#aro labels

in all honesty, i'm pretty sure there's multiple.

the most popular is Quioromantic, which can also thought of as specifically a difficulty distinguishing platonic and romantic feelings. the term WTFromantic used to be popular for this, but got kind of absorbed by quioromantic.

for further microlabels, I'd like to ask followers if they'd like to pitch in.

Sorry for the slow reply.  I’ve been pretty busy and haven’t had much time for Tumblr lately.  But my blog will probably get more active around the new year.

I’ve talked about my opinions on labels in a few posts already, but usually in passing.  I’m supportive of labels, even the kind that are usually called microlabels.  Having more language to describe our experiences is always a good thing.  Not having enough labels can lead to an inability to identify our own experiences, or an inability to recognize that our experiences are actually shared experiences with other humans.  Personally, I was not able to come out until my 30s because I had literally never met anyone like me or anyone who had heard of anyone else like me, despite my involvement in queer communities in my teens and 20s.  The words “nonbinary” and “aromantic” weren’t widely used then, and even though it was obvious to me that I was queer, other queer people were skeptical because their labels didn’t fit me.  Having more labels helps a wider variety of queer people be accepted, and helps us understand ourselves.

Conversely, queer people who are critical of microlabels are gatekeeping in a way that seems harmless, but it isn’t.  A big part of oppression is eliminating the language used to talk about oppression, so being opposed to microlabels or identity-specific jargon is doing the oppressors’ work for them.  We deserve to have a robust language to talk about our experiences.  “Making the community look like a joke” should not be our concern.  That’s assimilationist politics, which I’m opposed to.  If bigots are mocking us, then we’re doing something right, because we’ve gotten their attention.  Like the saying in activist circles goes, “first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”  If they’re mocking us, then we’re already on the path to acceptance.  We should be accepted for who we are, living as our authentic selves.  If we cater to mainstream sensibilities, then we are conceding to our oppressors by demonstrating our willingness to compromise the terms of our existence, and they will use that against us forever.  Our right to exist should be unconditional.  If there are conditions on our acceptance into society, then we haven’t really been accepted into society at all.

That said, a nuanced understanding of the purpose and function of labels and jargon is helpful.  Think about how jargon is used in professional circles.  People don’t assume that outsiders are going to understand all their jargon.  Similarly, we shouldn’t expect everyone to understand the jargon specific to our queer identities, and it’s not necessary for them to understand it all.  First and foremost, we need to be able to talk about our identities and experiences with each other and with other queer people.  Beyond that, our acceptance into society doesn’t require a comprehensive understanding of our theory and labels, just the basics.  Also, labels aren’t absolutes or ideals or blueprints.  Labels are just tools, and they aren’t universally useful to everyone.  They help us communicate, and if a particular label isn’t useful to a particular individual, then they don’t need to use it.

Edit: Several people have pointed out that the way I’m using “amorous” in the below post to define an identity makes it very confusing to use in conjuction with “nonamory” which is a relationship model and not an identity.  I’ll work on a revised edition of this post with a new term.  In the meantime, any suggestions for a different term besides “amorous aromantic”?  My original post starts below.

An amorous aromantic person strongly desires affection or emotional intimacy or otherwise feels that affection or intimacy are very important to them, and does not experience romantic attraction and may experience romance repulsion.  Like most queer experiences, this is going to be different for every individual, and experiences of affection or desires for affection can have complicated interactions with romance repulsion.  Many amorous aros want intimate relationships or are favorable to intimate relationships, and these relationships can follow any model, whether that’s friendship, romance, QPR, alterous, relationship anarchy, or something else, and some amorous aros are uninterested in committed relationships.

It’s important to make sure that the definition of amorous aromantic includes people who want affection without committed relationships, and doesn’t reinforce amatonormative narratives about friendships or nonamorous relationships being lesser than intimate relationships.  Amorous aro solidarity with nonamorous aros is very important, and respectability politics should be avoided.

My experience of being amorous aromantic is that I want my closest personal relationships to have strong components of emotional intimacy in them, and preferably to feature regular physical affection as a foundation of the relationship.  I don’t feel a distinction between what kinds of physical intimacy I’d like to share in specific relationships.  I don’t reserve any particular kind of affection for any particular model of relationship or for any one partner.  Basically if I love someone strongly enough, I’m interested in expressing that love through hugging, cuddling, grooming, sleeping together, and possibly kissing or sex.  These things are culturally coded as romantic, but to me there is nothing inherently romantic or platonic about them.  In fact, for me, a robust and committed emotional bond is a much stronger impetus to show affection through cuddling or kissing or sex than attraction is.  Of course, there are huge taboos about this kind of behavior among friends in American culture, and my allo friends don’t want to break those taboos, so I try to respect those cultural boundaries even though they don’t make sense to me.  Wishing my friendships with allos featured more physical intimacy is a pretty strong part of my experience of being amorous aromantic.

Affection doesn’t have to be physical, it’s just what I prefer.  Affection can also be words of affirmation, gifts, spending time together, helping each other, or other things.  My alterous partner and I intersperse lots of affirmation of each other throughout our conversations each day, saying things like “good job on finishing your errands today” and “I’m really happy to see you again!” even though we plan on talking to each other every day.  We say “I love you” frequently, and sometimes explain why we love each other, or state specific things we are admiring about each other.  We play games as a way to spend time together.  Shared hobbies are a great way to develop emotional intimacy with someone.  I also love cooking food for the people I love, or giving them gifts of food.