Heterosexual Cisgender Aros
By Rose, April 8, 2017 in Sexuality and Gender
Pronouns: she
Romanticism: aromantic (bi-alterous)
(Do demi-heterosexuals count, too? xD)
As an objective approach: cis+heterosexual+heteroromantic is considered "normal". Any combination which is different needs support because it all too often generates misunderstandings. The world is full of ignorami after all.
However, being queer(I intend to use this word as an umbrella term for ANYTHING different from that "normal") does NOT stop you from being an ally yourself to other queer people, too :). For example,I consider myself a heterosexual ally to asexuals, while having heterosexual allies myself (I'm exactly halfway, so...), and so on. In other words, I support others regardless of their orientation because I k ow myself what it's like to be misunderstood and judged. I hope it makes sense xD.
NullVector
Pronouns: male ones
Romanticism: probably aro
Sexuality: hetero
1 hour ago, Ice Queen said:
I hope it makes sense
Sure, it makes sense.
We're all human. But nobody else is going to be human in exactly the same way as we are. So I'd say, as fellow human beings and as much as we can, let's all try to support one another being human in whatever way seems best to each of us (just so long as our way of being human doesn't infringe upon other human beings being human in whatever way seems best to them - and to the extent it does, let's have participatory democratic means to mitigate any such conflicts of interest).
Apathetic Echidna
Prickly Ball of Aro
Sexuality: Greyasexual of some form
I wouldn't have found the split attraction model and aromanticism if I hadn't already identified as gray-ace. Because of my gray-ness AND aro-ness I don't seek relationships but I can relate to what you say @Rose. Within my friend group, cismales are far and away the most grand-gesture romantic, if they are in a deep friendship with a sexual partner they have told me it is just 'spending time until the next girlfriend comes along'. They hold the same sort of idea that all other guys want sex without romantic attachment, yet they seek romantic attachment constantly as it is the only way they identify a 'legitimate' relationship. Most of their relationships don't last more than 2-3 years, so I think they are just letting their romantic attraction chemical reaction pull them along without bothering to actually build a relationship of any lasting substance.
3 hours ago, Apathetic Echidna said:
Within my friend group, cismales are far and away the most grand-gesture romantic, if they are in a deep friendship with a sexual partner they have told me it is just 'spending time until the next girlfriend comes along'. They hold the same sort of idea that all other guys want sex without romantic attachment, yet they seek romantic attachment constantly as it is the only way they identify a 'legitimate' relationship. Most of their relationships don't last more than 2-3 years, so I think they are just letting their romantic attraction chemical reaction pull them along without bothering to actually build a relationship of any lasting substance.
Interestingly the popular view tends to be "women are more romantic".
Other counterpoints to this would be it being far more common for men to do things like asking out and proposing marriage.
It's actually rather hard to answer "Are men or women more romantic?"
Since, as with many other binary gender roles, expected and accepted behaviours are so different.
(There's also a quirk that there are often greater negative consequences for an AMAB going outside the "man box" than an AFAB going outside the "woman box". Possibly this is about "male" roles being seen as somehow intrinsically superior to "female roles".)
@Mark there definitely seems to be some competitiveness in what my male friends do. one guy gets his girlfriend a red stem rose and chocolates, the next has to get a dozen roses, then next year it is two dozen, like "I am superior man because I make romance better than thou". The grand-ness of their gestures seems much less about the partner involved and actual romantic motivations but more about how well their act or gift is perceived publicly and expectations of sexual reciprocation. The day after Valentines we all tend to split the friend group by gender if we see each other as all the guys do is gossip and brag about Valentines Day sex. I can't comment about each personal motivation they have in regards to their gestures, but the way they act the acts and gifts are the quickest way to get what they want, which mostly seems to be peer adoration or heading off fights before they occur, and they expect the gestures are what their partner's expect. Blah, I don't get it and I may be missing things, and maybe I just hang around with jerks.
On 05/09/2017 at 1:13 PM, Apathetic Echidna said:
The grand-ness of their gestures seems much less about the partner involved and actual romantic motivations but more about how well their act or gift is perceived publicly and expectations of sexual reciprocation
Although, in fairness (leaving aside "expectations of sexual reciprocation" - ewwww) that strikes me as more of a human thing than a romance thing. You could make a similar comment about, say, charitable giving amonst the super-wealthy classes, for whom ostentatious social displays advertising how much of an enlightened high-society 'philanthropist' they are potentially trumps any genuine desire to actually help people. Or, another example, the whole general phenomenon of 'conspicuous consumption', where it's not about the enjoyment of the thing(s) themselves so much as the perceived social standing they help to create.
@NullVector that makes sense, but then it is depressing about how deep romanticism has sunk into our culture
and maybe I just hang around with jerks.
On 05/09/2017 at 6:14 AM, Apathetic Echidna said:
Within my friend group, cismales are far and away the most grand-gesture romantic, if they are in a deep friendship with a sexual partner they have told me it is just 'spending time until the next girlfriend comes along'. They hold the same sort of idea that all other guys want sex without romantic attachment, yet they seek romantic attachment constantly as it is the only way they identify a 'legitimate' relationship
That's a really interesting observation. It seems to me like, in our culture today, romance makes a longer-term sexual partnership 'legitimate' in a similar way to how marriage made children 'legitimate' in the past (and perhaps there are similar social peer pressures to 'legitimise' things in both cases?) I wonder why that is?
DeltaV
Pronouns: he
Romanticism: aro
On 9/5/2017 at 7:14 AM, Apathetic Echidna said:
Most of their relationships don't last more than 2-3 years, so I think they are just letting their romantic attraction chemical reaction pull them along without bothering to actually build a relationship of any lasting substance
Recently I noticed that that my friend started to use e-cigarette. And he explained to me that he picked it up from his girlfriend and he's glad that they now share a hobby together. I was shocked when I noticed that this was meant seriously. So yes, we can find two humans together in an intense (as long as it lasts) relationship and their common "hobby" is "vaping" … it doesn't get anymore sad.
aro_elise
Sexuality: heterosexual
wow, i'm the exact same. and yes, I agree we're deemed simultaneously not straight enough and not queer enough. there's only one person I know for sure is totally on the same page as me in terms of my orientation: my good friend. she calls me 'straight but not', knowing i'm cool with it. we've talked about it and I know she's genuinely curious about my aromanticism and does a pretty good job of understanding it for someone who isn't (she's gay). we can talk and joke about it and it's really great. but almost every allo doesn't get it and doesn't want to. when I came out to my best friend (she's straight), she didn't really react. like, she accepted it, but didn't have any questions or comments and hasn't mentioned it at all since. which I guess is fine, I know she loves me and isn't the sort of person who would have a problem with anything like that. anyway, it's been about 2 and a half years since I came out (to myself--obviously you don't tell the whole world all at once) and I've certainly encountered my share of negativity, from the infamous "you just haven't met the right person" to "you're just making stuff up to be special" to "so you only care about sex?" and plenty more. interestingly, i'm virgin and spent a while trying to convince myself of the former points. and my personal favourite, I swear this happened: "so you're a serial killer?" I think it's just so hard for them to separate romantic and sexual attraction in their minds; my old high school lgbt+ club leader, who was well into her 20s, even said explicitly that to her they were the same, when I tried to explain asexuality vs aromanticism. my bewildered disbelief should maybe have been one of many signs that I was aro, but I accepted it eventually and am now pretty much at total peace with it, unlike many people.
3 hours ago, aro_elise said:
and I've certainly encountered my share of negativity, from the infamous "you just haven't met the right person" to "you're just making stuff up to be special" to "so you only care about sex?" and plenty more. interestingly, i'm virgin and spent a while trying to convince myself of the former points.
Same here. Although in my case a lot of that negativity was internalised rather than things people said to me directly. I also got the whole "there might be something really wrong with me!" doubts (not quite "serial-killer" levels of wrong, but something). I think I also felt plenty of guilt around the idea of having an "only sex" relationship. I was supposed to wait for the romantic feelings to appear along with the "right person" (yeah, I assumed the adults all knew what they were talking about here and they would actually appear at some point ) I think standard sex education can be partly to blame and isn' t that helpful for aros: one rather gets the idea from it that really it's better if sex happens within the context of a romantic relationship. Just more ethical and wholesome all round (as in: romantic sexual relationship is the privileged "gold standard"; but if you absolutely must deviate (I chose that word very deliberately ) from it then "stay safe and consensual" is pretty much your only advice)
I think it's just so hard for them to separate romantic and sexual attraction in their minds
Right. And then they pass a lot of that confusion onto aros! Like in my case, I now realise that I was probably wanting a mutually caring and affectionate NON-ROMANTIC sexual relationship. But until recently I had no basis for believing such a thing to be possible or 'allowed' So, for a long time, there was this really weird disconnect between what I was internally feeling and (lacking) any language to articulate it.
@aro_elise you might also like this thread?
2 hours ago, NullVector said:
Although in my case a lot of that negativity was internalised rather than things people said to me directly. I also got the whole "there might be something really wrong with me!" doubts (not quite "serial-killer" levels of wrong, but something). I think I also felt plenty of guilt around the idea of having an "only sex" relationship. I was supposed to wait for the romantic feelings to appear along with the "right person" (yeah, I assumed the adults all knew what they were talking about here and they would actually appear at some point
There's also this thread.
I think standard sex education can be partly to blame and isn' t that helpful for aros: one rather gets the idea from it that really it's better if sex happens within the context of a romantic relationship. Just more ethical and wholesome all round (as in: romantic sexual relationship is the privileged "gold standard"; but if you absolutely must deviate (I chose that word very deliberately ) from it then "stay safe and consensual" is pretty much your only advice)
It goes rather beyond just "sex" (or "sex and relationship" or PHSE) education. Since these ideas and memes are commonplace within popular culture.
On 10/1/2017 at 6:35 AM, aro_elise said:
"so you only care about sex?"
Contrary to common assumption, hetero aros sometimes regard persons of "the other gender" not just as "potential sex object"…
but I accepted it eventually and am now pretty much at total peace with it, unlike many people.
It's really a great step that you've accepted yourself. I often still feel bad about it, like guilty for being so damn shallow.
Obviously, a big part of the life of a typical heterosexual-heteroromantic revolves around the other gender – and I'm just always baffled how insanely much this usually is the case. Also, the whole society is suffused with it and it's constantly celebrated (in my imaginary aro world there would be some raunchy movies and songs here and there, but most cultural products would be like "friends doing cool stuff together and being really best friends").
It seems like het-het's infer that the intensity they care about about a woman/man as a woman/man is the same in het-aros – only that the "caring" concerns solely the sexual aspect (if you belong to the super-minority of non-heterosexual-allo-aros you probably reached the point of "alien life form, not computable").
But sexual behavior whose natural mode is "not connected with romance" doesn't indicate a strong sex drive – it can be anything, medium, weak. They just can't get that into their heads. Well I've also problems with that, therefore my ponderous post here, to again drive it into my head with auto-suggestion.
19 hours ago, DeltaV said:
I wonder if, because romance is such a big part of alloromantic interaction, there's an assumption that allo aros "just want sex".
Effectively what an allo allo would want minus the romantic (and romantic coded) parts.
Hence also allos and aros tending to have different interpretations of the term "Friends With Benefits".
But sexual behavior whose natural mode is "not connected with romance" doesn't indicate a strong sex drive – it can be anything, medium, weak. They just can't get that into their heads.
I think it's the lack of romance which makes them see it as "just sex".
On ‎2017‎-‎10‎-‎02 at 4:10 PM, DeltaV said:
Obviously, a big part of the life of a typical heterosexual-heteroromantic revolves around the other gender – and I'm just always baffled how insanely much this usually is the case.
right? any allo, straight or otherwise, they seem so consumed by relationships and all that. if they're not talking to or about partners, then it's potential partners. people they're "interested in". me, i'll occasionally be like 'oh, he's hot, ok, moving on' or 'hey, he's attractive and fun to be around, cool.' pretty much.
I'm going to group the following excerpts together:
4 hours ago, Mark said:
yeah, to allos, there are two types of attraction: platonic, which is just friendship, and romantic+sexual: it doesn't separate, and it doesn't mix with the former. (I find the concept quite startling so I HOPE this is an over-simplification.) so when we're sexually attracted to someone, allos can't imagine that we could also like and care about them non-romantically. it's either a traditional (romantic+sexual) relationship or a hookup. Not that there's anything wrong with either of those, but I do find their 'aros only care about sex' routine says more about them than us.
On 03/10/2017 at 10:24 PM, aro_elise said:
One thing I can find is that I have little in the way of a common frame of reference with allos when it comes to talking about talking about relationships. Or I can only say vague things along the lines of "I'd like to spend more time with X, Y & Z". Or I'm avoiding asking questions along the lines of "Why is going about things that way so important?"
yeah, to allos, there are two types of attraction: platonic, which is just friendship, and romantic+sexual: it doesn't separate, and it doesn't mix with the former.
At least some allos can sort of mix things in terms of having both a friendship and romantic relationship with the same person. But sexual, sensual and affectionate behaviours still seem strongly associated with the romantic.
(I find the concept quite startling so I HOPE this is an over-simplification.) so when we're sexually attracted to someone, allos can't imagine that we could also like and care about them non-romantically. it's either a traditional (romantic+sexual) relationship or a hookup. Not that there's anything wrong with either of those, but I do find their 'aros only care about sex' routine says more about them than us.
I think it can go further than that. In terms allos being repulsed by non romantic sexual relationships. Such as sexual friendships.
On 10/3/2017 at 11:24 PM, aro_elise said:
You seem so normal.
yeah, to allos, there are two types of attraction: platonic, which is just friendship, and romantic+sexual: it doesn't separate, and it doesn't mix with the former. (I find the concept quite startling so I HOPE this is an over-simplification.)
Of course, romantic couples are also friends to different degree (and those who basically aren't and rely purely on the neodymium-magnetic power of romantic love in its manic incarnation are pretty much always dysfunctional). But going by how the word is used outside of our small circle, platonic by definition excludes anything romantic or sexual (the reason for this understanding of the word lie in a, to put it kindly, tendentious interpretation of Plato). The confusion is built into the language; platonic kinda means "'just' friendship in a situation when one should expect 'more'" – it probably should discarded as a word, but sadly that won't happen.
Why it is conceived as the worst thing ever to be sexually attracted to a friend but not "being able to 'escalate' the relationship" (as if sexual attraction without 'release' casts a shadow over it, making genuine friendship impossible) is another mystery yet to be uncovered. How desperately horny does one have to be? Also, aren't there enough other people around to have sex with? (sorry, to be that blunt) Probably the answer lies more in some sort of "monopolization instinct" than in pure sexual attraction by itself.
2 hours ago, DeltaV said:
But going by how the word is used outside of our small circle, platonic by definition excludes anything romantic or sexual (the reason for this understanding of the word lie in a, to put it kindly, tendentious interpretation of Plato).
This is why I dislike the way "platonic" gets used so liberally within aro forums.
Though up until recently "platonic" effectively ment "gay":)
Why it is conceived as the worst thing ever to be sexually attracted to a friend but not "being able to 'escalate' the relationship" (as if sexual attraction without 'release' casts a shadow over it, making genuine friendship impossible) is another mystery yet to be uncovered.
As with so many things about romance this has happened recently.
The relationship escalator idea seems quite reliant on memes which are specific to romantic attraction.
Probably the answer lies more in some sort of "monopolization instinct" than in pure sexual attraction by itself
I think sexual attraction by itself is probably fine for most people (as in people with the barest modicum of self control and respect for other people's boundaries ). I think it's rather the combination of sexual and romantic attraction towards a friend that makes people act (from my 'skewed' perspective, no doubt) 'a bit crazy'. Particularly in situations where that friend clearly won't/can't reciprocate and when they seem to prefer pressing the self destruct button on the whole friendship to carrying on as 'just friends'. Limerence seems to make people behave extremely oddly! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
On 05/10/2017 at 10:42 PM, Mark said:
I will second this. Coming from the 'friends with benefits' conversation, repulsion would be a good word to describe some of the stunted interpersonal interactions some people have as if sex and friends are mutually incompatible terms.
I think sexual attraction by itself is probably fine for most people (as in people with the barest modicum of self control and respect for other people's boundaries ). I think it's rather the combination of sexual and romantic attraction
'barest modicum' is how you get the situation in my first Romantic Horror Stories post. I don't know what attraction was at play, or if there even was any. Desperation for 'more than friends' from allos is much much creepier than anything an allo aro could do.
17 hours ago, Apathetic Echidna said:
I don't know what attraction was at play, or if there even was any.
Yeah, what do we want to subsume under "romantic attraction"?
There are those not-so-nice instincts somewhat aligned or in the wider sphere of romantic attraction (how it's usually understood) like
monopolization-urge1
creepy romo-obsessions
"super-low effort and emotional investment but expecting to be romantically loved"
The problem is that "romantic" is an inherently positively loaded word… do we really want to use another word idiosyncratically (like we already do with "platonic")?
It's a similar predicament with "social":
extreme introvert who lacks motivation to engage in social interaction and prefers solitary activities = asocial
Machiavellian conman = social anti-social
1 for example: one-sidedly deciding after some period of casual sex, that it's a committed relationship and getting furious about """cheating""" (triple scare-quotes!)
In Phaedrus it means: "homoerotic + 'please try to resist the urge to have sex! (yeah, okay, it's fine as long as it happens rarely)'". In the Symposium… whatever, but definitely not what it means today (or how we use it)! Do you have suggestions for a better word?
Anything based on "philia" sounds strange for obvious reasons and anything based on "amicus" will sound like "amicable" which would be weird, too. And "friend-attraction", no, no.
Personally I would be all in favour of the word being rather less "inherently positively loaded" . But I guess I take your point. What word would you use instead for the negative "romantic" behaviours, in that case?
Sure, let's run with this analogy. Could we then describe stalking as a "romantic anti-romantic" behaviour?
In my specific case there were 7 of us targeted so romantic attraction to all of us (to exhibit the less positive aspects of romantic attraction) is a bit far fetched> was focused more on the statement 'barest modicum of self control and respect for other people's boundaries' tied up with sexual/aesthetic attraction, or even an attitude of 'if you will have me you'll do'.
As for separating out the not-so-nice instincts, creepy romo-obsessions are mostly just called 'fixated obsessions', even when played out in a romantic framework people describing it will shy away from using 'romance' because, I guess, to distance the creepy stuff from the positivity of the word they probably identify with.
for example: one-sidedly deciding after some period of casual sex, that it's a committed relationship and getting furious about """cheating""" (triple scare-quotes!)
Do these people even know how crazy they are being? I guess the monopolization-urge is why the word 'emotional cheating' is now a thing, and jealousy of pre-existing relationships is not seen as a red-flag for an abusive relationship.
These things are certainly tied up with romantic attraction for some people, but are generally not found separated from romantic attraction so I think it is completely fair to align them. As for 'romantic' being positively loaded, the only positive aspect I have seen is it seems to make people blissfully happy (some of the time), so I do agree with @NullVector, but I guess terms to identify only the non-positive side to romantic attraction would be useful. Obsessive romantic expectations? anti-social romantic behaviours? non-positive romantic aspects? bits of romance people willingly seem to forget exist and are horrible and crazy? gotta get some abbreviations, initials or acronyms happening on these to make them easier to use. (I think BORP-WSTFEAAHAC is fairly catchy )
Also, aren't there enough other people around to have sex with? (sorry, to be that blunt) Probably the answer lies more in some sort of "monopolization instinct" than in pure sexual attraction by itself.
here's another thing we can bring up: i'm poly (I think). I feel like the combination of amatonormativity with toxic monogamy, or, more mildly, the 'one true love' ideal is a whole different level of--I like @Apathetic Echidna's word choice--crazy. it's all interconnected, all this and of course heteronormativity, and it doesn't make sense. yeah, to each other, we do seem normal, but if you take that to mean 'common', you're no doubt well aware that we're really not. my posts never have quite the cohesion or substance for which I aim, and that's because I have a hard enough time thinking about all this, never mind articulating it.
Which often makes things difficult for non monogamous alloromantics.
Complication is that alloromantics can find these highly positive either from people they are romantically attracted to or when they behave in such ways.
I'm far from convinced that trying to use "platonic" in an idiosyncratic way is anything other than a bad idea.Trying the same sort of thing with "romantic" would just lead to more confusion.
There are several Latin words which are translated to "friend".
Alternative is to coin a new word or use one with a completely unrelated meaning.