#aplatonic aro
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
manyminded · 10 months ago
Text
hi aro community. quick question
BE NORMAL ABOUT LOVELESS AND APLATONIC PEOPLE OR DIE BY MY BLADE
290 notes · View notes
lovelessrage · 10 months ago
Text
Loveless: A Loveless Review
[Plain Text: Loveless: A Loveless Review]
Trigger Warnings For: Discussion of sex, sex negativity, platonormativity, arophobic tropes, and anti-loveless rhetoric
Disclaimer/Disclosure: I couldn’t finish this book. This will factor heavily into the review, as it has to do with how some scenes, details, and the writing quality were just very hard to sit with and continue. I got about 50% through, so I didn’t just skim pages and get back to you on it.
You might guess I don’t think of this book highly if I had to put it down and stop reading. This would be correct. However, I have more in depth thoughts than that. If you like this book and don’t want to read negative things about it, that's fine, but I implore you to read it anyway. A lot of the problems in this book are present in a lot of creations I see and can be a valuable teaching lesson; loveless people aren’t out to ruin your fun because biases got questioned.
Alright. Enough disclaimers. Review under the cut.
The Bingo Card: Surprisingly, Not A Strikeout
People who have been following me for a while may remember I mentioned I went into reading this book with a bingo card in hand: Loveless and Tired Bingo, a sheet made by yours truly. I did not get Bingo with this book! I did, however, fill 17 spaces out of 25; it just didn’t happen to line up, not because the book passed with flying colors. We’ll return to the Bingo Card at the end of this post to see what it looked like. But, letting you know, that’s a rate of 68% of all squares ticked on Loveless and Tired Bingo. Not looking so hot. 
Let’s start with the meat of the post so nobody has to read it all if they just wanted my representation opinions. Other things like writing will be shuffled down for your convenience.
Edit: Past Scowl is a liar and a fraud and did not have maims glasses on, and misread the bingo card! I did get Bingo. Oops. Point still stands because the data is the same, I just gave this book a sliver more credit than it deserved for not getting one.
Platonormativity, Envy, and The Loneliness Whirlpool
If this book had a full course meal, normativity would ironically be a key ingredient in every plate on the menu. Loveless has a platonormativity problem that confronts you from page 1, more realistically before that; the blurb!
Tumblr media
[Text ID: From the marvelous author of Heartstopper comes an exceptional YA novel about discovering that it's okay if you don't have sexual or romantic feelings for anyone... since there are plenty of other ways to find love and connection. /End ID]
I promise not all my complaints will be raving about one sentence, but this kinda encapsulates the entirety of my problem with Loveless: Georgia Warr is not supported in her own novel. Loveless is a deeply insecure book that many can relate to, but, really… does it alleviate that insecurity, or just cover it up? There’s an unspoken “but” to every part of Loveless’ philosophy about aspec people [especially aroaces], where they must have platonic love to make them whole, to “fix” and “redeem” their lacking attractions. This has always bothered me, and it’s not an uncommon opinion in the community, unfortunately.
Aroaces aren’t allowed to simply “be” – they must be more. They must be so platonically invested you forget they’re aroace, because they have all this other type of love to give the world. It’s reflective of a view on a community sourced from hurt and exclusion, of someone trying to rebuild their worth on a new forefront. It doesn’t make it less of what it is, though: it’s a “yes they’re valid, but” statement that serves as the backbone for far too many aspec-focused media. 
Georgia is a deeply unsure character, and there’s nothing wrong with her being this way; she’s a fictional character made to represent a journey of acceptance, not a real person with the ability to inflict harm on other real people. She does reflect the author’s biases in many ways and many points on the same token, though, acting as a mouthpiece. This often comes in Georgia’s insistence her friendships are simply stronger than other relationship types, as well as her reflexive tendencies to judge the friendless.
One of my many, many hurdles in this book had to do with Rooney [someone save her and half the cast from this novel, please], when the group realizes she’s only a socialite, not really a long-term relationship holder, and the entire room devolves into silent judgment. Georgia does not defend her newfound friend, simply noting she thought differently of her. What about Rooney not having many friends changes her outgoing personality? It doesn’t. It’s simply the fact that Rooney being friendless makes her weird, as with many things Rooney is unfairly demonized for in this novel.
The emphasis on friends doesn’t end here, and persists through the entire novel, practically. It is the main focus, when it isn’t talking about Georgia’s disinterests, and her friend circle is very important to her. All of this is fine. What isn’t fine is the expectation and casual enforcement of friendship being all you have, so you must seize it; this book, even though I wouldn’t recommend it, is often given as The Book on being aroace, but I wouldn’t agree [you’re free to tell me I can’t have an opinion on that if I’m not aroace, but at least read on before deciding anything, alright, official hear me out warning]. One, not all aroaces are alloplatonic, and two, this:
Why Is This Book Written Like A Workplace Safety Seminar
It’s a very… cookie-cutter way to be aroace, and cookie cutter aroaces exist in real life! The rep should exist, no doubt, and shouldn’t be taken away from anyone. It’s not my problem per se that the book is semi-stereotypical. What my problem is has to do with something I see a lot.
The book falls into many of the pitfalls of what I’m dubbing “the pamphlet effect”: when a novel, show, etc. continuously needs to halt the plot to remind the audience this character is different, and explains this to you in a way that resembles an educational pamphlet at a pride event. Georgia Warr feels like an example given to explain a concept more than a person, and I feel bad for her because of how little this book engages with her actual character when it shines through. I understand the book is primarily centered on her journey through the spectrum, but very little is given to make Georgia’s experience unique outside of one scene off the top of my head. Her interests, hobbies, and unique feelings only seem to play a role when it comes time to be an author mouthpiece on slutshaming for fun and sport; only one scene, the forced kiss with Jason when rehearsing the play, really blends her life experiences with her aroace experiences.
Georgia feels designed to be an everywoman, and it was very disappointing to say the least. Very little of the book actually feels like I’m with her, or learning about her unique take on being aroace as a theatre fan or young adult figuring things out; it just feels like Georgia [and the reader] are being dragged through the Cliff’s Notes version of what it is to discover being aroace, rather than a look at how a character like this might feel differently than others on a fuller, whole scale. She’s a hole that can fit most shapes into it, which makes her broadly relatable, but not as fun or engaging to read about if you don’t fit precisely in the demographic Georgia is for; even if you do, is there much to engage with beyond “I’m like that too!”? 
This isn’t just a Georgia problem, either, as many, many characters in this book are walking stereotypes or very flat. But, we’ll get into that later [if you want to get into it now, skip to Writing Problems, Oh My!].
The Fingering In The Room: Loveless’ Weird Ideas About Sex
Alright, if you’re sex repulsed and braved the storm to get some insight, this next paragraph is just complete confusion about this book’s sex scenes and talking about some of the details within. If you want to skip that, skip the next paragraph.
Why is everybody fingering each other? Fingering is fine and it feels good, but it is basically the only sexual act this book knows outside of making out with tongue. Someone having sex in Loveless? They better have clipped their nails because at least two are going in. It feels like a point of research that was skipped because it was unimportant, which. Pretty much, yes. But when you’re someone who pays very close attention to sex scenes because you’re of the opinion they can have artistic value, as well as conveying the author’s views on sexuality, I come away with “is fingering what Oseman thinks young adults do?”. Anyways. Something I noticed.
[Okay sex repulsed people, you’re good. No in depth descriptions beyond this point, just the word “sex”.]
I should��ve titled this section “In Defense of Rooney Bach” because oh this poor girl. Oh you are just there to be gawked at.
First off, let’s begin in a good place: this book always has to clarify it isn’t slutshaming its characters, followed by slutshaming its characters. Rooney is, for the uninitiated, very sexually active. Georgia’s envy often leads to a judgemental, close minded view of Rooney that often pins her sex life as “too much” – something many sexually active women get villainized for. It strikes me immediately how Rooney is constantly picked on for her sexuality as a woman in ways no male characters who aren’t asexual either are treated. None of the men she flirts with or spends time with are reprimanded or “held to account” by the book; Rooney alone is breaking the rules. Rooney’s descriptions are often bookended with a disclaimer that she isn’t being called a slut, she’s just like one, which… This is slutshaming. You can’t just say you aren’t doing it to not be doing it.
Rooney is also a victim of a very arophobic trope, and one that is also misogynistic: the Broken Woman. Why is Rooney sexually active? A rough breakup that broke her heart and makes her fear intimacy on account of potentially being wrong again. Sure, sex feels good, but explicit focus is made on the fact she is only not engaging with romance because she tried and it didn’t work. For a few chapters, admittedly I was hoping for a book where an aroace and aroallo can get past some differences and expand each other's worldviews; what I got was Georgia thinking pretty poorly of Rooney through unaddressed envy and sex negativity, and Rooney being made to only like hookups because she’s messed up. Because of course a woman could only enjoy that if she had a negative experience that forced her on the path!
Also, another scene I didn’t like was Georgia and Pip watching Rooney have sex while she is completely unaware of their presence? Jason leaves as soon as he notices, but the two of them watch before Pip makes a comment on how disgusting it is and Georgia agrees. I’m shocked at how little this is brought up as being violating or creepy. 
If it was a better book, I would have expected it to result in some kind of furthered conversation about boundaries; it could've been a place for Georgia to start establishing what she likes and dislikes, starting with Rooney preferably keeping her out of her sex life when she’s able. Instead, this event gets brought up solely for jokes, and for a motivation for Pip to start hating Rooney, despite her insistence it wasn't because of the hookup and she isn’t slutshaming. Always a great sign when that needs to be clarified. This is a PSA for everyone: you should not need to clarify you aren’t trying to slutshame. If you feel the need to do so, you are probably being sex negative. 
This book isn’t very fond of sexually active people, nor is it kind to characters that are. I can understand why being asexual and sex repulsed is representation people would want, but I also think there’s many, many ways to write it without making it an exercise in shame.
Ironically Kinda Arophobic In Some Parts
This is a short section of a thing I noticed, hated, and had as a contributing factor for my ending early: this book loves aphobic tropes. There’s already the trope against aroallos of not needing romance because of being broken into only liking sex, but also the problem with Pip and Rooney.
I’m a lesbian, for clarification, and I’m saying from experience that I hate the archetype of the angry, jealous lesbian. It’s everywhere. It’s in this book. Pip, upon even the idea of being rejected, starts berating and demeaning the girl who turned her down, even if she was only turned down in her head. The book passes it off as a lighthearted, funny story that Pip got so mad at an ex-crush she was suspended for throwing an apple at their head. Why do I bring this up?
Is it not ringing any bells that this is arophobic? That a character so hostile to romantic rejection is treated as a joke? Many, many aros, and queer people in general, have experienced violence for turning down someone. It’s a serious issue for aros and a real fear in rejecting someone. I found it incredibly hard to read and sit through as everybody passes off Pip’s tendencies to do this to the women that reject her as a silly, funny Pip moment and not a major issue for the aspec community. I don’t care if it’s enemies to lovers, because it doesn’t really feel good to read at all. The only tension is built off the back of something I’ve experienced in real life and many others have as well. 
Lovelessness: The Insecurity Unaddressed
This book, despite its title, is obviously about a loving character. Many people might not see this as a problem: first off, loveless doesn’t always mean the same thing, and second, many aroaces express feeling loveless when coming to terms with their identity. Here’s my rebuttal.
One: Georgia fits no definitions of the label. She subscribes to none of the beliefs. She loves her friends actively and sees their relationship as more than romance or sex, as something greater to her.
Second, this is because anti-loveless rhetoric is everywhere and all over this book. Not once is it suggested Georgia could live as loveless, or truly be without love. In the end, she is surrounded by it, simply learning to accept friendship instead. The way her insecurity isn’t met with “you’re complete as you are”, and instead with “you can still be complete if you simply fill the void with friends”, is anti-loveless. Nobody is allowed to be whole on their own without a subplot where their doubts are reinforced or they’re explicitly made to be broken inside.
This is shockingly common, and always sad every time I see it. Many aspects fear being loveless, as if it is a curse or blight they must cleanse. This book is one example out of many, but it doesn’t make it less hurtful when a book that runs against everything your community stands for [self-acceptance and the optionality of love] bears your name regardless. It is a book for people who are afraid of loneliness, and it answers their insecurities with “you’re right. You do need other people. You just need to find a way to still find and have a life partner!”. This is damaging to loveless people, especially those questioning an aplatonic identity.
Again, it’s not unique to Loveless. But, it’s reflective of a broader issue of aplatonics who may be seeking community constantly being presented with “you ARE broken, but friendship can fix you!”, a “solution” many can’t use, and often leads to even more self-hatred.
That’s about it from the aspec side of things. If you got this far, congrats! The rest is opinions on the writing, and the bingo card finale. You can drop off here if that’s all you came for.
Writing Problems, Oh My!
This is veering into heavy personal opinion, so, I will remind you: I don’t usually like YA, but YA can be a very good genre! I do not think this book is a good representation of what good YA looks like.
The writing quality is one of the hardest things to get past, because of a major problem I observed: Oseman is better at comics. This isn’t so much a vilification as a recommendation that it would’ve been much better suited for a different type of media. This kind of “media dysphoria” is present in many of the ways the book operates: many scenes would flow perfectly well in a visual piece. Georgia’s inner monologue has a tendency to jump suddenly into scenes and interrupt the action in a way that would be perfectly natural as a narration bubble put over a drawing of the scene around her. There are entire pages of just… text messages that would be much better suited to a visual medium where you could make these dialogue bits look much more interesting through different shots, or drawing what the background would look like on a screen [The Girl from the Sea does this well, for example]. 
There’s also the fact I cannot place in my mind if I'm too old for this novel. A lot of the jokes boil down to “hah! Sex!” in a way that instantly alienates me from the writing. The jokes can be pretty juvenile and repetitive, and serve to be the equivalent of a comedian saying “eh? Get it? That was a joke.” six times. 
This isn’t to mention the fact many of these characters are complete cardboard. Sorry. Jason does not need to exist. When he appears in a scene, he is ignored or completely leaves it on his own. He really only serves to drive Georgia’s character forward, rather than have one of his own. I found myself forgetting he was present in a scene at all until he spoke again and reminded me of his existence. The book would practically be unchanged if Georgia temporarily dated Pip and Jason was never a factor, plus or minus the Shakespeare Soc plot. 
Many interesting characters suffer from severe Pamphlet Effect syndrome. Most of the girls do. In a better novel, they would be more in depth, but Loveless doesn’t really afford them this luxury. I need to take the girls very far away from this novel, okay. I need someone to write a version of Loveless where they have personalities. There’s crumbs there. Please, someone make a loaf of bread out of it. They deserve it.
Another thing, but minor: the breakneck pacing at some points followed by slow slogs of not a lot happening contributes to the reading issues. You may thing something would be dwelled on, just for it to go flying away into the sunset as 3 more things happen and then one problem lasts for 2 chapters. I found it very hard to catch up with Loveless, while other parts I felt like I was constantly waiting for it to catch up with me instead.
The Final Frontier: The Bingo Card Returns
And without further ado, the Loveless and Tired Bingo Card for Loveless by Alice Oseman! Completed with help from other readers braver than I.
Tumblr media
[Image ID: A bingo card made from a basic template. It has no title, and all the text is black on a white background. Some squares are marked with a blue X, while others are marked with a red scribble. The marked squares are: “Not prioritizing friendship treated as freak behaviour”, “Jab at loveless sex thrown in”, “Something about not being like THOSE people”, “Universal type of love is laid on thick”, “The answer to all your problems is finding some pals”, “Found family ending”, “Platonic-romantic binary”, “Love still treated as universal [free]”, “Friendship is more wholesome or pure”, “Amatonormativity BAD [platonormativity is my bestie]”, “Platonic love being more powerful or sumn”, “You still love your friends though, right?”, “Friendship saves the day”, “Still thinks you need dedicated people to survive”, “Being alone treated as worst thing in the world”, and “Friendships are more stable than partnerships anyways”. The unmarked, blank squares are: “Something about "players" and pickup artists where no commitment is villainized”, “Character fears being loveless and is kinda aplphobic about it”, “Aspec double standards [one is normal, one is weird]”, “You still love your FAMILY, right???”, “QPRs mentioned by no nuance given to their diversity”, “Friendship forced upon a character against their will”, “Comment about some people being inhuman gets brushed past”, and “Simply prioritise your family instead!!” /End ID]
Would I recommend this book? Uh. No! Well. Yes, but not as a good book for aspecs. I’d recommend it solely to read it yourself and form your own opinions. But, no, I would not recommend it to any aspecs I know, especially not loveless ones, aplatonic ones, aroallos, or if they're an aroace looking for support.
Ah, Loveless, how you vexx me. Never again. See you in the next, much shorter post.
245 notes · View notes
thebluekid-underyourbed · 8 months ago
Text
"there's no platonic explanation of this!" "there's no romantic explanation of this!" THIS UNIVERSE HAS MAGIC AND DRAGONS AND SHIT WHAT MAKES YOU THINK ANYTHING NEEDS EXPLANATION
30 notes · View notes
loveless-arobee · 7 months ago
Text
It’s Pride!
Tumblr media
(ID in alt)
Happy pride to all aros, especially AroAllos, non-SAM Aros and other non-ace Aros, loveless and heartless Aros, disabled Aros, aplatonic Aros (also non-aro aplatonics, but this post is about my fellow aros :)) and all other Aros who are regularly forgotten and erased by the rest of the community!
Happy Pride Month!
16 notes · View notes
entropy-sea-system · 1 year ago
Text
Redefining Nebularomantic to be more open-ended as a label, like its Nebulasexual counterpart
Introduction:
Nebula- as a label was meant to be quoi- but specific to people who feel their neurodivergence and/or (action/attraction type)-related intrusive thoughts influences the respective orientation for them.
If you look at the nebulasexual label it is defined broadly, just as I described in the above paragraph. However, the term nebularomantic has almost always been defined only as "cannot distinguish between platonic and romantic attraction because of neurodivergence" unfortunately.
Now there are generally a few problems with equating platoniromantic with quoiromantic:
Quoiromantic is an umbrella term with many definitions it can include. It generally includes any difficulty in comprehending or fully understanding an attraction or relationship type. Platoniro definitely is included in this but it is inaccurate to define quoiro as only platoniromantic and it disrespects the broader definition of quoi- that the coiner intended
It assumes that we all have a connection to platonicism and understand the concept of "platonic" well. Not all quoiros use the arospec label and some are more alloromantic-spec aligned but there is an assumption that arospecs must have a huge connection to platonicism (due to platonormativity) which undoubtedly sidelines those of us who don't (aplatonics and plato averse or repulsed people mainly)
It implies that you cannot confuse other attractions with romantic if this is the only way quoi- gets (mis)defined
Anyways, seeing as how the nebulasexual label functions as "quoisexual if orientation influenced by being nd and/or having sexual intrusive thoughts", it is very reductive to make the romantic orientation of nebula- spectrum mean only "platoniromantic and neurodivergent"
For those reasons I am now redefining Nebularomantic as follows:
Nebularomantic: Being unsure whether one experiences romantic attraction, being unable to fully understand romantic attraction, or otherwise identifying as quoiromantic or similar experiences, and this being influenced by one's neurodivergence and/or having intrusive thoughts about romance
The main reason I am doing this is because I'm an apothiplatonic sexuromantic who is quoiromantic and does not want people like me to be excluded from the label of nebularomantic. I also want arospec and adjacent terms to be defined properly, instead of being forcibly made to involve platonicism, despite the other orientation types' counterparts of the term not even specifying confusion with ANOTHER attraction type (while still including it under the term if one wishes to id w it for that reason).
This very much means people who fit the older definition of nebularo are still nebularo !! Just that it will no longer be the ONLY way to be nebularomantic because there was no necessity for that label to be that specific to begin with, especially compared to the usage of it in the acespec adjacent version (nebulasexual).
Additionally if anyone wants to coin another term that specifically ONLY means "platoniromantic and orientation influenced by one's neurodivergence" you definitely can. I think that can be a useful label for some people if they want it. (I might coin one like that for sexuromantic myself at some point)
Additionally at one point I will coin a term 'Nimbusromantic' which is explicitly inclusive of nebularomantics who do not experience platonic attraction and/or don't feel a connection to platonicism thus don't relate to the older definition of nebularomantic.
31 notes · View notes
thebluekid-underyourbed · 2 years ago
Text
Do not be arophobic. Lest you want me to paint everything in your house green.
fun fact! you're arophobic of you don't support:
- cisgender aros
- xenogender aros
- hetero aros
- mspec aroaces
- loveless aros
- aplatonic aros
- heartless aros
- married aros
- non-sam aros
- aros with neopronouns
- neurodivergent aros
- physically disabled aros
- aros in romantic relationships
- aros in sexual relationships
ty for coming to my ted talk <3
1K notes · View notes
saffigon · 4 months ago
Text
not having sex is morally neutral. having sex is morally neutral
not engaging in romance is morally neutral. engaging in romance is morally neutral
not having friends is morally neutral. having friends is morally neutral
5K notes · View notes
here-and-queer312 · 5 months ago
Text
SAY IT WITH ME GUYS, GALS, AND ENBY PALS OF TUMBLR
ASPEC PEOPLE ARE REAL AND VALID HUMAN BEINGS
ASPEC PEOPLE ARE REAL AND VALID HUMAN BEINGS
ASPEC PEOPLE ARE REAL AND VALID HUMAN BEINGS
ASPEC PEOPLE ARE REAL AND VALID HUMAN BEINGS
ASPEC PEOPLE ARE REAL AND VALID HUMAN BEINGS
ASPEC PEOPLE ARE REAL AND VALID HUMAN BEINGS
ASPEC PEOPLE ARE REAL AND VALID HUMAN BEINGS
ASPEC PEOPLE ARE REAL AND VALID HUMAN BEINGS
ASPEC PEOPLE ARE REAL AND VALID HUMAN BEINGS
ASPEC PEOPLE ARE REAL AND VALID HUMAN BEINGS
ASPEC PEOPLE ARE REAL AND VALID HUMAN BEINGS
ASPEC PEOPLE ARE REAL AND VALID HUMAN BEINGS
ASPEC PEOPLE ARE REAL AND VALID HUMAN BEINGS
ASPEC PEOPLE ARE REAL AND VALID HUMAN BEINGS
7K notes · View notes
thetisming · 10 months ago
Text
people who exclude straight trans people and straight aspec people are my worst enemies. btw
11K notes · View notes
zephyr-heart · 10 months ago
Text
Tumblr media
11K notes · View notes
sillylilneurodivergent · 5 months ago
Text
Guys, it happened. I’m an
AAAAAA (aromantic, asexual, agender, with autism, adhd, & anxiety)
6K notes · View notes
edwardallenpoe · 6 months ago
Text
Tumblr media
Whenever I see aphobia this is all I can think about. If you think loveless people are "psychotic" or "narcissistic" or "broken" I know how you actually feel about disordered/disabled people. Just telling on yourself with this one chief.
4K notes · View notes
aromantic-spinda · 10 months ago
Text
A podcast run by an asexual, an aromantic, and an aplatonic called "AAA" and every time an episode starts, one of them welcomes the audience by screaming into the mic
"hello and welcome to AAA!"
5K notes · View notes
infiniteorangethethird · 11 months ago
Text
sure "romantic" isn't the only type of love but also "love" isn't the only type of positive feeling. So maybe stop insisting everyone needs love to be happy and accept that loveless ppl exist? Pretty please?
6K notes · View notes
angelheart-lesbo · 10 days ago
Text
people who deserve more respect and recognition:
intersex people
trans men
aromantic people
multigender people
people in qpr's
aplatonic people
1K notes · View notes
entropy-sea-system · 1 year ago
Text
In light of how some people (including aros!) have been throwing certain identities under the bus in criticising the aro manifesto, I am making this post. Im demiromantic allosexual and nonfriending aplatonic, and lovelustic aro.
To start off, I hate the aro manifesto too and find issue with its queerphobia and romance negativity. However, this does not mean you get to throw romance repulsion under the bus (although Im not romance repulsed and am aro, I support romance repulsed aros and other romance repulsed people!) As it is not inherently romance negativity or queerphobia to be repulsed by romance! Romance repulsed people are great.
Now since that's out of the way, I want to talk about something that is a way even aros shit on certain identities. First of all I would like to say that the aro manifesto literally NEVER denigrates platonic love or nonromantic love, EVER(in fact it actually encourages it while tearing into romantic love). So you are not even making a point about the manifesto itself if you do this.
There are people who don't feel platonic love and/or nonromantic love. And we will always exist. Let's not be hostile to these experiences. It is not wrong at all to not feel any kind of love. Loveless people, whether loveless aro, loveless apl, loveless due to neurodivergence, and so on, are amazing and we should support these experiences!
Let me make that very clear. In fact it is also very okay to only feel romantic love, regardless of your orientation(reminder that some aros do feel romantic love, and in fact it may also be the only type of love some aros feel.).
It is also okay to be aplatonic or atertiary in other ways (Im aplatonic and atertiary myself, also adding that you do not have to be aro and/or ace to be these identities!) and/or feel a disconnect from nonromantic and nonsexual relationships. These identities do not exist just so some aros can feel better about themself by putting these identities down.
Do not reinforce platonormativity by treating friendship as mandatory. Friendship is optional just like romance is, even if you need friendship to be happy (which yes can be possible even though you like to shit on people who derive a lot of happiness from romance or feel way bettee when they have a partner, it is possible to feel a need for ANY type of relationship and that is okay!!), not everyone does! In fact some of us need to not have friendship in our life in order to be happy just like you may need to not have romance in your life for the same reason!
It's not the fault of loveless aros that aromanticism is seen as devoid of all kinds of love by arophobes/aromisics! Some aros fit the 'stereotype' of aromantics and that's okay. Its the fact that people assume all aros are loveless that is the problem.
There is nothing wrong with being loveless and please remember that loveless people still are not even accepted within the aro community. As much as being loveless is a stereotype used to malign aros, the identity itself is hardly respected within OR outside the aro community and you need to understand this. If you only give voice to and respect aros who experience a lot of nonromantic love, you are completely missing the point and are silencing loveless people in the community.
It is also ableist to use ableist slurs (especially slurs used against people with aspd) towards loveless people, especially since some people who are neurodivergent cannot feel love or feel a disconnect from love due to their neurodivergence (and no, we do not need to feel love or be completely devoid of neurodivergence or mental illness to be given respect!).
You will not become acceptable to society by doing this. To arophobes/aromisics, you are not superior to loveless aros, aplatonics, atertiary people, or other people with a disconnect from love or nonromantic and nonsexual relationships . They target all of us. Instead of looking down on people for not feeling love, or for not feeling nonromantic love, support all of these experiences and extend compassion to other people even if they aren't exactly like you in every way.
(Note: the term nonsexual is used here because some people who don't want some/most types of nonromantic relationships may still want sexual relationships that are nonromantic in nature, and I wanted to reflect that in the wording! And also because the aro community does not actually pressure people to want nonromantic relationships that are solely sexual!)
41 notes · View notes