''Aromantic'' makes no sense.

submitted by [deleted] from self.LGBDropTheT

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Lesbianese⚢ 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Why?

I'm starting to agree with this mindset but maybe not for the same reason as you. The people I see that call themselves aromantic, especially aromantic + asexual, seem to want all the intimacy of a relationship without the responsibility or are completely repulsed by physical intimacy due to psychological issues or some kind of sensory disorder.

Always thought the split between romantic and sexual attraction was dumb but, and this might be a controversial stance, I think some people genuinely do not like sex and find it upsetting/unpleasant regardless of the partner without having trauma (probably due to some kind of neurological or developmental issue, if I had to guess) and I could see how calling yourself a bi asexual or whatever could be a convenient way to get across what you're looking for in a companion.

Still seems stupid to cater to such a small demographic. In an ideal world it'd be hetero/bi/homo and then asexual be listed as a symptom (that doesn't require treatment or therapy).

[–]Jinera 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This could make sense for people with autism. According to a Dutch researcher 1 in 5 women with autism consider themselves asexual. As someone with autism I can understand why, touch can be incredibly uncomfortable to us due to the oversensitivity and some genuinely do not recognise sexual attraction (I for example, had for years trouble with feeling anger. Even if I was angry, there was such a disconnect between what I felt in my head and what I physically felt, that I would not know I was angry). So that there are people who are autistic and asexual makes complete sense to me.