Aromantic Asexuals on AVEN

[AVENCakes]

I've read comments on thread's (between Aromantics) that would fit this description - defining as Aromantic for different reasons (which is fine - according to the aven wikipedia) :) At times it has almost seemed as if there is a 'hierarchy' of Aromantics - "I'm more Aromantic than you are .... sort of thing". Do we have this sort of 'issue' amongst the Romantics????

I have no idea. For one thing- I'm less romantic than my aromantic friend in a lot of ways, so when you're the omega you generally don't want to deal with hierarchies. That's the same way I don't think I knew about any hierarchies in highschool- I was more than likely at the bottom, and that's fine with me, why would I care about hierarchies?

[AFlyingPiglet]

That's the same way I don't think I knew about any hierarchies in highschool- I was more than likely at the bottom, and that's fine with me, why would I care about hierarchies?

Well, that was always my place too - at the bottom (and most of my really good friends who I can really open up to consider themselves there as well - there's no pretence I guess at the bottom). I can't say I care for hierarchies either. Unfortunately it doesn't mean they are not there though in all walks and spheres of life.

[AVENCakes]

That's the same way I don't think I knew about any hierarchies in highschool- I was more than likely at the bottom, and that's fine with me, why would I care about hierarchies?

Well, that was always my place too - at the bottom (and most of my really good friends who I can really open up to consider themselves there as well - there's no pretence I guess at the bottom). I can't say I care for hierarchies either. Unfortunately it doesn't mean they are not there though in all walks and spheres of life.

I'm logically aware of their existence- but that's it. I don't know what they mean or who's cool or anything else. I assume I'm at the bottom- I don't know if I was or not. I might've been the nebulous outlier that didn't exist anywehre. I'm just not aware of them, and don't know how to see them.

[jmerry]

I'm another who basically ignored the hierarchies in school, and never suffered for it after elementary school. Looking back, I think that's actually one of the advantage of big schools: when there are 1000 students per grade, there's a lot of room for people to carve out their own niches and avoid what they don't like.

I even could have been at the top in my niche; if I had ever wanted to lead the math club, it would have been mine.

There is a place for hierarchies; I'm especially fond of teacher/student. Basing them on orientation isn't one; it's a step toward discrimination and making people miserable.

[Ghastly Beast]

I'm an aromantic asexual. I'm also cold, detached, and have a limited need for human contact. People usually misinterpret this as meaning I must hate them, but it's like being allergic to puppies: puppies are great, but if they make you sneeze you don't want to be around them. Well....people make me sneeze.

Do I think romance is gross? Yes. Do I not want to be around romance? Yes. Do I get annoyed when writers have to stick romance into everything (Spock and Uhura, anyone?)? Yes. However, I've seen plenty of comments from romantic asexuals that they think sex is "gross," or that they're tired of society shoving sex in their face. If you're allowed to think sex is disgusting, I'm allowed to think romance is nasty.

That doesn't mean I think you're a bad person, or a stupid person, but I'd prefer it if you didn't seek my shoulder to cry on after you get dumped for the 12th time. Kindly respect my boundaries. I wouldn't dream of brining a porno to your house to watch on party night.

[Tio]

I'm also an Aromantic Asexual, mostly a lurker here at AVEN. But I visit here often as a place of support and where I can find other asexuals and common viewpoints.

I'm also cold, detached, and have a limited need for human contact but I'm perfectly capable of socialising when the need arises. Like at work or at university for example with the other students or teachers for example. However this is only for short periods of time, no more than a few hours before I start feeling annoyed and tetchy with the increasing need for solitute.

Yes, I require lots of solitude and I am an intensely solitary person. 90% of the time if I have a choice between being alone and socalising, I'll choose being alone. I'm also intensely private. As asexuals I'm sure you can relate to how feeling sexual attraction is a concept you can vaguely understand but cannot truly comprehend because you don't have it, romance is the same for me.

It gives me some problems, sure. When family and aquaintances ask why I don't date, why I don't have a boyfriend, why I'm 24 and have never had sex, why I don't intend to get married or have children.... yeah. Problems.

But at the same time, yeah it often annoys me when writers/tv/movies/books/ect have to stick romance into everything, but since that's linked to sex to mainstream sexuals they both come hand in hand. So really yeah I get annoyed at the excessive amounts of sex and romance in our cultures. However if tastefully applied romance can be nice to watch/read.

[AVENCakes]

Do I think romance is gross? Yes. Do I not want to be around romance? Yes. Do I get annoyed when writers have to stick romance into everything (Spock and Uhura, anyone?)? Yes. However, I've seen plenty of comments from romantic asexuals that they think sex is "gross," or that they're tired of society shoving sex in their face. If you're allowed to think sex is disgusting, I'm allowed to think romance is nasty.

There's a difference between thinking romance is nasty and being anti-romantic. I'm repulsed asexual, doesn't mean I can go around bad-mouthing sexuals or saying that sex is a waste of time and anyone who wants it is wrong or whatever else. I can try, but I won't get two steps without it going badly.

The problem isn't that there are repulsed aromantics- but you shouldn't be allowed to get away wiht saying anything about any group that you can't say about sexuals or any other group.

[alludere]

I dunno, I'm aromantic and I feel pretty problem-less. I guess it depends on the person, but in my case, this is how it is.

[Guest Heligan]

I don't think I knew about any hierarchies in highschool- I was more than likely at the bottom, and that's fine with me, why would I care about hierarchies?

I was the same, there just seemed to be no point to any of it. I didnt need or want to be in the group anyway.

I cant really make myself see the point (which is probably promotion eh!) of trying to be in the 'inner circle' at work etc... its all far too political for me to be bothered with... too much like being a slightly weird version of myself half of the time.

[AFlyingPiglet]

I dunno, I'm aromantic and I feel pretty problem-less. I guess it depends on the person, but in my case, this is how it is.

I have had 1 or 2 'problems' - for example, in the past - being stalked for over 2 years by a married bisexual woman who couldn't understand why I wasn't interested in anyone and she decided she was interested in me. I guess she couldn't understand why I wasn't interested in anyone - How could I be so happy on my own? and found this attractive in some way - or maybe she thought I was Gay. I had not heard of the term Asexual at the time, otherwise she may had got the message sooner. The situation was eventually confronted, but was an extremely traumantic and frightening situation to have to live through.

In spite of the above, I don't have many issues with being Aromantic either. Unlike some aromantics, I don't want kids and don't want a life partner (aromantic or otherwise) which I guess can be issues for some.

But what I do want / like is the chance to talk with other Aromantics - which I can do on AVEN (whether in our own section or generally). I am happy on my own but I am also very happy to know that I am not the only aromantic on the planet. I love the blogs written by aromantics - they make me laugh in a way that the other asexual blogs don't - I read them and think - yep, that's me and can really connect with them!

For me, maybe its more significant to identify as aromantic as opposed to asexual, although I am asexual - I don't know - just thinking aloud - I shall ponder this *goes off scratching head and pondering*

[Shadow girl]

Best way to know about an aromantic is from an individual bases.

[Charlieee]

Best way to know about an aromantic is from an individual bases.

This could refer to any distinct group of people. Yet we don't necessarily follow that. Hm.

[ChaliceFlame]

I have only recently learned what this term meant. However I have know about the existance of such a group.

I can respect folks who don't want intimacy or get into a relationship/... I don't think it's essential to everyone to have a relationship, I think it's a choice to some extent like having children or being child-free.

[Charlieee]

I have only recently learned what this term meant. However I have know about the existance of such a group.

I can respect folks who don't want intimacy or get into a relationship/... I don't think it's essential to everyone to have a relationship, I think it's a choice to some extent like having children or being child-free.

I'd just like to point this out - there is a very big difference between someone who chooses to not have a relationship and someone who is not "programmed" to desire a relationship. It's very similar to the difference between someone who is celibate and asexual - the former is a choice/conscious decision, and the latter is an orientation, simply how they are.

[ThePieMaker]

Yeah, not experiencing romantic attraction isn't a choice. One does not simply choose to be attracted in any way to anybody. Aromantics can't help they way they are, just like I can't help that I do experience romantic attraction. Yes, people choose whether they do the relationship thing or not, but whether people are in relationships are not doesn't determine whether they are romantic/aromantic.

[ghosts]

I guess I'd agree that experiencing romantic attraction isn't a choice. But at the same time, I don't think romantic attraction is necessarily one specific thing. Or at least, to me it isn't. I don't think that romantic attraction just *is* or *isn't* in a person - basically, a person doesn't have to be one or the other (romantic or aromantic).

[ThePieMaker]

I completely agree, ghosts. It's such a hard thing to describe really.

[chipmunkgirl]

I completely agree, ghosts. It's such a hard thing to describe really.

I would guess that people vary along a continuum- so it's impossible to put labels on everyone.

And I think that where you are on this "romantic attraction continuum" isn't a choice. It is possible to want to be romantically attracted and just not being able to experience it. Although... according to the definitions I think I may be confusing sensual attraction with romantic attraction... can you be romantically attracted without being sensually attracted? Is that possible?

For me, maybe its more significant to identify as aromantic as opposed to asexual, although I am asexual - I don't know - just thinking aloud - I shall ponder this *goes off scratching head and pondering*

This is an interesting idea. When I first found AVEN, I sort of scratched my head about the fact that the emphasis was on not wanting to have sex. See, I hadn't even gotten this far in my thought process. I just wasn't attracted to anybody. Not in the OMG, he's so HOT way. To me, sex was something that (usually) happened once you were in love- when you were in love, then you would naturally want to do it. Sex was just a vague, slightly repulsive concept that I hadn't given any thought to because wanting to be in a relationship was what came first. So, I can see how the identification as aromantic could be more relevant.

[AVENCakes]

I guess I'd agree that experiencing romantic attraction isn't a choice. But at the same time, I don't think romantic attraction is necessarily one specific thing. Or at least, to me it isn't. I don't think that romantic attraction just *is* or *isn't* in a person - basically, a person doesn't have to be one or the other (romantic or aromantic).

I think that's true of a lot of things- it's probably true that every attraction can be like that. I think there's grey-romantic and demi-romantic, too, which supports the idea that you don't have to be one or the other- and it's not any more black and white than anything else, and I wish people acknowledged that about more things.