Jillianimal Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Apparently aromantic asexuals can be attracted to someone in a nonromantic sense. If that's the case, couldn't an aromantic also say the can be straight, gay, bi or whatever? It seems like when someone says they're aromantic, that's all they are - aromantic. EDIT: Ok, it looks like almost everybody's thinking I'm suggesting another label or something. I'm just asking a question guys. Link to post Share on other sites
chipmunkgirl Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Like all else, it probably depends on the individual. For me, I would say no. I have no desire to kiss or cuddle or hold hands with anyone... how then can I be straight, gay, bi, whatever? To me the whole point of these orientations is that you want to be in a relationship with them and do relationship-y things with them. Sure, I can be intellectually or emotionally or aesthetically attracted to someone, but I think these things are more in the realms of friendship. Do you qualify as a specific orientation depending on which sex you prefer having as friends? I do experience platonic crushes occasionally, and these do seem to have an orientation, but it's so far removed from the original usage of the terms (homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, etc.) that I really can't see myself applying the term to myself. Homocrushic bifriendic aromantic asexual? I dunno, it seems like a bit of a stretch. Link to post Share on other sites
Jillianimal Posted June 20, 2009 Author Share Posted June 20, 2009 I'm not talking about forming a relationship if that's what you mean. Cause I've been attracted to guys before, but each time I didn't want a "relationship". I didn't want to hold hands, kiss, whatever, but I'm pretty sure I had the same "love" feeling as someone who is sexual or wants to form a relationship with someone. Basically a nonromantic crush. So wouldn't that be straight aromantic? Link to post Share on other sites
Forensic Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 I shouldn't see why not, if you actually have an attraction. Myself, I hardly care about gender or what have you... but I don't consider myself romantic in the slightest. Link to post Share on other sites
cosmia Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Aromantic asexual is enough labels for me, but I don't see that being contradictory if someone also wants to call themselves straight/gay/bi whatever. Link to post Share on other sites
AVENCakes Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 I think you mean the -platonic sort of label that's popped up recently. So an aromantic can be "straight" in that they're heteroplatonic- they prefer to be friends with the opposite sex/only get squishes on the opposite sex, or whatever, but I don't know how many people actually identify with that orientation enough to call themselves gay/straight/bi/pan. Link to post Share on other sites
frozen moment Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 I would have thought it would be hard to give yourself an orientation for friendships. I mean, even if (for example) I prefered to be friends with girls over guys, I would (probably) still have some guy friends. So I couldn't call myself homoplatonic because it's like, if you're homoromantic you just DON'T get romantic attraction to the opposite sex, whereas I DO have platonic friendships with the opposite sex. That said, I can see that maybe you might get squishes on only one sex. Personally I get squishes on anyone, but I can't imagine what you'd call this. Bi-squishic? Fair question, though. Also I don't think all aromantics get squishes, maybe they could be a-squishic/a-crushic aromantic? To be honest... I think " __-romantic asexual" is a long enough label, compared with simply straight or bi or gay, so I don't think too many people would want to add further bits. Homocrushic bifriendic aromantic asexual? teehehe ^_^ Now, just to shove in as many terms as I possibly can... bisquishic bifriendic hetero-romantic repulsed asexual. HOW'S THAT FOR A LABEL! (I can just picture the conversation... "So, you don't like guys - are you gay?" "No...." "Bi?" "No..." "...well, what else is there?" "... er, I'm a bisquishic bifriendic hetero-romantic repulsed asexual." "...............UM, SORRY, WHAT??") Link to post Share on other sites
Sciatrix Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Honestly? Aromantic asexual is definitely enough for me. Particularly when the vast majority of the people I meet don't need to deal with the "aromantic" bit. I tend to make friends with girls somewhat more than with guys, but... what has that got to do with my orientation? What has it got do to with sexuality? Is friendship supposed to be some sort of "lesser romanticsm?" The concept of "squishes" doesn't make sense to me as a subset of sexuality. Mind you, I don't get squishes, so as far as I can tell adding another prefix would just suffice to add another "a-" word to my orientation. And y'know, I don't fancy applying an alphabet soup of labels to myself. Link to post Share on other sites
chrysalide Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 I agree with the whole labeling thing, it would definitely be too long and way unpractical to call ourselves homosquishic bicrushic aromantic asexuals... But to reply to the original poster, what is often meant as "attraction" can be quite vague. Especially if it's aromantics speaking. Genreally speaking, we aromantics can be "attracted" to other people, but intellectually or aesthetically, obviously not romantically or sexually. That said, it does depend on the person and their definition of attraction. Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 How often do we find it necessary to use these labels about ourselves anyway, to anyone else? Are they necessary? We know how we feel and don't feel. It's hard enough trying to explain asexuality to someone else without going into 4 other modifiers. Link to post Share on other sites
Sciatrix Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Honestly, I can't even be bothered to explain the "aromantic" part when I explain asexuality. The asexual concept is a big enough thing for people to wrap their minds around. Romantic orientation is for another day, or on the off chance someone displays interest. Squish orientation? What does that even mean? Link to post Share on other sites
AVENCakes Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Squish orientation? What does that even mean? A squish is an aromantic crush, so the genders/sexes you get squishes on could be considered your platonic orientation. Link to post Share on other sites
AFlyingPiglet Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 For me, the only way I can describe it is that I feel differently about men and women. I have tried dating men but it would not even cross my mind to try and date women. Some people who identify as Aromantic seem to get squishes a lot. Maybe I have had 2 squishes in my entire life, the last was about 15 years ago - I can't say I care for them much. To this extent I would describe myself as straight but I am not romantically attracted to either sex. I am most definitely not hetero-romantic so would that make me a straight aromantic? Mmmm ..... Think I will just stick with Aromantic which I think is nearer the truth for me anyway. Link to post Share on other sites
Charlieee Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 That makes sense but is really unnecessary. Most people really don't have the need to label themselves when they're not talking about romantic/sexual interactions. It's just making more boxes. And, to be completely honest, it makes me a little uncomfortable for someone to tell me that they only want to be friends with x gender, but that could just be a little phobic of me, sorry. Link to post Share on other sites
AVENCakes Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 It seems a little phobic to me that someone'd only want to date x gender, especially an asexual becasue it's not like they can say "I just dont' get off on those parts!", that doesn't mean I get pissy that asexuals can be homo or heteroromatic. If you haven't found a girl you get along with on a friend level, you shouldn't force yourself to be friends wtih girls just because you don't want to seem phobic. It's the same with dating- homosexual isn't "Even if I was attracted to a member of the opposite sex I would never date them!" it's "I'm not attracted to the opposite sex". -Platonic isn't "I'd never be friends with anyone but [gender]!" it's "The only people I like enough to be friends with happen to be [gender]". And so what if someone wants another label? It's their right to have as many boxes as they want to- you aren't required to give your platonic attraction if you don't want to, but some people might find it useful to have it as a label for themself. I don't see why people need a romantic label, but I'll hardly get pissy that we have those added boxes. Link to post Share on other sites
you*hear*but*do*you*listen Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 I call myself an aromantic asexual who is more emotionally compatible with women than men. There have been discussions on AVEN about labels for "platonic attraction" but I personally find them unnecessary. Link to post Share on other sites
henshin Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 so what does an aromantic squish feel like as apposed to a romantic crush? Link to post Share on other sites
frozen moment Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 so what does an aromantic squish feel like as apposed to a romantic crush? there was a little bit of discussion on this a while ago here. I think the general idea was that when you have a crush, you want to be romantically involved with the person (you can imagine being/want to be in a relationship with them), but when you have a squish you like them (sometimes even love them) A LOT but just as friends. Maybe you want to become closer friends with them, but you don't want to get into a romantic relationship. At least, I think so. Link to post Share on other sites
veralidaine Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 Personally, I would think that anybody asexual and not aromantic would automatically be biromantic just because I don't really see any difference between genders except for the physical stuff, but clearly that's not true. I consider myself aromantic but there was a thread discussing the idea of romantic friendship and I could see myself having that with somebody if the circumstances are right. I have noticed that I do seem to get along a little better with guys but for instance, the intense squish I have right now, is on a woman, so I don't really think it'd be a good idea to label myself as hetero- or homo-platonic Link to post Share on other sites
Astryda Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 Apparently aromantic asexuals can be attracted to someone in a nonromantic sense. If that's the case, couldn't an aromantic also say the can be straight, gay, bi or whatever? It seems like when someone says they're aromantic, that's all they are - aromantic. I think it's a matter of gender or aesthetic preferences. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.