Aces and Aros

submitted by Beth-BR from self.LGBDropTheT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 37 insightful - 1 fun37 insightful - 0 fun38 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

No, asexual and aromantic should not belong. For me, it only makes sense a LGB community, because it's dedicated to SAME SEX attraction. Asexualitiy is lack of sexual attraction. Besides, what rights do asexuals want? What discrimination have they faced or do they face? None. The only exception for me would be homoromantic asexuals because those asexuals actual do suffer discrimination because they're can engage in homosexual relationships. Aromantic people? Apart from aromantic ASEXUALS (so asexuals who prefer to be single), I don't think those people exist. I think people who don't lack sexual attraction and identify as aromantic have mental issues/commitment issues/attachment style issues/trauma/etc etc etc to address. For me, it's not normal that a person isn't able to develop an emotional connection with anyone. Only LGB.

[–]insta 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Aromantic people? ... I don't think those people exist. I think people who don't lack sexual attraction and identify as aromantic have mental issues/commitment issues/attachment style issues/trauma/etc etc etc to address.

https://i.imgur.com/W9kjIG7_d.webp?maxwidth=728&fidelity=grand

I honestly think it's just a coping mechanism for people who are resided lonely people. That's fine, I don't care if anyone wants to be alone. No sweat off my back, but don't expect me to go along with your "aromantic" delusions.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Same. It’s okay if someone wants to be single for life, but they don’t need a new label for this.

[–]Beth-BR[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Wow, ok. Being aromantic isn't about attachment and commitment, it's about feeling romantic attraction. An aromantic person may still crave a close physical relationship it's just not going to be romantic from their point of view. In our culture we assign all the importance to a romantic relationship and set it as an ultimate goal and happiness and anyone not interested is a heartless villan. Friendships can hold just as much importance and they require just as much effort and commitment. You can be a very loving person without the love being romantic. That's why I didn't think that aromantics should be in the community unless they're also bi/gay, that doesn't mean they don't exist, just separately. I don't know if that changes your mind, don't care but I had to say something. Aromantics aren't sex-obsessed lone commitment phobes they just do not feel romanticly attracted to anybody and a romantic attraction towards them makes them uncomfortable. They assign bigger meaning to platonic relationships and maby even crave an exclusive one. We have feelings, they're just not romantic feelings.

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

For me, there is only emotional connection. What will differentiate close platonic friendships from relationships will be the sexual part. As a lesbian, I'm only capable of feeling sexual attraction towards women, but as a human being, I can develop emotional connection with both men and women. That's it lol. I don't understand what is "romantic feelings" honestly.

[–]Lizzythelezzo 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I've talked to people who define themselves as aromantic and basically it means they never experiences crushes or feelings of infatuation. I think it would be more accurate to say they are "non-limerent" as they don't experience limerence. However people have romantic relationships without the experience of limerence/infatuation/crushing. Also most of them are asexual or on the ace spectrum but your mileage may vary.

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Yes, but that makes sense for asexual people and I get that, as they don't experience sexual attraction. What I don't get is "aromantic" homo or bi or heterosexuals, so people who actually experience sexual attraction and feelings of infatuation like OP. Like I had already said:

I think people who DON'T lack sexual attraction and identify as aromantic have mental issues/commitment issues/attachment style issues/trauma/etc etc etc to address.

[–]Beth-BR[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I often go trough "what even is love" and all that and basically everything you said above and think I'm no different from a regular person and it's all a lie but then I talk to 'normal people' or look at irl couples and I just know that's not gonna be me. I don't go around saying how oppressed I am for being aro, that label just exist to find other people to relate to (just like differating bi and pan/Omni or whatever) these labels exist only to describe your feelings but they don't hold any real meaning to the outside world. If you are in a relationship no one gives a shit you're aro or when you're bi no one cares you're actually pan/Omni ect. Is romance just an illusion and a tool for selling stories? Maby it is but I am definitely not 'a romantic' and it's nice to have people to talk about it with and I've meet ppl irl who are big romantics and it's just the opposite of me. It doesn't have to be a big deal I just asked the question out of curiosity and didn't expect aros to be a part of the community based on them being aro.

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I personally believe "romantic love" IS an illusion and I also wonder several times what the hell is even love. But I don't need a label for it. I just find it so unnecessary. When you meet someone you're interested in, you let her/him know what "you're up to". Love (be it fraternal love, sisterly love, motherly love, friendly love, lover love) exists, but it takes work. Now if you're referring to that honeymoon lovey dovey thing? Nah. It will eventually fade away and I do think it's a "lie" that infatuation tricked us. For me it's all about true emotional connection, and one that takes commitment and hard work - that IS love and it doesn't need to be between two lovers. Love =/= infatuation. It can perfectly be a close platonic friendship. The only difference between a close platonic friendship (which I had for 5 years by the way) and a relationship is that I'm not sexually attracted to that person. I don't want to kiss, have sex, feel attracted to, etc etc to that person. But I still care deeply about that person and want that person to be part of my life!

[–]Beth-BR[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's still nice to have memes about it (part of why there's a label). Whatever. I call myself that, I share my views on love with friends and it's easier for them to understand but it really isn't a big deal. So I'm not gonna argue, you seem down to earth and there's nothing really to argue about - I just like the label becouse it helps me describe my feelings and connect to other people and there are days I really need it. But yeach, whatever. Real or not - it's a thing. I know who I am with or without that label.

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Fair enough. Wish you the best.

[–]INeedSomeTimeAsexual Ally 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah aromantic "allosexuals" feel like bullshit to me.