fact, entirely capable of understanding, but it also flattens the incredible breadth of human intellectual experience into “being about romance”. I sometimes find myself wishing that alloromantic people would peak outside the bubble of amatonormativity and realise that actually, there is an enormous swathe of human experience and intellect and creativity and expression that has nothing at all to do with romantic attraction and romantic relationships. And no, stating that, I don't know, the Book of Job is not actually about romance has nothing to do with our society's misogynistic denigration of romance as a genre; it has everything to do with the fact that the Book of Job is not actually about romance. (And if you aren't familiar with Job or for some reason don't consider it a “great work of literature”, replace with whatever other example you can think of; there are many.) It's insulting to imply that aro-spec and/or ace-spec people are somehow less able to participate in art and literature and philosophy etc because we might bring a perspective that doesn't include romance or sex at all and we're just not capable of understanding that Actually Romance And/Or Sex Is Central To Everything. It's genuinely absurd to argue that all the pinnacles of human intellectual achievement really, at their core, come back to romance, and it speaks to our very blinkered society's tendency to declare things like “everything is really about sex” or “everything is really about romance” or “everything is really about breakups” or whatever and then look at aro-spec and ace-spec people like we're aliens and go “but like... how do you even live?” Newsflash, there is so much more to life than romance and love and sex. You can live an entire, very fulfilling, very meaningful, very thoughtful life without these things being at all relevant to you. That's not to dismiss those things as minor or unimportant - they are indeed very central to a lot of people's lives, and they're not “dumb” or “shallow” or whatever - but they're not central to everyone's lives, and they're hardly The Only Things In The World.

And if your response is something along the lines of “well OK there's a tiny minority of people who don't engage with romance and/or sex, or relate to it in the same way most people do, but that doesn't mean that romance isn't still at the core of humanity, or that all the most important things don't still have romance at their heart”, imagine telling a woman that “well, you can focus on a career if you want, but what's really fundamental to being a woman is being a wife and mother - in fact, motherhood is the most important thing in the world, it's fundamental to women, it's what all women's literature is about”. Or, hell, telling a person of any gender that “parenthood” is the central pillar of all of humanity and that every great work of art ever produced is ultimately about parenthood and obviously parenthood is fundamental to everyone's being - forgetting that actually some people will never be parents, and implying that their childlessness makes them less able to understand The Human Experience. That might give you some small idea of what it's like to be an aspec person and be repeatedly told that feelings you don't experience and relationships you don't have and attractions you don't relate to and acts you don't engage in are somehow Fundamental To Humanity and are what lie at The Core Of Everything: how excluding that is, how alienating that is, how oppressively stifling that is.

Feeling that love and/or romance and/or sex are very important to your own life is totally valid, but I wish alloromantics and allosexuals could be more capable of opening their minds and imagining and empathising with an existence for which these things aren't central. Our lives aren't lesser, or emptier, or sadder, or shallower for lack of romance or sex. Our experiences are part of The Human Experience. Our perspectives on art and life and relationships and philosophy and humanity and everything else are just as valid. We are just as capable of profundity, of creativity, of insight - because romance and sex aren't “at the core” of any of these things. We are here, and we're tired of being forgotten, ignored, sidelined, dismissed, erased, talked over, talked past. It would be great if society at large actually remembered we exist once in a while, and that our lives are just as beautiful and important as anyone else's.

[our-arospec-experience]

My aro experience is being highkey annoyed when aro peeps act like romance is dumb/stupid and make fun of romance stuff sometimes. I'm not even romance favorable, but I can understand that people will like different stuff than me and it doesn't make me better or worse than anyone for not experiencing romantic attraction. I get being annoyed about amanormativity, which is not what I'm trying to talk about here.

I'm saying it's a bit absurd to me that people will act like they're so much better than others because they don't experience romantic attraction, and go as far to call it dumb or call what alloromantic people do as dumb or like an "illness". you're not better than them, you just have a different experience. and honestly, I feel like this type attitude of "romance is so dumb and stupid, sounds like an illness and something bad" can harm people who are aromantic who still experience romantic attraction.

I just don't get why people feel the need to make fun of romance, it's just not your experience and that- should be- okay

^ this

[bloggingboutburgers]

Consider me one of your younger followers who's still trying to figure out their aroace-ness.

How do i really know im aroace when i dont even know how love is supposed to feel like? Sometimes, i think i like a few ppl just a little bit. I have seen myself turn a little gay for some women. (Idk if there's a better way to say it) and feel jealous of other women having partners(mostly male partners)

I do relate to being aroace. But sometimes these doubts come up.

Am i really aroace? Or it it just a phase of mine?

P.S I love your comics🤍

Sorry for the late reply! TwT

I'll be honest, from personal experience... I don't know how love is supposed to feel like either. I thought maybe I felt it in the past but it never got remotely close to things that are described ad nauseam to us in media and popular culture. I never got it. The biggest emotional high I ever got was making sincere friends or feeling connected to my family or accomplished with art. So I came to the conclusion that I'm aro. I don't think a gay person ever understood what it feels like to be attracted to someone of the opposite gender either, so... That's my reasoning for it I guess. I'm aro SO I can't be expected to understand romance. That's kind of the point in my head. And even then, aromanticism is a broad spectrum, so it's very possible it's full of people whose understanding and feeling of romance varies or may even fluctuate.

So to be honest, if you feel that "aroace" defines you properly, and because it's a pretty wide spectrum, I'd say that yes, you really are, and no, it's not a phase, and heck, even if that understanding of yourself came to change for a different orientation in the future, that's OK too. What matters is that you feel happy with yourself.

...I'll also add tbh that being aro and ace is kind of a losing deal cus even within LGBTQ+ spaces you're gonna be invisibilised and othered, so... I doubt you'd be calling yourself "aroace" just to be temporarily cool or whatever. It was never perceived as cool or a good thing by society at large. It's a battle one doesn't pick. If throughout all of that invisibilization, allosexual and alloromantic-spamming and looking-down-upon you still managed to come to the conclusion that it's a good definition for you, I'd say that's pretty telling. I dunno.

On one last note, I'm not sure if the jealousy you feel of other women having partners is directed towards the women because they have partners, or towards the partners because they're with these specific women, but if it's the former at the very very least, I don't think it's incompatible with being aro. Again, society spams us so much with the idea that having a steady romantic partner is the only way you won't end up alone in the world, that it's hard not to be scared of being lonely when we have that identity sometimes. And the alternative sounds so much easier, even if we couldn't get it the exact same way most people do unless we forced ourselves to act in a way that's not "us" deep inside.

...Welp, that's my feelings on it at least, but yeah, the asexual and aromantic spectrums are so wide in the experiences they cover that I couldn't hope to cover everyone's experience within them. I just hope that this helped you feel a little more confident about it. With the way society is, it's made very hard for us not to doubt ourselves sometimes, but I don't feel we deserve to doubt ourselves that much.

I dunno. That's how I feel about it at least. I hope that helps TwT

(Also thank you so much for the kind words!!)

[blubushie]

r u loveless or just aro?

Uhh...

Honestly I'm not sure. I'm gonna break it down a little cuz the ASPD defo makes it a little difficult to work through.

ROMANTIC ATTRACTION

I'm defo arospec to some degree. Like 99% aromantic 1% alloromantic. I don't feel romantic attraction to people, but I do form brief obsessions/fixations that last a few months and then immediately die once that phase passes. I wouldn't consider it a crush since it's more a platonic thing and not romantic (though there's been a few times I've been convinced I've loved someone only for it to actually be me obsessing). There's only one person I'm certain I ever felt romantic love for, but the relationship didn't last long enough for me actually be certain if that was genuine love or also just a Mental Illness Obsession Episode.

SEXUAL ATTRACTION

Have this. I'm 100% allo in this regard.

PLATONIC ATTRACTION

I... don't have this. I've never had a desire to befriend someone. When someone tells me they want to be my friend it fills me with an immediate sense of panic and a desire to avoid that person and get away from them. (i get this with confessions of romantic attraction too—arguably not as bad though.) All friends I've ever made have been the result of someone constantly hounding me and not leaving me the fuck alone until I kinda gave up on avoiding them. On rare occassions this has resulted in someone gaining my trust enough that I've gotten closer to them and formed an emotional bond to them. But I've never had the desire to make friends, or to get to know someone, so I would consider myself aplatonic. I know a lot of people at present—there's only two I'd genuinely consider to be my friends. Over my entire life there's really only been four (or five, if you count my dad). And three out of those four I was also sexually attracted to, so...

FAMILIAL ATTRACTION

I genuinely don't know how much of this I feel versus how much of this is just societal obligation and "doing the right thing". Sons take care of their mothers and their fathers. I am definitely bonded to my father, but my mother is largely a hit and miss. I have a bit of trauma from her, so that's likely got something to do with it. I take care of her because it's the right thing to do, as sons are supposed to care for their mothers. Both of my siblings are half-brothers that I've never really been close with or even lived with, with my younger brother being 21 years my senior. I'm not very attached to them because of that. I think I'd be more affected by how their loss would affect my father than how it'd affect me.

The only familial attraction I've ever really felt is my son and Misty... but I'll also be honest that I'm not entirely sure what familial attraction is. I know what being in love with someone is as a concept, I know what sexual attraction is, I know what platonic is... but I don't understand how familial attraction differs from platonic aside from "societal obligation to family". I'd call my dad my friend, but he's my dad, so I respect him as a parent and confidant instead.

Which is to say that, yeah, I guess I'm afamilial too? I don't fucking know. I'd call myself a loveless aro, personally. I wish that aromanticism didn't bank so hard on emotional bonds with people at all. I wish there was a lot less of "I may not feel romantic attraction but I still love my friends and family!! 🥰🥰 Aros still love their families and friends just like normal people!!" because I really... don't? Emotional attachments aren't some saving grace from the brokenness of being aro, and my lack of them doesn't make me a broken person or a bad person.

[petrichormore]

(Partial explanation/partial rant in regards to q!BBH’s famous Dodging of the Question)

Um okay here we go

q!Bad is not being manipulative, or playing with Forever’s feelings like q!Baghera says - or at least he’s not doing it intentionally.

CC!Bad confirmed that his character is extremely oblivious. He even said that he was taking an “aromantic approach” to his character. Granted, q!BBH is not canonically aromantic, but he is definitely aro-coded. I really relate to him because his confusion surrounding romance mirrors mine as an aromantic person. And I’ve had people call me manipulative, for this exact reason.

This isn’t me going after q!Baghera or anything - she has never done anything wrong ever! But she is, however accidentally, very much representing how society and alloromantics don’t really understand the aro experience. At least from my perspective.

… I don’t know, it’s disheartening to see people on twitter claiming that q!Bad is being malicious when he clearly isn’t purposefully trying to hurt anyone. CC!Bad is doing a pretty good job of representing my experience of being aromantic even if he’s not trying to, and it sucks to see people holding this against his character even though I did kinda expect it.

And I kinda understand to an extent, because CC!Bad does know what Baghera means so I can see how it comes across as him toying with the idea of 4halo because he is, but the character isn’t.

[tommyssupercoolblog]

i love your post about dnp’s relationship!! i feel like people don’t really understand the true level of love people can have for each other outside of just a regular romantic relationship

we live in a society that constantly shoves the concept of romance down our throats, that we are all made to believe that people are either in a romantic relationship, or they’re not. we can all agree that everything is on a spectrum, so why can’t we do the same for relationships?

dan and phil very obviously love and care for each other in a very special and beautiful way. there is no more that needs to be said.

another thing that i find kind of annoying is when people say that “the only reason they call each other ‘best friends’ is cause they haven’t hard launched yet, and they call each other boyfriends/partners/husbands/etc in private”. i say this so many times, and ill keep saying it, everyone has their own definitions of labels. “best friend” can feel so much more intimate, meaningful, and personal to them than any other label, and that is beautiful! of course, like you said, this isn’t to say that they’re “definitely not” saying those things, it’s just something to consider

i could also very much be projecting, as i’ve been slowly figuring out i may not be as alloromantic as i initially thought, but i digress

i could also be totally wrong!! the beauty of having such a caring relationship with another person is knowing that no one can ever truly know the extent of your relationship besides each other. that is a remarkable thing, and should be enough for everyone to understand, and respect everyone’s theories/opinions/experiences without hate ❤️

i’m sorry this is so long, i really hope it made sense, i rambled for quite a while, but oh well, thank you for reading :)) <33

No I get it! That's why I said something haha

Thing is they absolutely could be dating in private and to be completely transparent I do have some suspicions they might be. But it seems to be a very black and white, and very CERTAIN, issue with a lot of people. Some folks said they were worried about Dan and Phil being all "no homo" about the conspiracy theories as if it'd destroy the relationship they have if they did, and it made me think about how...if they don't consider themselves a couple that doesn't mean they don't consider themselves soulmates and very important to each other- they obviously do, they've said it over and over. Nothing can erase that.

I did have someone say they think the idea of a QPR is unlikely because they never expressed interest in one and while I don't think they have actively said that, they also generally have kept things private until necessary, and also....QPRs are not in the public consciousness. Do you have any idea how many people found out about the aromantic and asexual spectrums for the FIRST TIME EVER from Jaiden Animations' coming out video? And that didn't even mention QPRs. Queerplatonic relationships are NOT common and they aren't visible to a lot of people, even other queer people.

Talking about a queerplatonic relationship would require a lot of setting groundwork and sitting down and EXPLAINING, similar to how Jaiden had to explain things in her video. It's not enough to go "this is a queerplatonic relationship" if no one knows what the fuck that is, you have to thoroughly debrief everyone, so if that is what going on I could see why it wouldn't be so casually brought up. Like, they would need to feel comfortable and ready to sit down and explain it to people.

There's also the fact, as they mentioned in the tags as well, that if they were a man and woman people would already assume they were together as fact; but that's just as much amatonormativity as it is homophobia. That assumption, that a man and woman who act like Dan and Phil would be together, shouldn't go unchallenged. The difference in assumptions often comes from homophobia, but the assumption wouldn't exist in the first place without amatonormativity.

(Same person also mentioned they aren't aroace but I'm going to discount that critism entirely as you don't need to be aroace to have a QPR in the first place, they just come up more in those spaces because people are already critiquing the idea of relationships and what they mean.)

I just don't want anyone to lash out if it's a QPR, and I also want people to remember (or learn!) that QPRs are an option, because it's not discussed often and this is a pretty good opportunity to broach the topic. They could be dating, they could be in a QPR, we don't know. And the thing is, we can't know- that's what I'm saying- unless they elaborate we'll never know and that's...okay!! :D

I have no problem with posts calling them a couple or anything, I reblog those a lot, I just felt I should mention this option too.

Regardless they're still our silly gay little YouTube blorbos and that's incredible :3

[aro-but-not-ace]

Being in relationships as a romance neutral/favorable aro (for alloro readers with aro partners)

I’m romance neutral* and greyromantic*. I have been in romantic relationships. I don’t believe I was attracted to my partners as much as people thought I was. But I chose to be in those relationships and stayed with those people until other factors didn’t work out (ie unfixable communication issues or different long term goals).

I’ve had some of my partners ask “so you don’t love me?” when I opened up more about being arospec with a sad tone in their voice. Or I’ve had friends say “why would you be someone’s partner if you don’t love them?” with a hint of judgment and disdain as they say it.

Here is how I look at it, and keep in mind, this is most likely NOT a universal aro experience. BUT I know that some alloro people worry that since their aro partners don’t “love” them, they can’t be sure about their relationship at all.

Aromanticism is the lack of romantic attraction. In my personal experience, this generally means I have equal attraction to everybody in a romantic sense (side note, this is why I thought I was biromantic for a long time). So, imagine, baseline I just feel neutral about everyone. My relationships are largely based upon experiences and connections I have with people, not solely on attraction.

A lot of my partners thought that this means I feel less about them or that they were just like everyone else. But here’s the thing—I literally chose them out of everyone else to be partners with. In a broader sense, take how alloplatonic* people view friendships: you may be closer with some friends, you may trust some friends with certain things more, or you might have just become friends and are learning more about each other. These people are all friends, and the friendship dynamic isn’t always built on platonic attraction. It can be extremely circumstantial.

If you worry about your aro partner leaving you because they’re aro, I assure you that they will not just up and leave at random just because they’re aro. If they do, there is a very different reason for that. It’s a very personal and complex topic. It ties into factors such as commitment, communication, life goals, and relationship satisfaction and compatibility.

So if anyone is alloromantic and questioning if they can be in a relationship with an aro person, think about it this way: the question shouldn’t be “do they love me?”, and try thinking about it as “do they care for me?”

Glossary* and footnotes after the break

Just some disclaimers so I don’t have to explain later:

1. Yes, some aro people can feel love in other ways. Yes, some aros are loveless. We are all different. I mostly think that alloro people associate “do they love me?” directly with “do they love me romantically?”, which is understandable, but personally I think that in any relationship, CARE and ACTION are the most important aspects in any relationship. Even in an allo relationship, two people can love each other but not properly care for one another.

2. Also, love is not easily defined, so “do they care for me” presents a much more concrete and observable question that is much less stressful than “do they love me?” And I say this as someone who ended up in abusive situations because I told myself “well, they love me, so this must be fine.” I am mostly making this post to tell alloromantic people that being aro does not directly affect how someone may act in a relationship. Yes, it might be a factor, but saying aro = unloving partner is not true and extremely harmful.

3. I wrote this while sleep deprived and I talk a lot when sleep deprived so sorry if this all made no sense or was very rambley.

*GLOSSARY:

Romance neutral - feeling indifferent to romance, whether it be romantic coded actions (ie kissing, hugging, cuddling, etc), romantic situations (ie dates), or the general idea of a romantic relationship

Romance favorable - desiring to engage in romance despite being aromantic, generally the opposite of being romance repulsed

Greyromantic - feeling romantic attraction but less frequently or intensely as alloromantic people. Also an umbrella term for other microlabels in the aro community

Alloplatonic - people who feel platonic (friend) attraction, as opposed to being aplatonic (lacking platonic attraction)

[mysticalfestivaloperatorbagel]

I've been questioning if I'm on the aromantic spectrum, and recently learned about squishes (non-romantic version of crushes) and zucchinis (name for non-romantic partner who is more than a friend). As annoying as jargon is, having these words and seeing them used by people with similar experiences has helped me so much in figuring out my relationships.

I thought I had a crush on a man because I had a desire to be close with him, but it was confusing because I consider myself a lesbian. We now have a very strong friendship and while I feel a deep connection with him, it is purely a platonic feeling. He is the first person I thought of when I learned the word "squish," and the new vocabulary help make sense of similar confusing feelings I've had for others.

I've had a relationship that was neither platonic or romantic but still incredibly strong and intense. When I think "have I ever been in love before" I say yes because of this person. Even though she is alloromantic and had a partner, we had plans to be entwined in each other's lives and she was the most important person to me. I definitely had no romantic feelings for her, but when we "broke up" it was different than losing a friend; I felt like I couldn't survive without her and felt so broken I didn't think I could love anyone else. I would have absolutely called her my zucchini if I had the terminology at the time, and that's the type of long term partner I always imagined myself with. I don't think QPRs are necessarily stronger or weaker than romantic relationships, to me they hold a similar level of significance but just feel tangibly different.

I recently started seeing someone in a more romantic way, but both of us have blurry lines between romantic and platonic feelings. We have strong feelings for each other so we decided to keep "dating" and be confused together for now <3 But learning about zucchinis helped clarify a lot for me, in this case because I have a word for what I DON'T want. I've had squishes that I wanted a QPR with (I saw someone call these squashes?) but that's not what I want with this person. I want all of her, I want her so strongly it keeps me up at night, I want to wrap myself up in her and kiss her until I can't breathe and love her deeply enough that she understands how special she is. I've never felt this way before and I still have some blurry lines, but I know this is closer to a romantic attraction. I know I don't want to be her zucchini I want to be her girlfriend.

People have told me I can't be asexual AND a lesbian, and I think I've written off being aromantic for a similar fear of not being allowed to be aromantic AND a lesbian (bear with me here). But I've used the split-attraction model to validate my separation between romantic and sexual attraction, and I have to remember I can do the same for other types of attraction. Zucchinis and squishes are the first time I've heard aromanticism described as an ALTERNATIVE to romantic attraction instead of a LACK of romantic attraction. So maybe I am not completely aromantic, but now I am more comfortable thinking of myself on the aro spectrum (maybe grayromantic?). Platonic, romantic, and queerplatonic relationships all mean something different to me but are all important.

I'm not a big fan of hyperspecific labels for myself so probably won't regularly refer to myself as an asexual-grayromantic-lesbian. But it's grounding to have the words to understand myself.

[aspd-culture]

can people with aspd want to be in a romantic relationship? /sincere question

Absolutely. There’s various reasons depending on how far along social development was when the child was entered into survival mode causing typical neurological development to halt, and just based on the person.

For some, it’s as simple as wanting to find love for the same reason a prosocial person does. For others it’s the practicality of having a built-in person to perform transactions with (I’ll do this for you if you do this for me), or to split responsibilities with, or easy access to a sexual partner and not minding the romantic attachment being there, or the idea of always having someone who is considered safe nearby and at access. For some it’s honestly just to get people off our backs on why we’re always alone (“I just don’t like anyone as much as my partner”/“I don’t really need anyone else, I married my best friend”) because fvck prosocial people CANNOT for their life get off of us about that lol they are desperately afraid for our wellbeing if they do not see us interact with at least 3 non-family members a week (yes, I’ve really done the math and that number usually stops the questions entirely with everyone I’ve met).

There’s a million reasons anyone wants romantic relationships, even just for that natural pull to be close to someone that way, that people with ASPD might feel. Some pwASPD ignore those reasons/urges to keep themselves safe though, and not everyone with ASPD has interest in that to begin with.

As with nondisordered people, there are pwASPD all over the spectrum of alloplatonic to aplatonic, alloromantic to aromantic, etc. (I believe “allo” is the correct prefix opposite the prefix “a” but correct me if I’m wrong) too, even outside of neurological development.

I completely understand the confusion though, because society sure likes painting us as heartless. We aren’t, at least not inherently so, we’re just more protective of that heart because we learned we’ve gotta be.

Plain text below the cut:

Absolutely. There’s various reasons depending on how far along social development was when the child was entered into survival mode causing typical neurological development to halt, and just based on the person.

For some, it’s as simple as wanting to find love for the same reason a prosocial person does. For others it’s the practicality of having a built-in person to perform transactions with (I’ll do this for you if you do this for me), or to split responsibilities with, or easy access to a sexual partner and not minding the romantic attachment being there, or the idea of always having someone who is considered safe nearby and at access. For some it’s honestly just to get people off our backs on why we’re always alone (“I just don’t like anyone as much as my partner”/“I don’t really need anyone else, I married my best friend”) because fvck prosocial people CANNOT for their life get off of us about that lol they are desperately afraid for our wellbeing if they do not see us interact with at least 3 non-family members a week (yes, I’ve really done the math and that number usually stops the questions entirely with everyone I’ve met).

There’s a million reasons anyone wants romantic relationships, even just for that natural pull to be close to someone that way, that people with ASPD might feel. Some pwASPD ignore those reasons/urges to keep themselves safe though, and not everyone with ASPD has interest in that to begin with.

As with nondisordered people, there are pwASPD all over the spectrum of alloplatonic to aplatonic, alloromantic to aromantic, etc. (I believe “allo” is the correct prefix opposite the prefix “a” but correct me if I’m wrong) too, even outside of neurological development.

I completely understand the confusion though, because society sure likes painting us as heartless. We aren’t, at least not inherently so, we’re just more protective of that heart because we learned we’ve gotta be.

[heartless-aro]

What does it mean to feel romantic attraction?

The reason that it’s so difficult to know whether you’re aro or not isn’t just because it’s hard to verify the lack of something. It’s also, at least in part, because romance is an often vaguely defined social construct. It’s pretty much impossible to pin down an objective definition of romantic attraction without that definition being somewhat circular (“romantic attraction is when you are attracted to someone in a way that makes you want to do romantic things with them”), because the boundaries between romance and non-romantic feelings are indistinct and they twist and overlap in odd ways, so that people don’t always seem to agree where one ends and the other begins.

That isn’t to say that romance doesn’t exist or that there aren’t differences between the experiences of alloromantic and aromantic people, but different people and different cultures understand romance a bit differently, so there isn’t really a clear line that separates “romantic feelings” from “non-romantic feelings.” It’s a bit like how a lot of people (especially questioning trans, non-binary, and genderqueer folks) have trouble knowing if they “feel like a girl/guy/both/neither/etc.” What does being one gender or another feel like? What does romance feel like?

I think one of the hardest things about figuring out whether or not you’re aromantic is that no one else can tell you whether your feelings are romantic or not. You have to decide for yourself whether the concept of romantic attraction feels useful for categorizing your experiences and, if so, to what extent? You have to decide for yourself whether you feel that your experiences align with the normative experiences of alloromantic people. “Aromantic” means that you feel little to no romantic attraction, but how little counts as little? What counts as romantic attraction? These sort of things are so easy to get caught up in if you’re questioning whether or not you’re aromantic, but I think the real question to ask yourself is how much you can relate to alloromantic society? Do you connect to the idea of romantic attraction and experience romantic attraction often enough to feel included in alloromantic society, or do your experiences in relation to romantic attraction make you feel unusual, out of place, othered, or alienated by society at large? Do you relate more to the experiences of alloromantic people, or to the aromantic community?

[mars-ipan]

Romance pondering post response.

I am throwing things at the wall and I am not good with organizing things so good luck. You don't really need this but I wanted to say it anyways!

Human experiences and feelings are not binary and aren't always experienced the exact same. We do desperately try to categorize them or notice trends or experiences which are less common, though. A lot of people choose to commit to one person and don't feel romantically towards their friends, so they make a clear line. "Partner" is a concept, friend is a concept, things can oftwn fit in there, but sometimes you don't feel things binarily in that way because that isn't always how people work.

Romance may mean different things to different people. Commonly, you'll get that you feel strongly, butterflies in the stomach, care more about what they think, and most of all, want to do or have thoughts about doing romantic things with them. That's the common one you hear, at least!

I could describe what it's like for me, but that doesn't apply to everyone. Especially considering I can get plenty of feelings considered romantic/sexual towards people that I don't feel I have the intention or desire to date/be with in that way.

I suppose the thing that REALLY matters is what you want. I can figure out if I truly feel romantically towards someone by thinking about how comfortable I am with certain things with them or what I can imagine doing with them. There are other feelings as well but those can appear platonically as well. Of course, this can be different things (kissing, committing to each other, living together, certain names, maybe just how you want them to view you, a lot.) I assume alloromantic people can have different experiences too, but the way I see it is that they feel strongly AND have feelings/urges/desires related to romantic things that they don't get for or don't get as extremely for their friends.

If you are wondering "I don't understand romance, I get these for all of my friends," maybe you do experience "romantic feelings" in that way specifically. Maybe multiple feelings blend together.

I don't think it matters much as long as you can find what you want with others. You've already told me you want a queerplatonic relationship if you were in any type of romantic relationship. Is there someone you feel you would want to be especially close with, that you'd want to have a special role to you, or whatever else?

I am just thinking... I wanted to say this since I feel this way whenever I see people talk about this confusion. I had so many better ideas I forgot about, so I might not have gotten this across well.

i mean honestly this is the best and most “makes sense” explanation of it i’ve ever seen and it’s what i generally try to keep in mind, so i wouldn’t worry too hard abt whether you got across well ^_^ i gotcha! so true!

it’s so strange to me though….. do most people not get so happy they have to physically take a moment to calm down when their friends do nice things for them….. like i get excited to the point where my heart starts actively racing and i have to go “okay deep breaths… not dying” i get big big feelings

i like qprs a lot just because there isn’t really a set blueprint/framework for them. in a qpr it doesn’t matter if my feelings are platonic or romantic or both or a secret third thing, so long as i genuinely care for my partner and they genuinely care for me and we’re happy with the boundaries we have set. i like that a lot… i feel like romantic relationships have all these damn Rules about them and then i get way too in my head about whether or not i’m Playing The Game Right. when imo it should be more about the person. you can’t be in a qpr incorrectly bc they can look like anything, which i really like. also queerplatonic polyamory would rule i regularly fantasize abt living on the same street as a bunch of close friends and we all hang out all the time while still getting our own spaces… yeahgh i like that. but Alas that sorta thing stays in daydream land bc my “dating”(or similar commitments) pool is generally Pretty Small already and being someone who would prefer a qpr makes that Smaller. it’s funny tho i think outwardly if i were in a qpr it’d look very similar to a romantic relationship. i just wouldn’t call it that bc i don’t get that distinction methinks. as for whether there’s anyone i’d LIKE to be in a qpr with…. that’s a secret >vo~* as if i’d share squishes with the world…… no i take that shit to the grave unforchies

[aspecpplarebeautiful]

Hi there! How are you doing? I have some questions, well, a rant *plus* some questions.

I feel... safer with allo allies than I do with aro/ace communities (online). Does that make me aphobic/bad? I don't go by labels because for me, they're not necessary. If I *were* to label myself based purely on definitions, I would be aroace, specifically, demiromantic asexual. I used to go by this a while back.

I don't fit the stereotype of being aroace at all. I'll talk about the aromantic side. Unlike most arospecs i've seen online, I LOVE Valentine's day! I LOVE shipping! I LOVE consuming romance fiction. I LOVE romance et cetera et cetera and yet I don't experience it like allos do. I need a strong bond with someone in order to fall in love and it takes me really, really, long to do so. But once it happens, my love is not 'weak'. It makes me pass really well as allo because of this, but it makes a lot of people in the aro community mad because I'm 'stealing' a label to 'feel special'. I was always told I was not aroace, that I couldn't be aroace by definition. That I was alloromantic asexual pretending to be on the arospec. That I was too scared to be 'basic'.

On that topic, and I think this is unintentional, but... why is nobody batting an eye when an aro or an ace person shames an allo or calls them weird or basic? Because they're doing exactly what allo aphobes are doing to them. I had this conversation with a friend and he said, 'that doesn't happen, allo people don't get shamed especially by aspec people', yet, I keep seeing things like 'I fucking hate allos so much' and 'To all my aces, we're not like allos, we're better' or something along those lines.

Whenever I enter an aspec online space, I'm made to feel like an intruder because, as I said, my experiences are very similar to the allo experience EXCEPT for the fact that I don't feel romantic attraction unless a strong bond has been formed. I'm not saying the aroace community is bad in any way, don't get my wrong, I'm saying that there is a massive gatekeeping problem going around and so much bubbling hatred and separation, and I don't understand any of it. In a prefect world, I'd happily identify as aroace, but I feel ashamed to do so now.

The gatekeeping... the infighting, I don't want to hate the online community of which I'm supposed to belong but this... this isn't right. The allo allies don't do things like this. They don't make me feel insecure about myself. And yes, while I don't experience romance like an allo would, I feel safe around them. I need to ask, have you seen this too? Have you experienced this? Is this truly all in my head? What do you think?

I apologize for the vent or if I seem aphobic, I just really need answers and I'm tired of the constant hatred... How are you? Did you drink enough water? Did you sleep well today? Did you eat? Again, I'm so sorry if I made you uncomfortable with this!

Vents are totally welcome, Anon. Don't worry.

I'm really sorry you ran into gatekeeping, Anon. I feel like that's something that's really been on the rise especially over the last couple of years. It's a real issue and it causes a lot of harm. This should go without saying, but demiromantic people are aro, and have just as much right to be here as anyone else on the aro spectrum.

I do think at least part of the problem is social media in general and how things are set up these days. We don't have community spaces as much anymore, in particular we've lost moderated spaces where gatekeepers can be properly dealt with. And there's very little curation or organization. Things are chaotic and fragmented, and one person's experience and what kind of posts they say see may vary wildly from someone else's. There's also a competing needs issue, where one aro may need to vent about romance, another may need their romantic side validated and there's no way to organize so each can find the space they each need.

If finding aro spaces/blogs that are more accepting is important to you, Anon (and it's OK both if it is or isn't), my big advice would be seek out demiromantic blogs and posters specifically. There's some very good ones around and they'll be posting about aro things that are relevant to you, and even more importantly won't be gatekeeping demi identities.

For more aro-general blogs, there are ones out there that are also inclusive and anti-gatekeeping, but it may take a bit of work to find them. Be very liberal with your unfollow and block buttons. If someone is gatekeeping block on sight, but also if they're not posting the type of aro content that you need or want to see, you're allowed to organize things so you don't see their posts. Sometimes unfollowing is enough, but blocking also doesn't necessarily mean the other person has done anything wrong, it's just a tool to make sure you're not seeing a blog you don't want to see.

For the shaming allos question, I do think it's a complex topic. For me it depends on context. I definitely do not believe in any kind of ace/aro superiority, being ace and/or aro, or being allo are both neutral. Nobody's smarter or more moral or more pure or anything like that. But sometimes people say things as a vent in the moment and are reacting to a difficult situation they've been in. So for example someone may say 'allos suck' but it comes from a place where they've been very badly treated by allos for being ace or aro but they're referring more to the societal systems that are in place that privilege allo people and make life more difficult for ace/aro people, they don't actually believe being allo makes someone a bad person. (It can be hard to tell what's going on just from a post, again it's OK to unfollow and block, especially if it's just not what you personally need to see in the moment).

Personally I don't come across a lot of this type of stuff, but this is what I mean about things being fragmented, the blogs I follow just aren't posting about the infighting or gatekeeping and I don't happen to see it in the tags when I go in there. But I do hear about it second hand, and it seems like it's a problem on other social media sites I'm not on as well.

I'm sorry you've had a hard time, Anon. But I am glad you've found people you can be comfortable with and be yourself around. That's really important too. And thanks for the reminder that I really should drink more water today.

Hopefully at least some of this is helpful, but if you have more questions or want to discuss anything in more detail, feel free to send in another ask.

All the best!

[yardsards]

I hear you and I agree with you but also I raise you: queerplatonic the spares?

assuming you're talking about this post that i made a while back but blew up again recently?

i got a very similar ask back when i first made the post (which is buried somewhere in the depths of my blog bc tumblr search sucks) and i'll say now approximately what i said back then:

that kind of sucks too, actually.

the main problem with the "pair the spares" and "everyone must be paired" tropes is that they generally imply that it's not a happy ending unless everyone is in a committed monogamous romantic relationship. that characters (and real people, by extension) are somehow incomplete without a romantic partner, just like a sad single sock.

and removing the word "romantic" (or even any of the other adjectives as well) from those sentences and allowing them to include queerplatonic partnerships too doesn't really make the idea that much better. doing that doesn't break down the walls, just widens them a bit so that more people can be allowed in.

like yeah, one of the problems with the "you're incomplete without a romantic partner" idea is that it excludes people who can't feel romance. but that's far from the ONLY problem with it (in fact, the term "amatonormativity" wasn't even coined with aromantics specifically in mind, iirc).

it tells single people that they're not good enough, that they're incomplete. it tells single people who want a relationship that this isn't just a matter of "aw bummer, you want this thing but don't have it yet" but is rather a massive fundamental issue in their life that must take priority and be solved posthaste. it tells people who are happily single (including happily single alloromantics. because yes, they exist. not everyone who feels romantic attraction necessarily thinks that getting into a traditional romantic relationship about those feelings is right for them) that they're just deluding themselves and that they truly would be happiest in a partnership. it tells people who are in unhappy relationships that it would be better to stay than to become single. it says that relationships must look a certain way. it says that friendship is insufficient and is always inherently lesser than a partnership.

and allowing "partnership" and "relationship" to include queerplatonic as well as romantic doesn't fix a lot of those

amatonormativity is a cage that hurts those who can fit themselves in it as well as those who can't. widening the cage to allow more people in won't fix that. and there will always be people who don't fit inside the cage no matter how much you widen it. for example, non-partnering aros exist and would still be excluded here.

(and on another note: "pair the spares" and "everyone must be paired" generally are used derisively to refer to like. when characters are shoddily shoved together last minute because the writers couldn't figure out what else to do with them. it's generally just like, bad writing. and while i would LOVE more queerplatonic relationships, i want them to actually be GOOD, not just be some sloppy seconds leftover from a romantic ship.)

anyway i got rambly and possibly confusing there, and went Way Too Deep about what was almost definitely just a silly lighthearted ask. but i have so many Thoughts on the matter

there's just like. this mindset i notice (primarily in newer/younger aromantics who have just begun to question amatonormativity). where they see queerplatonic relationships and just think "ah, so this is just our version of a romantic relationship?" and don't really think about the complexities. ignoring the fact that some social constructs around romance are simply Not Good and that they will not become good if you separate them from romance. and ignoring that queerplatonic relationships are not always just "like a romantic relationship but minus the romance".

like it's a mindset that i understand (and i think was a lot like how i thought when i was younger and first figuring out these concepts). because this shit is CONFUSING and hard to explain and complicated to think about and so hard to unpack. so i hope i'm not coming across as rude to anon or anyone like that. it's just kinda something that's on my mind a good bit so i went off on a ramble, y'know?

edit: dug up the old post with a similar ask

[nerves-nebula]

Do you have any loveless/heartless characters? I think they're real neat <3

this post got superrr long lol. im avoiding my homework <3

so this is a complicated ask for me because my definition of "love" is intentionally different from a lot of more mainstream conceptions of it. love isn't a feeling to me, it's something you DO for people you care about, right? you make someone feel loved by doing things that show you care. you putting in that effort and correcting your behavior for their sake is love.

so in that way i don't consider any of my characters loveless. because to me Love is something you chose to do so nobody can really be loveless inherently, they're just choosing not to act loving towards someone.

HOWEVER, from what i've gleamed from a quick google search about loveless aros, it doesn't necessarily seem that being loveless is exclusive to my definition of love?

like, i'm seeing loveless aros talk about not having those kinds of feelings or doubting/opting out of western ideas of love that don't fit them. some talk about not forming that kind of "deep emotional bond" though I'm confused if they mean like.. in general, or just romantically. cuz i've never had a deep romantic bond but i've never really considered that an indictment of Love Itself so much as a type of love that I'm just not a part of.

some people are describing it as specifically romantic love that they know they can't feel. but then again some people are just using it to mean they reject "love" as a label for their emotions/experiences, so like. idk.

it feels like im on the exact same page as a lot of these people it's just that their conclusion was to throw out the word love and mine was to not accept the premise that romantic love is the highest or most important kind of love and focus on, like, other forms of love that are important to me. like my siblings and friends.

soooo i can't say any of them are loveless for sure, cuz i don't identify that way and i'm not sure i grok it yet.

HOWEVER,

I do have aromantic characters, if that's what you mean. though a lot of them are in weird psychosexual situations with each other (just cuz i dont wanna have sex doesnt mean its not fun for my characters to), though there's one or two healthy QPRs thrown in there.

tbh my understanding (or lack thereof) of romance seeps into all of my characters so even the ones who are supposedly in love are doing it with hints of aromanticism cuz like. i dont care what a crush is, yknow? there's only so far romantic tropes can take me before i tap out and just do my own thing.

but as for like canonically aro characters i've got Hondo & quinn, dotty, toasty, Thomas (you guys don't know Thomas yet lol she's a peach), Ezra and Pet (pet is a weird monster tho and Ezra is sort of dead so idk if that counts), Misha Mistaka, Pasiflora, and probably my new one, Benbeck.

I also consider Groe aroace but that's like, a whole thing. cuz Groe is mostly known for having been married to Maureno (one of my characters i explicitly consider allosexual, if not alloromantic) and their relationship takes front and center at every point sfsdf.

because even when i dont see it as romantic i LOVE to make characters lives intertwined and dependent on each other. due to my own personal issues. to be honest i dont think groe and maureno are "in love" i just think they're inextricable dependent on each other. i think their "romance" is an inherently aromantic one because it's not about romantic feelings its about their friendship and trust, which includes kissing and sex sometimes but isn't diminished when they don't do those things.

I don't think Groe feels romantic feelings but i get that two characters who ostensibly have their weird fucked up "romance" be the core thing going on in their life isn't exactly the aromantic rep that ppl are looking for. i mean, it is for ME, but not for everyone.

i guess im just not Good Aro rep tho, cuz im not interested in romance but i AM interested in finding a person who i know I can depend on for everything and share my life with, yknow? i want someone who i know will always be on my side.

and that looks the same to a lot of poeple as romance but the experience of it was way different. cuz i can be with them forever and never want to do more than kiss their forehead as a sign of affection and that'd be great for me, while i KNOW that's unthinkable for a lot of people.

but when writing my characters it's hard to really portray that internal difference. so i think ppl just assume it's romance, and like, that's fine i guess?

so like, groe and maureno fuck cuz it's fun and cuz they have unresolved issues but it's not crucial or even really important to their relationship- to the point that they care WAY more about who each other is hanging out with than who each other is having sex with.

but now i'm rambling about asexuality and stuff.. uhhh the point is YES i have aromantic characters NO I dont know if they're "loveless"

but if a character isn't aromantic or at least aspec that's probably cuz i made a concerted effort to think of them as such.

[gray-ace-space]

so i'm pretty sure i'm demi.

not like, a 100%, but right now it fits, so that's what i've been calling myself.

every person or character i've been consistently sexually attracted to, the attraction appeared after i spent a lot of time thinking about them and getting to know their personality, their soul i felt like. even when completely parasocial - often parasocial, which is kinda sad, but anyway.

it's funny, because demisexuality is actually something i ruled out pretty early in my label journey.

i realized at some point i didn't experience sexual attraction nearly as much as allos, so i began to identify as gray. and i did know it was more common for me to feel it for people i cared about deeply, but i also thought, you know, that's just one of the factors, it's not really like a major pattern.

but over time, while i was running this blog, i kinda uh. figured out that 90% of the times i thought i was sexually attracted to someone were either

💜 aesthetic attraction - they are pretty and cool and i like looking at them, that's the same thing as wanting to see them in a sexual light right? (it was not the same thing)

💖 romantic attraction - i may be in love, i want to be emotionally close to them and exchange affection; i might have sex with them if they asked, provided we've built enough trust (also not the same thing)*

🧡 sensual attraction - i would like to touch them, so it logically follows i want to touch them sexually (nope)

or involuntary physical arousal caused by a sexual context (nothing to do with attraction at all and doesn't even imply actual enjoyment)

(*keep in mind that i am alloromantic. i catch feelings pretty easily.)

here's an interesting thing:

it's not just that romantic feelings for me don't immediately come with sexual attraction. in the majority of cases, the sexual attraction never develops at all, even if i build a connection with the person, even if i am fully in love. i have crushes that gain a sexual element, but most of my crushes are asexual. is this a graydemi thing? potentially! i would like to hear if this is the case for other demis and also non-demi grays.

basically, the longer i think about my sexuality, the more i realize i actually feel sexual attraction much less than previously thought.

the once in a blue moon occurence of me experiencing true sexual attraction always fucks me up though, because it's so intense. and i don't know if it only feels intense because i'm not super used to it, or because there's always an emotional investment there, but it's given me impostor syndrome.

and, you know, sometimes i have to remind myself that, oh, most allosexuals probably don't exclusively feel this way about like, 4 specific people in the first 23 years of their life. (sidenote, if you're allo, how do y'all function? do you get used to it eventually or are you just permanently made a little dumber by the horniness?)

i guess besides my consistent demi feelings i still have these random weak flashes of attraction to other people? which is why i still go with gray mainly. and aceflux is significant for me still, because it does seem to come and go in waves. but i just don't know, because these feelings don't come up often enough for me to fully figure out the patterns. if there even are patterns!

i'm still figuring this shit out! and i would not be able to get as far as i have if i hadn't started running this blog. it's taught me just as much as (i hope) it has taught you.

let this also be a reminder to you that people are bigger than labels. the words are there for us to understand ourselves and communicate better, but words are just words at the end of the day. "close enough" is good enough.