#it's [aroace] it's [relationship anarchy] it's [for the most part if i use ''romance/romantic'' as a term it's a shorthand for convenience]

[unproduciblesmackdown]

ideal scenario is that i like thinking about this like, essential short story adventure where winston and tuk hook up w/a couple [that bachelorette party] members, and as a foursome/quartet because they have these parallel stories of two pairs of friends who are like "sure i'd have sex with you if things aligned for that" and now are living that short story about expanding a dynamic & becoming closer friends for the end of it (of course billions only wrote winston as standing next to tuk next episode, instead of rian as he's often written to be standing with incl in a previous finale, to shove him out of the path of getting material and let taylor have confusing nonresolution w/rian based on this proximity and coincidence instead. but who can't say that that, And winston next not even trying to sit with tmc in the last finale appearance which at this point is probably for the best and instead again hanging out with tuk and then ben, isn't about having been closer for whatever all happened there in obtaining casual sex together)

and they can have perpendicular stories of also just having some nice chats and enjoying other interactions together such that maybe it's just fun for this one night of crossing paths, maybe anyone stays in touch at all, who even knows, if winston or tuk are dating anyone it's probably only going to come up again in how they were last dumped for being too much effort for how unepic they are, so godspeed to offscreen unmentioned dating. but just friendly acquaintanceship, or again this one-time spontaneously crossed paths night's acquaintanceship, is also a lot of fun. and why not imagine that winston "he's not allowed to not feel self-loathing or, by doing basic things like talking or initiating Or oppositng anything, Not operating as though he's too low in a social hierarchy here to be allowed thusly" type of material where his spontaneity, vivacity to bon vivantocity, self-assurance that is apparently arrogance/aggression to every who thinks he ought to be self-effacing instead, etc, is actually just a social success in other less wretched non-work situations, and his personality is taken as a contribution to the proceedings even before anyone takes up his proffered contribution of himself as a potential sexual partner. and lending confidence to tuk as like one person who won't, at any given time, go into hostile mode with him or even like take up the position of issuing this criticism, which is an inherently elevated (over tuk) one when it's a unilateral thing. such that tuk's personality can be a potential contribution as well. and winston and tuk's Friendship Developing Moments can be happening then, too, b/c Maybe they've hung out outside work on their own aleady, but also maybe they've never really been interacting with a larger group outside work, such that that group is less likely to include some people, or entirely people, who will suddenly go sicko mode on either or both of them. and then meanwhile, who knows anything abt this bachelorette party, could be already a cohesive friend group who all see each other all the time, or people who see each other more infrequently meeting up on this trip, or a mix; could be fun and chill or something so scheduled/demanding it's kind of like a work trip, or fluctuate....and of course zero info abt the individuals such that imagining anything abt them is entire OC territory, and i'm bad at that, or at coming up with stories, so not exactly a lot of details here from me but godspeed if two of them unlock another tier of friendship here b/c like parallel to winston and tuk, they're like hmm okay so we're mutually down re: potentially having a foursome here, and spending some time away from the larger group

(or of course the scenario that tuk and winston can also have that moment but just as putting "and/or: a threesome?" as an option, and that tips the scales for someone who might've otherwise felt more indecisive like "hmmmm casual convenient hookup, or spending more time out & about like this / whatever other activity...." but then is like oho Well, if it's a threesome, i'll seize that opportunity, sure....such that then maybe afterwards [winston and tuk hanging out together] happens sooner, if the third member feels more third wheel about things lol, since now they'd be the only two who already know each other. like ooh who knows, round n+1 in the aftermath just one on one (and/or i mean, maybe another thing the third party's still around for, re: further casual sex opportunities that don't just fall into your lap every day), and/or talk, watch tron together, go back out on the town even. where the conclusion of this truly is the essence of "it Is easy to imagine that winston and tuk are real Genuine Friends for the implicit further offscreen time spent together outside work / interactions between them here. and fun" and with that flair of "and give that a juxtaposed parallel in it being the same for a couple bachelorette attendees, why not, good for them"

[prince-liest]

can i just say - having vox continue to date val and having that be like. completely a non-issue is SO. FUCKING. APPRECIATED. like i’m used to people putting voxval and radiostatic against each other, or saying vox loves alastor more etc etc. YAWN. well no sometimes it’s done in a really compelling way but ALSO i think this was is the most canon like. i promise you none of them (al, vox, and val) give a fuck. in fact i think they all enjoy it to a certain extent (al doesnt have to sate vox’s sexual needs, val is the type to gain amusement from radiostatic’s bullshit [canon btw], and vox gets two hot bfs [ish. 1.5]). not that alastor would have to do that if vox Wasn’t dating val, but id imagine it certainly takes the pressure off. idk im rambling. just thanks for having such good poly rep!

Aw, what the fuck, thank you so much! I'm ngl, I'm so poly-pilled by now (god I hope that's not an actual thing people say on 4chan or whatever, I can only imagine the horrors) that I full-on forgot that people might, like, wonder what happened to staticmoth in a radiostatic fic because it truly just didn't occur to me that one of those relationships might preclude the other until people started commenting asking whether Valentino is going to get jealous (the answer to that is 'no,' by the way). My best friend is poly as fuck and I think that the ideals of relationship anarchy that accompany healthy poly ideals are extremely in-line with an aroace perspective on non-standard relationships, and we've very much ended up two sides of the same coin in that respect in a way that definitely helped me figure my own shit out, haha.

Also, on a more 666-specific note: as toxic as staticmoth often can be to each other, I think it's worth noting that, from my perspective, Valentino is very much supplying the romantic (and sexual, given how high of a sex drive I write Vox with) fulfilment in Vox's life that Alastor never will. I'm a very firm believer in "radiostatic can be genuinely one-sided on the romance front and that doesn't have to be a sad thing for Vox," and while I'd still stick with that if staticmoth wasn't also a thing, I think that also dating Valentino definitely helps Vox with processing it.

Like, these fuckers are all unhealthy in a number of ways, I'm way too fond of positive poly rep to make that be a part of it, which is very much a deliberate choice on my part at this point! And I'm so, so glad that you're enjoying it, too!

[oodlesofowls]

Feel free to use as pfp WITH CREDIT!!!! :)

hcs below the cut ^^

Ok kenma is so very aro and so very gay. My favorite dynamics of his are bokuakakuroken and kenhina but he really gives platonic vibes even in those ships. i love the idea that hes aroace but still dating bokuto, kuroo and akaashi who also give various aspec vibes btw. i think i just really like characters in poly relationships where one part is platonic but means just as much because im self conscious about how much my friends care about me lol. but anyway. it’s obvious that kenma really likes hinata, we see it when they first meet and kenma just immediately gets a squish on him and then in the timeskip where he sponsors hinata like omg theyre so ahhh. i think he just really likes being around hinata and finds him fascinating. canon really encapsulates the beginning of a squish for me like kenma is just so intrigued and really finds hinata to be a really fun person to be around and opens up to him much more easily than anyone and i will die on platonic kenhina hill!!!

i talked a bit about kenkagehina in my aro hinata post but ill talk about it again. i think that kenma would be very competitive about hinatas attention at first and even later but after some time kageyama grows on him and they have a quiet understanding of each other. i dont think they would be dating in the polycule just mutually connected by hinata but i think their relationship matters a lot nonetheless.

kenma is the type of person to be really into relationship anarchy. like he probably wouldn’t understand why others put romantic relationships above everything else and he likes to let his relationships figure themselves out and never really picks a most important relationship.

also he and kuro have just such a good dynamic and they lowkey remind me of a childhood friend of mine who i used to have a squish on lol. they are just so good as best friends and i love how much they understand each other. they also give semi sibling vibes, obviously found family siblings so i think they would be much more cuddly with each other since theyre just used to it.

also i love thinking of all the dynamics in bokuakakuroken and one of my favorites is definitely bokuken. i think they compliment and understand each other much more than one would think and bokuto is probably a lot more reserved around kenma but in a relaxed way. kenma understands bokutos slumps and is there to confort him when he needs it and bokuto is an easy person for kenma to be around because he doesnt feel like he has to talk if he doesnt want to and now im just talking about how theyre both neurodivergent and- ahhhh

anywayyyy some mini hcs that are semi related to him being aro

he hates being touched except by like 3 people

kuroo had a crush on kenma in middle school and kenma rejected him on accident and didnt even know until years later when kuroo told him

he took a lot of am i gay quizes and always got like 50% so he thought he was bi for a bit

very romance repulsed but sex ambivalent

also hes acespec to me (probably fraysexual)

[aro-thoughts]

The Traditional Life

There are many things that capitalism teaches us about love from a young age, directly or indirectly, that are just plain wrong. Many people have begun to realise just how wrong they all are, but not a lot have realised it to the full extent. The traditional life differs between cultures but many of the constants are that we are all taught to marry one person of the opposite gender, have children with them, and live with them happily for the rest of our life, while also fulfilling specific roles in the family depending on gender.

Gay and bi people as well as feminists have differed from this norm through their subversion of gender roles, but asexual and especially aromantic and polyamorous people completely break and recreate the system that gay, bi, straight, feminist and sexist people all conform to.

Terminology

Aspec: Being somewhere on the aromantic and/or asexual spectrums

Arospec: Being somewhere on the aromantic spectrum

Acespec: Being somewhere on the asexual spectrum

Aromantic: Experiencing no romantic attraction

Asexual: Experiencing no sexual attraction

Aroace: Being both aromantic and asexual

Alloromantic: Experiencing the normal amount of romantic attraction

Allosexual: Experiencing the normal amount of sexual attraction

Romance/sex favourable: Being open to and enjoying romance/sex

Romance/sex neutral/indifferent: Being indifferent to or having mixed feelings about romance/sex

Romance/sex averse/repulsed: Being repulsed by romance/sex

Polyamoury: The healthy and consensual practise of having more than 1 relationship

Alloaces Vs Alloaros

The first part of the traditional life aspecs have begun to dismantle is the need for sex. We are generally taught to have sex with our 1 romantic partner of the opposite gender to express our love for them and to reproduce, however, it is now more accepted than it used to be to have a romantic relationship with someone without sex, as you can show your love in other ways, and you can adopt or foster children instead of creating them yourself. It is still quite unacceptable to have no children at all though, and these people are often greeted with pity and sympathy or even disgust and confusion.

Unfortunately, the 'love' for asexuals seems to stem from the fact that they still feel romantic attraction, and because of this, alloaros get ignored or demonised, even within the aspec community. Society tells us that alloaros and people similar to them are evil, inhuman, heartless players who don't have emotions, because they don't feel love.

This may be due to capitalism's emphasis on marriage only in order to handle both work and household chores when we must give a lot to get a little. A person who isn't interested in a romantic relationship, whether or not they are also interested in sexual, familial or platonic ones, will likely struggle to balance home and work lives because of the benefits necessities marriage brings that aren't available without it.

Attraction ≠ Action

When we ask allos exactly what romantic and sexual attraction feels like, they tend to describe it as butterflies in your stomach, feeling like everything is right in the world but also feeling stressed about the person's impression of you, wanting to do anything for the person, but not everyone's experience of these attractions is the same, as some people describe it as a sunny day or the smell of cookies baking in the oven...

What I personally believe is the best thing we've ever done is break attraction down to its core essentials, differentiating between attraction and action. This is where favour, indifference and repulsion come into play. Just because someone is aromantic or asexual, doesn't mean they can't still enjoy romance or sex. This is because attraction means a desire to do romantic/sexual/etc things with a specific person and doesn't equate to a desire to do romantic/sexual things in general.

It's like food. Sometimes we crave a particular food, but sometimes we eat just because we want to.

Types of Attraction

Another important idea aspecs have brought to light is the existence of attractions other than romantic and sexual. Allos don't usually differentiate between them because they often feel romantic, sexual and aesthetic all at the same time all towards the same person.

Platonic attraction has been known about for some time now but is still seen as lesser than romantic and sexual, obvious in phrases like 'more than friends' and 'stuck in the friend zone'. Romantic attraction is not more than platonic, it is simply other and should be treated as such. The friend zone isn't an inherently bad place to be in and is mostly a phrase used by men who believe their crushes owe them sex only for being nice to them.

Relationship Anarchy

Aromanticism and polyamoury, although seemingly opposite, have very similar ways of subverting relationships and a person can even be both aromantic and polyamorous at the same time. As I have mentioned previously, capitalism emphasises the importance of marriage as it is a good way of sustaining people while still keeping them trapped, but it may not have always been this way.

It is believed to be that, the reason why we experience menopause at a certain age is so that grandparents can raise the children while the parents go hunting for food. Also, the reason for why our menstrual cycles sync up with the people we spend the most time around is so that we might reproduce at the same time and help raise each other's children. This may suggest that we used to live in closely knit communities where we support each other rather than having 2 parents baring the responsibilities of parenthood, food and defence.

Ableism

The talk around society's need for marriage and children also sparks a conversation about ableism. People who are physically unable to not just reproduce but to work a certain way are left in the dust. The support network that community living gives you is absolutely necessary for disabled people but capitalism doesn't agree that all life is worth living as some lives don't contribute to the economy.

Conclusion

It is extremely difficult to dismantle the amatonormative story capitalism has told us, and for some it may be impossible to live authentically in this capitalist world, but we still have hope for the future, as the aspec community is constantly growing bigger and better than ever with every new person who discovers it. I hope I got my points across well, as I think it's very important to have more posts talking more in depth about amatonormativity.

[allos-aro]

An Incomplete Arospec Terminology Post

Haven’t seen any of these bad boys float around, but! Here are some terms that may be helpful to folks who are like “what is an aro”? This is definitely not a complete list of terms, and I don’t remember where all the terms came from, but here we goooooo!

Important note: not all of these terms are used by the entire community, and there is discourse within the arospec community about terminology and the politics surrounding them, particularly in the identities section. The OP does not intend to make any statements on specific terms intentionally, and corrections from other arospecs (unless starred) are appreciated. Discourse from exclusionists is not, however, and romantic folks are NOT to speak over arospec folks discussing in this post. All terms defined will be tagged in the OP as to make sure that those avoiding specific terms can avoid them.

ETA: Removed the ‘read more’ and is now tagged as #long post for those who want to save their dashboards.

Important Concepts

Arospec: The umbrella term for the aromantic and aro-aligned identities within the wider aspec, which is the aromantic and asexual communities. The arospec has different needs and wants than the acespec community, and both are worth distinguishing from each other.

Split-attraction model: also known as SAM, the split-attraction model holds that attraction to people can be distinctly split up into categories, such as romantic, platonic, sexual, etc. Using the SAM is not mandatory to identifying as aromantic or arospec, and many people just use “aro” to describe themselves for many reasons.

Alterous attraction: an attraction term to describe attraction that is not entirely romantic or platonic, the “crush” equivalent is mesh

Queerplatonic relationship: a self-defined relationship by those within it that does not fit within the stereotypical definitions of a platonic or romantic relationship. You do not have to be aromantic in order to want or be in a QPR, a partner is called a QPP, zucchini, or a plush

Amatonormativity: the sociocultural idea that every single person is the most happy within a heteroromantic, heterosexual, monogamous relationship. Term coined by feminist Elizabeth Brake to describe the systemic ways that this ideology is upheld, and used within the arospec community as well as within the polyamorous community to discuss…

*Relationship anarchy: the ideology and practice of never assuming any kind of interpersonal dynamic is “one way” or “another” based purely on action. Every interpersonal dynamic, be it platonic, sexual, romantic, or otherwise, is discussed between all parties involved in it

Squish: the “crush” equivalent of platonic attraction, usually used to define friendships or a desire to become friends with someone

Arophobia: a specific prejudice against arospec people. Arophobia can be both intentional and unintentional, being called arophobic is not being called a slur, nor is it a dogwhistle for bullying.

Aromantic Identities:

Aromantic: experiencing no romantic attraction, often shortened to aro.

Demiromantic: only experiencing romantic attraction when a strong emotional bond is present.

Greyromantic: experiencing romantic attraction very infrequently. This is different from…

Aroflux: romantic orientation fluctuates but is always aligned with the aromantic spectrum

Lithromantic: experiences romantic attraction but does not want it reciprocated, also called akioromantic

Quoiromantic: cannot tell the difference between romantic attraction and other forms of attraction, platonic attraction is usually the comparison attraction

Reciproromantic: does not experience romantic attraction unless they know the feelings will be returned

Cupioromantic: does not experience romantic attraction but still desires a romantic relationship, this person can also be called romance-favorable or romo-positive (discussed in the next section)

Aroace: an aromantic asexual, meaning they experience no romantic or sexual attraction

Aroallo: an aromantic allosexual, meaning they experience no romantic attraction but experience sexual attraction

Neuaro/neu aro/neu-aro: a term that fits inbetween aroace and aroallo, for aromantics who are neutral about identifying as either asexual or allosexual

Non-SAM aro: an aromantic who doesn’t use the SAM to define their attractions

Unit aro: an aromantic who solely identifies as aro because their aromanticism is the most important part of their identity.

Nonamorous: the most commonly used term for aromantics who do not wish to enter any kind of relationship or dynamic that isn’t platonic. Other terms exist for this, like callistic, but they are not as well known or used within the arospec community.

Aplatonic: an aromantic that does not experience platonic attraction, and.or does not seek out interpersonal dynamics defined by platonic attraction

The Romance Feelings Spectrum

There are many terms used to describe how an arospec person views romance in society and in their life, many of which are debated within the community. The following list are terms that the OP has personally seen used and discussed (and one is a term that the OP uses personally for themselves), some of them are analogues with the acespec sexual favorability terms.

Romo-positive or Romo-favorable: an arospec who feels positively about romance portrayed in society and media. They may seek out romantic relationships of their own.

Romo-neutral: an arospec whose opinion on romantic portrayal in society and media is neutral. They may seek out romantic relationships of their own.

Romo-repulsed: an arospec whose opinion on romantic portrayal in society and media is negative, and often experiences distress and emotional exhaustion when interacting with media that contains romantic aspects or when discussing romance with people in their daily lives. They usually do not tend to seek out romantic relationships on their own.

Romo-antagonistic: term used by the OP to describe their own very intense disdain for romantic media and social norms, it is often also paired with an intense hatred for amatonormativity that prevents people from forming legally-recognized dynamics that exist outside of its “bounds” of acceptability.

Final Note

These terms are not all the terms used within the arospec community, nor should this post be seen as the sole dictionary of terminology. The LGBTA Wiki through FANDOM is a very good resource for finding terms and their origins. Do not apply terms to people without their consent, and this post does not give any readers permission to correct people on their own terminology. Arospec people are the authorities on the arospec community, and anyone else claiming otherwise is being arophobic.

<#, Allos the Menacing Aro

[famous-aces]

Henry David Thoreau

Who: Henry David Thoreau

What: Author, Philosopher, Abolitionist, Activist, Naturalist, Critic, Surveyor, Yogi, Historian...ah, Jeez, what wasn't he?

Where: American (active largely in the US)

When: July 12, 1817 – May 6, 1862

(Image description: a photo of Henry David Thoreau from 1861, it is obviously in black and white but has faded to sepia. He is a white man in a jacket and what appears to be a scarf or cravat. He has a long, tired face, circles around his eyes. He has a thick beard and mustache and slightly messy hair, his hair is dark but graying.  End ID)

You have probably heard this name even if you don't know why. He is best known  for his memoirs, essays, and his role in the founding of the Transcendentalist movement. His progressive philosophy remains relevant to this day. His influence has lasted well over a century and he served as inspiration for the likes of JFK, Martin Luther King Jr., Hemingway, Tolstoy, Shaw, Gandhi, among dozens of other names of equal note.

Thoreau was a Transcendentalist through and through, meaning he believed in the inherent goodness of humanity and nature in conjunction with science, and the power of the individual. His writing is generally practical, thoughtful, detailed, and observant, and he wrote extensively on a number of subjects. Perhaps most notably on environmentalism (he is one of the inspirations for and a precursor to the 20th century environmentalist movement), nature, ethics, simple living, direct action, civil disobedience, abolition, tax resistance, anarchy, among countless other topics.  

Thoreau's most famous and popular works include Walden, which is the published version of of the diary Thoreau kept over his two year social experiment at Walden Pond (written beginning in 1845, published in 1854), "Civil Disobedience,"  which helped both Gandhi and Dr. King form their philosophies, and states that in an unjust society the just must rebel, (it was originally titled "Resistance to Civil Government or Civil Disobedience", 1849), "Walking" an instruction manual on how Thoreau thought, observed, and wrote (1862), "Slavery in Massachusetts", a speech given at a rally to protest the re-enslavement of escapee/fugitive slave Anthony Burns (1854) and Excursions, collection of essays, published posthumously in 1863 with biographical introduction by fellow author and Transcendentalist Ralph Waldo Emerson.  He also wrote on John Brown and his execution ("A Plea for Captain John Brown" [1859], Remarks After the Hanging of John Brown [1859], and The Last Days of John Brown [1860]).

(Image description: a replica of Thoreau's cabin in Walden. It is a very small wooded. Cabin in a clearing, one room at most, brown/gray in color. It has a white multi-paned window and a brick chimney in the back. The whole cabin is not much taller than its door. Behind it is a shed or outhouse.  They are surrounded by trees. Touching one of the closest trees is a brown metal statue of a man walking, presumably Thoreau. End ID)

Probable Orientation: Gay ace or possibly aroace with a desire for a male QPP.

I am very confident in Thoreau's asexuality, if a little shakier on his romantic orientation. As far as anyone knows (and his life has been repeatedly and heavily scrutinized since the 19th century) Thoreau never had a romantic or sexual partner. He was a public figure with a wide circle of friends, someone would have known at some point during his life and if somehow a partner escaped notice the historians who dedicated their lives to studying his life specifically would have uncovered them. Thoreau wrote on male/male relationships, some more platonic, some queerplatonic, some vagulely romantic, none sexual.

Thoreau, like Elizabeth I, is one cishets hold onto, turning away from the idea he could be anything but heterosexual regardless of the evidence to the contrary.  Like Andy Warhol he is one exclusionists refuse to acknowledge was ace, although they have even less of an argument here. Many aphobic fans of Thoreau are terrified by the idea that maybe, just maybe, the thing Thoreau loved most was nature. Some outrageous arguments from either side include: one historian claimed a poem Thoreau wrote for a man was actually meant for that guy's sister, some say he was being hip in writing about Achilles, some say he was too repressed to have sex, especially since he was gay. One blogger got heated in his admantness that Thoreau wasn't ace but was "a human being with feelings and needs." Nice aphobia there, dude.

But here is the thing about any of those arguments: Thoreau broke every other rule in his culture. He was not afraid to be different, and separated himself from society.  He was all about the individual breaking away from society and its traditions and going with your human nature. Thoreau did what he believed to be right.

He had a following, many friends and aquaintences, almost certainly suitors, he spent a lot of time alone in the company of men he seemed to find attractive e.g. Tom Fowler (who was his sole companion and guide through Maine) and Alek Therien (who visited Thoreau alone at Walden). I firmly believe that his percieved "prudishness" was not artificial but came from a genuine disinterest and failure to even really understand sexual attraction (his journals imply as much, you will see). If he did sleep with any of these men Thoreau never documented it, not even in his own journals. But what he did articulate in letters is that society's refusal to discuss sex/physical relationships was proof of its problems. Sex was natural so dismissing it wasn't. 

His feelings about sex are contradictory, he thinks it must be natural but he also finds it repulsive and dirty. He makes note at one point of how beautiful pollination is (he is quoting and translating J. Biberg but agrees with the sentiment and indeed only uses the quote to prove his point on the beauty of sexless flowers), but he vilifies or dislikes human intercourse. Thoreau seems to like the idea of sex without the sex, he likes closeness more than intercourse. He wants to like sex but can't, the closest he gets is the desire for these things to be open.

Quotes:

Hang onto your hats. There are some long ones here, but Thoreau, like Chopin, is pretty overtly ace. Like he couldn't make it clear without waving an asexual pride flag, would be hard considering it was invented in what? 2010? And Thoreau had already been dead 148 chaste, chaste years.

"What is commonly honored with the name of Friendship is no very profound or powerful instinct...I do not often see the farmers made seers and wise to the verge of insanity by their Friendship for one another. They are not often transfigured and translated by love in each other’s presence. I do not observe them purified, refined, and elevated by the love of a man…I do not often see the farmers made seers and wise to the verge of insanity by their Friendship for one another. They are not often transfigured and translated by love in each other’s presence. I do not observe them purified, refined, and elevated by the love of a man…Nor do the farmers' wives lead lives consecrated to Friendship. I do not see the pair of farmer Friends of either sex prepared to stand against the world...Even the utmost good-will and harmony and practical kindness are not sufficient for Friendship, for Friends do not live in harmony merely, as some say, but in melody. We do not wish for Friends to feed and clothe our bodies,--neighbors are kind enough for that,--but to do the like office to our spirits…[the ideal friendship] will make a man honest; it will make him a hero; it will make him a saint. It is the state of the just dealing with the just, the magnanimous with the magnanimous, the sincere with the sincere, man with man.”

-Henry David Thoreau, from his journal 1839. This entry on friendship the hope for something deeper than what most people call by that name, but still looking for friendship. He is looking for a partner, an emotional, spiritual, partner. This quote could be read as romantic or queerplatonic. You know which one I am leaning toward, queerplatonic, especially because he specifies these relationships as unique from marriage (which he equates in other texts with sex and maybe romance) also he was writing while on a trip with his brother, John, to whom he would later dedicate the publication after John's death in 1842. But it could easily also be a sexless romantic relationship, what he is looking for is not explicitly either.

The following are all from 1852 letters written by Thoreau to his friend and proofreader Harrison Blake. One of these letters was overtly written on the subject of "Chastity and Sensuality" and contains his complicated feelings on sexuality:

"What the essential difference between man and woman is, that they should be thus attracted to one another, no one has satisfactorily answered."

(Note: self explanatory)

"If it is the result of a pure love, there can be nothing sensual in marriage. Chastity is something positive, not negative. It is the virtue of the married especially. All lusts or base pleasures must give place to loftier delights...The deeds of love are less questionable than any action of an individual can be, for, it being founded on the rarest mutual respect, the parties incessantly stimulate each other to a loftier and purer life, and the act in which they are associated must be pure and noble indeed..."

(Note: in the above quote he seems to believe that in marriage sex must eventually stop because there is something better. As if they have gotten the sex stuff out of the way.)

"Love and lust are as far asunder as a flower-garden is from a brothel.

(Note: this was part of his description for his disdain for human sex vs human love, his confusion about sex but love of human relationships. It is part of that desire for sex without sex thing I mentioned but harsher than his tone in a later letter.)

"'The organs of generation, which, in the animal kingdom, are for the most part concealed by nature, as if they were to be ashamed of, in the vegetable kingdom are ex posed to the eyes of all ; and, when the nuptials of plants are celebrated, it is wonderful what delight they afford to the beholder, refreshing...'"

(Note: this is Thoreau quoting and translating J. Biberg. Part of the same letter as the brothel line. In this letter he discusses how perturbed he is by sex and lust, but how it should be something beautiful. He celebrates pollination, while finding human sex distasteful, again sex without sex.)

"The intercourse of the sexes, I have dreamed, is incredibly beautiful, too fair to be remembered. I have had thoughts about it, but they are among the most fleeting and irrecoverable in my experience."

(Note: Also self explanatory)

(Image description: the original title page of Walden. It has an illustration on it drawn by Thoreau's sister Sophia. Above the illustration it reads "Walden; or Life in the Woods by Henry D. Thoreau, Author of "A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers". Then is the illustration showing Thoreau's cabin, it looks very much like the modern replica if with a slightly different treeline.  There is a path leading from the cabin down to the bottom of the image directed at the words below. The text continues after the drawing "I do not propose to write an ode to dejection, but to brag as lustily as chanticleer in the morning, standing on his roost, if only to wake the neighbors up. -Page 92. Boston, Ticknor and Fields. M DCCC LIV.". End ID)

[aro-neir-o]

A-Spec Experiences of Relationships

I came across an excellent research article today that I want to share with you all. It’s by Phillip L. Hammack, David M. Frost, and Sam D. Hughes: Queer Intimacies: A New Paradigm for the Study of Relationship Diversity. It came out in 2018 and you can view the abstract summary here. For a full copy, you can contact any of the lead researchers or you can send me a private message (PM) and I can hook you up. I have access to the journal in which the article is published via my university.

The article talks about a number of queer identities and how queer relationships subvert the relationship norms in Western societies. They included a section on Asexual and Aromantic people and what they had to say really resonated with me.

“The fifth axiom of a queer paradigm for the study of relationship diversity is that intimacy may occur in the absence or limited experience of both sexual or romantic desire.”

The authors make clear that, regardless of your a-spec identity, you may still engage in relationships (including romantic, sexual, “close relationships that resemble friendships” which I took to mean QP or alterous or otherwise distinct relationships). They support this notion with documented evidence from studies on asexual people as well as with theory.

Intimacy isn’t predicated on sexual and/or romantic attraction. Behaviour and orientation are fundamentally different things and this piece of literature really makes that clear.

Nevertheless, intimacy is fundamentally different for aces, for aros, for queer folks, because our definitions and practices of intimacy challenge sociocultural intimacy norms.

On aces and their experiences with intimacy:

- Several studies have concluded that asexual-identified people are less likely to report being currently involved in an intimate relationship than sexual people (Bogaert, 2004; Yule, Brotto, & Gorzalka, 2014), but at least one study has not been able to replicate this finding (Prause & Graham, 2007).

- Over half of asexual people surveyed in the Asexual Census reported having been in a significant relationship, but not all of them reported that this relationship was a romantic one. In fact, over 34% of people surveyed specified that their significant relationship was not romantic (Ace Community Survey Team, 2018).

- Most asexual people’s partners seem to be non-ace, with a small minority (about 13%) being ace partnerships (Ace Community Survey Team, 2018).

- Almost 13% of asexual people surveyed identify as polyamorous (Ace Community Survey Team, 2018).

- Van Houdenhove, Gijs, T’Sjoen, and Enzlin (2015) found that asexual men were more likely to be single than asexual women, while Prause and Graham (2007) and MacNeela and Murphy (2015) did not find gender differences in reported relationship status.

- Some asexual people have found that BDSM-oriented relationships have provided them with tools to negotiate and demarcate the boundaries in their relationships, as well as to reject and change dominant scripts of sexual behavior (Sloan, 2015). By organizing these relationships around consensual BDSM, some asexuals have found the ability to experience intense forms of nonsexual intimacy. 

- Others have found that engaging in the community of people who also identify on the asexual spectrum has provided them with the language to “make sense” of their relationships and desires (Chasin, 2015). 

- Other research has cited coming out to partners as a strategy to manage sexual conflicts, although the dissolution of those relationships has sometimes been a consequence of coming out (Robbins et al., 2016).

On aros and their experiences with intimacy:

- Aromantic people find the value of friendships and other relationships bigger than that of romantic relationships and that those bonds are better suited to their needs. (1) (2) Most also agree that they experience distress in romantic relationships and that they noticed a discrepancy between their and their partner’s behavior or feelings in romantic relationships (1).

- Aromantic people that aren’t asexual agree that a “friends with benefits” arrangement would be a good one for them (1). 

- Greyromantic and broadly aro-spec people agree that they’re more concerned about being unwanted or alone, than they are about being single. They agree that they want friendship more than romance and that the activities they like can be enjoyed with friends as well as with a romantic partners. They also believe that relationships other than romantic, such as queerplatonic relationships, are better suited to their needs. Most also don’t want to pursue a romantic relationship, but they don’t like the idea of being single (1).

- Demiromantic, quoiromantic, and broadly aro-spec people agree that they are bothered by the thought of being unwanted or alone. The answers indicate that they enjoy activities with their friends and that their criteria for a romantic partner (if they choose to pursue one) are the same as for a friend (1). 

- Aromantic people seem to be either as affectionate or more affectionate with their friends as compared to their alloromantic peers (2).

- Many aromantic people wish for cohabitation and marriage benefits in a platonic way/without the ‘romantic’ parts attached to them (2).

- Many aromantic people (about 50%) worry a lot about whether their high levels of intimacy in platonic relationships will be reciprocated by their friends. There seems to be a collective fear of abandonment or lack of importance being given to platonic relationships, all in favour of romantic relationships (2).

- Most aromantic people seem to define friendship differently than their alloromantic peers do, citing that they are slower to call someone a friend and/or consider friendships to be deeper emotionally than the average alloromantic does (2).

- Just over 25% of respondents to a recent survey I ran revealed that they considered themselves polyamorous (3).

- A survey was just run by @aroace-people-are-lgtbq about aros’ views on romance, and we don’t have results yet, but when we do, I think they will contribute enormously to this topic. I’ll update this post when I see what’s what.

Further research needed and some Action Items for the Community:

- Examine gender differences, especially beyond the binary of male–female. How do gender expectations/roles play a part in intimacy and relationship expectations?

- Related to the above, what distinctions exist in the experience or expression of asexuality or aromanticism across diverse gender, race, class, and sexual identities? I would also add religion to this area. We have a number of blogs on here who blog specifically about Aro and Ace POC, for example, who I think could contribute a lot to this topic by voicing their experiences. Christina Lang’s BA thesis covering her experiences as an aroace woman of colour is a great resource.

- What diverse forms of asexual and aromantic intimacies exist? To an extent, we have identified a lot of these in our personal intracommunity discussions. It would be great to catalogue people’s different experiences with intimacy and with relationships into a single masterpost or article.

- How do individuals make meaning of these relationships in a cultural context that privileges sex and romance? Again, we have discussed this within our communities a lot. Resources and masterposts about relationship anarchy and conversations about relationships and positivity would be useful to create.

- There is some overlap between [non-amorous] aro experiences and experiences of singles; however, these are fundamentally two different groups and there is a need for research on aros specifically.

- How do partners in asexual or aromantic relationships navigate stigma from multiple sources, including sexual and gender identity minority communities? 

[rotten-zucchinis]

some reflections on making sense, apparently only to myself

This post was written for the July 2018 Carnival of Aces on the topic “Now and Then” [call for submissions] [roundup of posts].

I’ve been out as asexual for so long that I forget sometimes that people don’t know what that means. I don’t mean strangers, because I’m still constantly having to explain things to people in all sorts of contexts that there’s no way that I could forget that. But I’ve had these conversations for many years with people in my life who apparently still don’t get it. And I’m also increasingly aware that people in various radical communities can’t be assumed to have had any exposure to ace anything. 

I’ve been at this so long, making sense of my own life, experiences, and all sorts of ideas and concepts, that I forgot sometimes that other people aren’t on the same page with me-- that they wouldn’t even be able to locate the page, let alone read it if they could. I’m very much not new at this anymore. But that means, I’m not speaking the same language as most people I interact with. And too often, I forget that.

Having the discursive tools of the ace community has been really powerful and has helped me make sense of myself and much of my experience. But a big part of that power for me comes from the way these things can integrate into and/or reshape other discursive contexts I occupy-- contexts that are already geared toward fundamentally changing the society in which I exist and dismantling the power structures that sustain it. The flip side of that, though, is alienation from a lot of people. There aren’t a lot of other people who can share in that.

For the most part, I’m kind of only making sense to myself.

moments of context

Recently, after my sister came with me to participate in a Pride march, it came out that she had no idea that I was aromantic [like this], despite basically my entire life of not dating anyone, and my doing significant non-romantic (non-sexual) relationships. And perhaps more importantly, despite the many conversations I’ve had with her about QP stuff and about family members not taking my relationships seriously because they’re not romantic... That’s not exactly what I’d call “easy to miss”.

And my mother apparently didn’t know that I was sex-averse, which led to some interesting dinner-table conversation with questions that I think other people were not comfortable hearing being put to me or with me having to answer. My mother has attended workshops (plural) that I’ve facilitated and panels I’ve been on where I’ve discussed these things. I don’t understand how she didn’t know. So I have to wonder what it is that people actually take from my explanations.

The other day, someone I know in person who’d recently got a copy of my relationship anarchy / shiva zine [here] mentioned looking forward to reading it, but phrased that in such a way as to suggest they thought there was a lot of substantive content to grapple with. As this is someone I know through anarchist spaces and who’s very well-versed in all sorts of radical political theory, my first thought was that they must not have looked over the zine because I doubt there’s all that much content that would be new, other than perhaps details about Jewish stuff (and my family). But on second thought, I realised that they might not have more than a passing familiarity of the concept of asexuality and had probably never encountered words like amatonormativity. And I was left to wonder, how would a text like that read to someone who hasn’t been steeped in ace community discourse?

When I table at zine faires, that zine doesn’t tend to get picked up by people who aren’t already familiar with ace things... I always have other educational materials... and on the occasion the title strikes someone’s fancy who’s new to asexuality, we have a conversation about it first, and I make sure they have other reading materials. And yet, I sill don’t know what people are going to make of that. I really have no idea what people will take from my words.

some reflections

Back when I first came out as asexual so many years ago now, my aromanticism was just part of my asexuality in such a way that it didn’t immediately need to be articulated. 

It took me a while to claim “aromantic” or (very dark) “grey romantic” (and not just because this was before we had the language of “grey”-- and before AVEN’s triangle had a gradient). These things are complicated [like I’ve discussed before]. But I knew right off-the-bat that I wasn’t interested in dating and also that I was interested in (and had been doing) significant non-romantic (and non-sexual) relationships. And these were asexual things for me. As I’ve discussed before [e.g., here in response to someone], aromanticism has always been part of asexuality for many aces, in a way that asexuality is not part of aromanticism. So I came out as asexual, and had a lot of people not believe me for a long time [e.g., as I’ve discussed before here]. But I never felt the need to come out as aromantic in the same way, because people already knew how I was doing significant relationships and were already giving me a hard time for it-- it’s not like they didn’t know. I’d assumed it was obvious, and ground I thought we’d covered.

My earlier years within asexual/ace community were a time before there even was a non-ace arospec community-- our ace language was necessary for that to come into existence later on. And while the ace community was quite deliberately set up to fit neatly into contemporary sexual orientation politics, it was still a time before “attractions” were mapped onto compulsory “orientations” and “identities” as a matter of course [as I’ve discussed here], which are constructed as independent of each other [as I’ve discussed here] in the neoliberal nightmare appropriation version of the split attraction model. (It's not that people didn't call themselves romantic and aromantic-- ace of hearts and ace of spades are old-school community symbols-- because they did, and people used terms like gay-A, bi-A, straight-A. But a lot of us didn't use such labels and there wasn't an expectation that they're somehow necessary in the way there is today... albeit with somewhat different sets of labels.)

We’ve now moved into a context where it’s socially relevant to create hyper-specific identity labels [as I’ve discussed here], where something effectively becomes sacrosanct through articulation as an identity [as I’ve discussed here], and where it’s horribly taboo to recognise how systems of marginalisation act much more broadly than just on internal “identities” [as I’ve discussed here] or “internal experiences of attraction” [as I’ve discussed here]. (These are very anti-materialist times...)1

And we’ve now had time to see things like the assimilationist clawing back of things like QP relationships into “romance light” [e.g., as I’ve discussed here] or meagre attempts to side-step the issue of resisting the assimilationism via troubled concepts like “aplatonic” [as I’ve discussed here].

And these are things I’ve had to resist, both in my own life and as I interface with ace discourse in various places. These are things that not everyone wants to resist. And that means, I’m often very much not on the same page as many fellow aces around me-- especially as those who tend to regularly participate in ace-specific things. (There are of course aces next to whom I don’t seem so “out there radical” but I mostly encounter them in other spaces, spaces more explicitly about changing the world, spaces that don’t view liberal ideals as avenues for liberation. And it’s far too infrequent we have the opportunity to speak about our liberationist ace agendas.)

Because I’ve been involved in ace community for so long, it’s hard to keep track of how things shift-- (of the many a’s relevant to my life,) when did the A that defined my existence shift from “asexual” to “aroace”? And what was that change? It wasn’t *me* changing-- it’s not like I ever changed how I do intimacy and relationships-- it was the discursive landscape that changed.

But I am cognisant that the discursive landscape I reference is the discursive landscape specifically of the ace community. To the outside world-- to people who didn’t understand the diversity of what asexuality could mean-- the only changes were in opening up orders of possibilities: the change of it becoming possible to be so many more things. I guess despite my efforts to provide adequate explanations to people in my life, I was never able to make people understand more than the reductive definitional shell of asexuality. We were never speaking the same language.

And I am reminded of years ago when I first had conversations with family members about being neither a woman nor a man-- before I had the language of non-binariness. I had to use a metaphor with shiny and fuzzy cows, in which I am tree. I would have thought those would have been memorable conversations. Apparently not. People can forget what they can’t assimilate, what doesn’t make sense. But eventually, when the language caught up and became something they could access, they were able to remember, even if they still deadname and mispronoun me. Even if they don’t really understand what it means.

At this point, I’ve spent so much time thinking through ideas that it’s almost hard to have a conversation-- something comes up, and then I have to do so much explaining. Heck, when I wanted to explain textual intimacy to someone, I ended up having to write more than ten thousand words *before* I could even start [e.g., here].

Having the discursive tools of the ace community has been really powerful and has helped me make sense of myself and much of my experience. But a big part of that power for me comes from the way these things can integrate into and/or reshape other discursive contexts I occupy-- contexts that are already geared toward fundamentally changing the society in which I exist and dismantling the power structures that sustain it. The flip side of that, though, is alienation from a lot of people. There aren’t a lot of other people who can share in that. 

For the most part, I’m kind of only making sense to myself.

I don’t know how much of that is new, and how much is just a new recognition of the degree to which I always was only ever making sense to myself.

Footnote:

1  cw for anti-ace hostility

This anti-materialist framing is what makes it possible for The Discourse TM to even make sense. I’m not interested in talking about that specifically-- I’ve written before [here] about how things like people’s experiences with homophobia and heterosexism don’t divide up neatly according to identity let alone by “experiences of attraction”-- but there’s a change in the shape of some of the general anti-ace hostility that I think is worth mentioning.

We’ve seen a radical shift since I was a teen: When I was in high school, people gave me death threats and told me to kill myself at least partly because they could tell that I was asexual and none of us knew that was a thing [e.g., as I’ve written about before]. Now, people are harassing high school students, giving them death threats and telling them to kill themselves (online) at least partly because they’re asexual and everyone involved knows that’s a thing. Fortunately, that kind of harassment tends to be largely online, but there’s a parallel here that is striking.

[aro-thoughts]

The Traditional Life

There are many things that capitalism teaches us about love from a young age, directly or indirectly, that are just plain wrong. Many people have begun to realise just how wrong they all are, but not a lot have realised it to the full extent. The traditional life differs between cultures but many of the constants are that we are all taught to marry one person of the opposite gender, have children with them, and live with them happily for the rest of our life, while also fulfilling specific roles in the family depending on gender.

Gay and bi people as well as feminists have differed from this norm through their subversion of gender roles, but asexual and especially aromantic and polyamorous people completely break and recreate the system that gay, bi, straight, feminist and sexist people all conform to.

Terminology

Aspec: Being somewhere on the aromantic and/or asexual spectrums

Arospec: Being somewhere on the aromantic spectrum

Acespec: Being somewhere on the asexual spectrum

Aromantic: Experiencing no romantic attraction

Asexual: Experiencing no sexual attraction

Aroace: Being both aromantic and asexual

Allosexual: Experiencing the normal amount of sexual attraction

Romance/sex favourable: Being open to and enjoying romance/sex

Romance/sex neutral/indifferent: Being indifferent to or having mixed feelings about romance/sex

Romance/sex averse/repulsed: Being repulsed by romance/sex

Polyamoury: The healthy and consensual practise of having more than 1 relationship

Alloaces Vs Alloaros

The first part of the traditional life aspecs have begun to dismantle is the need for sex. We are generally taught to have sex with our 1 romantic partner of the opposite gender to express our love for them and to reproduce, however, it is now more accepted than it used to be to have a romantic relationship with someone without sex, as you can show your love in other ways, and you can adopt or foster children instead of creating them yourself. It is still quite unacceptable to have no children at all though, and these people are often greeted with pity and sympathy or even disgust and confusion.

This may be due to capitalism's emphasis on marriage only in order to handle both work and household chores when we must give a lot to get a little. A person who isn't interested in a romantic relationship, whether or not they are also interested in sexual, familial or platonic ones, will likely struggle to balance home and work lives because of the benefits necessities marriage brings that aren't available without it.

Attraction ≠ Action

When we ask allos exactly what romantic and sexual attraction feels like, they tend to describe it as butterflies in your stomach, feeling like everything is right in the world but also feeling stressed about the person's impression of you, wanting to do anything for the person, but not everyone's experience of these attractions is the same, as some people describe it as a sunny day or the smell of cookies baking in the oven...

What I personally believe is the best thing we've ever done is break attraction down to its core essentials, differentiating between attraction and action. This is where favour, indifference and repulsion come into play. Just because someone is aromantic or asexual, doesn't mean they can't still enjoy romance or sex. This is because attraction means a desire to do romantic/sexual/etc things with a specific person and doesn't equate to a desire to do romantic/sexual things in general.

It's like food. Sometimes we crave a particular food, but sometimes we eat just because we want to.

Types of Attraction

Another important idea aspecs have brought to light is the existence of attractions other than romantic and sexual. Allos don't usually differentiate between them because they often feel romantic, sexual and aesthetic all at the same time all towards the same person.

Platonic attraction has been known about for some time now but is still seen as lesser than romantic and sexual, obvious in phrases like 'more than friends' and 'stuck in the friend zone'. Romantic attraction is not more than platonic, it is simply other and should be treated as such. The friend zone isn't an inherently bad place to be in and is mostly a phrase used by men who believe their crushes owe them sex only for being nice to them.

Relationship Anarchy

Aromanticism and polyamoury, although seemingly opposite, have very similar ways of subverting relationships and a person can even be both aromantic and polyamorous at the same time. As I have mentioned previously, capitalism emphasises the importance of marriage as it is a good way of sustaining people while still keeping them trapped, but it may not have always been this way.

It is believed to be that, the reason why we experience menopause at a certain age is so that grandparents can raise the children while the parents go hunting for food. Also, the reason for why our menstrual cycles sync up with the people we spend the most time around is so that we might reproduce at the same time and help raise each other's children. This may suggest that we used to live in closely knit communities where we support each other rather than having 2 parents baring the responsibilities of parenthood, food and defence.

Ableism

The talk around society's need for marriage and children also sparks a conversation about ableism. People who are physically unable to not just reproduce but to work a certain way are left in the dust. The support network that community living gives you is absolutely necessary for disabled people but capitalism doesn't agree that all life is worth living as some lives don't contribute to the economy.

Conclusion

It is extremely difficult to dismantle the amatonormative story capitalism has told us, and for some it may be impossible to live authentically in this capitalist world, but we still have hope for the future, as the aspec community is constantly growing bigger and better than ever with every new person who discovers it. I hope I got my points across well, as I think it's very important to have more posts talking more in depth about amatonormativity.