A/romanticism
Dec. 24th, 2010 13:38
kaz
I
am not sure why I suddenly want to write pages and pages of posts on
Chistmas Eve like seriously I have TEN THOUSAND THINGS I want to write
about. Probably consequence of going on holiday which involved a lot of
hiking which involved a lot of me thinking to myself. Sigh.
I've been thinking about my romantic orientation again. Which is, I admit, partly frustrating because I thought I'd FINALLY managed to pin it down and it's been elusive for YEARS and I was sohappy figuring out something I was happy identifying as.
The development of my orientation went a little like this:
I only really started thinking about it when I was in my twenties, then sort of flailed around a bit and settled on "aromantic" because I didn't really think I wanted to have a boyfriend (note the gender). I slowly became comfortable in that identity, then suddenly realised I'd entirely forgot about the possibility of a girlfriend. And that, in fact, the idea of a girlfriend was not nearly as alien or weird as that of a boyfriend. And that, actually, I'd been crushing on women. A lot. Since I was very young. And that my dream plan for my life involved living together with my BFF (whooo is probably reading this, hi!), possibly raising kids with her (probably adopted bar scientific meddling) and possibly marrying her for tax and visa reasons. Which didn't really fit in with most people's perceptions of friendship, and was furthermore pretty damn different from the desires that I'd seen other aromantic people express (which tended to involve a lot of stuff like being independent and living on your own - I think reading glad_to_be_a formed a lot of my ideas of what it meant to be aromantic). And furthermore, my crushes/squishes/whateveryouwanttocallthem
had a distinct gender preference as I'd only once crushed on a guy and
it felt like a fluke. You couldn't very well be aromantic with a gender
preference, now could you? But on the other hand, I wasn't quite happy
with calling it romantic. I mean, I was thinking of marrying my BFF
because it'd make it easier wrt visa stuff, not because it was something
I wanted. I wasn't sure if I wanted to date her (or was dating her, for
that matter), or call her my girlfriend (and indeed, I call her my
not!GF these days because this whole area is still a giant big SO
CONFUSED). I didn't have any desire for the trappings of romance, and
some of the things associated with coupledom actually seriously freak me
out (there is this tendency for two people who are dating or married to
present themselves or see themselves as a unit instead of two
individuals in their own right, which I find disturbing, and the thought
of it happening to me makes me want to flee to the other side of the
earth). And, well, what the hell was romantic attraction anyway?
I'm still looking for an answer to this question, by the way. The only remotely useful one I've found is "it's romance if you think it's romance", which is at least clear in its definition but kind of very very circular. There's components that are often a part of romance (sexual interest, exclusivity, primary relationship, crush, specific types of strong emotional connection, desire for approval, etc.), but I haven't found a single one that's present in all romantic relationships or that's never present in nonromantic relationships. Any people who have romantic desires may weigh in on what they feel is the difference.
This led to - a year? maybe two? of intermittent agonising over whether I was aromantic or homoromantic, and whether the relationship I was in was romantic or friendship. In both cases, neither seemed to fit. I opted for "somewhere in between" as an interim measure while I figured things out, then got sick of the agonising and decided to stick with that for the time being. Then as time went on, I decided that I was actually somewhere in between and so was my relationship, and started to question the friendship/romance/family dichotomy we tend to stuff our relationships into. I started looking for a shorthand for "in between aromantic and homoromantic", went for "demihomoromantic", then discovered that some people were using demiromantic as analogous to demisexual (with romantic feelings and desires developing only after an emotional bond was already present) and ended up with greyhomoromantic instead. Which I have been using for... a few months now, I think? Not all that long.
So what's been making me question that?
First, I'm starting to become uncomfortable with the implicit binary assumptions of homo-, hetero- and bi-. For one, using "homoromantic" identifies me as a woman, which I'm not entirely comfortable with (and I'm also not comfortable that the terms in use are really problematic for nonbinary, agendered and other people who don't id as male or female.) I think I'm attracted, in some way, to women in a way that I'm not to men. But what about people who aren't either? I don't know! :(
Second, recently I've met a lot of ace people iding as aromantic who have expressed desires similar to mine - they want a BFF who's also their life partner, they might want to live together with this person, they might want to raise kids together. I think some of them even mentioned a gender preference. I'm starting to realise I may have let myself be driven away from aromantic based on the fact that the other aromantic people I was seeing seemed very different from me and I assumed that theirs was the "right" way to do aromanticism. But surely aromantic can entail different things. In fact...
For ages, I've sort of quietly thought that asexuality is the most diverse sexual orientation, because it's defined through the lack of something instead of the presence. We sort of have a microcosm of the sexual world - orientations in the form of romantic orientations, kinky folk in all degrees of varieties, pretty much anything that exists as an identity for sexual people seems to have some analogy for ace people - plus various "gradations" of asexuality like repulsed, indifferent, libido questions (although these do happen for sexual folk as well, but differently from what I can tell), the asexual spectrum with all the possible varieties of grey-a... I suspect one of the things that confuses people who first find the asexual community is the huge amount of jargon, but the thing is that we need it to talk about all the different identities and varieties of asexuality in our community. The only thing we have in common is lacking (or, for the spectrum people, nearly lacking) sexual attraction, and that's less of a commonality than the presence of a certain type.
Similarly, aromanticism can be incredibly diverse. Who are the people who don't have romantic attraction (whatever the hell that means)? There are the hermits. There are the people who want friendships but nothing that exceeds the bounds of friendships as socially defined. There are people who want something else. There are people who invest a lot in communities over individuals, who have a network of primary relationships, or just a few, or one - but still one that doesn't manage to fall into the "romance" box. Under this kind of thinking, I am definitely aromantic - I lack romantic attraction. (I sort of deduce this by the fact that it's only really aromantic people who I've seen asking the "but what the hell IS it anyway?!" questions; romantic people seem to know.) I've got something else, but that's not the question.
Thirdly, I have been thinking of hierarchies of relationships. I have railed for a while about how society expects us to fit our relationships into these neat little restricted boxes, and these boxes are ordered. The fabulous Irrationalpoint put it better than I've managed to:
This clearly works for a lot of people, although I imagine that it may not work very well and may cause a lot of pain that's not obvious looking in from the outside. It does not work for me. At all. In fact, sorting my relationships into these categories simply does not work for me. At all. The types of relationships I want? The types I already have? Are too cool for your puny boxes.
As a result, more and more I feel like the whole concept of a romantic orientation is asking me to define myself in terms of boxes that just don't apply - hence my constant back-and-forth not feeling comfortable with any of the options ending with me making my very own - that asking me "so what's your romantic orientation?" is simply the wrong question.
ALSO, I worry that by calling my relationship and desired relationship "in between friendship and romance" (which again feels a bit like I'm boxing it in) I'm trying to get relationship points from the hierarchy - that because I don't want what I have with my not!GF to be dismissed as "just" friendship I'm calling it sort of romantic ish in a way in order to get some of the importance that gets accorded to romantic relationships in our society - when really I should be trying to break down the hierarchy altogether, point out that friendship doesn't have to be "just", and that there are more options than friendship or romance. And sure, I don't think anyone would argue with me that in some situations that's not a good strategy and I can pretend to buy into the hierarchy to some extent for self-protection (and if they do, they're an arse), but surely if I'm in an asexual community I ought to be able to drop that.
CONCLUSION: I am feeling more and more as if I should a) be identifying as aromantic and/or b) just stop asking myself about my romantic orientation entirely because it's the wrong question with a dash of c) be breaking down the friendship/romance/family categorisation and the relationship hierarchy. At the same time, I find myself sad - I don't actually know anyone else who ids as greyhomoromantic and not sure I know anyone else who ids as greyromantic period. This is literally a word I created for myself when nothing else felt like it would fit, and the idea of having to drop it hurts.
I've been thinking about my romantic orientation again. Which is, I admit, partly frustrating because I thought I'd FINALLY managed to pin it down and it's been elusive for YEARS and I was sohappy figuring out something I was happy identifying as.
The development of my orientation went a little like this:
I only really started thinking about it when I was in my twenties, then sort of flailed around a bit and settled on "aromantic" because I didn't really think I wanted to have a boyfriend (note the gender). I slowly became comfortable in that identity, then suddenly realised I'd entirely forgot about the possibility of a girlfriend. And that, in fact, the idea of a girlfriend was not nearly as alien or weird as that of a boyfriend. And that, actually, I'd been crushing on women. A lot. Since I was very young. And that my dream plan for my life involved living together with my BFF (whooo is probably reading this, hi!), possibly raising kids with her (probably adopted bar scientific meddling) and possibly marrying her for tax and visa reasons. Which didn't really fit in with most people's perceptions of friendship, and was furthermore pretty damn different from the desires that I'd seen other aromantic people express (which tended to involve a lot of stuff like being independent and living on your own - I think reading glad_to_be_a formed a lot of my ideas of what it meant to be aromantic). And furthermore, my crushes/squishes/
I'm still looking for an answer to this question, by the way. The only remotely useful one I've found is "it's romance if you think it's romance", which is at least clear in its definition but kind of very very circular. There's components that are often a part of romance (sexual interest, exclusivity, primary relationship, crush, specific types of strong emotional connection, desire for approval, etc.), but I haven't found a single one that's present in all romantic relationships or that's never present in nonromantic relationships. Any people who have romantic desires may weigh in on what they feel is the difference.
This led to - a year? maybe two? of intermittent agonising over whether I was aromantic or homoromantic, and whether the relationship I was in was romantic or friendship. In both cases, neither seemed to fit. I opted for "somewhere in between" as an interim measure while I figured things out, then got sick of the agonising and decided to stick with that for the time being. Then as time went on, I decided that I was actually somewhere in between and so was my relationship, and started to question the friendship/romance/family dichotomy we tend to stuff our relationships into. I started looking for a shorthand for "in between aromantic and homoromantic", went for "demihomoromantic", then discovered that some people were using demiromantic as analogous to demisexual (with romantic feelings and desires developing only after an emotional bond was already present) and ended up with greyhomoromantic instead. Which I have been using for... a few months now, I think? Not all that long.
So what's been making me question that?
First, I'm starting to become uncomfortable with the implicit binary assumptions of homo-, hetero- and bi-. For one, using "homoromantic" identifies me as a woman, which I'm not entirely comfortable with (and I'm also not comfortable that the terms in use are really problematic for nonbinary, agendered and other people who don't id as male or female.) I think I'm attracted, in some way, to women in a way that I'm not to men. But what about people who aren't either? I don't know! :(
Second, recently I've met a lot of ace people iding as aromantic who have expressed desires similar to mine - they want a BFF who's also their life partner, they might want to live together with this person, they might want to raise kids together. I think some of them even mentioned a gender preference. I'm starting to realise I may have let myself be driven away from aromantic based on the fact that the other aromantic people I was seeing seemed very different from me and I assumed that theirs was the "right" way to do aromanticism. But surely aromantic can entail different things. In fact...
For ages, I've sort of quietly thought that asexuality is the most diverse sexual orientation, because it's defined through the lack of something instead of the presence. We sort of have a microcosm of the sexual world - orientations in the form of romantic orientations, kinky folk in all degrees of varieties, pretty much anything that exists as an identity for sexual people seems to have some analogy for ace people - plus various "gradations" of asexuality like repulsed, indifferent, libido questions (although these do happen for sexual folk as well, but differently from what I can tell), the asexual spectrum with all the possible varieties of grey-a... I suspect one of the things that confuses people who first find the asexual community is the huge amount of jargon, but the thing is that we need it to talk about all the different identities and varieties of asexuality in our community. The only thing we have in common is lacking (or, for the spectrum people, nearly lacking) sexual attraction, and that's less of a commonality than the presence of a certain type.
Similarly, aromanticism can be incredibly diverse. Who are the people who don't have romantic attraction (whatever the hell that means)? There are the hermits. There are the people who want friendships but nothing that exceeds the bounds of friendships as socially defined. There are people who want something else. There are people who invest a lot in communities over individuals, who have a network of primary relationships, or just a few, or one - but still one that doesn't manage to fall into the "romance" box. Under this kind of thinking, I am definitely aromantic - I lack romantic attraction. (I sort of deduce this by the fact that it's only really aromantic people who I've seen asking the "but what the hell IS it anyway?!" questions; romantic people seem to know.) I've got something else, but that's not the question.
Thirdly, I have been thinking of hierarchies of relationships. I have railed for a while about how society expects us to fit our relationships into these neat little restricted boxes, and these boxes are ordered. The fabulous Irrationalpoint put it better than I've managed to:
In other words, from a very young age, we are taught The Relationship Hierarchy. Which is something like: blood ties and marriage ties trump other sorts of ties. Sexual relationships trump non sexual relationships. You have only one partner, who shall be your sexual partner and your lawfully-wedded spouse, and no other partners, and they trump all other relationships. Marriages that produce children trump non-procreating relationships, but Thou Shalt Not Be A Single Parent. “Family” and “Friends” are distinctive sets of people, and “Family” trumps “Friends”. “Friends” should mean only people of the same sex, but otherwise, same sex friends trump other-sex friends. You shall be emotionally intimate only with same-sex friends, unless you are a man, and then Thou Shalt Not Have Emotions.
This clearly works for a lot of people, although I imagine that it may not work very well and may cause a lot of pain that's not obvious looking in from the outside. It does not work for me. At all. In fact, sorting my relationships into these categories simply does not work for me. At all. The types of relationships I want? The types I already have? Are too cool for your puny boxes.
As a result, more and more I feel like the whole concept of a romantic orientation is asking me to define myself in terms of boxes that just don't apply - hence my constant back-and-forth not feeling comfortable with any of the options ending with me making my very own - that asking me "so what's your romantic orientation?" is simply the wrong question.
ALSO, I worry that by calling my relationship and desired relationship "in between friendship and romance" (which again feels a bit like I'm boxing it in) I'm trying to get relationship points from the hierarchy - that because I don't want what I have with my not!GF to be dismissed as "just" friendship I'm calling it sort of romantic ish in a way in order to get some of the importance that gets accorded to romantic relationships in our society - when really I should be trying to break down the hierarchy altogether, point out that friendship doesn't have to be "just", and that there are more options than friendship or romance. And sure, I don't think anyone would argue with me that in some situations that's not a good strategy and I can pretend to buy into the hierarchy to some extent for self-protection (and if they do, they're an arse), but surely if I'm in an asexual community I ought to be able to drop that.
CONCLUSION: I am feeling more and more as if I should a) be identifying as aromantic and/or b) just stop asking myself about my romantic orientation entirely because it's the wrong question with a dash of c) be breaking down the friendship/romance/family categorisation and the relationship hierarchy. At the same time, I find myself sad - I don't actually know anyone else who ids as greyhomoromantic and not sure I know anyone else who ids as greyromantic period. This is literally a word I created for myself when nothing else felt like it would fit, and the idea of having to drop it hurts.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-24 22:48 (UTC)Otherwise, thanks for writing this post - because you've actually made me more secure in my aromanticism. Because I (also?) wouldn't mind having some sort of household-partner and (perhaps even) a child, and they would probably be a woman, mostly because I tend towards creating closer friendships with women, though I don't know how much that is that my secondary school was all girls, so I never really had that much experience making friends with boys, and my particular subject (sub)area is generally quite female, so I come into prolonged contact with men less frequently, plus I think part of me is aware that most men (like women) I meet are straight enough to make me get nervous about tripping some sort of mine (I obviously don't think many if any of them are going to be attracted to me, but I get nervous because I'm not sure if I would know/how I would deal with it - it doesn't help that the only guy I've really known to be attracted to me was very socially awkward, so never took any hints that I wasn't interested in talking to him, nor ever said anything explicit enough where I could justify actively rejecting him). I wouldn't mind having someone there, but I have no idea how to seek them out and wouldn't say I was ever 'attracted' to people in that respect. TBH I grow to dislike most people I come into prolonged contact with, so, though I still think there must be someone/some people out there whom I click with beyond 'you're OK during the working day; never spend more than eight hours with me in one go', I'm not sure it's ever going to come that easily. (In contrast, I feel I should note, I love meeting people in the short term and being thrown into situations where there's a group and nobody knows each other - though if there's no one queer in the group, at least alternative and open-minded in their interests if not orientationally, then I really start feeling it after a week. I'm not a complete misanthrope...)
For me, then, iding myself aromantic is a bit like my asexuality - experience so far suggests I am not romantically attracted to anyone (as I am not sexually attracted to anyone). I'm not ruling out the possibility and intellectually, perhaps, I am drawn to what could result from such an attraction. But, er, it ain't happening, as far as I can tell.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-24 22:53 (UTC)People get jargony when their existence is denied and excluded by society, when there aren't even words to describe our experiences so we have to make them up. And on that note, maybe I should start rolling greyromantic around in my noggin. Two people is all you need to start a revolution, right?
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-24 23:55 (UTC)Word word word on the people getting jargony. The total explosion of jargon in most minority communities is a sign to me of how much society is oppressing them to the point of denying them the ability to describe what they're experiencing. And I would be totally delighted if you took up greyromantic! It's not perfect, but one of the things I like about it is that unlike the other romantic orientations it at least starts on "it's more complicated than that..." And I like that it gives me a way to express being attracted to women, however problematic, because that a) feels like an important part of my orientation to me and b) is something I think could easily get erased by people assuming I either had no gender preference at all or was hetero.
Other options I am considering are WTFromantic, homoplatonic, homoWTF or romantic orientation of divide by cucumber.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-25 01:53 (UTC)I am actually not averse to borrowing a word from another language since English does that oh so very much anyhoodle. This is so frustrating because it feels like English forces me to define these relationships by something they are not, rather than what they are, and I loathe reverse definitions. Although I kind of like queerplatonic as a definer for the attraction I feel to my zucchini; it neatly avoids discussing the gender of either party involved, while emphasizing the idea that it is a deep (almost symbiotic in some ways) emotional connection that transcends what I think of as friendship. Hrm.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-25 10:27 (UTC)I also think borrowing may be a way to go, my main worries are whether we can find a word in another language that means what we want it to (sadly I'm only familiar with various Indo-European ones, German's not helpful because the word is cognate [although there, I should add, the words for friend and boy/girlfriend are actually the same], French has got the ami/e vs copain/copine distinction going on but I'm not sure what that actually means in practice... gah) and possible worries about appropriation. Although it *is* how languages work, so. :/
Oh my I liiiike queerplatonic. I think I've mentioned before that one of the options I play with is "having a queer romantic orientation" - I really *like* this because I think "queer" works really well for these sorts of "YOUR BOXES, THEY ARE INSUFFICIENT" relationships - zucchini and other sorts of vegetables - but I'm worried it'll end up reinforcing the idea that heteroromantic ace folk can't be queer.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-25 12:55 (UTC)And 'vegetarian' I think is already in use somewhere...dammit!
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-25 12:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-25 13:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-26 22:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-25 04:05 (UTC)The thing that really used to bug me about the way I saw aromanticism discussed was that if you wanted a relationship in the abstract, you... somehow weren't aromantic? Which, hang on, is it about attraction or not? I think with me, I actually started with the identity and insisted that other people were doing it wrong (or at least differently from me) rather than assuming I had the wrong identity because it didn't match what other people said they wanted.
And yes yes yes on not wanting the romance/friendship hierarchy thing! And on the "trying to get relationship points" thing! I mean, despite identifying as aromantic I've often considered dating just to get some of that cultural credit given to my relationships, because it sucks how little friendships are supposed to matter. Even very close friendships--you're supposed to drop them the moment a romance comes along, after all.
How does one define friendship, anyway? It seems to me that it encompasses almost the entire spectrum of affectionate human relationships between unrelated people, all the way from acquaintances to bosom buddies, and we really have not got enough words to define all the different gradations. The words we DO have get devalued, too--I mean, even words like BFF have a connotation of immature teenagers attached, and there really aren't any words at all for friendships that are meant to last forever.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-25 12:41 (UTC)Yeah, I think I've seen quite a bit of the "aromantic = NO KIND OF RELATIONSHIP" thing, which made me sort of quietly leave. I suspect your approach was a better one! I've spent ages oscillating between options and now kind of want to say I have a romantic orientation of divide by cucumber just because I am SO SICK OF IT. Although at the same time greyromantic is my baby. :(
I think to some extent trying to get relationship points is sort of self-protection... I've also contemplated dating, and I think my desire to tie in my zucchini (see above) with romance came from that. Like, I've got friends who know next to nothing about what's important to me in life, I've got friends I see hardly ever, I know that friendships are supposed to always always always take second place to romantic relationships (which, bleargh), and the idea of someone hearing me talk about my zucchini and thinking it's THAT sort of thing I mean is just awful.
And. Yeah. The idea of having just one word, "friend", for every single even relatively close relationship I have with a person where it's not romantic and we're not related, and having THAT word be "worth" relatively little, just boggles the mind. (I hadn't really noticed the teenager connotation of BFF, but now that you mention it... yeah.)
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-26 02:54 (UTC)I don't know if mine was the better one, exactly--it seems to have led to a bunch of flailing and arm-waving. And certainly generally going "well I think you're all wrong about the way this identity should work!" is not necessarily the best reaction to have...
And self-protection... well, yeah. And friendship--seriously, I was having this conversation a while ago with SlightlyMetaphysical, but we have so few words to describe friendship and different kinds of friendship that when you stop to examine them you can really see the devaluing. I wonder if it might derive from an older distinction between "family" and "not-family"? Because your family's supposed to be with you until someone dies (ideally, we all know it doesn't work out that way) and your significant other is counted as a family member, but friendships aren't. Which is silly--I think my closest friends, the ones I see every day and talk to all the time and miss terribly when I don't get to talk to are definitely part of my family.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-26 14:18 (UTC)I had this idea, a while ago, about turning a large part of my blog content into experimentations and forays into non-binary relationships. I could see a lot of the stuff on the horizon that you're struggling with. On the one hand, I don't want to be invisible. I don't want to have to scrounge on 'friendships' to give me some crumb of what romantic people experience. I want something I can proudly hold up and say: "This is my shiny new queer relationship." On the other hand, this causes so many problems. How do I refer to my Q.R.s in a way which doesn't uphold the relationship binary? How do I priorotise my Q.R.s without doing everything I was so originally against in marginalising friendship? What seperates my relationships where people consent to Q.R.s from friendships which may have similar emotional content but with people less enthusiastic to consent (ie. straight, monogamous men will be unlikely to want to be my zucchini, but that doesn't make the relationship invalid). What romantic orientation does having a Q.R. make me? How do I introduce my Q.R.s to my mother?
And, chiefly, where does one even find Q.R.s in the first place?
So far, you're doing way better at thinking about all this than me. I love the idea of referring to your paramours as some random word. I was actually considering something similar myself, giving each one (theoretically, I may end up with more than one at a time [hah! chance would be a fine thing!]) some title, like 'darling' or 'beau', and then referring to them as 'my...', then doing the explaining bit whenever people got the courage to ask me, and living my life happily like that.
sent here via meloukia
Date: 2010-12-29 00:15 (UTC)For me, romance is... the very UBER-stereotypical trappings that come with relationships. It's actions, like "here's a dozen roses and homemade lasagna at a candlelit dining room table for Valentine's Day" and "diamond rings on the anniversaries". To be aromantic is to be... low-key with your relationships. You don't care for that stuff, and it's much more satisfying to have the small things. Someone to curl up with if you really need it, someone to help you with the day-to-day things, someone who will cook for you if you're going to be working late. Things like that.
Maybe the difference is that, with romance, your life revolves around the other person? And so, as an aromantic person, your relationships are more of a matter of "two people, meeting together and building a life together, yet fully independent of each other, instead of 2 halves of a whole"?
I'm not sure that second part is coming out the way that I intend it to, though.
(Granted, I'm demisexual, but definitely don't think of myself as aromantic, so take this with a huge grain of salt.)
Re: sent here via meloukia
Date: 2010-12-29 00:32 (UTC)And. Hmmm. The thing is, there are plenty of people who are in romantic relationships who don't buy into the trappings stuff at all. To take a silly example, I'm not sure I've ever seen my parents do anything "traditionally" romantic for each other, and from stories of them when they were younger it sounds as if that's not changed much (ex: their getting married via going to the registrar's office in their nicest everyday clothing and having random people off the street be their witnesses) and yet their relationship is fine. I'm more romantically demonstrative with some of my friends - not even zucchini! - than they are with each other.
And I know quite a few people in romantic relationships who don't do the "our lives revolve around one another" thing (and thinking about it, I suspect that's an unhealthy relationship model, at least for a lot of people), who are happy having relatively independent lives - who seem to have, in fact, more independent lives than what I'd want with some of my zucchini (ex: not living together and not planning to). There's also poly people to think about, who can have romantic relationships with multiple people. And then I have seen people who seem to be doing the "inseparable" thing as friends, not a romantic couple, although admittedly this is more rare in RL than in fiction.
...can you tell I've thought about this a lot?
Re: sent here via meloukia
Date: 2010-12-29 00:48 (UTC)People may not buy into that but, in my experience, that's the societal ideal that defines romance. I mean, you don't see "omg, my love bought me a bunch of broccoli. :D" in Valentine's Days commercials. But, to me, that's romance because it's proving that you know me. You know that I'm diabetic, so candy is out. You know that I grew up struggling for food so fruit and veg are still a treat, even if it's something I can get regularly now. Things like that. That's what romance is to me, but like I said. But, I think that in a discussion like this, we need to talk about what society defines romance as. (Maybe that's where we're getting all twisted up and confused? I'm not sure. I'm just kinda babbling here. :P)
Good point.
It could be that we, as a society, have simply outgrown the "old" definitions of relationships and romance and haven't come up with new models and terminology to work with. And that makes it fun for those of us who don't have traditional relationships, doesn't it? -wrinkles nose-
I couldn't tell at all! :)
Re: sent here via meloukia
Date: 2010-12-29 00:55 (UTC)Re: sent here via meloukia
Date: 2010-12-29 00:58 (UTC)So, my solution is to basically just chuck it all and not worry about whether I'm aromantic or not. And, really, it's nobody's business how I express myself in relationships, outside of the people I'm in relationships with and people I may potentially be in relationships with.
Just less brainbreaky that way. And when you have as few thinky!spoons as I get daily, you gotta conserve what you can. (I have a lot of cognitive disabilities due to my disabilities.)
Re: sent here via meloukia
Date: 2010-12-29 01:10 (UTC)I admire the people who can just go "I know what I want and it's no one's business", but it doesn't seem to work for me. I think I get really influenced by what society tells me I should be doing so I sort of have to loudly and proactively fight against it, and it's been really messing with my mind realising that what I wanted in life just didn't fit into the way relationships were meant to work to the extent that there didn't even seem to be any vocabulary to describe it. Not having words for what I want it just this constant nagging ache in the back of my mind, so I've sort of got to tease it out. Also, I sort of feel as if - I wish someone had done this work for me, so now if I'm loud about it maybe someone will run across it who needs it.
Also, yeah, I can see that being an issue re: disability. I'm lucky in that even when I'm feeling really spoon-deprived I can generally do this sort of abstracted analytic thinky stuff, even if I may no longer be able to express it coherently. That type of thinky spoons is in abundant supply for me, but others aren't so I can see why you'd go "not worth dissecting" for this kind of thing.
Re: sent here via meloukia
Date: 2010-12-29 01:14 (UTC)I can identify with this. That's why I'm open about my multiplicity, especially since I'm on the spectrum and not on either end of it. I guess our "MUST DEFINE THIS" areas are just different.
Again, People = complicated. -grin-
I hope you find the answers you need. :) -offers a hug-
Re: sent here via meloukia
Date: 2010-12-29 00:59 (UTC)Re: sent here via meloukia
Date: 2010-12-29 01:10 (UTC)I guess that I don't really understand the whole "aromantic" term. It kind of makes me tilt my head and go "How can you be not 'a term that has no standard definition'?" It seems like it's unnecessarily splitting hairs, to me. But I could be speaking out of privilege because I don't feel the need to examine whether I'm romantic or not. (Both because of my disabilities and because I feel that what type of relationship I have with someone is between me and them and nobody else.)
Re: sent here via meloukia
Date: 2010-12-29 01:19 (UTC)Re: sent here via meloukia
Date: 2011-01-02 01:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-01-09 01:31 (UTC)--ily of "asexy beast"
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-14 16:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-16 12:12 (UTC)