Jump to content

The Aromantic thread


Guest

Recommended Posts

*pops in head*

Silly question but:

What exactly defines a queerplatonic relationship to aromantics?

Hmm, I don't think there's just one definition of the term, except maybe "is not what society generally considers a romantic relationship, but not what's usually understood as 'just' friendship, either". Maybe this blog post is helpful: http://writingfromfactorx.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/my-thoughts-on-the-word-zucchini/ ? It's mainly about the word zucchini, but it also talks about why the concept is so important to some/many aromantics.

I should probably also note that not only aromatics can be in queerplatonic relationships.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But some people who consider themselves aromantic claim to be in love and want a committed relationship. So while 99% of you seem to agree, there's 1% of you who are outliers and it's hard to fit their perspective into your perspective because they are, to be honest, opposing. And while I get that no one on AVEN (well not no one, but not many) will say "dude, what you're describing isn't aromanticism", you do have to understand that for those of us who AREN'T aromantic, having the majority say "aromantics don't want exclusive relationships and don't fall in love" and then having the minority say "we fall in love and LOVE relationships"... it's fucking confusing.

That is confusing. And it's because people (including aromantics) are using the wrong definition (in my opinion). Aromantic just means lack of romantic attraction. It has absolutely nothing to do with romantic relationships or love or wanting those things vs not wanting those things. Unfortunately, it seems to have become an "easy" way to define aromanticism since most aromantics don't want a romantic relationship. It's like asexual being defined as "don't want sex." Not the correct definition but true for most of the community.

Of course, then you get into what romantic attraction actually is and everything goes to hell. :P I just know that I've never felt any kind of attraction whatsoever so I can safely say that I don't experience romantic attraction. We need some romantics in here to better explain just what romantic attraction is. Because we aromantics are speculating in here. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

But some people who consider themselves aromantic claim to be in love and want a committed relationship. So while 99% of you seem to agree, there's 1% of you who are outliers and it's hard to fit their perspective into your perspective because they are, to be honest, opposing. And while I get that no one on AVEN (well not no one, but not many) will say "dude, what you're describing isn't aromanticism", you do have to understand that for those of us who AREN'T aromantic, having the majority say "aromantics don't want exclusive relationships and don't fall in love" and then having the minority say "we fall in love and LOVE relationships"... it's fucking confusing.

That is confusing. And it's because people (including aromantics) are using the wrong definition (in my opinion). Aromantic just means lack of romantic attraction. It has absolutely nothing to do with romantic relationships or love or wanting those things vs not wanting those things. Unfortunately, it seems to have become an "easy" way to define aromanticism since most aromantics don't want a romantic relationship. It's like asexual being defined as "don't want sex." Not the correct definition but true for most of the community.

Of course, then you get into what romantic attraction actually is and everything goes to hell. :P I just know that I've never felt any kind of attraction whatsoever so I can safely say that I don't experience romantic attraction. We need some romantics in here to better explain just what romantic attraction is. Because we aromantics are speculating in here. :P

I wish I could help. I'm bisexual and homoromantic, so I know the difference between being romantically attracted to someone, sexually attracted to someone, and attracted to someone in both ways (or neither way). I've experienced all of them. It seems to me that some aromantics describe something that I can't separate from my own romantic feelings. Others, like Maven or like WTF, describe things that fit very well with my own experience of not being romantically attracted to someone that I am, in other ways, attracted to.

I don't know how much better I can describe romantic attraction other than feeling like that person is special... very special... you feel differently when you're around them and you want to be around them all the time... you think about them all the time... their happiness literally feels like your happiness (impossible to describe if you haven't felt it). I agree with you that wanting or not wanting a relationship is beside the point.

I feel like I'm probably on the lower end of romantic feelings, in that with most of my partners I'm somewhat mystified by their expressions of love. However, I'm also a very logical person, so it doesn't surprise me that I'm unable to conceptualize what they're talking about because what they're talking about isn't logical. Its not that I don't feel romantic attraction -- I do -- I feel all that stuff that I listed up there, but it doesn't necessarily translate into the same imperative that it does for other people. That, I consider a personality trait, not a romantic orientation. How I filter my feelings, how my feelings are expressed, what I want to do with my feelings... those are all personality-driven. None of that changes my romantic orientation. So, yes, I do think that some people who call themselves aromantic are wrong about their label, because I think they are confusing their personality with their orientation. I can see how that would be easy to do. I also agree with you, almagast, that we take shortcuts in our understanding, so the shortcut becomes "I don't want a relationship".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stormharrier

So a squish doesn't actually differ from a crush in any way, then... it just may lead to something different than most crushes lead to.

It's like... a basketball doesn't cease being a basketball just because you're kicking it around a soccer field. A crush is still a crush, it just won't ever develop into a romantic relationship if you don't want a romantic relationship. Is that more accurate?

I have heard squishes be referred to as 'friend crushes' before, so I guess that could be right. You just use a different word sometimes so people don't get confused and think you're after a romantic relationship (since that's the usual response to a crush). Also I'm only going on the one strange attraction I had to someone, so maybe other people would describe it differently.

You make an interesting point about personality traits though. Do I experience the same feelings as other people (albeit very infrequently) and just interpret them differently based on the fact I have no desire for a romantic relationship? Or are they actually different feelings that just sound similar sometimes because it's hard to properly describe the difference between two things if you've only ever experienced one of them? Not sure I can answer that without turning into someone else and experiencing the way they work.

Another question is can an attraction really be called 'romantic' if you don't want anything romantic out of it? So does it even make sense to try separating your feelings and your response to them? If one person feels some form of attraction and wants to enter a relationship with the object of their affection, can you really say that's the same feeling as the attraction a second person has if their response to it is to attempt a frienship?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So does it even make sense to try separating your feelings and your response to them?

It's a very good question. One I wish we spent more time talking about. In other areas of asexuality, feelings and responses are separated. For example, I've seen about six million posts on AVEN about people who are aroused or attracted briefly but then it disappears... disappears, no doubt, because they don't have that response to act on it (or are morally opposed to it, or are repressed or repulsed by it, or any other reason...). In those cases, people are identifying not with the feeling but with their response to the feeling.

But then look just at aromantics. You have one aromantic who feels love and wants to be in a committed, romantic relationship, but calls themselves asexual because of the motivations behind their desires. We have another aromantic who really wants to be in a close, committed relationship, but doesn't have the same feelings as their romantic counterpart, so that person is basing their orientation on feelings, not on motivations. and then there's a third aromantic who feels all the same stuff as a romantic but they don't want a relationship, so they are basing their orientation on their response, not on feelings OR motivation.

So we have a group called "aromantic", but so far as I can tell the only unifying factor is the word "aromantic". Feelings, emotions, motivations, and relationship preferences are all scattered.

Does that help explain why this is so confusing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5_♦♣

Yeah, diversity is so confusing. :rolleyes:

Seriously, do you really expect all aros to be the same, Skullery?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But some people who consider themselves aromantic claim to be in love and want a committed relationship. So while 99% of you seem to agree, there's 1% of you who are outliers and it's hard to fit their perspective into your perspective because they are, to be honest, opposing. And while I get that no one on AVEN (well not no one, but not many) will say "dude, what you're describing isn't aromanticism", you do have to understand that for those of us who AREN'T aromantic, having the majority say "aromantics don't want exclusive relationships and don't fall in love" and then having the minority say "we fall in love and LOVE relationships"... it's fucking confusing.

That is confusing. And it's because people (including aromantics) are using the wrong definition (in my opinion). Aromantic just means lack of romantic attraction. It has absolutely nothing to do with romantic relationships or love or wanting those things vs not wanting those things. Unfortunately, it seems to have become an "easy" way to define aromanticism since most aromantics don't want a romantic relationship. It's like asexual being defined as "don't want sex." Not the correct definition but true for most of the community.

Of course, then you get into what romantic attraction actually is and everything goes to hell. :P I just know that I've never felt any kind of attraction whatsoever so I can safely say that I don't experience romantic attraction. We need some romantics in here to better explain just what romantic attraction is. Because we aromantics are speculating in here. :P

I wish I could help. I'm bisexual and homoromantic, so I know the difference between being romantically attracted to someone, sexually attracted to someone, and attracted to someone in both ways (or neither way). I've experienced all of them. It seems to me that some aromantics describe something that I can't separate from my own romantic feelings. Others, like Maven or like WTF, describe things that fit very well with my own experience of not being romantically attracted to someone that I am, in other ways, attracted to.

I don't know how much better I can describe romantic attraction other than feeling like that person is special... very special... you feel differently when you're around them and you want to be around them all the time... you think about them all the time... their happiness literally feels like your happiness (impossible to describe if you haven't felt it). I agree with you that wanting or not wanting a relationship is beside the point.

I feel like I'm probably on the lower end of romantic feelings, in that with most of my partners I'm somewhat mystified by their expressions of love. However, I'm also a very logical person, so it doesn't surprise me that I'm unable to conceptualize what they're talking about because what they're talking about isn't logical. Its not that I don't feel romantic attraction -- I do -- I feel all that stuff that I listed up there, but it doesn't necessarily translate into the same imperative that it does for other people. That, I consider a personality trait, not a romantic orientation. How I filter my feelings, how my feelings are expressed, what I want to do with my feelings... those are all personality-driven. None of that changes my romantic orientation. So, yes, I do think that some people who call themselves aromantic are wrong about their label, because I think they are confusing their personality with their orientation. I can see how that would be easy to do. I also agree with you, almagast, that we take shortcuts in our understanding, so the shortcut becomes "I don't want a relationship".

I've always defined romantic attraction as non-sexual attraction. An attraction that just lacks a sexual component. Does that sound about right? (We'll just ignore aesthetic/platonic attraction for now since I think it's slightly redundant and I prefer to think of it as aesthetic appreciation rather than attraction).

So does it even make sense to try separating your feelings and your response to them?

It's a very good question. One I wish we spent more time talking about. In other areas of asexuality, feelings and responses are separated. For example, I've seen about six million posts on AVEN about people who are aroused or attracted briefly but then it disappears... disappears, no doubt, because they don't have that response to act on it (or are morally opposed to it, or are repressed or repulsed by it, or any other reason...). In those cases, people are identifying not with the feeling but with their response to the feeling.

But then look just at aromantics. You have one aromantic who feels love and wants to be in a committed, romantic relationship, but calls themselves asexual because of the motivations behind their desires. We have another aromantic who really wants to be in a close, committed relationship, but doesn't have the same feelings as their romantic counterpart, so that person is basing their orientation on feelings, not on motivations. and then there's a third aromantic who feels all the same stuff as a romantic but they don't want a relationship, so they are basing their orientation on their response, not on feelings OR motivation.

So we have a group called "aromantic", but so far as I can tell the only unifying factor is the word "aromantic". Feelings, emotions, motivations, and relationship preferences are all scattered.

Does that help explain why this is so confusing?

Oh yeah, even aromantics are confused. This is why we have people wondering if they're really aromantic or not. Or we have people who get into romantic relationships and say "well, I guess I'm not aromantic." I don't see the sense in this since an asexual in a sexual relationship is still asexual even if they like having sex. Why wouldn't an aromantic in a romantic relationship be the same way? Still aromantic even if they like the romance? Bisexuals are still bisexual even if they have a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex. Relationship status or lack thereof does not change one's orientation be it sexual or romantic. It's all about attraction. (I know you already agree with me on this, I just wanted to say it all.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stormharrier

It's a very good question. One I wish we spent more time talking about.

Personally I figure it's easier to go on the response than the feelings themselves cuz they're just way easier to figure out. The unusual feelings I had made me go "what the heck is that??" but, after prodding them a bit and mulling it over for a while, I came to the conclusion I liked my friendship with the other person and the thought of it being anything else was... odd, and not very desirable. So I figured that was enough for me to label it 'not romantic'. If I'd liked the idea of being in a relationship with them, even if I hadn't wanted to actually do it for whatever reason, I'd have gone for 'romantic'.

Does that help explain why this is so confusing?

I agree with you that it's confusing - trying to explain things as insubstantial and unquantifiable as feelings is bound to be! There's a reason I've spent the best part of a year trying to figure out if I was actually aromantic or just something in that general area. The main problem is there isn't a definite line between 'romantic' and 'not' (and in fact there's a considerable fuzzy area in the middle). If you're well away from the border then it's easy enough to tell which side you're on, but if it's something in the middle then all you've got to go on are other people's descriptions and what feels right to you.

So I dunno. I guess all you can do is average the opinions of people using each label to figure out roughly what they mean, and then draw your own lines between them. You may end up with some people who you think are using the wrong one, but that's usually just cuz they put their line somewhere else (or they're so attached to their label that they're ignoring large portions of evidence to the contrary, but in that case you're probably best just nodding and smiling).

Link to post
Share on other sites
AsexyGurl1990

Finding this website is a MAJOR relief! Kind of like when soneone wanders around looking for a cool glass of water, deperately thirtsty, only to stumble and fall at the foot of a fresh water lake.

I'm not so thirsty anymore! :)

To answer the OP, I assumed for the longest time that I might be biromantic for awhile- attracted to qualities in both female and male genders. Not sexually attracted, of course, but by their personalities, dispositions, etc. In fact, in all my 21 years of life, I've been attracted to one guy, and two girls. I thought, "Oh, I must be bisexual. Great." (I come from a Southern Baptist family).

But the more I thought about it, I didn't want to have sex with any of them- at all. I just liked being with them. These people I liked were dating others, an it didn't bother me in the least. Even thinking of being with them exclusively didn't sit right with me, either- I have no desire to "date" or "go out with exclusively" either gender.

I just find that there are some qualities in people I find I like a lot, and it makes me want to get to know that person all the better.

I don't know if that qualifies me as aromantic, but that's my story. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
DirectionOfDreams

I always knew I wasn't interested in having a romantic relationship with anyone, but other people seem to think that I will eventually find the "right person" and fall head over heels. I don't see that happening and honestly don't want it to happen.

One thing I find funny though is how many of my friends come to me for advice about love and their relationships. I feel like I really can't give good advice on the topic since I've never been in a relationship or desired one. But they seem to think I give pretty good advice regardless and come back for more when they have another love "crisis".

Anyone else experience this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
misstanding
One thing I find funny though is how many of my friends come to me for advice about love and their relationships. I feel like I really can't give good advice on the topic since I've never been in a relationship or desired one. But they seem to think I give pretty good advice regardless and come back for more when they have another love "crisis".

Anyone else experience this?

Yes, absolutely. I feel much the same way you describe about the situation - I think my advice is a bit crap, since I really have no idea what I'm talking about.

But I've had a few friends (and one former partner) who prefer to get relationship advice from me, as compared to romantic people. I've actually asked a few of them why, and the reasons tend to be the same: a very logical approach to the situation, an unbiased "outsider" perspective, and what amounts in the end to pretty useful advice. I imagine it's a bit like having a mediator if you're in an argument, where you have someone who isn't involved, directly or indirectly, in the situation to peel away all the emotion and just give an unbiased opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, diversity is so confusing. :rolleyes:

Seriously, do you really expect all aros to be the same, Skullery?

Of course not, but I expect all aros to share something in common... whatever that quality of aromantic is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Imo:

Asexual: You're capable of making sex, you can even like the "general idea" of sex, but don't need to have sex, don't have the urge, etc.

Aromantic: You're capable of having relationship, you can even like the "general idea" of relationships, but don't need to be on a relationship, don't have the urge, etc.

I'm aromantic, but it doesn't mean I don't love people or that I don't have crushes/squishes (It is kinda like having libido and sex drive, liking to watch porn, but having no attraction or desire to have sex) - they're some feelings involved, but is some sort of fascination, not a desire to have a romantic relationship. For me, having crushes/squishes are related to desire for relationship it the same way masturbation is relate to sex. It isn't really related, it is just a kindred/distant relative.

I gotta what it means to be aromantic looking the story of my life and reading about the greek "types of love" (Eros, Agape, Philia, Storge, etc. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love#Ancient_Greek). Imo:

Label - types of love

Romantic Sexual - Eros, Agape, Philia, Storge, Xenia

Romantic Asexual - Agape, Philia, Storge, Xenia

Aromantic Asexual - Philia, Storge, Xenia

Ok, maybe the table was too much. Anyway, for me, the aromanticism is strongly related with the idea of philia, thus I recommend the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philia

The main idea is (for the non-clickers): "All of these different relationships involve getting on well with someone, though Aristotle at times implies that something more like actual liking is required." The squish is not plain linking, it's the "something more", but it isn't properly a romantic/sensual love like Eros or Agape.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gho St Ory Qwan

I may also be digging myself deeper in here. I guess the main difference in my mind is that one would lead to friendship and the other would lead to romance. Perhaps the line is not so clear in real life? Like, in my life (I'm an aromantic sexual), there are people who go into the friend category and people who go into the sex category. Within a couple times of meeting a person I place them in their category (or in the third category of "douchebag" :rolleyes: ) and that's where they stay. People in the friend category are people I'd like to be friends with, people in the sex category I'd like to have sex with and it's pretty obvious who's in which category. There are ranges, like "close friend vs. acquaintance" and "know where the forks are in your kitchen vs. not," but there's no actual crossover. The lines between friendship and romance seem a little more blurry but they're definitely there - I've had friends say "oh, he's just a friend, I could never date him" as well as "I have a crush on him but he doesn't like me, we can't be friends."

Interesting categories you have going there. I don't personally categorize people, or not consciously anyway. I see all as equal but with individual differences, like someone's left handed instead of right handed or likes the color red more than blue. The varying differences carry little meaning in my eyes. Since I'm an aromantic asexual, I wouldn't even have any need for any categories since they're all potential friends, nothing more and nothing less :) It would feel alien for me to actively categorize people based on what kind of relationship I'd like to have with them. There's only one type of relatioship possible for me, ie. platonic friends, so it's an easy choice :D

I'm sort of like this. I don't really categorise people into anything. But I sometimes do find them make me feel unusually relaxed or happy or excited. I want to be around them more because of this. And if they seem to feel unusually good around me I flirt with the idea of being together in a relationship. However, it would just be like being 'best friends' as kids, where you spend more time together, and tell each other everything, and maybe stop around each others houses a lot. And just generally know more and trust eachother more than any one else.

I don't get any feeling from being touched or kissed, I don't understand how I'm supposed to feel in candle lit dinners and being gazed at is creepy. I don't feel things I think are meant to be romantic, they all seem out of place.

At first I thought I was just not a very typically romantic person. But now have decided the feelings of attraction to people I get, get as strong as they do for an adorable kitten. And the desire to live with a cat and provide for it and learn about it, till death do you part, isn't really romantic itself. If you shove a human in there it might seem romantic, but thats due to stereotypes if you ask me.

I don't feel romantic feelings, and don't feel I really understand them, thus I'm aromantic. =/ I still think a relationship would be rather nice though, and hugs are very cute when I'm in the mood.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gho St Ory Qwan

You mentioned in a later post wanting to spend time, share experiences, etc. with your partner. I understand this as a motivation somewhere along the lines of "I want us to live our lives together."

For me (and I refuse to speak for any other aromantic out there because personal experience is so.. personal) my motivation would probably be something more like this "I want to live my life, preferably with you there."

I think that is a pretty big distinction.. but that's just me.

haha beautifully put!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah... I actually like the idea of hugs and all that... just in theory, though. Once someone actually tries to hug me, when I feel sad or something, inside I'm all like "Okay, I get what you're trying to say by this, and I really appreciate the gesture... But you can stop now, because you're starting to make me feel really uncomfortable".

Haha I'm the same. I think oh how nice, a hug. Until they try it on me, lol. A quick 'hi' hug that lasts 00.001 seconds is okay....its those "emotional hugs" that I can't handle!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ankhetperue

I'm curious about this particular identification. I sort of float between this and being romantic. I like to read romantic stories and fan fiction. I have little squishes on actors, characters, and musicians (though sometimes I think I'm drawn more to their quirks and personality traits than anything else). I'm not really interested in having that stuff in my own real life though. The mere thought of being physical or even hugging people is almost repulsive to me. Hmn. It's all a lot to consider sometimes. ^.^;

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stormharrier

Imo:

Asexual: You're capable of making sex, you can even like the "general idea" of sex, but don't need to have sex, don't have the urge, etc.

Aromantic: You're capable of having relationship, you can even like the "general idea" of relationships, but don't need to be on a relationship, don't have the urge, etc.

I'm aromantic, but it doesn't mean I don't love people or that I don't have crushes/squishes (It is kinda like having libido and sex drive, liking to watch porn, but having no attraction or desire to have sex) - they're some feelings involved, but is some sort of fascination, not a desire to have a romantic relationship. For me, having crushes/squishes are related to desire for relationship it the same way masturbation is relate to sex. It isn't really related, it is just a kindred/distant relative.

I gotta what it means to be aromantic looking the story of my life and reading about the greek "types of love" (Eros, Agape, Philia, Storge, etc. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love#Ancient_Greek). Imo:

Label - types of love

Romantic Sexual - Eros, Agape, Philia, Storge, Xenia

Romantic Asexual - Agape, Philia, Storge, Xenia

Aromantic Asexual - Philia, Storge, Xenia

Ok, maybe the table was too much. Anyway, for me, the aromanticism is strongly related with the idea of philia, thus I recommend the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philia

The main idea is (for the non-clickers): "All of these different relationships involve getting on well with someone, though Aristotle at times implies that something more like actual liking is required." The squish is not plain linking, it's the "something more", but it isn't properly a romantic/sensual love like Eros or Agape.

...Wow, that makes so much sense. I'd figured out the gist of it already, but that makes things so much clearer. Thank you!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have little squishes on actors, characters, and musicians (though sometimes I think I'm drawn more to their quirks and personality traits than anything else). I'm not really interested in having that stuff in my own real life though. The mere thought of being physical or even hugging people is almost repulsive to me. Hmn. It's all a lot to consider sometimes. ^.^;

THIS ^^^ :blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

...Wow, that makes so much sense. I'd figured out the gist of it already, but that makes things so much clearer. Thank you!

Plato thing just wasn't working for me, so I looked for other Greeks :)

Since the admins decided not to create an aromantic subforum and talked about linkin aven with other aromantic forum, I starte to look for a forum and found one here:

http://www.asexuality.org/en/index.php?/topic/72911-aroplane-a-new-aromantic-forum/

Anyone here is member on the Aroplane?

Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh* No sub-forum for us. Oh well. Our discussions in this thread seem to come in bursts anyway. I doubt we could sustain a sub-forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5_♦♣

I don't know whether to bother joining an Aro forum since doing so, I can only imagine, would be as awkward it (likely) is/was for sexuals to join AVEN.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5_♦♣

At least you're actually on the spectrum, I'm not. I'm just an ally.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Great WTF

I wish we had more people on aroplane. It's kinda quiet when you're used to the crazy of AVEN.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sussexdowns

I will join aroplane now since my want to be here has been cut in half due to the forum decision. I face enough lack of visibility in my day to day life. And now I feel as though we have been boiled down to a sub topic rather than a large and important spectrum.

*sigh*

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will join aroplane now since my want to be here has been cut in half due to the forum decision. I face enough lack of visibility in my day to day life. And now I feel as though we have been boiled down to a sub topic rather than a large and important spectrum.

*sigh*

I'm surprised to find that I sort of feel the same way. I voted for the forum, but I wasn't really excited about it or anything... and now I realize I'd really gotten attached to the idea. I'm trying not to take the decision "personally", but eh. I'll definitely check aroplane out and see where to go from there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sussexdowns

Yeah, it was the same with me. I just find some of it hypocritical in the sense that they did not want to make one romantic orientation seem more important than another (even though most of us actively suggested a romantic orientation based forum) and yet there is an asexual relationships forum. I am aware this is an aexual forum. But not all of us consider our romantic relationships "asexual". I don't consider mine as such. And I don't believe it fits into that category.

I may be being "touchy", but alas.

And Areoplane seems to be filled with really great people. I suggest it to you all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will join aroplane now since my want to be here has been cut in half due to the forum decision. I face enough lack of visibility in my day to day life. And now I feel as though we have been boiled down to a sub topic rather than a large and important spectrum.

*sigh*

I'm surprised to find that I sort of feel the same way. I voted for the forum, but I wasn't really excited about it or anything... and now I realize I'd really gotten attached to the idea. I'm trying not to take the decision "personally", but eh. I'll definitely check aroplane out and see where to go from there.

The forum decision pisses me off. You aro's are some of my favorite AVENites!! :( Don't gooooo......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...