This is a blog for aromantic asexuals, aromantic sexuals, grey-romantics, lithromantics, and anyone else on the aromantic spectrum. We try our best to be inclusive and will offer advice to anyone who comes to our ask box. Check out our FAQ here if you're confused by any of the terminology we use.

Please use image descriptions! It helps us out immensely.

frostlawyer:

i wonder if it has occurred to people that you can defend to the death a queer ship that is 100% worth defending without simultaneously belittling and hurting your aromantic peers

(via faypunk)

Apr 23rd, 2014
My sister’s reaction…
image: aromantic aardvark meme image (aardvark on a background of grey, yellow and white stripes radiating from the middle)text— top: “Aromatic”?text—bottom: you mean, you’re like benzo rings?

My sister’s reaction…

image: aromantic aardvark meme image (aardvark on a background of grey, yellow and white stripes radiating from the middle)
text— top: “Aromatic”?
text—bottom: you mean, you’re like benzo rings?

Apr 22nd, 2014

cameoappearance:

The thing about aromantic representation in media — or maybe representation’s not the right word, but certainly about making media that doesn’t continue to diminish and erase aromantics — is that it’s not just about making aromantic characters (who aren’t villainous or inhuman), although that’s certainly nice to have. It’s also about not presenting romance as essential to happiness or essential to humanity, and about presenting romance as equal to other types of relationship rather than romance as the peak of emotional intimacy and affection. (Making it clear that there are other kinds of love than romantic love will go a long way.)

A friendship turning romantic is not an upgrade; there’s nothing lesser about friendship. It’s just a change. It might lead to the characters becoming closer and caring more for each other than they previously did, but a switch from friendship to romance is not a prerequisite for this increase in closeness. It’s just different, not better. This is why “they’re too close to be JUST friends” is so aggravating to hear. If you want to convince me that the relationship between two characters is romantic or proto-romantic rather than platonic, come up with an argument for it being qualitatively different, because even The Sims knows that you need to do more than max out your relationship meter to turn a relationship romantic.

It’s not just about having aromantic characters, it’s about having an atmosphere that isn’t hostile to aromantics. Things like the message that you can’t have a close relationship (or a close relationship between non-relatives) without it either eventually turning romantic or being romantic all along, and that romance is something everyone wants or needs even if they aren’t currently pursuing it: these are what make for such a hostile atmosphere.

(via aroramblings)

Apr 21st, 2014
http://paradife-loft.tumblr.com/post/82655203361/ponte-vanima-replied-to-your-post-things-that

paradife-loft:

ponte-vanima replied to your post “things that suck: days where you more acutely than usual feel the…”

what does “amatonormative” mean?

in terms of simple definitions, it’s basically just the attitude society has that romantic relationships are more important/valuable/real than other types of relationships (especially those that aren’t close family). that’s putting it simply, heh; it spirals out quite rapidly into something of a smog laying over a lot of different interpersonal, media, structural/institutional, etc. dynamics in a ton of subtle forms that would require a good long essay to cover. it’s also something that helps comprise or is leveraged by other types of normative and/or oppressive dynamics (like heterosexism) to enforce said oppression.

for a shortlist of examples of what kinds of things people are referring to:

- stating/insinuating/acting according to the notion that having a romantic partner or being romantically desirable is (globally) an important goal and lacking in either is a defect or problem that should be changed

- the trope/belief that not being interested in romantic relationships makes you immature, unemotional/cold, less human, etc. (pick one or more)

- the presumption that one’s friends are less important, shallower relationships, etc. compared to one’s romantic partner; relatedly, that if two people could have a romantic relationship, that is the more desired or assumed state of affairs than them not doing so

- language like “in a relationship” meaning “in a romantic relationship”, “liking someone (like liking someone)” meaning “being romantically interested in them”, etc.

- legal institutions that tie various benefits and privileges and general life-smoothing procedures for people who have close relationships with each other, to societal institutions strongly associated with romantic relationships

(via arosecret)

Apr 20th, 2014

socialjusticearcher:

believe it or not, the majority of non-straight people will not get mad that you don’t know a lesser known identity. it’s your attitude about not knowing the term which angers us:

  *  when you think we are obligated to educate you about what it means; if you’re reading this post, then you probably have internet access some of the time and thus can look it up yourself

  *  when you call it a superfluous special snowflake identity and call them a different identity instead; choosing labels are a personal process that helps people feel comfortable with their sexualities and you are overly nosy and entitled to think your opinion is relevant

  *  when you reject the concept of the identity, whether that means thinking people can’t lack sexual attraction, or thinking that romantic+sexual attraction have to go together; people know their bodies and their attractions better than you ever can and it’s just plain silly to think you’re so telepathic

  *  when you insist that they’re not that identity because you have some stereotype about them; if you think “you can’t be aromantic because you’re so emotional” or “you can’t be demisexual because you’ve had casual sex before”, then you are trying to carry the definitions of orientations beyond their original meanings of kinds of attraction and making inaccurate generalizations

also, keep in mind that someone ranting to their friend or on their blog about how they always have to explain their identity does not mean they are blaming others for not knowing about it. of course lesser known and new identities aren’t knowledge people are born with. but that doesn’t make it any less frustrating.

(via psychetimelapse)

Apr 19th, 2014

musharnali:

 imagearomantic people are wonderful

imagedemiromantic people are beautiful

imagegrey-aro people are amazing

image lithromantic people are stunning

imagewtfromantic people are gorgeous

imageEVERYONE ON THE ARO SPECTRUM IS PERFECT

(via aroramblings)

Apr 18th, 2014

thelittlesel asked: Is the aro-spectrum flag decided or are we still, like, divided? Does everyone have the same flag? I just find it really confusing...

aromanticnerd:

We do not all have an agreed upon flag. The first and sometimes most comon flag is this one created by aromantic.org:

I explain some of the issues with that flag in this post.

here are two flags that have been suggested by people in the flag discussion on aroplane, the aromantic forum:

My favorite flag is the one I use in my sidebar and icon. It was suggested by a tumblr user (I can’t remember the url I’m sorry) and I find it to be the most inclusive and generally the one I like best.

(note that the flags aren’t meant to normally have words on them, I did that just to show what the stripes are meant to represent)

Apr 17th, 2014

aroramblings:

I’m starting to get instantly angry every time somebody equates the queer movement with the idea that it’s all about the LOVE. Only romantic love, naturally. *rolls eyes*

The queer movement can be so much more than some shitty ‘same love’ soundbite. When people only emphasize the idea of trying to fit into some ideal romantic, monogamous relationship, they ignore the potential for queer people to question the underlying assumptions of heteronormativity, amatonormativity and gender stereotypes. Surely we can do better than trying to mimic straight romantic relationships?

I don’t talk about my own orientation on this blog a lot, but as someone who identifies as both aromantic and gay it really irritates me when people act like being gay/queer is ONLY ever about love. It can be for some people, yes, but saying that it always is totally erases aromantic gay/queer people.

Apr 16th, 2014

aromanticmami:

I came up with a term
aromanticization
it’s where you take something that society deems romantic and make it platonic

(via incompleteicarus)

Apr 15th, 2014

Anonymous asked: Is there a word for people who are aromantic but would want more than one partner? I guess like 'polyamory'... but without the 'amory' part of the relationship?

'Amor' is Latin for love - all types of love. So I really don't see why it would need to be a distinct word for aromantics. If you don't feel comfortable with the “-amory” part, though, you can just use poly.

Apr 15th, 2014