Aromantic Asexuals on AVEN

[you*hear*but*do*you*listen]

According to the new orientation poll in the census forum, 18.63% of AVENites are aromantic. However, in a recent thread I noticed several comments discussing how aromantic asexuals are less likely to be on AVEN or even bother coming out because they don't have "problems" like romantics. This upset me very much. I believe that aromantics may not share some of the problems romantics have--especially being romantically but not sexually attracted to a loving partner who is sexual--but I also believe that aromantics may have issues with their orientation that are different from those experienced by romantics (I won't make a list, but trust me, I could). I was really very shocked at the misconception that an aromantic asexual can simply go about his or her merry way in life without any potential hiccups caused by his or her orientation; surely romantic and aromantic asexuals share some of the same problems when it comes to things like misunderstandings of asexuality and the other various struggles involved in being ace in a sexual world! I'm not trying to debate whether or not it's harder to be romantic or aromantic, but I do think the misconception that aromantics have it so much easier than romantics should be addressed. Also I'd like to bring up the perennial issue of "be careful who you're discussing if you know they might read your post." Just...be considerate. When you're discussing a group in your post, think about how a member of that group might feel reading it.

Disclaimer: I may not be the very best person to be posting this, since I'm not 100% positive I'm aromantic--I've never really explored my romantic orientation, so it might change--but I currently identify as aromantic. I feel, however, that this fact doesn't negate my concern about misconceptions involving aromantics.

Quotes from the thread I refer to include:

"I agree that Aromantic A could be less likely to post on AVEN - why would they, there's often not really a "problem" for them like there is for romantic aces"

"I don't think aromantic asexuals usually "come out" at all, they're not interested and don't consider that a problem. They just get on with their lives." (This one in particular made me want to scream! I won't rant, but being an aromantic ace has most definitely caused me emotional distress.)

I would like to add that AVEN is incredibly important to me despite the fact that (in the words of another AVENite) "when I've got annoyed at blatantly not aromantic people claiming to be aromantic and denying that people with absolutely no interest in sex or relationships exist, some aromantic lurkers have occasionally come out of the woodwork and agreed with me and said AVEN isn't really relevant to them." I come here to find support and advice from people who are, like me, asexual. But finding out that my subgroup of asexuality is being so misunderstood--I just can't comprehend why AVEN can't be relevant to me just because I'm aromantic--deeply, deeply upsets me.

[Gotanks0407]

im grey-aromantic, im just not sure yet. and i think that saying aromantic asexuals wont be here is just a complete misconception, as it is also looked at if you dont want to be in a relationship you are weird in society, and also the same for asexual as you are also weird for not experiencing sexual attraction, i dont at all see why aromantics would not be here.

[Sarahmarie]

That claim about aromantics makes absolutely no sense to me. If anything, it seems to me that aromantics face even greater problems in, and pressures from, society to "conform" to the romantic ideal. Thus, AVEN would be even more important as a haven for such individuals, not less.

Another way to look at this is that romantic asexuals can hide their asexuality much easier than aromantics.

Personally, I don't entirely understand this need to further define oneself. If you are asexual, you are asexual. Can anyone enlighten me about this? If so, many thanks.

[X Phoenix X]

I am kind of glad the OP brought this up because TBH it s something I would have never thought about. I think the quotes might refer to the idea that a person who is asexual and aromantic may have never considered that they were even asexual and so not found AVEN and therefore are under-represented as active posting members. I think for romantic asexuals maybe the weird disconnect you get in your mind about wanting to love someone and have a relationship , but not wanting a physical one kind of leads you to question whether or not you are asexual. Maybe the assumption is that less aromantic people may get to that point in their lives because their lack of desire for sex does not contradict any other desires about forming relationships. Don't get me wrong, I don't think a lack of desire for sex and a desire for a relationship really are contradictory, just that society tells us they are. Nor do I think that aromantic asexuals face less difficult problems. We all have one thing in common, we came here looking for other people like ourselves that would understand us. We came here to learn about ourselves. I am glad you posted this because it is good to be reminded to be considerate. This really is the most polite forum and online community I have ever been a part of. Lets just all give each other a big e-hug....or not, you know, uh whatever you are into....or not into.

*stops digging hole*

[heatdissipation]

I think everyone should have the freedom to say what they think, whatever shade of wrong or right it may be. We've certainly mentioned plenty of things that could be alienating to a Christian, or a meat-eater, or people who wear make-up, whatever. It just comes with the nature of discourse here on AVEN, and on the Internet in general.

However, I also applaud you for saying this! It's an important point. I think most asexuals have felt ostracized to a certain degree by the sexual world, so why do so here? I have not seen those replies, but I find the ones you mentioned a fair bit ignorant. Who is to say that AVEN is relevant to strictly one sort of people, anyway?

[Astryda]

I read those posts you're refering to, *you*hear~, they don't sound nice, I agree with almost everything you said.

Of course, aromantics won't write posts like 'my partner is sexual, I love him but I don't want sex, what should I do?', but it doesn't mean aromantic don't have problems liked to their aromanticity.

I think we should respect each other, each of us has problems, it's not fair to blame someone just because they don't have the same problems.

Cheers :)

[Wings of a Dream]

I'm not aromantic but, like you you*hear*but*do, I could probably make a list of problems they may have and I reckon a lot of them would be things that romantic asexuals have to deal with as well. I guess, despite our orientation, we're not all as open minded as we might wish we all were.

[henrik]

I'm glad to see that this issue is brought up again, because it's surprisingly often when aromantics get pretty harsh treatment in this site. I was away for awhile, because I got attacked pretty badly a few times in a row because of my pretty unrelenting aromanticism. Granted, the last time I got attacked, I tested the waters on purpose to see if the attitudes really existed. The result was interesting because I found a lot of negativity towards aromantics, but also a lot of other members who seemed to be bothered about this same issue.

While it is true that aromantics don't have to deal with potentially sexual partners, there is a lot of crap and external pressure coming from the society and people around us. People easily make broad assumptions if you've never been in a relationship of any kind. My mother constantly urges me to find a SO, just so I won't be sad and lonely when I grow old. The list goes on, but I won't spend too much time on it right now.

I've been thinking about it before and maybe it should be time to propose a section of the forums for aromantics. We have two for romantic asexuals (Asexual Relationships & For Sexual Partners, Friends and Allies) so I think since a big percentage of the membership identifies as aromantic, it would be a good thing to have an area for aromantics as well. Especially since the lack of it has made members leave.

[AnaBlackwell]

I have to admit that I have the same perceptions of aromantic asexuals, because they appear to be so detached, self-absorbed and unable to show empathy. I am not a romantic person either, but I am strongly empathic, and I show it. However, I am quite confused about what a "relationship" is. Most of the times, my platonic caring is misunderstood as romantic interest. I think that it can be liberating to not have any romantic feelings for another person. I have met an aromantic asexual recently, and my way of showing him respect was to leave him alone. He doesn't need my approval to be who he is, but at the same time, it was really difficult for me to be "there for him" when he was as responsive as a stone. I got nothing back, even communicating as a friend. How frustrating is that? Maybe you should try to see it from the other side. Some people think they're being rejected and they don't respond well to that.

[henrik]

I have to admit that I have the same perceptions of aromantic asexuals, because they appear to be so detached, self-absorbed and unable to show empathy.

Now that's just offensive. You're just making an overly broad generalization about a big group of people who all have different responses and levels of empathy. Besides, even if one can't identify and show empathy about romantic relationships, that's a hell of a long leap to being detached, self-absorbed and unable to show empathy. I admit freely that I can't identify with romantic problems that people have because I have no experience of it, similarly as I can't identify with cross-dressing acrobats who eat fire, but it doesn't mean that I'm unable to show empathy in general.

[henrik]

Sorry about the several posts in a row and possibly for spamming if you don't like me mentioning this in this thread, but I made that proposal for an aromantic forum in the site suggestions forum. I thought that people reading this thread might be interested and maybe want to show their support and/or misgivings about it.

http://www.asexuality.org/en/index.php?showtopic=40337

[Astryda]

Wanna issue? Here goes: I consider myself aromantic, although sometimes I wish I fell in love and had a relationship, but how can do this being aromantic?

How's about aromantic people who want to have children but they don't want a relationship without romantic feelings?

Plus this preassure *yiou*here~ mentioned, people tell you all the time (yes, almost anytime I go out shopping or so, I hear things like this 'when will you finally get a fiance?', 'why don't you date?', 'Aren't you responsible and mature enough to enter relationship?' etc.). If someone is asexual but in romantic relationship and doesn't have their own children because of asexuality, people just assume there're healthy issues or they just wanted to adopt a child, but if someone is aromantic and isn't in relationship, they are supposed to explain this.

So yeah, sometimes it's hard to be aromantic.

I'm not saying it's easy or easier to be romantic, I'm just saying you shouldn't judge someone's position if you don't know it well.

[Sciatrix]

I have to admit that I have the same perceptions of aromantic asexuals, because they appear to be so detached, self-absorbed and unable to show empathy.

Wooow. I find that very offensive--exactly how many aromantic asexuals do you know? Because it certainly doesn't fit with my experiences, and it's a pretty broad brush to paint with.

I have met an aromantic asexual recently, and my way of showing him respect was to leave him alone. He doesn't need my approval to be who he is, but at the same time, it was really difficult for me to be "there for him" when he was as responsive as a stone. I got nothing back, even communicating as a friend. How frustrating is that? Maybe you should try to see it from the other side. Some people think they're being rejected and they don't respond well to that.

Uh... maybe this is a problem with this one guy? Maybe he doesn't want you to "be there for him" because right now he doesn't think there's anything wrong. Doesn't mean that he might not want friendship in other aspects of his life. Also: As an aromantic asexual, it is not my job to care whether you're feeling rejected because either I don't have romantic relationships or I don't have a problem with not wanting romantic relationships and therefore won't let you play nurturer. I imagine this guy feels the same way. What gives you the right to be upset that he doesn't want help?

I need social interaction and friendship in my life very badly. I know from experience that I'm lonely without at least a few close friends in my daily life, and I need their support in my life very much. Saying that aromantic asexuals are "detached, self-absorbed and unable to show empathy" is a huge insult.

Regarding the topic as a whole, I do think this board is more focused on the needs of romantics. I'd love to see an aromantic forum--it'd be very nice to be able to complain about, say, dealing with cultural expectations that I either be in or want to be in a romantic relationship and have people who know what I'm on about the pay attention. The constant "I like him but I don't want sex omg omg" topics do get old sometimes.

[Astryda]

I have to admit that I have the same perceptions of aromantic asexuals, because they appear to be so detached, self-absorbed and unable to show empathy.

Wooow. I find that very offensive--exactly how many aromantic asexuals do you know? Because it certainly doesn't fit with my experiences, and it's a pretty broad brush to paint with.

I knew many sexual aromantics who really fit Ana's description.

It's a reason why it was so hard to me to accept that I'm aromantic.

But here, on AVEN, I realized that many aromantic asexuals are people who are definitely the opposite of those that Ana described, and it helped me a lot.

And now, yeah, I agree with you, Sciatrix.

[Ninny]

I have to admit that I have the same perceptions of aromantic asexuals, because they appear to be so detached, self-absorbed and unable to show empathy.

Ouch! I admit to the self-absorbed bit, but that's just me but detached and unable to show empathy? That's quite wrong. Just because aromantics don't have a desire for a romantic relationship doesn't mean they have no desire to form other kinds of relationships, or that they are less able to do so.

Sure, I don't have to put up with all the guff that comes with romantic relationships but I do have the problem of dealing with social conventions. <_<

Tell someone you don't want a romantic relationship and suddenly you're some cold hearted loner with self-esteam issues. Pah! I have self-esteam to spare and I love to form all kinds of relationships, just not romantic ones. I'm very loving but just in a different way :)

[Elliott Ford]

WHY CAN'T PEOPLE JUST GET ALONG???

Sorry, i'll calm down now.

"Our situation is worse than yours" is NEVER a valid argument to put people down about anything.

Broad sweeping genralisations and/or stereotypes should be avoided as far as possible.

EVERYONE has something in common with everyone else. And usually we have more similarities than differences.

Especially in a wonderful place like this, it should be so easy for people to just get along with each other.

for everyone because we're all here, we all found this community, we all MAKE this a community.

[Ninny]

WHY CAN'T PEOPLE JUST GET ALONG???

Sorry, i'll calm down now.

"Our situation is worse than yours" is NEVER a valid argument to put people down about anything.

Broad sweeping genralisations and/or stereotypes should be avoided as far as possible.

EVERYONE has something in common with everyone else. And usually we have more similarities than differences.

Especially in a wonderful place like this, it should be so easy for people to just get along with each other.

for everyone because we're all here, we all found this community, we all MAKE this a community.

Here here!! *raises cake* :D

[Screech]

Tribalism rears its ugly head again.

I remember that thread, but I can't remember if I replied to it or not. If I did, and I said something offensive, I am sincerely sorry. I have no opinion on aromantics since I myself am not in that position (I think). I have really not been myself lately and I keep finding myself saying things I do not mean, or even conflict with how I actually feel.

EDIT: Just wanted to add this. Remember this guy? http://www.blogcatalog.com/blogs/jatgab-je...ivist-bear.html

Don't become that.

[mort paradis]

That claim about aromantics makes absolutely no sense to me. If anything, it seems to me that aromantics face even greater problems in, and pressures from, society to "conform" to the romantic ideal. Thus, AVEN would be even more important as a haven for such individuals, not less.

Same here, those claims are ignorant and foolish, not to mention confusing. Just because romantics and aromantics don't have one problem in common doesn't mean they have nothing in common.

There is too much pressure in society to form relationships and ultimately marry. There is also an unfairity that comes with this pressure. For example, in the United States, married (heterosexual) couples get tax cuts. It is assumed that you will get married, whether you are single or in a relationship- and then they give you benefits for getting married- trying to make you feel like getting married is something that you "should" do.

I have to admit that I have the same perceptions of aromantic asexuals, because they appear to be so detached, self-absorbed and unable to show empathy.

Those are personality traits that ANYONE may or may not have. Maybe some aromantics show

detachment and little empathy in regard to romantic relationships and people complaining about romantic relationships because people complaining about relationships ALL THE TIME is annoying as hell*...but that does not mean that they are detached, self-absorbed, unempathetic individuals or that aromantics as a whole are like that.

*again, anyone could act like this about relationships whether or not they are aromantic or even asexual.

[Des]

Wanna issue? Here goes: I consider myself aromantic, although sometimes I wish I fell in love and had a relationship, but how can do this being aromantic?

This is a big problem of self-concept across any orientation, but it's one I've felt particularly strongly myself. Your statement contains a major contradiction. If you're aromantic, you don't want to be in a romantic relationship. You're not sure how to form one because you're aromantic. But if you want one, you're NOT necessarily aromantic. It sounds like you have done what many of us have done - you've slapped on the label and now you're trying to adjust your life to fit what you call yourself, rather than calling yourself what you are.

Although it would be better if we did the latter, it's incredibly hard. As the topic of the thread points out, we want to fit into groups and have things in common. But just because a group exists, and you have something in common with some of its members, doesn't mean you should separate yourself from part of your own nature just to fit in. This is why I don't always say I'm asexual; the more we analyze human sexuality, the more little variations we create. If we take this to its ultimate extreme, there will be a separate label for each person on the planet.

Labels do a lot of good in terms of solidarity; we can all say we're asexual because we have in common the lack of sexual attraction. But what's important is the spectrum and the fact that the groups overlap. As soon as we start saying groups are different to the point of being exclusive - that you must either be asexual or you're not, that you must either be aromantic or you're not - is when we ethnocentrically start saying we're better than each other, or have it harder, or what have you. What's important is that we're all in essentially the same situation, regardless of what we call ourselves.

[Astryda]

Wanna issue? Here goes: I consider myself aromantic, although sometimes I wish I fell in love and had a relationship, but how can do this being aromantic?

This is a big problem of self-concept across any orientation, but it's one I've felt particularly strongly myself. Your statement contains a major contradiction. If you're aromantic, you don't want to be in a romantic relationship. You're not sure how to form one because you're aromantic. But if you want one, you're NOT necessarily aromantic. It sounds like you have done what many of us have done - you've slapped on the label and now you're trying to adjust your life to fit what you call yourself, rather than calling yourself what you are.

Although it would be better if we did the latter, it's incredibly hard. As the topic of the thread points out, we want to fit into groups and have things in common. But just because a group exists, and you have something in common with some of its members, doesn't mean you should separate yourself from part of your own nature just to fit in. This is why I don't always say I'm asexual; the more we analyze human sexuality, the more little variations we create. If we take this to its ultimate extreme, there will be a separate label for each person on the planet.

Labels do a lot of good in terms of solidarity; we can all say we're asexual because we have in common the lack of sexual attraction. But what's important is the spectrum and the fact that the groups overlap. As soon as we start saying groups are different to the point of being exclusive - that you must either be asexual or you're not, that you must either be aromantic or you're not - is when we ethnocentrically start saying we're better than each other, or have it harder, or what have you. What's important is that we're all in essentially the same situation, regardless of what we call ourselves.

I agree with you, except that I don't want to fit in any community (or rather- I don't need to fit), I'm happy being myself, and labels don't mean anything to me, they are just words that people use to communicate. You said almost exactly what I said in another thread.

Anyways, I don't have the problem you quoted, I just used in as example that an aromantic may have (perhaps I should a word 'someone' than 'I', but I was in hurry while writing this so I used what I did use). I disagree that if a person who has this problem doesn't know how to form a relationship or that s/he isn't aromantic, you don't need to be romantic to love kids and want to have some, do you?

[thecynicalromantic]

Some of the most self-absorbed, detached, unempathetic people I've ever met are romantic sexuals. They require an SO as a possession, a tool with the functions of being something to obsess about, being a status symbol, and providing ego validation. They will get super cranky if the SO attempts to communicate or initiate anything. They are Edward Cullen without the sparkling and hunting mountain lions.

Comparing people like me to people like that because people like me prefer to get our human bonding needs filled through friendships instead of romantic relationships is excessively insulting.

I know that's been said like twelve times already but I felt it bears repeating.

I think an aromantic forum would be frakkin' awesome.

[Jake Fish]

"I agree that Aromantic A could be less likely to post on AVEN - why would they, there's often not really a "problem" for them like there is for romantic aces"

I can agree with the first part of this - that aromantics may be less likely to post much. For example, I've been here for almost 2 months and I've only made about 30 posts or so. Of course, I'll very greatly depending on the person, ext, but I do tend to think that it's a niche that is underrepresented. AVEN means a great deal to me... but I still feel like it's difficult to relate to most things that are talked about. Hence, I don't end up posting much.

But to insinuate that there wouldn't be any complications simply baffles me. Yes, that statement irks me very much. I'm just going to refrain from going into it so it doesn't distract everyone from the topic at hand.

I think that most of it had to do with what I mentioned earlier, about aromantic A's tending to post less. Having people constantly talk about issues that I can't directly relate to compounded with not seeing many that I can is a little bit alienating, which leads to me not being as comfortable bringing up these topics that I could greatly benefit from a discussion about. I don't see anyone talking about that sort of thing, which makes me uneasy about posting it, because nothing would be more of a let-down than to pour your heart and soul into a post and have few to no responses. It's a very basic fear, but It's still there, and it always will be, no matter how kind and understanding AVEN's populace happens to be. It just happens to be easier to wait until you figure it out on your own or can talk to someone you trust about the topic.

Yeah, I would really appreciate an aromantic forum, simply because it would be a place where it would be much easier to start talking.

[AFlyingPiglet]

I think an aromantic forum would be good. I know that people will debate the pros and cons of such a thread but the only way we will find out if its beneficial is at least by giving it a trial run. How about it?

[X Phoenix X]

Some of the most self-absorbed, detached, unempathetic people I've ever met are romantic sexuals. They require an SO as a possession, a tool with the functions of being something to obsess about, being a status symbol, and providing ego validation. They will get super cranky if the SO attempts to communicate or initiate anything. They are Edward Cullen without the sparkling and hunting mountain lions.

Comparing people like me to people like that because people like me prefer to get our human bonding needs filled through friendships instead of romantic relationships is excessively insulting.

I know that's been said like twelve times already but I felt it bears repeating.

I think an aromantic forum would be frakkin' awesome.

Well frak me runnning....someone else who says "frak ^_^"! Honestly I think empathy and self-absorption are traits independent of one's "romantic" orientation. I actually even kind of hate the idea of "romantic" orientation. Maybe I just hate the term "romantic" to describe it. I don't know. I see no need to slap on the label and say I am this it means I never want relationships or I am that it means I do want relationships. And what is a relationship and what is a friend?? Meh, the whole thing just breaks down for me eventually to the point where I even think sexual orientation is a stupid concept. Just our way of dividing and compartmentalizing. I guess it's a difficult balance between finding a supportive community and defining ourselves right into isolation. Why can't "aromantics" just post in the muse and rants section? Just because the current trend on the boards is toward relationship ranting does not mean that aromantics' problems are excluded. I am not sure there needs to be a separate section, unless it just makes people feel more comfortable.

[Sciatrix]

Some of the most self-absorbed, detached, unempathetic people I've ever met are romantic sexuals. They require an SO as a possession, a tool with the functions of being something to obsess about, being a status symbol, and providing ego validation. They will get super cranky if the SO attempts to communicate or initiate anything. They are Edward Cullen without the sparkling and hunting mountain lions.

Comparing people like me to people like that because people like me prefer to get our human bonding needs filled through friendships instead of romantic relationships is excessively insulting.

I know that's been said like twelve times already but I felt it bears repeating.

I think an aromantic forum would be frakkin' awesome.

Well frak me runnning....someone else who says "frak ^_^"! Honestly I think empathy and self-absorption are traits independent of one's "romantic" orientation. I actually even kind of hate the idea of "romantic" orientation. Maybe I just hate the term "romantic" to describe it. I don't know. I see no need to slap on the label and say I am this it means I never want relationships or I am that it means I do want relationships. And what is a relationship and what is a friend?? Meh, the whole thing just breaks down for me eventually to the point where I even think sexual orientation is a stupid concept. Just our way of dividing and compartmentalizing. I guess it's a difficult balance between finding a supportive community and defining ourselves right into isolation. Why can't "aromantics" just post in the muse and rants section? Just because the current trend on the boards is toward relationship ranting does not mean that aromantics' problems are excluded. I am not sure there needs to be a separate section, unless it just makes people feel more comfortable.

The fact that the current trend in rants is about romantic problems does serve to make aromantics--or me, anyway--less comfortable. That's the entire point of what's being argued here.

[Grey]

Wanna issue? Here goes: I consider myself aromantic, although sometimes I wish I fell in love and had a relationship, but how can do this being aromantic?

This is a big problem of self-concept across any orientation, but it's one I've felt particularly strongly myself. Your statement contains a major contradiction. If you're aromantic, you don't want to be in a romantic relationship. You're not sure how to form one because you're aromantic. But if you want one, you're NOT necessarily aromantic. It sounds like you have done what many of us have done - you've slapped on the label and now you're trying to adjust your life to fit what you call yourself, rather than calling yourself what you are.

Uh ... isn't this like saying that an asexual person who does not experience sexual attraction, but sometimes wishes they could and have a sexual relationship (because they want to fit in, or experience something they're not, or to stay with someone they care about, or what have you) isn't necessarily asexual? I mean, it's correct that if someone sometimes wishes they could fall in love, they're not necessarily aromantic, but that's only because it has little to nothing to do with the label, so ~Vei*sha~ is hardly contradicting herself.

Not to belabour the point ... I identify my gender as male. This is characterised by me, among other things, generally thinking like a male or what I understand that to mean. I wish I could be female for a while because I feel like I'm missing out on a different perspective and experience. (More emphatically, I actively wish I could identify as androgynous and could hold that perspective!) But I recognise that this doesn't render my identification as male ambiguous.

I also identify as an aromantic asexual. Again, I wish sometimes that I could fall in love or have a romantic relationship, because it's reportedly a powerful and profound experience (one which I'd also like to capture more accurately in creative writing). But as I haven't experienced romantic attraction to date it's reasonable to call myself aromantic, subject to any sudden change.

But despite my tone, I agree with the whole of the rest of your post. ^_^

(I'm sure I only come across as reinforcing the "self-absorbed, detached, unempathetic" stereotype which was floated here, but in this case it's probably because I'm procrastinating from revision and I'm in a somewhat over-analytical mindset ... just check out [or don't!] some of my first posts to see how robotic I can be in that mode. So if I completely missed your point, it was probably me being daft.)

[Astryda]

Wanna issue? Here goes: I consider myself aromantic, although sometimes I wish I fell in love and had a relationship, but how can do this being aromantic?

This is a big problem of self-concept across any orientation, but it's one I've felt particularly strongly myself. Your statement contains a major contradiction. If you're aromantic, you don't want to be in a romantic relationship. You're not sure how to form one because you're aromantic. But if you want one, you're NOT necessarily aromantic. It sounds like you have done what many of us have done - you've slapped on the label and now you're trying to adjust your life to fit what you call yourself, rather than calling yourself what you are.

Uh ... isn't this like saying that an asexual person who does not experience sexual attraction, but sometimes wishes they could and have a sexual relationship (because they want to fit in, or experience something they're not, or to stay with someone they care about, or what have you) isn't necessarily asexual? I mean, it's correct that if someone sometimes wishes they could fall in love, they're not necessarily aromantic, but that's only because it has little to nothing to do with the label, so ~Vei*sha~ is hardly contradicting herself.

I agree with you.But maybe I should explain this situation...

Even if you are aromantic, you still may be curious how it would feel to be being in a relationship or how does romantic feelings work (just like asexual who is wandering how it would be to have sex but doesn't want to be involved in sexual act, asexuals also have sexual fantasies).

Let's say- you want to have children. You don't need to feel romantic attraction to love and/or want children. But you don't feel romantically attracted to anyone, and you don't want to enter a relationship if you don't feel the same thing towards your partner that s/he feels towards you (let's say he is romantic and s/he could feel you don't care about him/her sometimes), that's where the problem occurs. Rarely happens, but it's possible.

[alittle_iron]

I would be really sad to see aromantic asexuals require another forum, we all have something in common - we're asexual, we have to live our lives like that. We all have something to offer each other in the process of doing this and we all have things we need to talk about an be met with responses on. If you segregate you're just limiting the people you can talk to about this stuff.

I had quite a traumatic incident on another web-board for another issue because I refuse to take medication. This is because of my stance on medication - I'd rather take the issues of dealing without it than take the stuff. I was talking about this and one member who I hadn't spoken to me before decided to tell me if I didn't take anything I must not have a problem. It really became a case of "you're not ill enough to be here" and I don't feel I should ever have to justify myself on those terms.

It's the same case here, we're all dealing, but we're all people, we're all different in how we're asexual. So? This is our space to be individuals and not have to conform to what a majority things we should be... isn't it?

[Shrine Maiden]

I think the misconception about aromantics stems from identifying romance=the only love there is in the whole universe, therefore anybody who does not fall in love does not know what love is. Which is a pretty narrow-minded way to look at it.

Don't I love my parents and pets? Don't I love my friends and favorite activities? Just because my love is steadier and calmer and not some wild infatuation I'm screaming about in my blog does not mean it is worthless. Aromantics are not emotionless machines--though I often wished I were one--and often have to suffer through the breaking of bonds that mean less to other people particularly because they were not romantic bonds. Our attachments are often seen as "disposable" and "convenient for the time" because we are not romantic partners. I'm not saying we hurt more than a romantic A or even a sexual because that would be stupid--how can you measure the heartbreak of two people and find one lacking? But we do hurt in a different way.

So yeah, more consideration please.