Or am I just old and out of touch?

[snowdropsandcrocuses]

DD 15 has a group of friends consisting of all girls except one male. He's a lovely kid. I guess if I described him I would say good kid, loner, long hair, skinny. He's a nice boy but not particularly sociable.

So we're chatting about her friends and she says her male friend (we will call him Jack) is pansexual. I had to Google this to discover it meant he is attracted to both sexes. She then told me, in all seriousness, he is Aromantic.

I had to pause for a second and confirm she meant he does not like/do romance to which I got another honest, straight faced 'yes'

So wait, there is a 15 year old boy in your friendship group (all girls except him) that is attracted to both (all?) genders and is not interested in romance. In other words, he wants to shag but not date?

I swear I don't get it. She cannot see any irony in the term 'aromantic' for a teenage boy. And I want to stop the train and get off!

It will be interesting to see who these teens actually end up with. Just like those of us who swore we'd never conform, are in safe, boring jobs with boring hair and boring clothes, but way, way happier than we were when we were all edgy and cool.

Thinking back to my free and easy years, it was always based on sex. Always. I was attracted to men who I found physically attractive or confident. The person came after. I think people / kids overthink it a lot and I wonder whether any of it matters once they actually start having sex.

The young are always a mystery and they have to keep inventing mysterious things because what was mysterious for the last generation can't be used as it is no longer mysterious.

I well remember being a teenager in the early 60s, I had a very short Twiggy haircut and a lovely pinstriped trouser suit. Nowadays people would probably think I wanted to be a boy but it was a popular look back then and I thought I looked pretty hot, the look was helped by the fact I had no boobs. An old uncle told me I'd never get a boyfriend dressed like that, he said if he was going out he'd be interested in the girls with nice hair and a twin set. I looked at him in horror and said I wouldn't want someone like him (i.e. old) being interested in me. I got told off for cheek.

I also remember rows about homosexuality being legalised, didn't really affect me but I was all for it and all the oldies in the family were utterly disgusted, one old aunt said when she thought about what they did it made her feel sick. I advised her not to think about it.

There was also the going out with boys of a different colour horror, and I can't even say what was said about that because it was offensive then but pretty horrific now and I don't want to get banned.

Eventually I grew my hair, never wore a twin set but do have some nice dresses and a husband who is a different colour. No one bats an eyelid.

The thing that truly mystifies me is those old aunts and uncles were probably 20 years younger than I am now and they had such closed minds about everything.

@ancientgran and @Jesusstolemyhotrod I wish there was a 'like' button.

Thanks for the thought. This thread has been very thought provoking hasn't it.

How would you translate that into modern terms now? I struggled with the lyrics back then....

Uterus havers who want testicle owners
Who like masc-presenting people to be femmes
Who do demiboys like they're demigirls
Who do transgirls like they're transboys...

If it doesn't affect you, why worry about the labels people give themselves? People have always felt out of place in this world because they don't fit the mainstream stereotypes. It's incredibly difficult for some people to feel included because they don't fit the mould. Adopting labels is some people's way of explaining what they think their place is in the world. Just roll with it. Their identity may be very fluid so expect changes.

Pansexual means will f*ck anything - again not unusual for teenage boys.
Pathologising normal behaviour is a massive problem.

Because people are desperate to be different and edgy and modern. Just being a heterosexual woman is sooooooo last century. Since homesexuality was legalised you have been able to shag however you want. It's just the latest thing. When I was at sixth form in the early 80s ( new romantics era) men wearing makeup and flappy shirts like Adam ant seemed so modern and thrillingly edgy. It's just the way life rolls around.
Also, if this young man is 'aromantic' then all the girls he is hanging around with will know that he is going to shag and run. Up to them whether they still want to have sex with him. Quite handy to know what the situation is before you take your knickers off. He may well find that this particular label isn't working for him.

I do miss being called Chairmum.

I'm not sure how young people define aromantic. I'd say my husband and I aren't romantic, we don't do candlelit dinners, Valentine's presents, we usually go shopping together to buy each other's Christmas or birthday presents, I don't remember him ever buying me flowers. He does occasionally buy me chocolate.

Or does aromantic mean something different to not being romantic?

We've been married for nearly 40 years so I don't think "shag and run" exactly fits.

Or does aromantic mean something different to not being romantic?

no it means not having romantic attraction to anyone. Ie they want to have sex but don't want to have a relationship. Then there are people who say they are sexually attracted to the 'same gender' but romantically attracted to the opposite or vice versa. Very confused people really.

I was thinking aromantic was like amoral i.e. amoral no morals aromantic no romance because you can have a relationship without romance.

I'd think for a teenage boy wanting sex but not a relationship would be a normal phase. Probably for lots of men as well.

I saw a group of trans kids being interviewed and quite frankly the reasoning they were giving that made them trans was just normal stuff everyone I know felt growing up.

Dismissing their “uniqueness” and telling them they are just normal and not special they somehow think is a crime against them

Slightly off the point, I do wonder how much actual shagging gets done in between the endless introspection and labelling. A lot of navels are being gazed at, but how much else?

I slept with A LOT of people from about 94 to 05. Men, women, men who usually slept with men....a fair range. No identifying going on though. Perhaps that's how I had the time......

If you’re one of those people saying there’s no need for labels, and you’re also heterosexual and have never questioned your sexuality/gender… maybe you just can’t see the need for them because you are the norm?

I'm bisexual, DD is gay.

I don't see the need for further labels, neither does she. In fact the multiple buzzwords only serve to detract from the real inequality that some people still face due to their sexuality.

Not being interested in a romantic relationship/being 'demisexual' etc isn't a sexuality. Nobody has ever been vilified, sentenced to death, criminalised, bullied, physically attacked or cast out from their family because they like to get to know someone really well before they have sex, as is the case for many LGB people.

Yes exactly. (And I would argue that the use of “queer” to encompass any straight person who once had a sexy thought about BDSM and likes an alternative “aesthetic” is very similar - how is that not just appropriating oppression for fun when you’re not at all oppressed really?)

And anyway just for extra synchronicity, this popped up on my Tumblr feed this morning (sorry I can’t seem to copy the rabbit graphic that goes with it):
**
“[Image description: Five rabbits are gathered under an umbrella. The umbrella is coloured like the aromantic flag on the outside. On the inside it is coloured like the frayromantic, demiromantic, lithoromantic, recipromantic, and aroflux flags. The first rabbit is wearing an aromantic allosexual shirt, the second is wearing a nebularomantic shirt, the third one (who is holding the umbrella) is wearing an aromantic shirt, the fourth one is wearing an oriented aromantic asexual shirt, and the fifth one is wearing a cupioromantic shirt. End description.]
**
There are a lot of ways to be aromantic.”

I mean, come on. It’s not sneering just to find all this a little silly and funny. These labels are hardly great progressive vehicles of sexual freedom for historically deeply oppressed sexual minorities who have now found a way to live their true identities, are they now?

[Just to save you the effort of looking it up, “Lithromanticism (also known as akoiromantic or apromantic) is a romantic orientation on the aromantic spectrum. Lithromanticism describes romantic attraction without the desire for reciprocation. Lithromantic experiences may include: Feeling romantic attraction that fades upon being reciprocated.”]

Also known as just being a teenager, no? Has anyone in history ever fought for their civil rights not to be criminalised, shunned or socially marginalised for their inner identity of “going off your crushes when they start liking you back”?!?

Very well said.
People have been criminalised throughout history for same sex attraction. No one ever has been for being aromantic.

Personally I find sexuality dull. I don’t care who someone is in a relationship with or having sex with. So long as everyone involved is a consenting adult what does it matter?

@nightwakingmoon that gives the term at it like rabbits a whole new meaning.

Nobody has ever been vilified, sentenced to death, criminalised, bullied, physically attacked or cast out from their family because they like to get to know someone really well before they have sex, as is the case for many LGB people.

Thank you! This is important. There are 69 countries where homosexuality is still criminalised, many more where it’s socially unacceptable. I find the level of navel gazing from these teenagers mildly amusing tbh, as most are still probably virgins who have no clue who or what they are. At the same time, there’s something very troubling about the efforts to score oppression points by kids who’ve never bloody well been oppressed.

Personally I find sexuality dull. I don’t care who someone is in a relationship with or having sex with. So long as everyone involved is a consenting adult what does it matter?

Because to a lot of people, anything other than being “cis” or straight is a problem. Not to mention in some countries illegal, punishable by death.

In an ideal world, nobody should have to announce their sexuality. Nobody should care. But people do.

In 2020 a man in my village was murdered by 2 teenagers for being gay. Murdered.

That’s why it should matter.

Personally I find sexuality dull.

You're doing it wrong.

When I was at such forum we had an in joke about one of our friends being Omnisexual, in that he'd shag anything and everything, pulse or not. Back then it was just a joke....

Sixth form

its shocking that people are still being attacked for being gay.
But as I understand it no one has been murdered for being greysexual.