Could someone help clarify the definition of aromantic for me?

[Tom71]

I've read some explanations but it's still not clear to me

I'm pretty sure I'm Ace but not sure I'm Aro

[alto]

Aromantics don't experience romantic attraction.  That's stuff like butterflies in stomach...yeah.

[Snao Cone]

Depending on how you frame the concept of orientations in general, aromantic people don't experience romantic attraction and/or they don't intrinsically desire romantic connection. This includes things like butterflies in the stomach as alto says, but also things like needing emotional fulfillment through deep fantastical connection, or wanting to complete your life with the soul of another person. I would argue that actively desiring finding a person to commit your life to is romantic, even if it isn't experienced with the same physiological sensations described in poetry, but that might get me in deep shit among alterous and/or those seeking queerplatonic partnerships with no one in particular (meaning the desire for exclusive and extensive partnership exists there independent of whether they have a person who fills that role for them at the time). But, you know, just my personal opinion et cetera and all that.

[serpentyne]

To be aromantic (the specific label) means that you experience little to no romantic attraction. This basically means you don't really get crushes on other people, or ever feel like dating/doing romantic things with a *specific* person. (This does not include a desire to want to date in general, just to be clear.)

 

If you do experience romantic attraction, but you feel like it's irregular/not often/only experienced under certain circumstances, you may fall on the aromantic spectrum instead of being specifically aro.

 

It can be tough to tell the difference between platonic and romantic attraction, so I would consider that if you just want to be close to them, that's not necessarily romantic. I personally have wanted to be closer to people and hold hands with a few, but because I don't classify hand holding as romantic, I don't think it's a crush. Kissing on the other hand, I do consider that romantic, and I've never wanted to kiss someone. It might help if you categorize certain gestures in either the platonic or romantic section (this differs by person so don't worry if your list doesn't match mine or someone else's) and then see if you want to do those things with certain other people. At least, that's what led me into realizing that I might be aro.

 

I wish you luck in figuring out your identity!

 

 

[Snao Cone]

Just now, serpentyne said:

(This does not include a desire to want to date in general, just to be clear.)

So what would you call someone who doesn't want to date in general because they don't get crushes on people or feel like doing anything with a specific person? I just want to make sure I'm not doing a disservice to aromanticism as a whole by not searching for love through dating. That could, after all, promote negative stereotypes about aromantic people's interest in romantic endeavours.

[serpentyne]

1 minute ago, Snaolent Night said:

So what would you call someone who doesn't want to date in general because they don't get crushes on people or feel like doing anything with a specific person? I just want to make sure I'm not doing a disservice to aromanticism as a whole by not searching for love through dating. That could, after all, promote negative stereotypes about aromantic people's interest in romantic endeavours.

I would still call them aromantic. There are many different perspectives on whether or not to date/get involved romantically with other people if someone happens to be aromantic, and personally, I think that whether you want to date or not doesn't really impact your identity in any way. Aromantic people might not want to date and are perfectly happy with their platonic relationships, or they might be open to having some kind of qpr/dating life. All of it's valid to me, and they're all still aro. I hope this answers your question?

[Snao Cone]

2 minutes ago, serpentyne said:

I would still call them aromantic. There are many different perspectives on whether or not to date/get involved romantically with other people if someone happens to be aromantic, and personally, I think that whether you want to date or not doesn't really impact your identity in any way. Aromantic people might not want to date and are perfectly happy with their platonic relationships, or they might be open to having some kind of qpr/dating life. All of it's valid to me, and they're all still aro. I hope this answers your question?

Yeah, I guess it does, thanks. I just wonder, when people bring up that disclaimer that aromanticism doesn't limit the pursuit of a dating life at all, what the end goal of stating that is, as I far too often hear such disclaimers as "just because you're predisposed to a different way doesn't mean you can't conform to what's expected of you" sorts of excuses, if that makes sense. It's especially annoying to hear "Aw, honey, that doesn't mean you won't find love!" as a response to me saying "I'm not wired for romantic relationships" or whatever, and overemphasis on the message of "being aromantic DOES NOT STOP YOU from DATING AND MARRIAGE AND LOVING RELATIONSHIPS DEVOTED TO SOMEBODY WHO MEANS MORE TO YOU THAN WORDS CAN EXPRESS", however technically accurate, can be easily used by people to continue minimizing the individual feelings, needs, and life choices of aromantic people.

 

And, to be honest, the more I hear it, the more pressured I feel to apologize to other aromantic people for somehow ruining their chances at happiness by being happy in my own life without romance. And so I wonder, from that, if I'm even welcome to begin with, as an aromantic person with nothing to prove anymore. I guess I'm a bit defensive given how much anti-singleness bias there is in society as a whole, and how I hope that I wouldn't be pushed out of any aro and/or ace community for the same things that get me shunned in the mainstream.

[serpentyne]

Yeah, I can see where you're coming from there. It's always so annoying when I'm told I'm too young to understand what it's like and that I'll "get it when I'm older". It's very invalidating to me and to the rest of the aroace community. To be honest, there's just so many ways that people can invalidate someone who identifies as aro/ace that I've just stopped counting. 

 

I only add the "you CAN date if you want to" part because I don't want to contribute to whatever stereotypes our community already has put on how "we don't date". Regardless, the only point I meant to make there was that whether or not you want to date doesn't have anything to do with being aro, which I've seen as a common misconception. I also wish that someone had told me when I was younger that I could want to date and still be aro, because it probably would have smoothed the way of my own journey.

 

There's nothing wrong with being single for life if you want to. Live your life the way you like.

 

 

[The French Unicorn]

5 hours ago, serpentyne said:

Regardless, the only point I meant to make there was that whether or not you want to date doesn't have anything to do with being aro, which I've seen as a common misconception.

But isn't it a misconception to say that not dating can't be linked to being aro ?

The reason I don't date is my aromanticism. It feels weird to see people say it is not the case. Of course I know that there are aro people who do date, but I don't think it really helps to say that because they exist, I don't, or that I am a misconception or a stereotype. It would be better to say that different people relate to their identity differently, if you ask me.

[serpentyne]

8 hours ago, Frenchace said:

But isn't it a misconception to say that not dating can't be linked to being aro ?

The reason I don't date is my aromanticism. It feels weird to see people say it is not the case. Of course I know that there are aro people who do date, but I don't think it really helps to say that because they exist, I don't, or that I am a misconception or a stereotype. It would be better to say that different people relate to their identity differently, if you ask me.

Hmm, I've never thought about it that way before. You do have a point and I didn't mean to invalidate your experience with your identity in any way. In the future, do you think it would be better if I said that dating for aromantic people is also a spectrum and left it there?

[The French Unicorn]

2 hours ago, serpentyne said:

Hmm, I've never thought about it that way before. You do have a point and I didn't mean to invalidate your experience with your identity in any way. In the future, do you think it would be better if I said that dating for aromantic people is also a spectrum and left it there?

Yes I think it would be a better wording, thanks !

[Alienated Asexual]

 

5 hours ago, serpentyne said:

I only add the "you CAN date if you want to" part because I don't want to contribute to whatever stereotypes our community already has put on how "we don't date". Regardless, the only point I meant to make there was that whether or not you want to date doesn't have anything to do with being aro,

The only problem with "distancing identities from stereotypes," which happens far too often for my tastes in queer advocacy, is that it tends to have the effect of marginalising those people who do have those traits/fit those stereotypes.  To me, it's a bit like saying "gender dysphoria is nothing to do with being trans; people who are cis have trouble with their bodies too."  

Now, it's fair to say "not all trans people experience dysphoria," but it's something else when we claim it's "just a stereotype" or "not inherently related to being trans." It's actually a big part of being trans for many trans people, perhaps most trans people, and it's not fair to say it's unrelated or coincidental.  The whole "aros can date" and "aces can have sex" thing falls in that same umbrella.  Some aces and aros may want to do those things, but it doesn't mean we all can or that we're able to, or that our desire not to do those things is divorced or separate from our orientation/identity.   

There's a subtle nuance between

(a) "you need to experience X in order to be Y,"
(b) "experiencing X often goes along with being Y; it is an integral part of the experience for those who do but not necessary to ID as X."
(c) "X and Y aren't related at all; it's just a stereotype and one we should squash"

A lot of people do C because they think the only alternative is A: either this thing is a necessary part of the identity or it's not part of the identity.  But realities are often more nuanced than that.  Open up a medical diagnosis textbook and we'll see a lot of condition which read "In order to be diagnosed as X, a person must match 2 of 4 of criteria from category A, and 3 of these 7 from category B; also they cannot be X or Y."  Whilst identities aren't medical conditions, it highlights the point that there can be a lot of ways to be something and we don't have to exclude criteria as irrelevant if they are optional parts of the experience. 

I think the only requirement to identifying as aspec is to experience little or no attraction of some kind, but other factors can exist and still be a core part of being aspec for that person.

 

5 hours ago, serpentyne said:

which I've seen as a common misconception. I also wish that someone had told me when I was younger that I could want to date and still be aro, because it probably would have smoothed the way of my own journey.

 

There's nothing wrong with being single for life if you want to. Live your life the way you like.

I totally agree that it's important to say "you don't have to be X to be Y," or "you can want to have a partner and still be aro," but it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive with the statement that "being aro often includes a strong desire not to be in partnered relationships at all" or at least "a strong desire not to be in a relationship that includes certain romantic or sexual elements." This is a part of the identity and experience for those who experience it, but not for others.

 

11 minutes ago, Frenchace said:

But isn't it a misconception to say that not dating can't be linked to being aro ?

The reason I don't date is my aromanticism. It feels weird to see people say it is not the case. Of course I know that there are aro people who do date, but I don't think it really helps to say that because they exist, I don't, or that I am a misconception or a stereotype. It would be better to say that different people relate to their identity differently, if you ask me.

We really need to get used to the idea in our community of "optional components" of aro and ace identities, components which are at once central to the experience of many who identify that way, and yet not necessary in order to identify with that way.  Things that aren't a requirement, yet also aren't irrelevant or external to that identity, either.

"Not wanting sex ever" is a central part of being asexual for many people, and "not wanting romantic relationships ever" is a central part of being aromantic for many.  These things are not irrelevant or eternal to their identity, it's very much central to it, but that doesn't mean that it's a requirement.  Likewise, the fact it is a requirement does not mean it's entirely irrelevant or divorced from aro/ace identity either.

[Snao Cone]

2 hours ago, Alienated Asexual said:

We really need to get used to the idea in our community of "optional components" of aro and ace identities, components which are at once central to the experience of many who identify that way, and yet not necessary in order to identify with that way.  Things that aren't a requirement, yet also aren't irrelevant or external to that identity, either.

Absolutely. I think a lot of explanations of aro and ace identities jump right into that higher level of defending what may seem like logical anomalies, which can be seen as imposing and reinforcing allonormativity on aro and/or ace people, when the way these orientations lead many to not want these things haven't yet been understood or accepted.

 

"I'm aromantic" should be understood and accepted as a logical and natural reason for not wanting to date. And yet I'm far too often corrected by aro and/or ace people for saying that...about myself. 

[Alienated Asexual]

2 hours ago, Snaolent Night said:

Absolutely. I think a lot of explanations of aro and ace identities jump right into that higher level of defending what may seem like logical anomalies, which can be seen as imposing and reinforcing allonormativity on aro and/or ace people, when the way these orientations lead many to not want these things haven't yet been understood or accepted.

Right! It's a kind of logical fallacy at work -- one which is surprisingly common, given the many of years of aspec advocacy we've had by now.  You'd think that because we've have developed all this terminology, we'd also have developed a consistent narrative approach to explaining these 'contradictions', with advocacy that accommodates it.  

 

It doesn't have to be a simplistic binary of "this thing is CENTRAL to the identity of asexuality/aromanticism and thus it must be present for an aro/ace to be considered valid," OR ELSE "it's not central, we have to paint this as irrelevant, as external to aro/ace identity, as an inexplicable correlation, or a stereotype." We're all reasonably smart people; we should be able to work out why so many people who are ace aren't into sex and why so many people who are aro aren't into romantic relationships--without concluding these are things that MUST be present or else that they're irrelevant.  

 

Sex-aversion is integral to many ace experiences, romance-aversion is integral to many aro experiences, and dysphoria is integral to many trans experiences.  None of these are requirements, but they're not exactly "coincidental correlations."   They're very much related, they're very much part of these identities.  Just not an essential or obligatory component, and not present for all.

 

Quote

"I'm aromantic" should be understood and accepted as a logical and natural reason for not wanting to date. And yet I'm far too often corrected by aro and/or ace people for saying that...about myself. 

Which is...really frustrating and irritating, right!? And somehow...hard to explain.  Like, why would anyone do that? It's like people believe that's the only way they can "defend" sex-favorable or romance-favourable people is by invalidating the experience of of sex/romance averse people, by claiming those experiences aren't related to their orientation, that there is no connection between being ace or aro and 'not wanting to do that thing'.  Because that "component" of their experience either belongs as a central part of that identity and thus is present ALWAYS, or else it's not part of the identity at all.  

"It's gotta be a binary--and MY side's gonna win the fight!"

[rainbowocollie]

As someone who is "almost aromantic", it's defined by not experiencing romantic attraction and/or not having romantic desire. I'm actually more open to "desire without attraction" in the instance of aromanticism being a thing (cupioromantic), than I am to the same concept being applied to asexuality. Maybe because romantic attraction is much more easy to differentiate.