Carnival of Aros: Variation vs. Unity
Feb. 2nd, 2020 08:19 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
arias_hollowIn any community, there is going to be people with different experiences and points of view. This is especially true, and yet can be somewhat jarring, in communities based around something as inherently personal as one's romantic orientation. It is easy to get caught up in the semantics, something I'm certainly guilty of as well, when you want a word that represents your experiences; you want to be tell people what you are and have them understand exactly what you mean, but identity labels are inherently flexible and meant to describe a variety of experiences within certain broad parameters. Hence the creation of umbrella terms and micro labels as different ways of considering your identity, as well as a host of other models and terminology to help navigate different feelings that may tie in to your orientation in some way. This kind of variation is, in my mind, a necessary and wonderful part of the community, but sometimes it can lead to divides that make it easier to lose sight of how we are connected as well.
For myself, I'm aromantic in that I experience no romantic attraction at all, under any circumstances. My romance repulsion is something I see as an inherent part of my own aromanticism, as well as my more asocial tendencies. There isn't (as far as I know) a label for total lack of attraction that isn't also the umbrella term for the whole community or excludes other kinds of attraction, so I just id as aro and accept that, as an umbrella term, I may occasionally have to explain where under it I fall. (Which isn't exactly a burden by any means, even if there was a term for it I'd probably only use it passively if clarification was needed, but still, it's a layer to my identity that I consider) In certain ways, I've started leaning more towards using umbrella terms simply because many of the new models being used in the community are either hard for me to see myself in or I simply can't decide where I'd fall in them. The scale of feelings towards romance is extremely useful to me, and I use the split attraction model for simplicity (though recently I've sometimes thought of myself a 'perioriented aro' almost more than 'aroace', which may seem arbitrary but I both id more strongly with 'just' aromanticism than 'just' asexuality but still want my asexuality to be known). But the scale of interest in partnering (nonamorous, monoamorous, polyamourous, etc.) is one that is difficult for me to find a place in since my feelings towards having a partner is mostly just 'neutral, with a dash of curiosity'. Similarly, while I am glad to know about the different kinds of attraction that exist on their own (since I do experience aesthetic attraction), the scale and even concept of platonic or queerplatonic attraction bewilder me in application, and so while I'd probably count as being apl-spec in some way, I don't typically id with it very strongly.
Often times certain terms or models are exactly what one person needs, while for someone else they may seem too complicated or unhelpful for their experiences. But I actually really like the different possibilities in the community and hearing about others' experiences, even if not all of them apply to me. I think that we, collectively, could probably work on being a little less hung up over the differences and try to ease the divides that have been created by listening more to narratives different from ours and sharing our own in less...overbearing? ways so that discussion feels more like an option. Even though we're a group with every different kind of sexual orientation, personal experience, attitude towards romance, relationship with attraction and interpersonal bonds in general, race, religion, class, gender, ability, and nationality, we're also all united in that we have, in some way, a 'non-normative' relationship with romantic attraction and a vendetta against amatonormativity. Which is quite big picture-y, but I think that it's an important big picture to remember, especially since we're stronger together. The even bigger picture is our connection to alloromantics, in that we all basically want to be seen and respected as people and be able to lead the kind of lifestyle that would make us most fulfilled. Probably finding the perfect balance between variation and unity will always be something of a struggle, but I'm thrilled to be part of a community that, for the most part anyways, is really going for it and having meaningful conversations.
For myself, I'm aromantic in that I experience no romantic attraction at all, under any circumstances. My romance repulsion is something I see as an inherent part of my own aromanticism, as well as my more asocial tendencies. There isn't (as far as I know) a label for total lack of attraction that isn't also the umbrella term for the whole community or excludes other kinds of attraction, so I just id as aro and accept that, as an umbrella term, I may occasionally have to explain where under it I fall. (Which isn't exactly a burden by any means, even if there was a term for it I'd probably only use it passively if clarification was needed, but still, it's a layer to my identity that I consider) In certain ways, I've started leaning more towards using umbrella terms simply because many of the new models being used in the community are either hard for me to see myself in or I simply can't decide where I'd fall in them. The scale of feelings towards romance is extremely useful to me, and I use the split attraction model for simplicity (though recently I've sometimes thought of myself a 'perioriented aro' almost more than 'aroace', which may seem arbitrary but I both id more strongly with 'just' aromanticism than 'just' asexuality but still want my asexuality to be known). But the scale of interest in partnering (nonamorous, monoamorous, polyamourous, etc.) is one that is difficult for me to find a place in since my feelings towards having a partner is mostly just 'neutral, with a dash of curiosity'. Similarly, while I am glad to know about the different kinds of attraction that exist on their own (since I do experience aesthetic attraction), the scale and even concept of platonic or queerplatonic attraction bewilder me in application, and so while I'd probably count as being apl-spec in some way, I don't typically id with it very strongly.
Often times certain terms or models are exactly what one person needs, while for someone else they may seem too complicated or unhelpful for their experiences. But I actually really like the different possibilities in the community and hearing about others' experiences, even if not all of them apply to me. I think that we, collectively, could probably work on being a little less hung up over the differences and try to ease the divides that have been created by listening more to narratives different from ours and sharing our own in less...overbearing? ways so that discussion feels more like an option. Even though we're a group with every different kind of sexual orientation, personal experience, attitude towards romance, relationship with attraction and interpersonal bonds in general, race, religion, class, gender, ability, and nationality, we're also all united in that we have, in some way, a 'non-normative' relationship with romantic attraction and a vendetta against amatonormativity. Which is quite big picture-y, but I think that it's an important big picture to remember, especially since we're stronger together. The even bigger picture is our connection to alloromantics, in that we all basically want to be seen and respected as people and be able to lead the kind of lifestyle that would make us most fulfilled. Probably finding the perfect balance between variation and unity will always be something of a struggle, but I'm thrilled to be part of a community that, for the most part anyways, is really going for it and having meaningful conversations.
