#aro discourse

Since I’ve been here it’s been: nonbinary people, bisexual people, asexual and aromantic people, polyamorous people, pansexual people, people who only use the word queer for their identity, trans men/mascs, and intersex people. At least. I might’ve missed something.

Personally, I don't think we should build a ten foot wall around both topics — if you know me, you know my passion as a fandom creator is exploring the complex ramifications of being a-spec in sexual/romantic situations, for better or for worse. But like, you gotta be aware that that's what you're doing. "Mirabelle is happy to settle down with Siffrin and Isabeau and all sleep in one big bed and raise children with them and be committed life partners, as long as it's not called romance" is not something I'm inherently opposed to exploring, because that is a real experience that it's possible for a romance-repulsed aro to have, but I think it should be held on the same level as "Mirabelle is happy to [details I shan't go into on main], as long as it's not called sex".

The former may feel a lot more normal, but you see how that's the exact problem, right? The latter may feel more icky, but if that ick is rooted in respect for enthusiastic consent and a character's stated disinterest, why do you value those less in a nonsexual context?

Like I said, I'm not actually entirely opposed to either scenario. (I understand why some people hate them both, but I think it's possible and rewarding to pull them off in deeply a-spec ways.) And it's fine to personally enjoy one and be way more put off by the other. But there's not really any big canonical difference in how Mirabelle treats one versus the other; she lists sex right alongside activities like bonding and having kids when discussing her frustration that she's expected to find a person to do all of this with. So why is it generally considered unobjectionable to write Mirabelle raising kids, but an absolute nonstarter to write her having sex? When the overall fandom norms skew so obviously like this it's clear that some larger social norms must be at play.

"Aros can still date" is a phrase we are spreading around to keep cupioromantics/romance-favourable aromantics from having their aromantic identity invalidated. Nothing more, nothing less.

While that phrase is something that protects cupioromantic and romance-favourable, it can also be used to invalidate other aromantic people. So, rather than discussing whether or not the phrase should be used, I think we should focus more on the context/situation it is used in. Because the way I see it, there are only very few situations where aromantics actually benefit from it.

Situations where you should remind yourself of "Aros can still date":

An aromantic person tells you they have a romantic partner

An aromantic person tells you they'd like to be in a romantic relationship

Situations where you should NOT say "Aromantics can still date":

Someone comes out to you as aromantic

Someone says they aren't interested in romantic relationships and don't want to date

Using it to justify your expectations on an aromantic person's love live despite them never mentioning any interest in dating

An aromantic person tells you that they are grieving their lack of romantic attraction

An aromantic person complains to you about amatonormativity/singlism

An aromantic person viewing their lack of interest in dating as a central part of their aromanticism

Literally any other discussion on aromanticism that isn't specifically about participation in or a desire for romance