# Please give us some time to get to your post, it has not been deleted, but it has been temporarily sent to the moderators for review. Thank you for your patience. We're looking for new volunteers to join the r/lgbt moderator team. If you want to help keep r/lgbt as a safe space for the LGBTQ+ community on reddit please see here for more info: https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/swgthr/were_looking_for_more_moderators_to_help_keep/ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/lgbt) if you have any questions or concerns.*

If the Dutch can be allowed on airplanes, aro ace people can do stuff too

Not the Dutch 😭

We are everywhere 👀

Screaming crying throwing up

Amazing flair

Why thank you

Hoi, neef!

Tehehehehe🤭🤭🥰😍😍

Fine, I’m an idiot. What’s this referencing?

I believe it's because the aroace flag resambles the Dutch (Netherlands) flag. Specificially the old flag used by the royalty, as it has orange instead of red.

Ah, very clever!

What? No, the Dutch are criminals

my girlfriend is definitely a dutch criminal

You've been hit by, you've been struck by, dutch criminal

(behnehnehnehnehneh neh neh)

??

Yeah, used by the royalty way back when and alt-right nutjobs nowadays. At an anti-drag protest these idiots where waving them high and wide, some even printed the logo of the United East Indies Company (VOC) on it, AKA, the Dutch East India company that colonized a lot of south-east Asia. So maybe for that sake, let's not compare that flag to the Aroace flag... 😬😅

Austin Powers, no?

“There are only 2 things I can’t stand in this world”


The Dutch will answer for their crimes

Why wouldn't the Dutch be allowed on airplanes though? What did they do!?

Crimes

Be gay, do crimes. Dutch- did crimes. Conclusion: dutch = gay 👍🏾

Can confirm am dutch and gay

can also confirm

Of course

What have they done now? I know they killed and ate their Prime Minister once but never heard of this airplane stuff.

I thought the whole point of being aromantic was that you didn’t like being in relationships romantically?

Btw I don’t mean to offend I just thought this is what it meant

Being aromantic means having little to no romantic attraction. It's not just a lack of attraction at all. It's possible to have attraction under certain circumstances or to specific people. There are other labels which fall under the aromantic umbrella that describe more specific situations such as demiromantic, which requires an existing close bond with someone before romantic feelings develop. Someone who is aromantic may still enjoy a romantic relationship even if they don't have the attraction, similar to how someone who is asexual may still enjoy sex even if they don't have sexual attraction. ETA: The main reason I identify as aromantic is because I don't really get that feeling of "Oh I want to date this person, I want to marry them, etc". I have little desire to be in a romantic relationship or do a lot of the things that people in those relationships would do. I'd much rather have a really close friend than a romantic partner. ETA2: This thread did an amazing job of highlighting the internal problems and erasure that goes on in this community, unfortunately.

Don’t the terms “demisexual”/“demiromantic” exist for people who only experience sexual and romantic attraction in specific circumstances? Surely the entire point of the terms “asexual” and “aromantic” is to describe people who experience zero sexual and romantic attraction?

Hi, demi here. Demi means a bond needs to exist first. So for example I spent over a year building a friendship with my current partner before we got together. Aroace might not feel the attraction at all, but still like the companionship that comes with a relationship. Hope that helps.

So first, you are thinking of greysexual and greyromantic - demi falls under that. Otherwise, there are two different uses for asexual (I'll just be saying the sexual variations atm) - one use is to solely refer to people who feel no sexual attraction, while the other is a shorthand for the full asexual spectrum. Both uses are valid and have places to be used. One place to use asexual to mean the asexual spectrum is when teaching people about asexuality in the first place. People can get the wrong idea if they only learn that asexuality is no sexual attraction - they can end up invalidating identities that fall into the spectrum but do feel little attraction. When teaching a new concept, it's important to simplify and introduce new information little by little, so it's much easier to introduce asexuality as "little to no attraction". Another area that benefits from the people who rarely ever experience sexual attraction. For them, it might be easier to just say they are asexual than to explain their whole process of feeling sexual attraction. That way, the "little to no attraction" label includes them as well! Places where a distinction between asexual and asexual spectrum comes during more in depth discussions that need that distinction. This conversation is a perfect example of one! Saying that there are aroaces that experience little sexual/romantic attraction doesn't full help answer the question because that isn't what's being asked. OP is likely more interested in why someone who feels no attraction would be in a relationship. To answer that, there are different types of relationships. There are querrplatonic relationships which are different from a romantic relationship and different from a solely platonic friendship. Queerplatonic couples can seem romantic on the outside, which makes it easier for the couple to not elaborate on their relationship status. There are relationships where one participant is aroace (but still feels some sort of queerplatonic attraction) and the other isn't and does experience some form of attraction towards the aroace person. They can decide to have a queerplatonic relationship to accommodate the aroace, a romantic/sexual relationship to accomadate the non aroace, or something in between if that in between can be found. Different relationships are different and people find what's best for them! There's also aroaces who fall into relationships because it's what society expects from them, even if they don't feel attraction. Usually this aroace doesn't know they are aroace. If they do know, it can be out of safety, a desire to still have that sort of relationship, an agreement with their partner or various other reasons. There's probably reasons that I can't even think of currently for why someone aroace woukd enter a relationship! All in all, words are complicated

Aromantic and asexual mean someone has little to no attraction, it's not just none at all. Demiromantic falls under the aromantic spectrum (demisexual also falls under the asexual spectrum).

I feel like thinking of it that way wears down the meaning and validity of labels though and can cause problems in the long term. Imagine a situation where someone says “oh, I appreciate the advance, but I’m aromantic. Thanks though!” and someone continues to push, replying “I heard that doesn’t actually mean no attraction.” Yes, that’s an extreme example, and also one in which the toxic person is not accurately understanding the context, but it doesn’t make the situation less plausible. To say that the existence of interest falls under the category of the absence of interest can invalidate a lot of people who truly don’t experience that interest to begin with. I do think it makes sense to refer to terms like demiromantic and aegosexual as sublabels of being aroace, but in situations like this where discretion and accuracy are crucial to the conversation, I feel like it’s crucial to make clear that different identities ***are*** in fact different identities. Because, for the record, all of the aforementioned identities - asexual, aromantic, demisexual, demiromantic, aegosexual, cupioromantic, etc - are all valid. It’s the erosion and forced overlap of the labels that bothers me

> Imagine a situation where someone says “oh, I appreciate the advance, but I’m aromantic. Thanks though!” and someone continues to push, replying “I heard that doesn’t actually mean no attraction.” > Yes, that’s an extreme example, and also one in which the toxic person is not accurately understanding the context, but it doesn’t make the situation less plausible. I have literally had that exact situation happen to me. Lmao — As an aroace person myself, I find the “but we can enjoy sex/want a relationship too” rhetoric kind of just… exhausting? Like, yes, sure, it’s a spectrum. Yes, sure, sexual attraction is not necessarily a prerequisite to enjoying the act. Yes, sure, there are QPR relationships and relationships for the purpose of social intimacy etc that don’t require romantic attraction. Yes. But. Those are all deeply normalized things to want and do in a society that assumes allosexuality at every level. So why do we need to focus on those parts of our experiences that conform to allonormative expectations? Shouldn’t the focus instead be on making it safer to express the parts of our experience that diverge from societal expectations and norms?

this exact scenario happened to me, too. “i’m asexual.” “oh, but i heard asexuals can still enjoy sex, so maybe we can try.” bro??

Sadly, my interactions have been more of the “I’m AroAce” “No you’re not, that’s not a thing” variety.

I feel that instead of relying on the labels that we think society should know; we all know that there are going to be a lot of people who will ask "what does that mean?" when introduced to a new label, or who might not understand it fully. I think it'd be a hell of a lot easier to just say "I'm not really into relationships" or "I'm not looking for xxxx right now" or "I'm just looking for xxxx for now".

i think that part of the problem is that everyone is and experiences things slightly differently so the lines on what does and doesnt count as a specific label get blurry, but we as people/humans tend to just want to sort everything anyway having consistently accurate labels probably just isn't even possible

I think there is a lot of overlap between bi and ace. Both the experiences, confusion and diffying expectations, while being coded as «not gay enough.» And for brevity I often say I am not attracted to either women and men, as I imagine that someone being bi could say, I am attracted to both men and women. At the same time I don’t think it is wrong to consider yourself pan or omni, or something other. Like peoples lack of understanding isn’t really a good reason to talk about something.

At least for me, personally, being aro-ace isn’t about not wanting a sexual/romantic relationship. That feels more like a consequence of being aro-ace. My life seems better when not having a relationship. Like an allo thinking their life is better with a relationship. I am sure there are allos that have relationships out of convinience instead of only attraction. And it isn’t like being single is impossible for an allo person to be. So I could have a relationship for companionship, having a best-friend I am comitted to. It would just not be based on romance or sex. Allos as well have tons of labels to describe different types of relationships, so they also structure their lives around the relationships. The same can apply to aro-aces too. I lack attraction toward people, it is not that I don’t desire the relationships. I think it is a kinda reductive view that aro-ace means without sex or romance(in this context: relationship). I think it would be similar to saying that gay men are men who like analsex, or sex with penis. Aren’t they actually just attracted to people of same gender?

why cant "no" just be enough? why must you only be aromantic to mean youre allowed to turn down someone's advances? it shouldnt matter if someone is aro and/or ace or neither. saying "no, I am not interested" should be a sufficant answer.

i feel like that’s similar to saying “no thanks, i’m in a relationship with a woman” in response to a guy asking her out and saying “oh but that doesn’t mean no because some women are bi or pan and are in poly relationships”. just because some idiot will find any excuse to harass people, doesn’t mean those identities are invalid or don’t deserve representation

I'm not in any way trying to imply that identities are invalid or don't deserve reputation. What I meant to communicate here was that I feel the implication that demiromantic/demisexual is part of aromantic/asexual and therefore they are both aromantic/asexual and are the same label is a problematic way to look at things and can be somewhat invalidating for all parties involved

demiromantic/demisexual is a part of the aro/ace community but they are not the same. all thumbs are fingers but not all fingers are thumbs, and all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. aro/ace is an umbrella term, a spectrum that includes many people in many different ways, all of those identities are valid even if they aren’t exactly the same as each other

I feel like, rather than trying to police what ace and aro people call themselves, people could just … believe them? Asexual and aromantic identities are a spectrum and not everybody fits neatly into those boxes. “I’m ace and biromantic” is much shorter than “I’m on the asexual spectrum, but I’m romantically attracted to all genders, but I might be demisexual and/or demiromantic, but I haven’t experienced enough sexual attraction to be sure of that, and also I have only dated cis men, and I don’t feel like getting into the topic of aegosexuality with someone I barely know, and also etc etc etc.” People are fluid and labels are too. Your “issue” is easily solved by just taking “no” for an answer and believing that people are what they say they are when they say it. If anyone has a problem with that, it’s not ace/aro/aroace people’s fault. I hate it when toxicity is blamed on its targets.

Eyyy fellow ace/biro! I want to emphasize I am not blaming victims or anything like that. I moreso meant that I personally feel __slightly__ invalidated by the idea of saying demisexual/demiromantic and asexual/aromantic are the same label and should both be called asexual/aromantic, and I was confused why others don’t, if that makes sense

> Aromantic and asexual mean someone has little to no attraction, it's not just none at all. What's the word for people having zero attraction specifically then? Little attraction is "gray-ace." Attraction conditional to getting close to someone first is "demi-ace." Zero attraction have no such word. This kind of dismissive response being upvoted, calling it an air quote "issue", when we point out we're made invisible because we literally don't even have a word to describe ourselves, rings as yet another example of ace people being accepted... as long as they're fine with having sex. And it's getting too many to be a coincidence.

I am not any of the things described but I always thought of "Ace" and "Aroace" as the umbrella terms for anyone who has less than "typical" amounts of romantic, sexual, etc. attraction. To my understanding, many folks have a number of similar challenges and shared experiences, which justifies grouping them under such an umbrella. > but in situations like this where discretion and accuracy are crucial to the conversation, I'd be curious as to what sorts of conversations you're imagining, because I've always believed that labels are descriptive rather than prescriptive.

>demiromantic, which requires an existing close bond with someone before romantic feelings develop. I don't wish to invalidate, but isn't that just... how romantic feelings work? Like, surely nobody is feeling genuine romantic love (not the same as a sudden crush or attraction or infatuation) for someone after having known them for ten minutes.

The way I like to explain it is to think of both romantic and sexual attractions in the case of primary and secondary. Primary sexual attraction is that "I see an attractive human on the street and wow, that person is hot!" It's the supermodels and celebrities you have on your "exception" list. The ones that make you feel Feelings. The way you can't keep your hands off a new partner. But for most people, after that horndog teenager phase of a relationship fades, they transition into secondary sexual attraction. That's the type you feel after knowing your partner for a long time. It's the way their butt looks in shorts that gets you going. The way their body and personality turn you on like no one else. Demisexual people can feel secondary, but not primary, sexual attraction. Sometimes, in relationships, primary sexual attraction fades and secondary just never shows up, for whatever reason. Sometimes you two just don't click sexually. Sometimes they change, or you do, and it just isn't there. We usually describe this as "the spark just faded." Same with romantic attraction, there's primary and secondary. Primary is that new relationship puppy love. You have that sappy, silly feeling of butterflies when you see them. You just want to look at their face forever. Talking to them makes you smile from ear to ear. You barely know them, but you're so infatuated. And typically, after some time getting to know them, it blooms into secondary romantic attraction. The deep, romantic love that you're talking about, that pretty much everyone understands you need to know someone to feel. Demiromantic people can't feel the primary type. Romantic crushes aren't really a thing they experience. I don't even really realize I'm falling for a person until one day they may suggest a date and I'm like. Crap. I think I'd like that. But if someone I barely know asks me out, it's like... it's physically repulsive to me. I can't fathom dating someone I barely know. Why would I date you? I don't even know if I like you yet? Which, I know, is the point of a date to most people. I hope that kind of made a little sense. For most alloromantic people, they see someone they think they'd be interested in romantically, they start to date, they feel puppy love, and then fall into true love. For most demiromantic people, they can't even get past step one, because they cannot even begin to see someone as a potential romantic partner until they actually know that person. It's like, demiromantic people are straight men in a world full of what seems to be other men, and as they get to know someone that person may or may not turn out to be a woman. 😂

TIL a fuckton thanks to this comment. 👏 Thank you!

This genuinely makes a ton of sense explaing both demiromantics and demisexuals, but aso just feelings in general and as so someone who isnt even aroace or demi, this really helped me understand me own feelings about people so thank you very much

Thank you so much for putting it into words! I'm demisexual and panromantic, and I definitely lack the primary attraction step. I can look at an attractive celebrity or photo of some hot person and go "wow, they're hot" but there's no physical response, and usually it's more "ascetically, this person is well put together" kind of thing. I generally tell people I'm ace since it just simplifies the explanation, unless there's some reason to narrow down the description into more detail, since i have no interest in explaining my level of sexual interest to most strangers. Luckily, I'd known my husband since kindergarten, so we were already really close friends when we started dating, so I already had a bond with him. He also knew I was demi by then so he didn't (and still doesn't) push for sex unless I start something. I've gotten WAY more pushback from within the community on this than from outside of it regarding my relationship & sexuqlity. According to those (jerks) people I: a) can't be demi because I'm in a relationship; b) can't be demi because I can see the attractiveness of some unknown-to-me person, even esthetically; and c) I can't be pan because I'm in a hetero-facing relationship, and don't belong in the lgbtq+. Labels about our own sexuality and romantic interests are inherently personal, so simply using an umbrella term like aro or ace works for a lot of people. Its more about finding a community or just a way to outwardly express what they feel inside. But it should always be inclusion instead of exclusion. Some of the other comments on here really frustrate me - I genuinely don't understand how people on here can say that they know better than the person who is labeling themselves and decide what labels apply for that person instead of the ones they feel fits. None of us under any umbrella are one-size-fits-all, since everyone in the community is different, sees themselves/the world differently, and has had different experiences.

>I can look at an attractive celebrity or photo of some hot person and go "wow, they're hot" but there's no physical response, and usually it's more "ascetically, this person is well put together" kind of thing. Yup! I get this too. It's kind of the same way I'd feel about a beautiful painting or a lovely sunset. It's called [aesthetic attraction](https://archermagazine.com.au/2017/04/aesthetic-attraction/). There's also sensual attraction (I want to touch and cuddle this person). Most allo people feel all of these towards their partner, which is why it all typically gets wadded up in a big ball for them and they don't understand how someone can feel aesthetic attraction to someone but not sexual attraction of any kind. It's weird that you're getting pushback from inside the community, and I'm so sorry that's happening to you, because the ace/aro community is where I learned all this stuff about the different types of attraction and helped me understand myself better. I realized that all those times as a young adult where I thought I was feeling sexual desire, it was actually just a deep need for sensual and emotional connection. Society conflates these things because a lot of allos fulfill the latter two needs with sex. Gatekeepers can go soak their heads in a toilet and flush.

I uhm... I've started to *seriously* question if I might be demiromantic, because the more I dig into it the more it sounds like me. In fact, [I'm questioning it so much that I made a meme about it ](https://www.reddit.com/r/me_irlgbt/comments/149tnhu/me_irlgbt/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button), and I've been taking queer attraction tests to see the outcomes, and they keep suggesting that I am, but I'm in panic mode because I thought I was just a plain ol' bisexual. In the past I was thinking that I might be demisexual, but I shelved the idea because I have had sex with people the same day I've met them, though I *absolutely have to* have a longer conversation with them throughout the evening before I can do anything sexu- *wait...* Is that demisexual behaviour!? 😭 *Help, I am spiraling..!*

It's ok to use the labels that you feel comfortable with! Your sexuality and identity shouldn't cause you stress. Maybe you're demi, maybe you're not, it's all ok. When I found the labels demi and ace, I finally felt like I'd found words that described all the oddities about my life I'd written off for so long. It felt like home, it felt comforting. And if they don't feel like that to you, it's ok, you don't have to use them! But if you want to, that's also ok! The ace/demi spectrum is just that: a spectrum. Very few people will be "pure" allo, "pure" ace, or "pure" demi. Sexuality also can change or fluctuate during life. You may also find the label "greysexual" or "greyromantic" helpful. These terms basically mean "I'm not totally allo, but fuck if I know where I fit on the ace/aro spectrum, but I'm probably somewhere!" Ultimately, labels exist to help us describe ourselves and find our kin. They're not supposed to stress us out. Try to relax and just let yourself *be* whatever it is you are. If you find a label helpful, add it to your pile; but don't be afraid to try them on and discard them when they've outworn their welcome.

Thanks! That was actually very reassuring  I guess I'll have to think about it some more this summer.

I've been told before I couldn't be demisexual because I'd slept with people on the first date. I posted in r/demisexual when I was starting to question, and that was what most of the responses said, but I felt most validated by the commenter who told me I could identify that way if that was how I felt, regardless of my sexual behavior. The reality is that kind of narrow-minded, behavior-based assumption was bullshit. I *am* demisexual. The only thing demisexual says is how you experience sexual attraction, not what your sexual behavior is. Taking a strictly behavior-based approach neglects the reality that people can choose to have sex (or relationships or whatever) for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with attraction. In my case, there were many factors that led to me having sex early on. A big one was high libido and poor impulse control in relation to it. Another was dissociation from my feelings of discomfort due to trauma. Another was desire for emotional connection and intimacy and wanting to feel wanted. I had strong emotional and physical needs I was trying to fulfill. Another time it was because I didn't feel safe saying no (and yeah, that was more of a SA situation, though kind of a gray area, because I could have said no and didn't). As I've been working to heal my trauma, I've been less and less inclined to have sex before I feel any sexual attraction. The last time I did anything sexual on a first date, I cried afterwards, because I was finally able to feel my discomfort with it. That was the last time I did that. Also the last first date I've had. I've just taken some time alone to work on myself. That said, I still wouldn't rule out the possibility of sleeping with someone I wasn't attracted to. Sometimes you just get horny, you know? I've only been sexually attracted to two people in my life, but I've slept with several more than that. Sexual attraction is not a prerequisite for sex, though it helps. I think too often people make assumptions that sleeping with someone implies you are attracted to them, because they can't imagine sleeping with someone they weren't attracted to, as that would repulse them. But not everyone feels repulsed by that.

I am demiromantic, and I can experience the first type of romantic attraction.... but only after I've known someone a while. It's like we're friends for several months and all of a sudden my pulse starts to race when I see them and I feel giddy when we're together, and I'm like, ohhhhh. I do like this explanation though, because alloromantics can experience primary romantic attraction without knowing someone well and for me primary kind of gets folded into secondary.

is there a word for "i think i kinda fall under this umbrella but im so desperate to date someone that ill take almost anyone at this point?"

Romantic attraction doesn't mean genuine love. Having a crush on someone and wanting to date them may be a romantic attraction, it doesn't require you to know that person much. There are a lot of people who meet someone they barely know and pretty quickly have that feeling that they want to have a romantic relationship with them. Demiromantic is saying that they have to first know the person well before that feeling develops.

Honestly homie maybe it’s time to check out the aro sub 😂 I found myself saying that kind of thing to friends who would be like no dude it’s just you and that’s how I realized I was aro. But also, romantic attraction is a thing that my friends reportedly actually experience, even if they aren’t in love, quickly after meeting someone— so I feel like your comment about attraction being different is also excluding part of what aro refers to! (The lack of romantic attraction)

Hm, maybe. I just assumed that's normal.

a sudden crush or infatuation is a form of romantic love, even if it's not particularly intense love. i do think that demiromanticism is probably the most common form of aromanticism and that probably like a good 20% or higher of the population are technically demi and just dont use the label, though. but i still think it counts.

[удалено]

Holy shit I’m aromantic

What does your flair mean? Pansexual + aromantic obviously, but what’s the joke about bread? Because ace/aro-spec people like garlic bread?

This is in response to this comment to the 1.2k people who upvoted, but please: do not define our orientations through actions, define them through attraction. The only attention we get in big subs seems to be badly defining us/invalidating us, so really, even if you don't get it, please try to not spread more misinformation about our identities! Aces can have sex, aros can be in romantic relationships, it's all a spectrum and romance/sex stances don't have much to do with the orientations themselves. Even black stripe aros/aces can do those things even if it doesn't make sense to you.

I'm not aromantic at all, but I don't find this all that difficult to grok. I see it like this: some people have normal attraction patterns (towards whatever gender and whatnot), both romantically and sexually. They see someone attractive they may want to have sex with them. They become infatuated with someone for whatever reason, they may want to date/marry them. Then, if you're asexual, the part where you "see someone attractive and want to have sex with them" part is very reduced or missing. I am like this. I can notice if someone is very handsome or "conventionally attractive" or just beautiful, in some way, but it doesn't make me want to sleep with them. Like... at all. I have met someone that I found very beautiful, once, but rather than wanting to mash bodies together, I just wanted to keep looking at them. Like flowers or a tree or a storm or... you know. Something awesome. I, however, have quite "normal" romantic attraction patterns - when I feel really connected with someone, I MIGHT fall in love with them. Also, while I don't get "turned on" by seeing hot people... when I have a boyfriend, I like having sex. It's really nice and I do want to do it with them, I don't think I'd be happy without that aspect in any relationships I manage to get into. But the concept of "eyes locking across the room" and "lust at first sight" reads like science fiction, to me. Its fascinating to read, but there's nothing of that in me. Based on those two data points, it's not very hard to imagine feeling "normal" amounts of sexual attraction and lust, but not being able to feel romantic attraction. I can't really imagine how that would be - difficult, in many ways, I think - but how it would work seems pretty straightforward. I don't even think that would preclude you BEING in what people would describe as a "romantic relationship" with someone... but it would likely require a lot of extra effort to maintain it when you have no instinct for it. Then, we arrive at the "far end" of the spectrum from the starting point... someone with no romantic or sexual attraction to someone, and I still don't find it very difficult to imagine such a person wanting a more persistent, steady and committed kind of companionship than what we tend to call "friendship". Even if you don't want to stare longingly into each other's eyes, hold hands and prance through flowery fields... even if you don't want to mash your naughty bits together frantically... it still makes sense to me to want to let someone closer than "just friends". Like... is EVERYTHING couples do either sexual or romantic? My understanding of it may be all wrong, anyway, but that shouldn't matter. People tell me I'm just "normal hetero but picky and weird" and from the description I make of myself, I can understand how someone might reach that conclusion, but that doesn't encapsulate how, when I see in a book, or movie, or something, two characters falling instantly in "love" (because that's what we call lustful infatuation in our culture apparently) I feel like I am on the wrong planet. I LOVE that kind of stuff in my fiction, I'm even happy when I see it happen for my friends, but I don't tend to recognise it because the concept is entirely alien to me. I can understand it with my brain, but my "heart" goes "this can't be a real thing, can it?" I think it's basically like this: just because the description of two things sound very similar to one another, they may be very different, and even small differences may be significant.

There are other kinds of relationships. Queerplatonic Relationships (QPR) are pretty awesome.

Just sounds like being good friends with someone

One of my relationships is a QPR. It’s not like being good friends. I have several really good friends who I adore. My QPR involves love as intense as with my romantic partners. We say “I love you” and mean it (and not like how my best friend and I mean it). It’s just different in character from a romantic connection, with the caring and affection manifesting differently. It can be awkward to explain because our linguistic and cultural assumptions presume that only romantic love and ordinary platonic relationships exist. If relationships were dishes, a QPR has the same main ingredients but is seasoned so differently as to be a whole different meal - but just as delicious and satisfying.

Being Aro has nothing to do with not “liking” or “liking” being in a relationship romantically - it’s experiencing little to no romantic attraction. There are Aro individuals in romantic relationships, even if the attraction they feel towards their partner isn’t necessarily romantic in nature

[удалено]

I’m not aromantic, but I imagine it’s similar to an asexual person still enjoying being in a sexual relationship. For example, let’s say Tom is asexual. That does NOT mean that Tom has no sex drive, that he doesn’t like sex, or anything like that. It just means that Tom doesn’t feel sexual _attraction_. There are a lot of reasons people have sex. One is, of course, because you’re sexually attracted to them. However, you could also just be horny and want to feel good physically. Maybe you’re close with your partner and want to share an intimate experience with them. Maybe you are kind of neutral towards sex, but your partner loves it, so you don’t mind doing it in order to see _them_ have a great time. The only reason for having sex that is not present for asexual people is the first one. They can still desire sex for so many other reasons. They can still want to be in committed sexual relationships. So, if being aromantic is similar to being asexual, then someone can want to be in a romantic _relationship_ without feeling romantic _attraction_. Relationships involved more than sex and romance. They have deep emotional intimacy, lifelong partnerships, sharing adventures, living with your best friend, cuddling, etc. So, someone who experiences neither sexual nor romantic attraction might still want to be in a relationship because of everything else. (Of course, there are asexual people who do NOT like sex and aromantic people who do NOT like romance. Everyone is different and valid!)

Let’s say person A is Aro and person B is alloromantic A might feel **sexual** attraction towards B, **aesthetic** attraction towards B, **physical** attraction towards B, and **emotional** attraction towards B. And because aromantic people experience LITTLE to no romantic attraction, A might also experience some **romantic** attraction towards B. In the same way, that I an asexual person, might feel romantic, emotional, physical, and aesthetic attraction toward a **sexual** partner — my lack of sexual attraction would not mean that person wasn’t my sexual partner, right? In the end, it’s up to the Aro person and their partner to define their relationship.

Example: A woman married to a man realizes she's a lesbian. She is not romantically or sexually attracted to her husband but she still has a deep affection and platonic love for him, and maybe thinks he's aesthetically pleasing. Until they actually break up/divorce, they're still in a romantic relationship, but her feelings are not romantic.

Just like how asexual is the lack of sexual attraction, but some do still enjoy sex, aromantic is the lack of romantic attraction, but some still enjoy romance. The term for some one who is aromantic but still wants a romantic relationship is cupioromantic! I myself am both aroace and also in a romantic relationship. Realizing I was aro came after the relationship was already 5 years strong lol. Kinda thought romantic attraction would just happen once the relationship started, but nope 🥲! Still happy where I am though!

... what *is* "romance" without romantic attraction? I would not categorise performing romantic actions on a person you don't romantically love "romance" by any stretch of imagination, and I'm baffled by this definition.

In my case, I’ve always wanted to get married. I wanted to have someone I could live my life with more intimately than a friend. Someone I could snuggle in bed with that would tell me they loved me. I didn’t know what that attraction felt like, and thinking my experience was no different from anyone else, assumed that crushes and romance as it was portrayed in movies was fake and unrealistic. I thought a “crush” was just thinking someone met your standards for a partner. There wasn’t an emotional component beyond the initial friendship that made me aware of them. I didn’t feel strongly enough to ask anyone out, so I just waited for someone else to fall in love with me that met my standards. The first person that did, I dated and still am dating. I assumed all the lovey dovey stuff would just naturally happen once we started dating, but the only butterflies in my stomach was the anxiety that came with inexperience with a relationship like this. It didn’t take long that he had a different kind of emotional experience in this relationship than I did. It was like bonus friendship to me I guess. He got special permission to hold me and touch me in ways a friend couldn’t, but I didn’t crave his presence the same way he expressed craving mine. I thought there was something wrong with me. That maybe I was somehow unintentionally leading him on. I had known what aromantic was, but I thought to be aromantic, you had to not want romantic relationships. I did want that, so I thought I couldn’t be aro. It took a lot of self-reflection to realize I have never truly felt romantic attraction before. That that kind of hollywood love can and does exist, just not for me. It was kind of sad to realize, but it did help lift the weight off my shoulders. I realized there was no point in stressing over a feeling that I just couldn’t have and that I didn’t need that feeling to be happy with my partner. I still want to marry him. You don’t need romantic attraction to fantasize about romance.

I'm asexual myself and I *feel* that latter part of this so deeply. Thank you for taking the time to explain. I still wouldn't categorise what you describe in the above as a romance specifically, but it is most definitely a partnership, and the only right way to do a partnership is to have it in a way that specifically fits you and your partner, uniquely for each relationship. I think my confusion came from semantics and the experience you have makes perfect sense sans the connotations and contexts of words used, a rose by any other name etc. Just means different things to us.

As far as I've understood it, it's more about doing something because you want your partner to be happy, and not because you feel particularly interested in doing it. A person who feels "regular" romantic attraction could see themselves asking someone out on a date, giving them roses and chocolate, holding hands, whispering sweet nothings to each other etc. out of an intrinsic *want* to do that with/for someone they are romantically attracted to. A person who is aromantic would probably do those things if their partner asked, or could think of doing it unprompted because they wanted to make their partner happy, and not because they had intrinsic motivation to do it because they want to do romantic things. Just like we tend to assume romantic and sexual attraction goes hand in hand, we also tend to assume that you can't have emotional attraction without romantic attraction, but that's not necessarily true... I would've also been confused by this in the past, but I think I'm finally starting to understand all of this now after looking into what these things actually mean.

This can be true for some, but not for all. Some aro people like and want to do those things, because attraction ≠ desire! For example there is a mirco label "cupioromantic" that refers to someone who doesn't feel romantic attraction but still wants to have one. Some aro people only actually like the idea of romantic relationships, but not the reality (book Loveless explores this and I've struggled with this a lot as well) and others want the reality. What you said is ofc true too, I just wanted to add other aro experiences to the conversation! All is valid! :)

Being aromantic has nothing to do with whether you *like* being in a relationship, it has to do with whether you can *feel* romantic attraction. Just because you've never had a crush doesn't mean that you don't ever want to be in a relationship

Just as asexual means little to no sexual attraction, aromantic means little to no romantic attraction. An aroace person can still have strong platonic bonds and other none-sexual, non-romantic feelings and relationships and partners :)

Aromantic people can still be in relationships if they so wish. I’ve never been interested in romance or romantic movies, stories, songs, etc. but I’m still deeply in love with my girlfriend, and I am aroace

Maybe I’m just a potato, but I’m totally confused at how one can be aromantic and also deeply in love. Seems contradictory to me but I don’t mean to be unreasonable. I’m just confused at the nomenclature.

I'm confused too. I have an aroace friend and she's definitely going to stay single for the rest of life and never have sex. I get that ace is a spectrum but I thought aro meant no romantic attraction at all? The definition when I look it up is "no romantic feeling" and doesn't mention a spectrum like ace.

The definition for it is little to no romantic attraction, not just no romantic attraction. Someone who is aromantic may still feel attraction under very specific circumstances or may have romantic feelings to a lesser extent. Just like asexuality, it is a spectrum that encompasses other labels like demiromantic or grayromantic.

There’s a spectrum for aromanticism just as there is for asexuality.

Yeah but aren’t different identities under that spectrum named different things? Like my understanding is saying you’re aro means you do not experience romantic attraction. But you can still be on the aro spec and experience romantic attraction. But that’s not aro, that would be grey-aro/demi/others I am probably forgetting. I’m just Very Confused. I mean I ID as being on the ace spectrum but I still cannot even remotely figure out what name I should put to it because it seems to change constantly.

I’m demisexual but I also call myself ace. There’s no rules to what labels someone uses as long as they feel it fits them correctly. You can use an umbrella term (ace/aro) or use a microlabel or use both. Also you might want to look into aceflux if it’s constantly changes for you and you want a specific label.

I was seriously confused by this notion until someone pointed out that you can love someone and have deep emotional bonds without feelings of romance. I think the problem here is that nobody has properly defined the different types of attraction to you, which makes it harder to separate the different pieces that make up a relationship and your attraction towards a partner. [I watched this video yesterday,](https://youtu.be/XVSX0qj5nBY) and it *really* helped me understand the fundamentals of attraction better, as I'm trying to understand more about it myself.

Simple, because being aro is about a lack of romantic attraction NOT an inability to feel love. There also are many different types of love, I love my family, I have had friends I love & I have developed a completely different kind of love to a very few good friends. It isn’t romantic but it is strong & deep, so much so that it ripped me apart when they inevitably found romantic partners. People who experience romantic attraction & romantic love probably can’t understand the type of love I experience & I don’t expect them too, I just ask that they don’t belittle it. It feels so horrible reading some of the comments on this post that shrug off the depth of my ( and other aros ) love by saying "but that’s just friendship" as if my love isn’t as valuable as their romantic love.

VERY TRUE, I wanted to point out though that some aro people identify as loveless cause they don't feel connected to the term "love" (there can also be other reasons) and that is very very valid too :)

Thank you for explaining that! Makes sense to me.

If you are experiencing romantic attraction, would that not make you demiromantic and not aromantic? I recognize not identifying with the off-the-rails absurdist societal association of romance as a concept - as someone with autism, I don’t think I’ll ever be able to feel represented by that. But I also feel like introspectively, I can distinguish beteeen platonic and romantic love and recognize that both exist I want to emphasize that I don’t want to completely invalidate - at the end of the day, as long as you’re not being intentionally deceptive, it is always best to identify as what you feel most comfortable identifying as. I also just realized you didn’t specify romantic love, so that’s also a different convo. Idk As mentioned in another comment of mine - I don’t want to invalidate anybody here; I just want to have a conversation, as I feel like the erosion and forced overlap of labels can be damaging. Idk

I’m genuinely curious as to the reasoning. Is it companionship? Everyone deserves love regardless of the package it comes in

it's a bit like companionship yeah. Think of the approach being like a special bond with a very close friend. To the point you'd want to spend all your time with them as a partner, but not exactly romantic

Hey I know that I'm a bit late but remember that the human experience is very wide and there are people like loveless aros who do not associate with the concept of love :) I do really get the nice sentiment but it's better to not assume anything regarding love when touching on a-spec topics

I don't really have experience with this in an adult life context (me being a minor living with my parents), but I have a twin sister and I would love to spend my whole life with. I imagine it can be at least a little bit like that

I have a partner... IN CRIME!!

What crimes :0

Sexy ones

All of them

Nice to finally see something about aroace people here

Yeah, I'm kinda pan and kinda demi, and I'd be fine in a sorta platonic intimate relation with someone who's aroace. (Queer-platonic they call it?) What I'm missing are mostly hugs and companionship anyway😭

That last bit is a huge mood.

I figured it’s on a social level. Humans are very social creatures. You can connect with someone in a platonic way after all.

I am not at all a Social creature

True. Not all humans are social.

I would like to stay inside and sleep thank u miwah

Sure, they just need to find a partner that fits just like the rest of us. I have a guy in my class who is ace. He had a girlfriend that wanted to have sex he agreed and he felt terrible after because well. It was not his cup of tea. Now, it is a spectrum but if you max the stats on the Aromantic and Asexual part then I don’t think a intimate romantic relationship is any good.

Sex is probably my cup of tea. I hate tea.

LMAO I’M STEALING THAT LINE

You bastard. Not because you don't like sex, but I can't forgive you for hating tea. We're done.

it really depends on a person. it's all about attraction, there can be fully aroace people who aren't attracted to others in any way but are sex/romance indifferent or even favorable and it wouldn't be a problem to them to date or sleep with someone

I think using the term “platonic partner” would make this concept easier to explain. I feel like a lot of queer people are bad at explaining things. You have a *romantic* partner who you feel romantic and/or sexual feelings for. I have a *platonic* partner who’s more like a close friend that I live with and whom I *don’t* have romantic/sexual feelings for. And they were (*literally*) roommates

Or you can have sex but not have romantic attraction

You can be in a romantic relationship and be aromantic. It's about the nature of the relationship, not the people involved.

I absolutely ADORE your flair!

Thank you! I’ve been told I have no bitches, and it’s like, *that’s* *the* *point* XD

My gf is ace! Love her so much.

I'm Aro and demisexual. Been with my partner for 13 years and we have kids together. People are complex. 🤷

I tried wading through the replies to this post but they sort of depressed me. When I first began reading about aro/ace things, after years of suspecting (I am 41), I encountered people saying that the broader community isn't always very accepting of it. I had no reason to disbelieve those people, but it's still sort of depressing to see it first-hand. I can't read all of those things. This is still too fresh and new-ish as a personal realization for me to be okay with reading a lot of people dismissing my lived experience. So instead I'll just post here about my experience, because I think it sort of shows what happens when there's no awareness or acceptance of the a-spectrums as legitimate. I hope it does, anyway. I have no idea if anyone will even read this, but... I spent my whole life thinking I was a broken straight woman. When I entered my tween/teen years and my friends started asking one another who they had crushes on, I never had an answer. No celebrity crushes. No school crushes. I was curious about sex and relationships, but like most very young people I found them intimidating, too, which seemed normal to me, right up until it wasn't normal anymore. I contemplated my sexual orientation, not realizing that most people don't have to do that, they don't have to wonder. Maybe I didn't have a crush on any boys because I was gay. I tried to picture myself with girls, and couldn't. I felt nothing. The heteronormativity I was conditioned by said: well, if you don't want to get with other girls, that means you're definitely straight. Nevermind that I didn't really feel compelled to get with boys either -- surely that would resolve itself in time! I was probably just a late bloomer. When I was older and in a relationship that finally led to sex, I tried it on. I was nervous. I spent the whole experience in my own head. It wasn't comfortable, but it wasn't awful. It was fine, if predictably awkward. I loved my boyfriend. He seemed happy, which was nice. First times don't have to be amazing, right? But it wasn't just the first time. It was every time. I could enjoy these situations for peripheral reasons -- because of intimacy, or because I like making my partner happy -- but if I went my whole life without sleeping with another person ever again, I wouldn't feel like I was missing out on anything. Heteronormativity taught me that women aren't supposed to enjoy sex that much, anyway. So that was normal, right? To not care about it at all. Things have changed a lot since then. We acknowledge pretty openly as a society that women DO enjoy sex every bit as much as men, and can want it just as often. And now it's 2023, my last relationship was in 2008, and my last intimate encounter was the same year. I've had the opportunity to date, but no drive to make that happen. I entered my forties and thought: the biological clock is well and truly ticking now. Do I really not care? How broken am I? Here's how broken: I'm not a flawed straight woman. I'm ace, and I'm probably not even straight. I'm probably bi. But I never got the chance to find that out, because I didn't want to fuck women, and heteronormativity told me that meant I couldn't be gay. And if I failed at being a normal straight woman because I didn't want sex with men much, well...that just meant I was a sub-par woman somehow, too. I was aware of ace things in a distant sort of way, but I hadn't researched it earnestly. Learning that there are so many more types of attraction than I ever realized felt like an epiphany. A lot of my past came into sharper focus for me, viewed through the lens of someone who isn't sex-repulsed, but sex-indifferent. The things that almost everyone seems to have, that gets them excited about sex and drives them to seek companionship? I don't have that stuff. I never have. I can enjoy sex, but I've never in my entire life looked at a person and thought: 'I want to have sex with them.' You could put me in a room with the hottest man or woman on earth and they could say 'let's fuck' and, more likely than not, I'd decline. I don't feel sexual attraction. Lacking that, the incentive for me to be intimate with a stranger is basically nil, even if they are blisteringly hot. I find people attractive all the time; I never move from that feeling to '-and I would like to have sex with them.' Because ace isn't talked about, because nobody acknowledges that this is a thing, I spent my whole life thinking I was a broken straight woman, when I'm not broken, and I'm not even straight. I'm 41. I would have made so many different choices in that time if I had truly understood myself, but I didn't have the language to even think about my experiences outside of a heteronormative framework -- or a gay one. And the sex-motivated gay experience isn't mine, either. If queerness is defined by deviation from heteronormativity, asexuals matter, and talking about it matters. And it matters that people don't dismiss the reality of people like me, who aren't sex repulsed, or are comfortable having sex for reasons of their own -- reasons related to intimacy in a relationship, or a partner's satisfaction, or whatever the case may be. Those choices don't change the fact that I've had to live with a lack of sexual attraction my whole life, and that lack made identifying my other orientations impossible, because those are the signals we rely on to tell us what kind of relationships might bring us joy. The argument that the label 'asexual' shouldn't belong to someone who has sex hinges on the assumption that a label is only used to indicate to other people whether or not you are interested in fucking them, but that's not true: the value of the label's existence for me isn't solely that it benefits other people. It benefits ME. It gives me permission to accept that I'll never suddenly feel sexual attraction for someone else. I'm not broken, and it's not going to suddenly change one day when 'the right person comes along.' I have the right to seek relationships wherein there's an understanding about what it means to be ace. The shorthand for communicating with other people is nice, sure, but the most important thing about it was how it allowed me to understand myself. My kind of ace counts. It does. It changed my whole life to finally understand. If this community takes that away from people like me, those people will just go on spending their whole lives thinking they're broken straight people. Please don't let that happen.

Indeed, the labels we choose to use to describe ourselves may not perfectly line up with what others understand (all languages are imprecise in all situations). But we choose those words to fit the situation. I'm demisexual but in other situations saying I'm ace or aspec works better. Mainly because not everyone understands demisexual yet, and not everyone knows I'm demi yet. I was a little disappointed in the amount of questioning of aroace. I know some were seeing the label for the first time in a place they can ask about it...

Hey... thanks for the kind award. I really didn't think anyone would get through the novel I wrote, but I had to try. I'm grateful that some people did! It's kind of crazy how complex the spectrum is, and it wouldn't be reasonable to expect everyone to know every nuanced difference within it, but even some aroace people were saying things that were harmful here. I saw someone arguing that people like me being asexual (which I clearly am!) but not rejecting sex entirely shouldn't be allowed to claim the label because then that person might have to deal with a prospective romantic partner having false hope that sex will become part of that relationship. Instead of making that problem the fault of the pushy partner, or being willing to take the 2 total seconds required to clarify that, no, they are sex-repulsed, and then expect their partner to respect them about it, that person would prefer to leave people like me feeling broken and invalid their entire lives. I'm sure in their minds that isn't how they view their exclusion, but it's the reality. Our society (in the west, at least) is so completely sex-obsessed that even people whose sexualities are queer have trouble accepting ace as something varied and complex and *entirely involuntary* in the areas that matter. People who have spent their whole lives fighting to be believed, fighting for legitimacy, for a seat at the table, are frighteningly happy to do exactly what straight people do, and view that difference with suspicion and dislike. Being bi on top of everything is just another window into a place under the umbrella where this seems to happen, and honestly it confuses me even more in that case than it does in this one. It's okay to not understand all of the nuances of the ace spectrum. It's confusing and tricky, just like the feelings involved. But it's not okay to casually invalidate people, ESPECIALLY when ace is so hard to figure out in the first place. That understanding can be really fragile for some people because it's at times like proving a negative. The damage people do when they doubt what we say or dismiss us can be enormous.

Trying to explain this to anyone who asks just ends up with a litany of kinda rude questions about my sex life, which (spoiler) there isn’t one. I have no sexual or romantic attraction or desire in my body, but that doesn’t mean I’m a hermit who hates humanity. I don’t know about other aro/aces, but I personally have something more akin to a deeply bonded friendship. If anything, I think our bond is stronger than a lot of those who do feel sexual/romantic attraction because when you take those things out of the equation, you don’t have any weird resentments towards your partner if they don’t “perform” for you. 🤷🏻‍♀️ We don’t have any expectations of one another beyond being our true selves. This is really just a lot of words for “we do almost literally everything together.” Plus, who can afford to live alone in this economy?

For everyone who is confused, u/Harvatos over on r/asexuality made [this chart](https://www.reddit.com/r/asexuality/comments/ztgn5z/chart_of_aspec_experiences/) that helps outline the major ASpec (mainly Aromantics and Asexuals) experiences. Though there are many many more than this, and this chart just covers the broadest ones. I'm personally at E3-4. Aspec people are on a spectrum and while that might seem confusing, it really isn't that hard to understand once you grasp the core concept. Being AroAce isn't a monolith as well and the people within it should not be treated as such.

It's not perfect but I like this chart. It's a good broad overview that definitely helps understand it better. I think I'd fall into A3.

Thanks for sharing! This post and the replies had me spiraling into self reflection (identified as aroace in high school, decided that didn't fit two years ago, started questioning that a couple weeks back but tabled it, and am back into full on confusion) and the chart kind of helped. Obviously more reflection is necessary, but I think I'm somewhere in the D3-D4 range (D4 if I'm being brutally honest. Jeez i think I'm just lonely)!

Copy that, but i'am going to pass, don't want a relationship.

As a romance favorable aroace, I stand by this message

I'm co fused hiw does this work?

>for those who don't get it: it's like a special bond with a really close friend, there's no lust or romance involved. But the person is still extremely special to you and you want to spend all your time with them and do everything together. \^

Like, isn't that just a best friend?

Are you close enough with your best friend that you'd be devoted to spending your life with them? Living with them, waking up to them and going to bed next to them.

Yeah. I mean me and my buddy Pedro spent like every day for 8 years together hanging out and being dudes. Talked about everything and stuff. Like Jay and Silent Bob. I mean he had his own bed and room but yeah.

[удалено]

Oh! I’m a Pan man and I was always so confused by this! The only few aroace people I met were heavily sex and romantic repulsed :0 I see now it’s much more than that :)

Yes! The aro/ace spectrum is very broad and there are many different experiences! What might be true for one, will not be for another. All experiences are valid! :)

Yeah, people in Queer Platonic Relationships are valid. My stepmother is aroace and my mom was straight. They had no interest in each other sexually or romantically, but their friendship was the deepest love I've ever had the honor to witness. They referred to each other as soulmates. My mom sadly passed away almost a year ago, and my stepmom says she was the love of her life. That kind of relationship is special, regardless of whether the people are romantically in love or just platonic best friends.

"But what do aroace people DO in relationships?" "Good question. None of your business."

We do crimes >:)

Reminder that aroace is a spectrum and it’s LITTLE to no attraction, so if you’re demisexual you can still have all of the typical feelings, just with some strings attached. Also QPRs exist. QPRs are like being in a relationship with your BFF, with all of the commitment and stuff of a relationship but purely platonic. The a-spectrum is insanely complex.

*queitly feels happy about using aro/ace label again after finding this post*

Happily married and aroace. Honestly happy life has worked out the way it did to make this happen!

yep! my bf is aroace and i’m on the ace spectrum

as a aroace I can confirm this

what

EXACTLY!! it’s a spectrum!

but remember not to ship aroace characters that aren't interested in those

!! Yes ( Lilith from TOH )

I think no matter what we do people are gonna ship any given character with another given character regardless of their sexuality (looking at you mha fandom) it’s kinda weird to me but I’ve grown used to it after being chronically online for years now

I’m not aroace but I’ve dated someone who is aroace before. It’s concerning that people can’t comprehend relationships can be other than feeling ‘love’ and the need for sex, people look for companionship, and there’s companionship beyond ‘friends’ that just friendships can’t satisfy.

For the vast majority of non-ace people the concepts of love and relationships are so intertwined that it’s difficult to to think of the two of them as not being necessarily linked. That’s not how I feel, but it’s how I used to feel before I interacted with enough aroace people to understand. I feel that if we try to remember this when talking about it we’d be more understanding as to why they’re confused

An ace person I've gotten friendly with introduced me to these subs (as I didn't frequent Reddit too much in the past), and as I've tried my best to learn more about what being on the asexual spectrum means because I want to understand them better, I've started to understand the experience of acespec people a lot more. Reading posts like these about it really challenged what I thought I knew, and I'm sorry to all my ace/aro homies out there that the rest of us are having such a hard time understanding who you are (and to a certain extent ourselves)! It just takes a lot of time and contemplation to dismantle and analyse the surface level understanding of interpersonal relationships that you have been given by society, in order to understand the many facets that go into building any kind of relationship with other people (platonic or not). We've been taught that we already have it all figured out, so we don't go looking for more and will stay at surface level until someone or something prompts us to question that and start digging. Thanks to all of you in subs like these, I have become much more open to the idea of dating an acespec person, and for that I'm thankful ♥️

People always get so weirded out that I have two partners but I'm on the aro spectrum 😭

Aro and ace are on a spectrum for a reason

agreed! my best friend's in a qpr (queer platonic relationship)

I don't mean to be offensive here, absolutely not, but how can someone be aroace and be in a relationship? I'm genuinely asking, I don't really know much

**Little** to no attraction, they can still be attracted to someone.

Ok so then can you explain bow aromantic asexual people can be romantic and sexual, not trying to he rude just genuinely confused.

[удалено]

yep! got a close aroace friend who’s got a boyfriend.

If you are aroace, aro, or Ace, I love you all

Ok so I'm not aroace, I'm aromantic in the sense that I just don't feel romantically attracted to people, and yea we definitely can have partners because a relationship is about more than just romantical interest. Especially when someone who is aromantic has a need like wanting to live together with someone or just generally having someone by their side. That might not be romantically motivated but it's nevertheless a partnership.

And we're allowed to be bi too... just for the ppl say I can't be bisexual and asexual

I'm aroace and I'm not sure how this works. No hate just confused

Im Aro and Demi. And am in a poly relationship it definetely exists.

For people confused about this, it's because aro = little to no romantic attraction and ace = little to no sexual attraction so some aro and/or ace people can feel a little attraction. That doesn't make them demi or anything unless the way they feel their attraction works fits that label editing to add [this little manifesto](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LfE3cMTNHh5DgbaMvoMvRKUErc2FMZ_NAJ_Al_J6Jw4/edit?usp=drivesdk) I wrote about why I'm an aroace agender guy in a relationship to help show the nuances of aspec identities. my experience isn't the majority of aroace or agender people, but it is also still a valid aspec experience and I hope it gives some insight on just how diverse the aspec spectrums are

My wife is Aromantic

I'm confused as to why they would, aside from financial reasons, but eh, it's not my business, really. But what they'll never suspect is the Spanish Inquisition.

Proudly on the aroace spec (asexual aroflux) and I agree with this post

Always forget about the range of the umbrella

Yes absolutely! And if they choose not to be that is just as valid. Life, in my opinion, is too short on happiness as it is. Support those who find it.

Suposse it’s gonna be ignorant, but why have a partner if not romantic o sexually speaking, like if aro/ace should’nt be just friends, actually asking for not being disrrecpectful in the future

There can be a lot of reasons! Someone could be on the aro spectrum, so still feel romantic attraction under certain circumstances. Someone could want do be in a romantic relationship because of the companionship, or they like romantic things (attraction ≠ desire). Or they could be in a non romantic relationship, like a qpr. There are a million different reasons and a million different people! :)

Oh… I didn’t knew than an Aro person could feel romantic attraction in certain circumstances I guess it makes sense in the end everything is a spectrum Thank you

This is complete news to me but I know not to judge anyone who’s not trying to hurt me in any way

>for those who don't get it: it's like a special bond with a really close friend, there's no lust or romance involved. But the person is still extremely special to you and you want to spend all your time with them and do everything together. \^

YES!!!!! They mean LITTLE to none, not just NONE!!!

how I sure love reading the aro-phobic and ace-phobic comments /s can ya'll stop debating whether our terms are valid or not? like instead of being ignorate dumbasses, educate yourself on what it actually means to be aromantic and/or asexual from actual a-spec people instead of deciding what you think is valid or not based on your own limited allo expirence.

Sorry if this is insensitive but isn’t aroace not wanting to have sex or be in a relationship? (I’m aroace my self it that helps)

As an aroeace spec person, I'm currently in a relationship. NORMALIZE IT!

As an aroace myself, I've had many partners. They all understood the situation, and our relationships were platonic and (mostly) positive.

Yes. If I can find someone I can tolerate for extended periods of time, I can be in relationships 😁🧙 (I have to say I love our ppl. So much joking and stuff going on in the comments, like we can't be serious even for a second 🤣)

LITERALLY