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) ...?

Now this website is a rabbit hole, but... lgbta.wikia.org/wiki/Animatesexual

I didn't understand why the leap was made to claiming an Aromantic identity and then people telling them they are unloveable as an example of the common oppression problems they face. I don't understand why that is a genuine reaction someone has to hearing the special identity claim. It seems such a non sequitur.

"I'm Aromantic."
"Awww, I'm quite a romantic myself."

Is an exchange that makes sense.

"I'm Aromantic"
"You are completely unloveable"

Is not.

@bourbonne

See also "solo polyamory".

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

Before any practitioners or professors of either persuasion arrive to educate me, I do know the difference between this and aromanticism...

Is this not politicising personality traits for want of anything better to do? I mean, I have my own particularities that other people might take against, misunderstand or mock. It's called life?

@Truthlikeness Lol it's crazy how many different sub-categories and branches people have come up with! Here are more official websites with good resources:
www.arospecweek.org/
www.aromanticism.org/

"Queerplatonic" ??
Had to Google that one, good god, why does this need to be labeled as an identity. Aren't different types of people and relationships just part of the rich tapestry of life and all this defining is rather reductive and instead of giving people freedom to be who they are it's squashing them into smaller and smaller boxes.

I don't think being 'aromantic' means you are incapable of love. It's presumably not a synonym for sociopath, so why would it mean incapable of love? It's perfectly, completely normal to have deep platonic relationships and not feel a desire for a romantic relationship. This is regular human behaviour. Are Stonewall going to be bringing us 'Preferring sweet or savoury food awareness week' next?

[quote Star555]@Truthlikeness Lol it's crazy how many different sub-categories and branches people have come up with! Here are more official websites with good resources:
www.arospecweek.org/
www.aromanticism.org/[/quote]
I agree it's crazy, but you and I may be using that word in a different context. Is it really helpful or healthy to label every microscopic variation of the normal human experience in order to claim a special identity and persecuted status? And why on earth must everyone have a flag?

People so desperate to be different they have to give themselves a label

The fact that you don't feel romantic love is a valid identity to be applauded but being born female and calling yourself female isn't?

Why don’t we just have an Attention Seekers week? Seems to cover most identities 🤣

I think it's certainly an interesting conversation to have that there is an idea in the zeitgeist that you need a partner or you are incomplete. And from what else I have seen about the Ace spectrum, it looks mostly like evidence of an extremely porn sick society that some people feel they need to specify an identity to be able to say that they don't feel sexual attraction until they know someone well, or very rarely, or not at all.

I read that website as 'I don't feel romantic feelings for you but I am very interested in fucking you. If you reject me due to my lack of romantic feelings then you are a bigot.'

The scariest thing about it is that you can't even spot them by the lack of platonic relationships or loving family links as apparently those work fine

I would say now more than at any time in history it is acceptable to be single. I'm not buying that's oppressive more than it is for other single people who constantly get questioned about their love life.

@SuddenArborealStop

"Queerplatonic" ?? Had to Google that one, good god, why does this need to be labeled as an identity. Aren't different types of people and relationships just part of the rich tapestry of life and all this defining is rather reductive and instead of giving people freedom to be who they are it's squashing them into smaller and smaller boxes.

I totally agree...classifying everything into micro-boxes detracts from the richness of life. I think of queerplatonic as best friends living together and sharing their life with a firm emotional commitment to each other (just like romantic partners but w/o romance or sex), and are so much more than "just friends" or flatmates. I think the only real importance of having the special term "queerplatonic" is a way to signify to the rest of the world that a particular platonic relationship is just as serious as a romantic one would be, and that the platonic partners ought to be treated with the same respect and have the same legal rights (which they don't!) as romantic partners.

Some people are desperate to pretend they're oppressed.

@ContessaDiPulpo

I read that website as 'I don't feel romantic feelings for you but I am very interested in fucking you. If you reject me due to my lack of romantic feelings then you are a bigot.'

The scariest thing about it is that you can't even spot them by the lack of platonic relationships or loving family links as apparently those work fine

Well quite.

"Casual sex for me, please" for that aspect seems a touch more honest. I mean, I'm not judging, if someone will have sex with you and understands the terms. How is this something that needs a flag and an anti-oppression campaign again?

Let me tell you something. Grown-ups know that nobody fucking cares. Lead your life how you like without shouting about it. People have more interesting things to care about than self obsessed people, imvho.

I just can't get past 'aromatic', sorry. It's too close. You need a better word. I can't read it without thinking about green curry.

I love green curry.

• but not in that way.

@ContessaDiPulpo @BuntingEllacott The vast majority of aromantic people are asexual and are disgusted by the idea of having sex. Those websites are trying too hard to be PC and mention the "no romantic attraction but yes sex" as a technical possibility, but in reality that's almost always never the case!

Aromantics are certainly not people looking for casual hookups! Why don't you attend some of the London Aromantic/Asexual meetups and see for yourself if you're not convinced?

I bet there is a name for your kind of love Arabelle however much you try to hide your feelings due to the terrible oppression you might face

Excuse me, Arabella

[quote Star555]**@ContessaDiPulpo* @BuntingEllacott* The vast majority of aromantic people are asexual and are disgusted by the idea of having sex. Those websites are trying too hard to be PC and mention the "no romantic attraction but yes sex" as a technical possibility, but in reality that's almost always never the case!

Aromantics are certainly not people looking for casual hookups! Why don't you attend some of the London Aromantic/Asexual meetups and see for yourself if you're not convinced?[/quote]
I'm far happier with the idea of aromantic people also being asexual! That has far less potential than the scenario I've described above to be twisted by very unpleasant men into another stick to beat women with.

I don't intend to attend any meet ups, thank you, but hope you all have fun

@Star555 what is stopping the queerplatonics from marrying each other, or entering a civil partnership? (To get those legal rights)