Already blocked them but Jesus Christ. This is the same shit y'all say to Demisexual folks as well. Maybe you can't wrap your head around it, but how's about you don't go around telling other people how to label themselves and claiming they're wrong; Ever, in the first place.
Let's say someone has their first crush when they're 7 and they never have a crush ever again in their whole lives. That person is uniromantic, they are NOT just "monogamous". They could never see that person ever again in their life past middle school and still never like anyone else. And they're still going to be alienated from alloromantic experiences.
Also to be frank, monogamous people still experience attraction to others, it's just mild and they choose not to act on it. It is not the same fucking thing as not experiencing the attraction at ALL. If you really think action and emotions are the same damn thing then next you're going to tell me having a mild crush on a cartoon character is cheating. But, and correct me if I'm wrong here, I can't help but have the feeling that's not even the issue here, you just don't like that asexuality and aromanticism is a spectrum, and feel the need to tear down people who use microlabels because it makes being LGBT "too confusing" for the homophobes. I have a strong suspicion you're chugging that respectability politics kool-aid, and would be just as shitty to any queer person who isn't one of the mainstream "acceptable" boxes you've decided are okay.
Just because I lucked out and Tommy loves me doesn't erase my identity. If Tommy didn't love me, or god forbid if he died tommorow, I still wouldn't like someone else. Because I literally had never felt any form of attraction in my life before him, ever, and I haven't since, and won't since. It's not about monogamy this is just LITERALLY how it works for me, and for several others.
Tommy is allo. He experiences ATTRACTION to lots of people and characters, not just me. But he's chosen me as the one he likes the best, and decided to be loyal to me in a monogamous way. The way he described it to me is that there's fast food restaurants (other people) everywhere that are somewhat appetizing, but he doesn't feel the need to eat there even if the food there looks good or makes him hungry, because he knows he has a full course home cooked meal (me) at home, and that's way better.
Working with this metaphor, MY experience is as if Tommy is the only food source in the entire world, and there are no other restaurants or kitchens ever, at all, on the whole planet. It's completely barren of food otherwise.
And to be honest, I don't see how anyone, thinking it through, would overlook these discrepancies. I don't see how anyone could genuinely fail to see that a lack of attraction to anyone at all and a sense of loyalty are two different things; Which is why I blocked Anon here. But just so my argument is clear and out there; that's why it's not the same thing. Now please, stop policing people, because no matter how "politely" you word it, going all "um actually" on someone's own personal identity and telling them it's not real is ALWAYS going to be an asshole move.
