Being aromantic means experiencing little-to-no romantic attraction. It's a type of romantic orientation, as opposed to a sexual one, and I'm proud to be an advocate for the community. đź’š pic.twitter.com/V114E7q8vs
Putting aside for the moment that it looks as though their chest has been crushed, what is being described actually sounds more like a personality disorder than anything else to me. I wouldn’t want to be in a relationship with someone incapable of feeling romantic attraction. Not because I’m into cards, roses and grand gestures. but because romance and attraction can take a myriad of tiny and insignificant forms in a relationship that couples use to signal ongoing attachment and care for each other. People who don’t have that at all are flatmates or business partners – at best. At worst they’re using you.
By all means, let’s have a Week of Awareness to focus intently on a topic that the people in that cohort don’t care about and don’t talk about. Let’s be So Totally Aware of the Non-subject that doesn’t come up in conversation or take up any resources to manage. So ridiculous.
This is what happens when descriptors become ‘identity’.
First came asexuality–which is legitimate, in that it’s an actual thing. Some folks, for no medical reason at all, have zero interest in sex. They’re not an oppressed ‘community’ or anything like that, but they do exist, and some probably benefit from talking to others in the same boat, and venting frustrations with people who insist that they ‘just haven’t met the right person yet’ and so forth.
Those conversations led to identifying a division within that group: romantic v. aromantic. Basically, the former enjoys all the usual aspects of a committed relationship, they just don’t want sex. The latter are largely inclined to just go off and be happy by themselves, or with casual friends, and never really want anything deeper then that. It’s not a psychological problem, as such, mind you–there’s no attempt to manipulate others or anything like that involved.
Which, again, is fine, and useful among asexuals, since the romantic ones know they should be looking for other romantic asexuals for companionship, but that they’ll find aromantics almost as frustrating as a sexually inclined partner would find them.
But then, the usual folks got ahold of that terminology and decided to complete the square, leading to “sexual aromantics”, which basically are your classic stereotypical commitment-averse horndogs, but now with an ‘identity’ that they can use to justify their selfishness as partners.
Putting aside for the moment that it looks as though their chest has been crushed, what is being described actually sounds more like a personality disorder than anything else to me. I wouldn’t want to be in a relationship with someone incapable of feeling romantic attraction. Not because I’m into cards, roses and grand gestures. but because romance and attraction can take a myriad of tiny and insignificant forms in a relationship that couples use to signal ongoing attachment and care for each other. People who don’t have that at all are flatmates or business partners – at best. At worst they’re using you.
By all means, let’s have a Week of Awareness to focus intently on a topic that the people in that cohort don’t care about and don’t talk about. Let’s be So Totally Aware of the Non-subject that doesn’t come up in conversation or take up any resources to manage. So ridiculous.
Looks more like she’s advertising for St. Patrick’s Day. There’s no indication of scale, but she looks a little lithe for a leprechaun.
And look, another goddamn flag (yet again, ripped off from the original Pride flag) that we’re supposed to recognize, honour, and respect.
Hey, at least it’s prettier than the “progress” or trans flags…
Here’s to a full week of having to manually correct every “aromantic” back from the “aromatic” that my device helpfully changed it to.
This is what happens when descriptors become ‘identity’.
First came asexuality–which is legitimate, in that it’s an actual thing. Some folks, for no medical reason at all, have zero interest in sex. They’re not an oppressed ‘community’ or anything like that, but they do exist, and some probably benefit from talking to others in the same boat, and venting frustrations with people who insist that they ‘just haven’t met the right person yet’ and so forth.
Those conversations led to identifying a division within that group: romantic v. aromantic. Basically, the former enjoys all the usual aspects of a committed relationship, they just don’t want sex. The latter are largely inclined to just go off and be happy by themselves, or with casual friends, and never really want anything deeper then that. It’s not a psychological problem, as such, mind you–there’s no attempt to manipulate others or anything like that involved.
Which, again, is fine, and useful among asexuals, since the romantic ones know they should be looking for other romantic asexuals for companionship, but that they’ll find aromantics almost as frustrating as a sexually inclined partner would find them.
But then, the usual folks got ahold of that terminology and decided to complete the square, leading to “sexual aromantics”, which basically are your classic stereotypical commitment-averse horndogs, but now with an ‘identity’ that they can use to justify their selfishness as partners.