What does aromantic mean? What are your thoughts on it? This is simply for informational use, as I thought I would be interesting to see what others thought of this topic.
Personally, I see it as someone who is adversed to romantic feelings, whether male or female, heterosexual or homosexual. As with asexual, it carries the same connotation as not being attracted to a certain individual, in this case, romantically speaking. Whether than means only being sexually attracted to an individual or neither romantically or sexually is debatable.
It is not a term that is recognized by much of anyone credible (therapists, researchers, sexologists.) It's come into use as a result of promotion by a tiny, fringe group that's created a bunch of terminology that has no credible basis or grounding in anything measurable or reproducible.
As Chip has pointed out, it's not a real term, nor recognized by psychologists. Neither is romantic orientation. To be aromantic; I understand it as 'without tendency to have romantic relationship with another person'. What even makes something 'romantic'? A candlelit dinner? Not everyone is into candles. Kisses? Does everyone like to be kissed? I've heard that in some culture people don't kiss. I think the concept of romantic orientation is something we can't pin it down. I doubt any real expert has given much thought to this concept. Everyone has different opinions about what makes something romantic. Personally, if I were attracted to someone romantically, I would want to be around them a lot, feel something in my chest when I think about them or be around them. And to be 'aromantic', it could mean feeling none of these. I'm no expert, but here's my 2 cents.
Aromantic drawn down to basics means Not-romantic. When someone is aromatic, they do not share romantic bonds with others. (Similar to Asexual in the sense that ace's have an aversion to sex.)
It's basically a term meaning 'to not have romantic feelings'. Like asexual, just replace sex with romance.
I view it as no romantic feelings whatsoever. This means no "butterfly crushes", no feelings besides platonic friendships only. Maybe an aromantic can still enter a relationship, but It's not due to the attraction for the relationship (similar to why a gay man can marry a woman). Aromantics can be either asexual or hetero/homo/bisexual. The latter would be interested in one night stands and friends with benefits, but not committed relationships. The former would not want any kind of relationships aside from non-sexual friendship.
The problem is that these unrecognized identities are not in the same class as the identities that are widely recognized, and this isn't just because they haven't been studied; sexual orientation and attraction has been studied constantly, in thousands of studies, over the past 50 years. The difference is that homo and heterosexuality (as well as bisexuality) are widely and (except for the religious crazies) uncontroversially understood to be hardwired and unchangeable identities. The overwhelming percentage of people who identify as aromantic or asexual are not actually dealing with a hardwired identity in the way that homo or heterosexuals are; they're instead dealing with an emotional/psychological issue that's transient. For example, if someone has the flu, the last thing they think about is having sex. That doesn't make them asexual. Likewise, the overwhelming majority of people who identify as asexual or aromantic also identify as having depression, anxiety, or other psychological conditions that -- guess what -- directly suppress sexual attraction and desire for connection. (This according to the handful of embarrassingly awful studies that do exist on asexual people). So when we have this sort of confound -- something else that's coexistent with the identity, and likely to cause it, it's impossible to meaningfully talk about that identity standalone. Now... all of that said, there are a very, very small number of people -- substantially less than 1% of the population as far as we know -- that are genuinely hardwired asexuals. The overwhelming majority of people who identify as such don't meet that criteria. The bottom line is, people do a huge disservice to themselves when they adopt these labels because they often effectively stop exploring themselves, stop looking at what might be causing or contributing to why they feel that way and... they lose out on a fundamental part of why we are here, which is to form connections with others. I know this might come across as dismissive or judgmental (or, God forbid, to use a bullshit, ridiculous, dramatic, and inaccurate word, "erasing their identity"), but it isn't that at all... it's intended to accurately convey information about something that, unfortunately, has been commandeered by a tiny-but-vocal group that has no sound science, research, study, or structure to anything they're saying.
The problem is that these unrecognized identities are not in the same class as the identities that are widely recognized, and this isn't just because they haven't been studied; sexual orientation and attraction has been studied constantly, in thousands of studies, over the past 50 years. The difference is that homo and heterosexuality (as well as bisexuality) are widely and (except for the religious crazies) uncontroversially understood to be hardwired and unchangeable identities. The overwhelming percentage of people who identify as aromantic or asexual are not actually dealing with a hardwired identity in the way that homo or heterosexuals are; they're instead dealing with an emotional/psychological issue that's transient. For example, if someone has the flu, the last thing they think about is having sex. That doesn't make them asexual. Likewise, the overwhelming majority of people who identify as asexual or aromantic also identify as having depression, anxiety, or other psychological conditions that -- guess what -- directly suppress sexual attraction and desire for connection. (This according to the handful of embarrassingly awful studies that do exist on asexual people). So when we have this sort of confound -- something else that's coexistent with the identity, and likely to cause it, it's impossible to meaningfully talk about that identity standalone. Now... all of that said, there are a very, very small number of people -- substantially less than 1% of the population as far as we know -- that are genuinely hardwired asexuals. The overwhelming majority of people who identify as such don't meet that criteria. The bottom line is, people do a huge disservice to themselves when they adopt these labels because they often effectively stop exploring themselves, stop looking at what might be causing or contributing to why they feel that way and... they lose out on a fundamental part of why we are here, which is to form connections with others. I know this might come across as dismissive or judgmental (or, God forbid, to use a bullshit, ridiculous, dramatic, and inaccurate word, "erasing their identity"), but it isn't that at all... it's intended to accurately convey information about something that, unfortunately, has been commandeered by a tiny-but-vocal group that has no sound science, research, study, or structure to anything they're saying.
It means to not have romantic feelings for other people. One can still want to have sex with people, and love people as friends or family, but one won't desire to have a partner and one won't fall in love. I don't know how common it is - I have never met anyone who's explained such a (lack of) feelings to me. But out of 7,2 bn people, there's got to be at least a few who is like that, I imagine. Also, I think that there might be people in this day and age of the internet and media and all, who might adopt such a label for reasons that might prove unfruitful for them, or they're likely to discard that label later as they find their romantic interest. For example, a teenage boy who plays computer games all the time might think that he's incapable of romantic love, but really it's just that at this stage in his life he just favors his computer games and whatnot. But if someone told me they were aromantic, I would not simply say "Nope. You're wrong. There is no such thing." I would listen to their feelings and what they have to say, and baring in mind that this is all new to me, perhaps ask them a kind "Are you sure?" if it fits into the conversation. I wouldn't be an insufferable armchair general or try to discourage them.
People can label themselves whatever they choose. I can be unicornsexual or wildebeesteromantic if I'm so inclined. So I would not advocate telling someone that their chosen identity does not exist. I doubt I'd even say 'ae you sure' as that in itself can be pretty devaluing. I would, however, tell someone asking for info about an unrecognized label (which is what this thread is about) that said unrecognized identity is, in fact, unrecogniZed.
