Talk:Aromanticism

Asexual isn't mutually exclusive with being straight, gay, bi or any other sexual orientation.

The problematic text:

This is because aromanticism is independent of sexuality or libido, and while many aromantic people are asexual, many are also allosexual. Due to this, aromantic people who are not asexual can also identify with other sexual orientations, such as "aromantic bisexual" or "aromantic heterosexual".

Wether or not someone expieriences sexual atraction has no effect on wether they feel attracted to other genders because attraction to other genders consists of multiple types like mentioned just a few lines later in the article, usually but not limited to: aesthetic, sexual, romantic and sensual attraction.

Proposed change:

This is because aromanticism is independent of sexuality or libido, and while many aromantic people are asexual, many are also allosexual. Despite feeling little to no romantic attraction aromantic people can still feel some degree of attraction to gender be it aethetically, sexually and or sensually. 109.252.174.54 (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I wouldn't have an issue with this change, except I would change the last line you purposed to:

Despite feeling little to no romantic attraction aromantic people can still feel some degree of attraction to gender be it aesthetically, sexually and or sensually, such as "aromantic bisexual", "aromantic asexual", or "aromantic heterosexual".

The source cited in the current text states: "one who lacks a romantic orientation or is incapable of feeling romantic attraction. Aromantics can still have a sexual orientation (e.g., “aromantic bisexual” or aromantic heterosexual”). A person who feels neither romantic nor sexual attraction is known as an aromantic asexual"

I would like to hear what others have to say about this. Historyday01 (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

As far as sexual orientation is concerned, by the definition yes it is exclusive, but asexual people can be hetero/homo/bi/pan/..-romantic.

Yes there is also aesthetic or sensual attraction, but the main explanation part of the section in the article is to highlight the difference to sexual attraction and how many aromantic people use the split attraction model, referring to their sexual and romantic attraction.

Few people list other attractions like aesthetic when they talk to people in that context.

But in any case, we don’t publish WP:OR, so we would need a cited WP:RS source for inclusion of the other attractions.

If you can find a reliable source, then User:Historyday01’s amended proposal would be ok, but also, this is the article about aromanticism, whereas the more appropriate location for going into more detail about other types of attractions may be the Split attraction model article, but with the scarce research that exists around the SAM, which all typically only differentiate between sexual and romantic orientation, I don’t know if a reliable source exists that has expanded it to other types of attractions. Raladic (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree. Reliable sources especially matter when it comes to a topic like this, and I think some of the information could be talked about on the "Split attraction model" article as well. Historyday01 (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind the split attraction part being dropped, my main concern was portraying asexuality as being the opposite of gendered attraction. Giving it another look right now the libido and sexuality part is also somewhat confusing since asexuality isn't inherently tied to that either. An asexual person still experiences arousal, they just either don't care about the feelings it elicits or feel them to a lesser extent. So, perhaps the term asexual is being misused here? 109.252.174.54 (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Asexuality is not about gendered attraction, but it is the opposite side spectrum to other sexual attractions such as heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual, so the current sentences are correct per the general definitions of what sexual attraction means.

That is why there is a difference between say bisexual and biromantic, they can be the same (and for many are), but can also be different, in which case, the term ending with “sexual” is explicitly just about the sexual part of one’s attraction.

It is explicitly to explain that for many aromantic people, they have a split attraction between romantic and sexual attraction, which is the whole point of the Split attraction model and that segment.

In the final sentence of that paragraph it does also explain that some people do not have a split and are both aromantic and asexual (Aro-ace).

If you want to say someone is homoromantic-asexual to indicate they are romantically attracted to the same gender, but sexually to none, then that would be a similar use of the split attraction model, but should go on the article on Asexuality, not here on the article on aromanticism. In fact, I just checked and the asexuality article says exactly that (basically the inverse of what we have here on the aromanticism article). Raladic (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say that asexuality was tied to gendered attraction, but either way I now understand what you meant. I despite being asexual have never used or heard someone use the terms homoromantic and the like before so I forgot that they existed. Now I don't have any issues with that part I guess, apologies for wasting your time and thank you all for answering my concerns. 109.252.174.54 (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I do really have to thank you for your major expansion of the page earlier this year, as it was pretty small before then... Historyday01 (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Research that could be included

AUREA's website has a list of reasearch done with and on aromantics.

https://www.aromanticism.org/en/research

En person som er et individ (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

It looks to be a good guide to sources that could be added for sure. Historyday01 (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

An academic article which should be included

I stumbled upon it today (apparently it was published online on Feb. 14 of this year), but it could be useful. It's entitled "Exploring Aromanticism Through an Online Qualitative Investigation With the Aromantic Community: “Freeing, Alienating, and Utterly Fantastic”" Historyday01 (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

"ism"?

"Aromanticism" implies some sort of ideology which seems... Problematic. Autisticml (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Not all -ism’s are ideological. Some are philosophical or scientific or social phenomena. While some Ismus are ideological, some of that is more recent than the root of -ism at large. Raladic (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Being aromantic isn't really any of those though, is it? It "just is" so to speak. Autisticml (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)