#aro... doesn't

[terresdebrume]

I keep going back and forth on the topic of where I fall on the allo/aro spectrum, partially because I kind of like. Don't wanna be aro (I'm already trans, queer and autistic with depressive tendencies, I don't need to add another thing to the list)

But another part of it is that even if I am capable of romantic love I probably just wouldn't know, because I already don't really know what platonic love feels like? And I'm not saying I can't love anything or anything like that it's just. Like many other emotions, I kind of have to retroingeneer it, sort of

I know I love my cats, not because I feel a surge of Something when I look at them, but because it makes me smile when they do something cute—my face knows what I'm feeling in those moments, I'm not sure I do. I know I love them because when Pouet died I cried every day for a month and I still cry sometimes, when I think about her. I know I love my cats because my brain keeps lighting up with fear signals when they're sleeping and I don't immediately see their chest move as they breathe.

I know what anxiety feels like, I know what anger feels like (when it explodes), I know what depression feels like because I dealt with them for so long I learned to recognize their physical symptoms! If these emotions didn't leave specific signals in my body then I'm not sure I'd know what they are.

And the thing is... I don't really like. Know what love or affection feels like, I think. Yes I can feel myself smile when I speak to certain people, but I also habitually smile at everybody because it makes things easier socially. I know I like people because if they ask me if I want to do an activity I either say yes or I have regrets about saying no.

My point is: I feel like I don't know my emotions so much as I know the buttons they push in my body, so to speak, but the problem about platonic/romantic love is that I can't imagine they make that different a shame, so who's to say which one it is?

It's funny, in a way, that I don't know something like that at my age. It's also really inconvenient, tbh. There's not really a reason for me to think about this rn except sometimes if I meet a cool dude whom I know is gay I wonder for a minute or two what a relationship with him would be like (which I'm going to assume is not that weird a thing to do) and the last time that happened led to, well. Ponderings about romance I guess

Anyway, the tl;Dr is that it took me decades to figure out the emotions I can recognize now, and I've largely approached social interactions with the inner spirit of a wet Chihuahua for most of that time, so how the fuck do I know if I can't identify those because I'm shit at self understanding or because I don't feel them???

Idk, it's complicated

(Tho honestly it would also be a little bit hilarious if after all this shit I landed on nah just aro. Not my preferred option right now but eh xD)

[infiniteorangethethird]

"aros can still date!!": boring. tired. overused. frequently used to make aros look more palatable and acceptable to amatonormative society.

"alloros can still stay single!!": fresh. new. exciting. hearing it could change many people's lives for the better regardless of romantic orientation

[estragonsgayass]

[genderkoolaid]

ever since i was a child i knew i wanted to be the grinch but for valentine's day #loveloses #aromanticismwins

[cosmicredcadet]

"Why is all aspec representation in media AROACE rep?" and is the aroace rep in the room with us right now?

[ridleyytheriddler]

🩵🤎🖤❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ 🩷🩵🤎🖤🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡 🤍🩷🩵🤎🖤💛💛💛💛💛💛 🤍🩷🩵🤎🖤💚💚💚💚💚💚 🩷🩵🤎🖤💙💙💙💙💙💙💙 🩵🤎🖤💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜

[riddlerosehearts]

isabeau's confession at the end of ISAT is constantly living rent-free in my head it's so fucking good. right now i'm obsessed with the way he responds to siffrin saying "i love you too" because just. imagine you're siffrin and for so long now you've believed that you were horrible disgusting manipulative unloved and unworthy of love and yet. your best friend is telling you he loves you. and you feel that you love him too (in what way? the same way that he loves you? you're not quite sure yet, but stars, you feel like your heart is going to burst out of your chest, he means so much to you) so you tell him so.

and he responds by telling you he already knew that because he has eyes.

you're siffrin and you are kind passionate protective and so loved and full of love for your friends, your family, and yet you hate yourself so, so deeply that you don't see any of that but isabeau does. according to him it's written all over your face, apparently--the face you're always trying so hard to hide with your hat, which as the universe would have it, you don't have anymore!! and he sees you and he loves you and he knows you love him back, even after you said and did such horrible, cruel things to him and the rest of your family that you know they didn't deserve, after you almost broke the world trying to keep them by your side, somehow isa understands you and still loves every single part of you. and you love him, you love him, you love him because how could you not?

especially since he also got so excited when you told him you loved him that he shouted "CRAB YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" in your face.

[y0urc3m3t3ryg1rl]

repeat it with me :

ROMANCE-AVERSE AND ROMANCE-REPULSED AROMANTICS ARE NOT BAD PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR AVERSION/REPULSION!

ROMANCE-INDIFFERENT AROMANTICS ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO CARE ABOUT ROMANCE!

ROMANCE-FAVOURABLE AND ROMANCE-AMBIVALENT AROMANTICS ARE NOT LESS AROMANTIC FOR ENJOYING ROMANCE IN SOME WAYS!

FEMALE AROMANTICS ARE NOT 'QUIRKY' PICK-MES OR OLD MAIDS!

MALE AROMANTICS ARE NOT INCELS OR MISOGYNISTS!

NON-BINARY AROMANTICS ARE VALID AND SHOULD BE SUPORTED AND ARE NOT FADDISH!

ALLOSEXUAL AROMANTICS ARE NOT WHORES OR PROSTITUTES FOR HAVING SEXUAL ATTRACTION AND NOT ROMANTIC ATTRACTION!

ASEXUAL AROMANTICS ARE NOT INCOMPLETE OR MISSING SOMETHING!

AROMANTICS DON'T OWE YOU A RELATIONSHIP!

AROMANTICS DON'T OWE YOU LOVE OF ANY KIND!

[growling]

Arospec acceptance leaving peoples' bodies the moment an aro person describes themselves as loveless and/or aplatonic and doesn't actually "make up" for their lack of attraction by platonically loving other people a lot

[clonerightsagenda]

re: finding platonic explanations for things you cannot even imagine, I'd like to see an aromantic jealousy plot for a change. Character A is seethingly jealous of Character B's love interest but it's not because they're romantically interested in B, it's because they're aro and B is the most important person in their life and this is an unwelcome reminder that they will always come second to a traditional romantic partner in society's eyes and possibly B's as well.

And honestly you don't even need a powerful interpersonal connection to activate Hater Mode. I wasn't that close to any of my middle school classmates and I certainly wasn't interested in them romantically, but I was still so sick of hearing about the boy band guys they had crushes on that I fantasized about Justin Bieber dying in a plane crash. Not my most hinged of moments but idk what to tell you, middle school was a bad time

[cepheusgalaxy]

Wish more people understood the difference between "shipping this aro character because i want to explore their aromanticism and where they stand in the spectrum" and "shipping this aro character because i don't care about their orientation".

[soup-mother]

it sorta just keeps going like that for a while

[itsguysnightitsironic]

Kith and kin.

Sometimes peace doesn't mean a lover's embrace, it means, well, peace.

Love loses! Happy aromantic week!! To me, to you and the whole cast of Avantris characters that have not shown any sign of romantic attraction, adore you.

EDIT: Since Richie asked for Art notes, here they are:

thanks for coming to my aro-talk.

[maerhiya]

"why were you staring at them? you like them, don't you?" uhm no. i just thought they were aesthetically pleasing. don't you also stop and stare at someone in absolute awe of how beautiful they are, feeling blessed to be in the presence of such a stunning being?

[cosmicredcadet]

enough stories about how someone learns to truely be happy through love. i want a story where someone is desperately seeking out love thinking it's the only way to be happy only for them to learn by the end that happiness is what they make of it and they don't need love at all to make it.

[ilovedthestars]

A thought I’ve been having: While it's important to recognize the long history of many current queer identities (and the even longer history of people who lived outside of the straight, cis, allo “norm”) I think it's also important to remember that a label or identity doesn't have to be old to be, for lack of a better word, real.

This post that i reblogged a little while ago about asexuality and its history in the LGBTQ+ rights movement and before is really good and really important. As i've thought about it more, though, it makes me wonder why we need to prove that our labels have "always existed." In the case of asexuality, that post is pushing back against exclusionists who say that asexuality was “made up on the internet” and is therefore invalid. The post proves that untrue, which is important, because it takes away a tool for exclusionists.

But aromanticism, a label & community with a lot of overlap & solidarity with asexuality, was not a label that existed during Stonewall and the subsequent movement. It was coined a couple decades ago, on internet forums. While the phrasing is dismissive, it would be technically accurate to say that it was “made up on the internet.” To be very clear, I’m not agreeing with the exclusionists here—I’m aromantic myself. What I’m asking is, why does being a relatively recently coined label make it any less real or valid for people to identify with?

I think this emphasis on historical precedent is what leads to some of the attempts to label historical figures with modern terminology. If we can say someone who lived 100 or 1000 years ago was gay, or nonbinary, or asexual, or whatever, then that grants the identity legitimacy. but that's not the terminology they would have used then, and we have no way of knowing how, or if, any historical person's experiences would fit into modern terminology.

There's an element of "the map is not the territory" here, you know? Like this really good post says, labels are social technologies. There's a tendency in the modern Western queer community to act like in the last few decades the "truth" about how genders and orientations work has become more widespread and accepted. But that leaves out all the cultures, both historical and modern, that use a model of gender and sexuality that doesn't map neatly to LGBTQ+ identities but is nonetheless far more nuanced than "there are two genders, man and woman, and everyone is allo and straight." Those systems aren’t any more or less “true” than the system of gay/bi/pan/etc and straight, cis and trans, aro/ace and allo.

I guess what I’m saying is, and please bear with me here, “gay” people have not always existed. “Nonbinary” people have not always existed. “Asexual” people have not always existed. But people who fell in love with and had sex with others of the same gender have always existed. People who would not have identified themselves as either men or women have always existed. People who didn’t prioritize sex (and/or romance) as important parts of their lives have always existed. In the grand scheme of human existence, all our labels are new, and that’s okay. In another hundred or thousand years we’ll have completely different ways of thinking about gender and sexuality, and that’ll be okay too. Our labels can still be meaningful to us and our experiences right now, and that makes them real and important no matter how new they are.

We have a history, and we should not let it be erased. But we don’t need a history for our experiences and ways of describing ourselves to be real, right now.