Jump to content

Archived

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

ithaca

WTFromantic - question for aromantics

Recommended Posts

ithaca

Hey there!

i'm still here discussing terminology. So, I came across this term several times now. WTFromantic. At first I thought it was a joke, but apparently it's not.

Definition: Wtfromantic is a very loose definition. A wtfromantic will typically be someone on the aromantic spectrum, who does not experience romanticism in the traditional manner, but who cannot fully say they are aromantic or grey-aromantic. It is usually used by someone who knows they are not a full romantic, but has no better term for what they are. The specific meanings of the identity is up to each individual. *

Wtfromantics may differ from grey-aromantics in many ways. While grey-aro individuals are those who fall somewhere along a line in between romantic and aromantic, wtfromantics may not be on the line at all. Wtfromantic is generally used as a catch-all term for those who fall somewhere in the category of semiromantic or alternatively romantic, but do not better fit into any other label.

So I don't understand the difference with Grey-Aromantic, even if they try to explain it. What does it mean? How is it different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Borja

A Grey-romantic is someone who experiences very few crushes. A WTFromantic have "weird" crushes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Asexy51

WTF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siggy

The wtfromantic/gray-aro distinction makes sense to me. It's the difference between being in between and being off the map. For example, there's this gay/straight binary. Bisexual people say, "It's not a binary, it's a spectrum, and I'm in between!" And asexuals say, "I don't even fit on that spectrum!"

As I usually see it used, WTFromantic people want close relationships that aren't romantic. They might have lots of squishes (ie platonic crushes) or something. WTFromantic could mean other things too.

WTFromantic may seem like a rather strange term, but that's just because it comes from the non-AVEN communities, and you're all stuck on AVEN. ;) There are actually a lot of words which are popular outside of AVEN, but not popular here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nogitsune

Hm, yeah, as far as I know, WTFromantic tends to mean not really getting that difference between romantic and platonic feelings everyone else is talking about, while being a grey-aromantic can mean knowing what the difference is but also knowing that you rarely experience romantic attraction or experience it differently than other people.

Of course, it's pretty complicated. Like, I identify as aromantic because know I don't experience the feelings I have for other people as being romantic in nature, but if you asked me what the difference is, I would be hard-pressed to come up with an answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maven

WTFromantic is a newer term on the aromantic spectrum, and it's currently used as a bit of a catch-all (much in the way grey-a is sometimes used as a blanket term for someone between asexual and sexual). The way I've seen it used isn't the definition you have listed Ith, it's closer to the one Nogitsune used. From the Aromantic FAQ wiki:

WTFromantic: a person on the aromantic spectrum who doesn’t see the lines between romance and friendship. Any of the following may also apply: cannot define romantic attraction and therefore do not know whether they experience it, have emotions between platonic and romantic attraction, or want to be in a queerplatonic relationship

None of that is to say that someone who calls themselves aromantic/grey-romantic/demi cannot want to be in a QP relationship, but often times it is assumed that an aromantic does not want a relationship outside of basic friendship. People who are looking for a QPP sometimes differentiate themselves by saying that they are WTFromantic.

...I hope I didn't make things more confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ithaca

The wtfromantic/gray-aro distinction makes sense to me. It's the difference between being in between and being off the map. For example, there's this gay/straight binary. Bisexual people say, "It's not a binary, it's a spectrum, and I'm in between!" And asexuals say, "I don't even fit on that spectrum!"

But the difference between WTF and Gray-Aro? Because if you look at the prefixes you used for the comparison you used bi-sexual and a-sexual, and I can't see the correlation. How does someone fall out of the romantic spectrum and is NOT aromantic nor gray-aromantic? Shouldn't "Aromantic" be kinda the same of asexual, but on the romantic spectrum instead of the sexual one?

WTFromantic is a newer term on the aromantic spectrum, and it's currently used as a bit of a catch-all (much in the way grey-a is sometimes used as a blanket term for someone between asexual and sexual). The way I've seen it used isn't the definition you have listed Ith, it's closer to the one Nogitsune used. From the Aromantic FAQ wiki:

WTFromantic: a person on the aromantic spectrum who doesn’t see the lines between romance and friendship. Any of the following may also apply: cannot define romantic attraction and therefore do not know whether they experience it, have emotions between platonic and romantic attraction, or want to be in a queerplatonic relationship

None of that is to say that someone who calls themselves aromantic/grey-romantic/demi cannot want to be in a QP relationship, but often times it is assumed that an aromantic does not want a relationship outside of basic friendship. People who are looking for a QPP sometimes differentiate themselves by saying that they are WTFromantic.

...I hope I didn't make things more confusing.

I understand (kinda) what WTFromantic is a little better now, but it still sounds like gray-aromantic. You explained the difference with aromantic (I bolded it), but why is the term WTFromantic needed when there's gray-aromantic? What's the purpose of it? What difference does it describe?

Hm, yeah, as far as I know, WTFromantic tends to mean not really getting that difference between romantic and platonic feelings everyone else is talking about, while being a grey-aromantic can mean knowing what the difference is but also knowing that you rarely experience romantic attraction or experience it differently than other people.

Isn't gray-aromantic supposed to be a sort of umbrella between aro and romantic? I didn't think gray meant something specific, that can be opposed to something specific as well in the grey-area between romantic and aromantic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027

Let me guess, is this from the same people that came up with zucchini?

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MinusCelsius

Yes, a wonderful new term that should ensure we'll all be taken more serious. I hereby come out as WTFromantic ROFLsexual. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nogitsune

Isn't gray-aromantic supposed to be a sort of umbrella between aro and romantic? I didn't think gray meant something specific, that can be opposed to something specific as well in the grey-area between romantic and aromantic.

I didn't intend to say that grey-aromantic means something specific in this sense, I just tried to explain what (as I understand it) WTFromantic means that being a grey aro doesn't (necessarily) entail. WTFromantic, I think, implies some confusion about the difference between romantic and platonic attraction. Maybe it could be considered a subcategory of the grey area, sort of like with demisexuality and the grey area on the (a)sexual spectrum, but I have no idea about that. I do think it can be a very useful label, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siggy

The wtfromantic/gray-aro distinction makes sense to me. It's the difference between being in between and being off the map. For example, there's this gay/straight binary. Bisexual people say, "It's not a binary, it's a spectrum, and I'm in between!" And asexuals say, "I don't even fit on that spectrum!"

But the difference between WTF and Gray-Aro? Because if you look at the prefixes you used for the comparison you used bi-sexual and a-sexual, and I can't see the correlation. How does someone fall out of the romantic spectrum and is NOT aromantic nor gray-aromantic? Shouldn't "Aromantic" be kinda the same of asexual, but on the romantic spectrum instead of the sexual one?

I think you were taking the analogy more seriously than I was. The point is that you can't just simplify everything to a spectrum. No matter what spectrum you come up with, someone will say they don't fit on it. The romantic spectrum assumes that we can easily distinguish between romantic and non-romantic attraction, and some people can't do that. Romantic attraction is really a collection of different things that don't always go together.

If it makes you feel better, I think gray-aromantic and wtfromantic are not as distinct as the aromantic wiki would have you believe. They're synonyms with slightly different meanings. I can imagine using them interchangeably in many situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maven

Let me guess, is this from the same people that came up with zucchini?

:rolleyes:

Yes, a wonderful new term that should ensure we'll all be taken more serious. I hereby come out as WTFromantic ROFLsexual. :wacko:

guys, this isn't helpful. I know people on AVEN have a disdain for the term zucchini, but it is widely accepted in the aromantic community as another word for QPP and doesn't need to be ridiculed. Nor do "the people who came up with zucchini" need to be ridiculed.

Ith, if you want to follow the same terminology as asexuality in terms of grey-a mirroring grey-romantic, then yes, it makes sense that WTFromantic falls under the umbrella term of it. But just like demisexual is considered a subcatagory of grey-a (and demiromantic a subcatagory of grey-romantic), WTFromantic is considered it's own subcatagory. Whether it should even be under grey-a, I don't know. Honestly, I see WTFromantic as more the agnostic side to aromanticism - they don't see the lines between platonic and romantic relationships, so are there lines? For them, they don't know. It's a different idea from whether or not you experience romantic attraction (which is the focus of grey-romanticism) or under what circumstances do you experience romantic attraction - instead, they're almost questioning the existence of romantic attraction.

ETA: But as Siggy said, it is a new term. Who knows if it will even stick? It might disappear from the vocabulary of aromantics in the next couple months, or it might be hammered out into something more definite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
guys, this isn't helpful. I know people on AVEN have a disdain for the term zucchini, but it is widely accepted in the aromantic community as another word for QPP and doesn't need to be ridiculed. Nor do "the people who came up with zucchini" need to be ridiculed.

The bottom line is that buzzterms like these aren't going to help those who actually identify this way with being taken seriously. The terms sound bizarre and ridiculous ("Hi! I'm asexual but double-you-tee-eff-romantic!"), and therefore some people will treat them as exactly that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siggy

Let me guess, is this from the same people that came up with zucchini?

:rolleyes:

Yeah, actually... Hey, you may make fun of the tumblr and blogging communities, and some of that is justified, but they have plenty of legitimate reasons to make fun of AVENites as well. AVENites are a bunch of newbs who can't advance their conceptions very far because they're too busy dealing with other newbs. As for tumblr people, they spend way too much time dealing with trolls. They know it too, and they can't stop. We're all ridiculous in our own ways. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maven
guys, this isn't helpful. I know people on AVEN have a disdain for the term zucchini, but it is widely accepted in the aromantic community as another word for QPP and doesn't need to be ridiculed. Nor do "the people who came up with zucchini" need to be ridiculed.

The bottom line is that buzzterms like these aren't going to help those who actually identify this way with being taken seriously. The terms sound bizarre and ridiculous ("Hi! I'm asexual but double-you-tee-eff-romantic!"), and therefore some people will treat them as exactly that.

uhuh. Because the word "squish" isn't completely ridiculous either. Or "grey-a" or "demisexual" for that matter. There are terms that are going to be unfamiliar and sound funny in any new subject (deadheading, anyone?) but that doesn't mean you need to contribute to the ridicule. The whole "tough love" idea (they're going to be laughed at anyway! Might as well start it now so they get a heads up!) isn't necessary. If you don't like the terms, don't use them. But you don't need to make fun of those who do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nogitsune

uhuh. Because the word "squish" isn't completely ridiculous either. Or "grey-a" or "demisexual" for that matter. There are terms that are going to be unfamiliar and sound funny in any new subject (deadheading, anyone?) but that doesn't mean you need to contribute to the ridicule. The whole "tough love" idea (they're going to be laughed at anyway! Might as well start it now so they get a heads up!) isn't necessary. If you don't like the terms, don't use them. But you don't need to make fun of those who do.

This.

Think a label is not helpful to you? Just don't use it. It's that simple. Let other people have the terms that help them describe themselves and their experiences, for cake's sake.

Sure, at least some people will make fun of those who don't use the label, too, but anyone who sinks to the level of trying to invalidate others' identities by pointing at ~oh so ridiculous~ terms is not looking to be an ally in the first place. I'd never talk about finding "Mister Right" if I was looking for a guy to spend my life with, but just because the term seems odd to me doesn't mean I end up lying on the floor laughing every time I hear it, concluding that romantic attraction obviously doesn't exist because I don't like the words people are using. (And I'm sure I could come up with a better comparison if I wasn't in a hurry and tired as heck.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MinusCelsius

It also isn't helpful if people under the same umbrella - in this case, anything from queer to asexual - can't take things serious anymore. And frankly, I can't. WTFromantic is as ridicolous as it gets. Can you imagine ANY adult person, openly speaking about their orientation, and using that word? I can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gilnokoibito

After reading through this (and, I know, what I'm about to say isn't very conducive to the original topic but)...

I was actually under the impression that WTFromantic started here on AVEN.

I've seen it used a lot in the last year on here. And several months ago, while questioning my romantic orientation (from thinking I was heteromantic simply because when I did get crushes/squishes they were on males to finding out I was along the aromantic side of things because romance really ain't my thing)I realized that WTFromantic (though weird sounding) soundly fit me in definition and I found out about it through several threads and posts here on AVEN (and if it did not originate here then, I don't really care...AVEN and informative sites (non-forum/Tumblr related) are all I hang on asexual wise -so this is one of the very few places I get info on such matters on).

I can't see the lines between friends and romantic partners. To me, they're all the same (in fact the only thing that makes romantic partners, romantic to me is that they call me their girlfriend [which I find weird as hell for whatever reason...]) Sometimes, to cut things short and sweet I use the term aromantic, sometimes I'll be more precise and go with WTFromantic, because to me, it narrows how I am down a little more. I've also seen it described before as liking the 'ideal' of romance in your head, but not in real life. Fits me to a T! (Also, I never found the definitions of Grey-romantic to fit me much at all, as strange as some may think of that.)

So, yeah, it sounds strange but, to me, as long as it helps me out and lets me know that there are others out there who identify like me, I say, who cares that it sounds funny! It's helpful to me and that's all that matters as far as I'm concerned. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
uhuh. Because the word "squish" isn't completely ridiculous either.

I do think it's kind of ridiculous, but I understand the play off words it is trying to make (synonymous with "crush", a far more easily recognized term) so at least it has that going for it. I still would never use it in everyday conversation, nor have I ever known someone personally who has.

Or "grey-a" or "demisexual" for that matter.

These terms make infinitely more sense than the name of a seemingly random fruit/vegetable/thing, or arbitrarily sticking Whiskey Tango Foxtrot in front of a word because you don't know any better means to further refine it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MinusCelsius

The definition "appreciate the idea of romance, but don't want it for oneself" explains a damn lot more than "wtfromantic". So why make up a silly sounding name for something that no-one will understand anyway? Go tell anyone you're wtfromantic. If that person doesn't read this forum, you'll have to explain it. And even here, it doesn't seem to be a widely understood term. Grey-A and demiromantic are terms that are understood at least in the asexual community, and possibly some other places.

I rather have no label and know I can describe what I am in a few words than embarrass myself with "wtfromantic", which makes me sound - at best - like an immature hipster who collects labels just to sound exotic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strivna

Please refrain from ridiculing how others identify themselves, as this is in violation of the AVEN Terms of Service. Continuing to post in such a manner may result in this thread being locked and may result in disciplinary action.

Strivna

Asexual Q&A Moderator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027

My beef isn't with how people are identifying themselves; it's with the name of this term. It doesn't describe what it's supposed to represent in the least. It isn't even pronounceable, for that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5_♦♣

What? You've never heard anyone say 'what the f-k' Phil? As WTFromantic would be pronounced just like that, only with the word romantic added on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
What? You've never heard anyone say 'what the f-k' Phil? As WTFromantic would be pronounced just like that, only with the word romantic added on.

The term I saw here was "WTFromantic", not "Whatthefuckromantic"

Which still doesn't save it from sounding ridiculous, unfortunately :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MinusCelsius

Same. I'm fine with whatever people wanna label themselves as, but silly sounding terms do have an impact on the community as a whole. Isn't the biggest issue we face that people don't take asexuality serious/think it's not really a thing? Using terms that sound like a joke doesn't help the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
snufflebottoms

Same. I'm fine with whatever people wanna label themselves as, but silly sounding terms do have an impact on the community as a whole. Isn't the biggest issue we face that people don't take asexuality serious/think it's not really a thing? Using terms that sound like a joke doesn't help the case.

I agree. I feel like AVEN has a problem with having to have a whole slew of labels that don't make much sense and quite frankly are not truly different from current definitions. When people try to bring up points about why these labels are silly or unhelpful, we're "skating on thin ice" so to speak. As as I understood, the whole grey label existed for people who were not happy with aromantic and romantic labels, which are in an of themselves already split from standard orientations labels. But sex and romance ARE very different, so the split is warranted. Like grey-a is for people who aren't totally asexual but not completely sexual, grey-romantic can be used for anyone who can't say they are romantic but can't say they aren't romantic. The grey area is there for a variety of people (who are welcome to explain why and how they are grey)

Using l33tspeak combined with cussing is quite possibly the worst way to get the world to take us seriously. WTFromantic, if not found on the AVEN wiki, appears to be ridiculing the asexual community at large.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Midori Ace

Well, I can't speak for all wtfromantics, but I identify as wtfromantic because I can't figure out what the fuck my romantic orientation is. This is not the same as questioning. I spent a lot of time questioning. I tried on labels like panromantic and aromantic, but I can't say those labels fit. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I'm not sure I'll ever be able to figure it out. I don't feel comfortable calling myself grey-romantic either, because then I would be saying that I know I fall somewhere in between romantic and aromantic. But I don't know that. I could be fully aromantic, and I just haven't figured it out yet. I could be fully panromantic, and I'm just really confused on what constitutes romantic. The fact that I am questioning whether I am even romantic at all does make it fairly likely that I fall somewhere on the aromantic spectrum, but I have no idea where. Perhaps the idea of romantic orientation is just not useful for me, personally.

So, I came to this point, where I decided to stop worrying about what my romantic orientation is. Perhaps some day I'll find some more information that will help me figure out my romantic orientation (e.g. figuring out what the difference between squishes and crushes is), but until then I don't see any reason to keep trying to pin it down with specific, precise terms (if it even can be pinned down like that). Identifying as wtfromantic is my way of saying that I can't figure out what my romantic orientation is and may never be able to, and I'm not even sure romantic orientation is a useful concept for me, and I am ok with that.

In the words of Duckwinter's Night (whose tumblr I found by googling "what is wtfromantic"), wtfromantic means “I don’t know what constitutes romantic attraction and therefore cannot know what my orientation is.” That's about where I'm at.

As to people saying that wtfromantic is a silly term or that it will confuse people or make people take asexuals less seriously, so what if people want to use a term that sounds silly to you? Most new terms for new concepts sound silly at first. Personally, I think the term allosexual sounds silly (but I'm sure I'll get used to it once I hear it enough times). And it's not like wtfromantic is going to require any more explaining than terms like panromantic or aromantic. Also, how is a few asexuals identifying as a romantic orientation that sounds silly to you going to reflect badly on all asexuals? I'd wager the vast majority of people who have even heard the term wtfromantic are asexuals, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
test account

A post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5_♦♣

:lol: @ SGE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
runester

Oh "Sweet", can you please make room for me in your 'simpler world'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...