I've been thinking a lot about labels and whatnot and I think I'm slowly coming to a realization that the attraction-centric model of queer labeling is not always helpful and may sometimes be harmful. At least one interpretation of it has been harmful to me.
I've been going back and forth on the question of whether the aroace /aromantic labels apply to me because I think I DO have some sembalance of romantic attraction, but that does not translate into a desire to date or be in a relationship. Because of that, I felt that it would be deceitful to use them, when in reality NOT labeling myself as such probably did a lot more harm and provided a lot less communication than would have been possible otherwise.
Also, coming to a realization that it is possible to have a feeling and still not want to act on it in a way that society deems correct and healthy should NOT have been as hard as it was?? Like... I thought I already did all that work? Why again? I already understood that yes not wanting sex is a normal thing to do. But self-assigning a label of asexuality was easier because I do not experience sexual attraction either. So it is both that I do not experience attraction and do not want to engage in the lifestyle choices that are associated with its presence. I wonder if understanding that ace people can still engage in such choices (have and enjoy sex) was easier than the opposite specifically because of the attraction-based model that is used, because what do you mean that seemed very natural but the opposite didn't???
I understand why it is used. Because in a world where every person who does not experience homosexual attraction or lack of attraction showing that people with such genuine desires or lack thereof exist is important, both to show others like you that it is an option and to combat ignorance. But putting innate things above individual choice is... Hm.
In this regard I love polyamory as a concept of a chosen lifestyle rather than an attraction model. There are people who experience attraction to multiple people, and yet choose to be in a monogamous relationship, and that makes them monogamous. Because individual choice and will of that person matter more than their desires. I wish we could move on from attraction-based language to true choice-based frameworks. Yes, an asexual person can choose to have sex, as well as an allosexual person can choose to not have sex in a relationship at all period. Bisexual people can choose to explicitly date and have sex with only one gender, or multiple but not all. Or not. Yes, a person with gender dysphoria should be able to pursue gender-affirming medical care and/or change their appearance cosmetically. But they can also just choose not to do that! And also changing your appearance to match that of another gender is also a thing that people can, and should do if they want to!
Our thoughts do not shape us, our actions do. There is no such thing as a thought crime. Similarly, I do not have to date people even if I experience romantic attraction!!! Because what matters is individual choice!!! If an aro person can engage with romantic dating, I can choose to not engage with it! Anyone can!! And I don't have to pursue top surgery Right the fuck Now if I want a right to a Trans Person card!! And I can engage with femininity as an afab person and that makes me no less non binary!!! I do not understand why it took me so long to put two and two together. Who cares. I should just live my life. I can do whatever. I have free will. I HAVE FREE WILL AND SO DO YOU!
tldr: you do not need to conform to your label 100% inside and out for it to be valid. Also you can use labels however you want. A "bisexual" woman who experiences attraction to men but wants to never act on it has a right and claim to a lesbian label! Everyone should take a chill pill and use their free will with reckless abandon. and I just realized that and it solved my queer chrisis
