heartless-aro - Tumblr blog

[heartless-aro]

Cupid missed

[heartless-aro]

thought i could make more pride variations of the flag from this post

(not all flags are here because they were to hard to find good colours for)

intersex flag (io and crab nebula)

asexual flag (hubble deep field, moon surface, earth clouds, crab nebula)

aromantic flag (hubble deep field, moon surface, earth clouds, green algae, more green algae)

edit: just realised that's upside down, so i guess aros are signalling distress now sorry guys) (upside down flag means distress)

edit 2: aro flag the right way up in space flags part 3

trans flag (neptune, pink lake, clouds, pink lake, neptune)

non-binary flag (io, earth clouds, crab nebula, hubble deep space field)

bisexual flag (aurora, crab nebula, neptune)

pansexual flag (aurora, io, neptune)

that's it so far. i might do some more if i get bored though.

free to use :)

pt 2 of space flags

pt 3 of space flags

pt 4 of space flags

[heartless-aro]

i cast "whole entire world fall in love forever "

[heartless-aro]

Partnering aromantic writing advice

The topic of aromantic characters dating is a bit of a contentious one in fandom spaces, but I think that it can be a great way to represent partnering aros if you do it right. I'm not an author, but I am a partnering aro, so I want to give some advice (or at least food for though) to those who may want to pair aromantic characters with partners in their fictional works.

1. Start with their aromanticism first.

This is very important. Do not slap their aromanticism on as an afterthought to their relationships. Develop their aromanticism first.

How do they feel about traditionally romantic activities? Do they enjoy them? Do they feel indifferent to them? Are they averse to them? Do they perceive those actions as inherently romantic in nature, or do they not? Does it depend on the action?

How do they experience attraction? Do they experience some amount of romantic attraction, or none at all? Does it happen only under very specific circumstances? Do they experience other forms of emotional attraction, like platonic or alterous attraction? Do they experience physical forms of attraction, like sexual, sensual, or aesthetic attraction?

Why have they chosen to be partnering? Are they doing it to fill an emotional need, in a world where friends often don't prioritize each other enough? Are they doing it to fill a physical need? Are they doing it because they enjoy traditionally romantic activities, regardless of whether or not they personally view those activities as romantic? Are they doing it for financial, social, and/or medical security? Are they doing it out of social pressure? Are they doing it because they perceive no inherent difference between partnership and friendship, and don't object to either?

Are they romantically partnering, or are they partnering in a different way, such as queerplatonic partnership? Are they partnering in multiple ways? What does that distinction look like for them? Is there a distinction at all?

Do they ever feel burdened by their aromanticism because they feel like it "get's in the way" of their desire for partnership? Tread very carefully if you go this route. Do not "cure" their aromanticism. Try to build towards self acceptance.

Aromantic people can date, but our aromanticism can and often does impact how we date, and how we feel about dating. Even when aromantic people are in committed relationships, or want to be, we are still aromantic.

2. Explore how this impacts their relationships.

Being aromantic often makes dating/partnering more complicated.

Did their partner(s) know that they're aromantic when they started dating? If not, do they know now? How did that conversation go?

Did the aromantic character know about their own aromanticism when they first started dating, or did they realize it later? How did they come to realize that? If they were in a relationship at the time of realizing it, did the realization spark anxiety over the future of their relationship? Did it spark relief?

Do they experience difficulty finding partners? Is it because people are less willing to date aromantic people? Is it because of highly limited attraction? Is it because the aromantic character has very specific needs when it comes to relationships, such as needing a less common (e.g. queerplatonic) relationship, or having a lot of strong boundaries around traditionally romantic activities? Is it because their orientation is difficult to explain to potential partners? Is it a combination of factors?

3. If you're writing fanfiction, respect the aromantic character's canon identity.

If an aromantic character is canonically non-partnering, romance-averse, romance-repulsed, or similar, keep it that way. Hands off.

[heartless-aro]

Instead of celebrating things that include the aromantic, asexual, and aroace flags/communities as “including the whole set,” we need to start asking why alloaros and non-SAM aros are not explicitly included where aroaces are.

[heartless-aro]

People that are aplatonic because of their neurodivergence are hella rad

[heartless-aro]

Question for alloaro tumblr: has the alloaro community ever established an official day for alloaro pride and visibility/awareness?

[heartless-aro]

Shoutout to romance oblivious aros

Not realizing when ppl flirt with you, not being able to tell when people are attracted to each other or dating, not realizing romantic attraction was even a thing

Y’all are great <2

[heartless-aro]

Sweet mother, I can't long for girls--Arachne has crushed me with desire for fiber crafts

[heartless-aro]

One of my least favorite responses to discussions about arophobia in fiction is “That character isn’t aromantic though! They’re just a psychopath/sociopath/narcissist/[insert relevant stigmatized disorder here]”. Being aromantic and having a personality disorder — including ASPD or NPD — are not mutually exclusive. The trope of “This person doesn’t feel love, therefore they are evil” doesn’t stop being arophobic the moment it’s directed towards a character with a personality disorder (yes, even if they have one of the “scary” personality disorders). Ableism and arophobia often intersect in this way, and that doesn’t make the arophobia any less arophobic

[heartless-aro]

Stigma against aromantic allosexual people

An odd thing I noticed, while studying aromantic allosexual stereotypes, is that aromanticism is frequently used as a device to “debase” sexuality or make it appear inferior. In both fiction and real life, the implication that someone is sexually active but aromantic is almost always intended to degrade that person’s sexuality.

The word “aromantic” itself doesn’t actually come up when this happens, because most people don’t even know what a “romantic orientation” is. But the concept of aromanticism is well-established in Western culture - it’s just that it’s almost always attached to another stereotype or stigma, or it’s treated as a character defect.

For example, most people are aware of the “predatory gay” stereotype. It’s the homophobic idea that gay people target poor hapless heterosexuals, especially heterosexual children, and molest them / emasculate them / convert them into more gay folks. The stereotype is based on the assumption that same-gender relationships are fundamentally different from heterosexual relationships, and this difference is a lack of romantic attachment or love.

On the other hand, pro-LGBT campaigns, posters and activists make a point of emphasizing the “love” aspect of same-gender relationships. They say things like “love is love,” and “the freedom to love,” while downplaying or ignoring the sexual aspect of these relationships.

You can find similar things in negative stereotypes about bisexuals, pansexuals, women with many sexual partners, and people of color. Bisexual and pansexual people are often wrongly stereotyped as being promiscuous, more likely to cheat, and less sincere in their romantic commitments. Their sexuality is acknowledged, but they are not seen as romantic, and this lack of romance is treated as a flaw that debases the rest of their sexuality. For women with many sexual partners, you need only remember “slut-shaming.” The sexuality of these women is treated negatively because it is not associated with a monogamous romantic relationship. They are perceived as sexual but not romantic, and this makes their sexuality a target of scorn. People of color are sometimes stereotyped as hypersexual*; but again, the sexuality is disconnected from any romantic associations, and this is treated as a negative quality. The presence of sexuality without romance is considered lesser or disreputable compared to sexuality with romance.

(*There are also a lot of other ways racism attacks people’s sexuality, but that’s not really the point of this essay, and I’m not qualified to discuss racism in depth anyway.)

Even if we’re not talking about stereotypes, but individual people or characters, aromanticism is treated as a pretty awful thing. In fiction, the success of an intimate relationship depends upon reciprocated romantic and sexual feelings; if one character in an intimate relationship is revealed to not be romantically attracted to the other, the non-romantic character is automatically seen as a manipulative, lying, heartless villain. (Or, if they get the sympathetic point-of-view, the relationship will be revealed to be a sham in some other way.) Meanwhile, the development of romantic feelings is given far more sympathy and depth by authors than the development of sexual but non-romantic feelings. The ideal relationship is treated as romantic and sexual, while non-romantic sexual relationships are treated as inferior and unfulfilling.

The English language itself reflects the difference in our culture’s attitudes. Compare the connotations of the words “love” and “lust.” “Falling in love with” someone is a big deal. It’s positive and special.But “lusting after” someone is almost dirty; it is treated as shallow, selfish, and relatively meaningless. When preachers warn about the dangers of “temptation” from the opposite sex*, they are always referring to sexual attraction, not romantic attraction, because sex without romance is seen as dirty, but romance without sex is celebrated as “chaste” and “waiting until marriage.” There is a dignity accorded to romantic emotions that is not granted to sexual attraction.

(*Of course, there are more than two genders, and not everyone is attracted to “the opposite sex” in the first place, but preachers tend to forget about that. And conservatism isn’t exactly kind to romantic asexuals, either.)

Aromanticism is used as a tool to denigrate sexuality across a wide range of people and demographics. Merely associating aromantic feelings or behavior with an active sex life is enough to make the entirety of a person’s sexuality appear negative. The only conclusion I can draw is that aromanticism is considered so horrible, that associating it with sexuality is enough to make that sexuality appear lesser, debased, disreputable or dysfunction in most people’s eyes. Allosexual aromantic people constantly receive messages that their sexual feelings are inferior or wrong, and needs to be fixed by falling in love. (The pressure is greatest for aromantic women, but applies to all genders to some degree.) And the worst part is that, even after all this, aromanticism is still not acknowledged as a phenomenon or orientation in its own right, but is merely considered a defect within another sexual orientation or sexual lifestyle.

Asexual aromantic people tend to receive a different set of toxic prejudices, which are closely linked to anti-asexual stereotypes. But anti-aromantic sentiment affects them, too. The lionization of romantic sentiment is so pervasive, and non-romantic relationships are so commonly treated as lesser, that asexual aromantic people may be inclined to see their own emotions and relationships as inferior to their culture’s romantic norm.

Amatonormativity is not just “romantic relationships are treated as more important than friendships.” There is an active, hostile stigma against aromanticism, and this stigma is distinct from anti-asexual prejudice.

[heartless-aro]

Every person who has ever responded to an aromantic headcanon with “They can’t be aromantic! They’re in a romantic relationship!” owes a romance favorable aromantic 200 Australian dollars now. Same for everyone who has ever said “They can’t be aromantic! Canon implies that they’re romantically attracted to (other character)!” You now owe 200 Australian dollars to an aromantic person who experiences romantic attraction infrequently/with low intensity/only under specific conditions.

[heartless-aro]

“Aros can still date!”

Yes, they can. But do you actually make an effort to learn about the experiences of partnering and romance favorable aros, or do you just use them as a gotcha whenever people explain how your words and actions contribute to aromantic erasure? When you write romance involving aromantic characters, are you actually making an effort to acknowledge how their aromanticism might affect the way they would approach a romantic relationship, or are you writing them as an alloromantic character while tacking on the disclaimer that “it’s okay, because some aros date!”?

Are you shipping those aromantic characters because you’re interested in reading and/or writing stories about those aromantic characters navigating romantic relationships that may involve little to no romantic attraction? Are you interested in seeing those characters explore how their aromanticism affects what romance means to them and what their boundaries are in a romantic relationship? Or are you going to ignore their aromanticism altogether and reimagine aromantic characters in a way that conforms to amatonormative and allonormative notions of what a person’s life and relationships should look like?

The problem with shipping aromantic characters isn’t just that it’s often done with characters who are pretty heavily implied to be romance averse. It isn’t just that some people who ship aromantic characters are treating the characters’ aromanticism as an nothing more than an obstacle to their ships rather than treating aromantic representation as something worth celebrating in its own right. It’s also the fact that a lot of people in fandom spaces treat partnering and romance favorable aromantics as being “basically alloromantic” instead of actually respecting the identities and experiences of romance favorable and partnering aros.

[heartless-aro]

when will people stop trying to explain different types of love to loveless aromantics as if it's a new concept

[heartless-aro]

Pride is for EVERYONE. including but not limited to: asexuals, bi girls with boyfriends, non-passing trans people, and coleman.

[heartless-aro]

i love aromanticism. i love how i deny the restrictions of platonicism and romance. i love how my friends mean the world to me. i love how my aromanticism is just a beautiful aspect of my identity and my entire being. i love how i can discuss my romantic orientation with my friends. it’s not that im lacking romance, it’s that im open to the rejection of romance. i love how it’s made me more open minded. these silly little labels people put on their relationships, they seem funny to me. i love my own labels and i love how other people can use their own labels. identity is such a beautiful thing!

[heartless-aro]

This exactly. I once got in an argument with a biphobic person I know irl, and they outright said that bisexuality is wrong and sinful because “Sure, gay people can’t choose who they love, but bisexuality isn’t about love at all. It’s just about sex.” I was told to my face that a bisexual person’s love isn’t real love — that bisexuals (alloromantic or otherwise) aren’t bisexual because they love more than one gender, but because they’re “promiscuous” and want to be able to have as many options for sexual partners as possible, and that that makes their identities less worthy of respect. This is a mindset that has an especially detrimental effect on alloaros, though I don’t think I need to explain how that’s the case.

What good does it do to redefine love so we can continue perpetuating the idea that love is what makes us human? There are plenty of people who are never going to accept queer people’s love — romantic or otherwise — as real love. There are people who will always take love to mean “romantic love between a man and a woman.”

Any time we reinforce the idea that love is what makes us worthy of dignity, worthy of equality, and worthy of respect, we are doing their work for them. Because they ALSO believe that love (read: romantic feelings between straight people) is what makes a person worthy of dignity, equality, and respect. And they want other people to believe that too.

Love is a political weapon. We can spend all day trying to change who it’s pointed at, but we cannot avoid the reality that some of us will be collateral damage when it’s fired. So instead of helping load the weapon in hopes that we can seize control of it and use it to defend ourselves, let’s shift our focus from trying to change its trajectory to disarming it altogether.

The thing about love is that I've met many people, and each and every one of them had a different definition of the word love. But, the thing that they all agreed on was that love is what made someone human, or good, or that it was the most important thing in life. The issue here is that by saying "love is what makes us human" it creates an "us and them" dynamic based on what that person defines as "love". And that's very dangerous.

The "us and them" dynamic has been used as a tool of oppression since the dawn of civilization. Whether you like it or not, whether you think your definition of love is correct or not, for a very long time the definition of love has been used to dehumanize and oppress people. Instead of dismantling the root cause of what allowed people to do that, you're just redefining the word love to include more people in "us". And I think that's really fucked up.

One of the ways that homophobes demonized queer people is that they said queer love wasn't real love and that the only real love was between a man and a woman. Yeah, that definition of love isn't correct and it's objectively wrong to describe it that way, but why does not feeling "real" love make someone bad?

As an aromantic person, I've been subjected to that "us and them" dynamic my entire life. Many people in the modern age still think that romantic love is what makes someone human. I think that we should be dismantling the idea that a subjective, vague word that can be redefined so easily is the bridge between "human" and "not human".

There's many ways to describe the full spectrum of human emotion. Love isn't the only word to describe kindness, care, and affection. The word "love" isn't nearly as important as you think it is.

Nothing "makes us" human. Humanity is in our DNA and no one should be treated less like a human for any reason.