So, its Aromantic Awareness Week

[lionheart]

twitter.com/i/status/1363843446616719363

I've read around (a little) but I'm still not sure why this constitutes an identity to be championed by Stonewall etc.

Anyone shed any light on this and on the language (spectrum; allies) ...?

[Chrysanthemum5]

I always read aromatic as I something that has a fragrance!

[BuntingEllacott]

Frankly, I think this is exclusionary of those without a sense of smell.

#AllOlfactoryIdentitiesAreValid

[Furgggggg12]

[lionheart]

I am genuinely baffled about why this is an identity as such?

[ARoombaOfOnesOwn]

Is it people who don’t bother with Valentine’s Day?

[Kettlingur]

@Chrysanthemum5

I always read aromatic as I something that has a fragrance!

Me too, "oh great, it's smelly people week"

[PurpleHoodie]

It's a load of ol' navel gazing shoite lion.

[OvaHere]

Our government and publicly funded institutions give them money that funds this nonsense.

[PurpleHoodie]

Follow the money "Ova".

Follow the money and corruption.

By the by: did anyone watch PMQ today?

[PurpleHoodie]

Ova

[gardenbird48]

By the by: did anyone watch PMQ today?

I didn’t - what came up?

[BraveBananaBadge]

Interesting thread (definitely not laughing cos that would be arophobic and transphobic and -checks notes- ableist according to Twitter responses). It's daft as daft can be of course but yes OP the question is what on earth does this have to do with what was a gay rights charity? Throwing open the floodgates for any old straight person to piggyback their way into the queer community?

[lionheart]

Given the post-modern willingness to embrace fluid forms of subjectivity, there's a shed-load of labelling and self-identifying going on ...

Aromatic sound rather good though.

[FemaleAndLearning]

Wow the justifications on the Twitter thread make no sense. Aromantics are oppressed because it makes them seem childish and undesirable. Surely they don't want to be desired if they don't want a relationship? Why and how are aromantics discriminated against? Not seen a good answer yet.

[lionheart]

No.

[allmywhat]

Why and how are aromantics discriminated against?

It’s about women not having sex with them, which we all know to be the purest and most painful form of oppression. At least according to the kind of man that women avoid for very good reasons.

[SmallYappyTypeDog]

What confuses me about all this shite is what on earth do they think all those boring old non-oppressed "cis hets" feel in relationships? If you have demisexual, aromantic, asexual and all the rest then what exactly is left? You can't be a mix of the identities as they have that covered too! What is the "norm" that they are so oppressed by deviating from?

[BlackForestCake]

Anyone in a position to discriminate against people who don’t want a relationship, say a landlord or an employer:

1. How would they know?
   
2. Why would they care?

[Truthlikeness]

Didn't you watch the video? If you talk about romance you're alienating aromatics. That's discrimination. Probably literal violence too.

[Wrongsideofhistorymyarse]

I saw the Twitter thread. It's hilarious.

[bourbonne]

So it's people who don't love you, but might want to have sex with you?

There is nothing new under the sun.

[BarbaraofKent]

This is all quite offensive towards gay and lesbian people who have suffered genuine oppression and discrimination isn't it? Why does Stonewall indulge it?

[bourbonne]

See also "solo polyamory".

(I've nothing against that, by the way, just the endless, pompous labels)

[Star555]

@lionheart and others -- see here for information on aromanticism: lgbta.wikia.org/wiki/Aromantic

I agree that all the identity terms can be quite confusing at times, but I do believe it is important to recognise aromantic as a valid romantic orientation in its own right. (It is not the same as asexuality, but many asexual people are also aromantic). In short, aromantic people are those who do not experience romantic love/attraction, and therefore do not form romantic relationships. Of course, they do experience other types of love/attraction -- namely platonic, familial, queerplatonic, etc. Aromantic people are often abused and pathologised because others think they are "cold", "unsociable", "robot-like", etc. This is a misconception that arises from the false thinking that falling in love romantically is a necessary part of human nature, and those that don't experience romantic love are somehow not fully "human" or have some disability/mental health issue. Thus aromantic people often suffer a lot of bullying ("What's wrong with you") or exclusion from social circles based on falsely perceived "immaturity" ("You're not fully grown up yet if you aren't in a relationship/married by now") or in some countries, forced marriages or people constantly trying to set them up with potential partners against their will. It is important to respect aromantic people for who they are, and realise that they are just as capable of true, deep love and relationships as alloromantic (i.e. hetero-/homo-/bi- romantic) people, but their love is fully platonic and not romantic. Hope this clears things up a bit!