Where Does Aromanticism Fit?

This is a submission for the November 2019 Carnival of Aros, on the topic of “Aro Community Wishlists“. This post has been crossposted to Tumblr.

I think about aromanticism a lot. I think about how being aromantic influences my behavior, how it informs my perspectives on media, how it affects where I fit in the world. The question I don’t think about as often is where aromanticism fits in the world, especially when it comes to where other people place it (or more specifically, where they don’t). Here are two cases where the answer left me wishing for something better, and two possible solutions. 

The APA

The American Psychological Association’s style guide is great. I recently found out that the APA endorses using singular they, which was super exciting because it gives singular they more legitimacy and lets me point to an established authority when someone says that singular they isn’t proper English. But when I looked more into their style guide, I came across a familiar disappointment: comprehensive guidelines on gender and sexual orientation in writing, but no dedicated page for aromanticism or romantic orientation. 

Digging a little deeper, the style guide says

Sexual orientation is a part of individual identity that includes “a person’s sexual and emotional attraction to another person and the behavior and/or social affiliation that may result from this attraction” (APA, 2015a, p. 862) … Some examples of sexual orientation are lesbian, gay, heterosexual, straight, asexual, bisexual, queer, polysexual, and pansexual (also called multisexual and omnisexual).

It’s great to see so many different identities acknowledged, but what about aromanticism? Should it be mentioned here? My gut reaction is to say no, because aromanticism is a romantic orientation and it could be confusing or misleading to list it on a page about sexual orientation. (That is, unless you have a section that does some aromanticism 101 and provides enough context, but in that case, why not make a whole separate page?) 

On the other hand, aromanticism is an orientation, so if the passage was amended to “Some examples of orientation are…”, I think most people would say aromanticism belongs in that list. It’s also worth considering that most people use “sexual orientation” to mean “orientation” in a broader sense, and that some aros see their aromanticism as their primary label and/or see aromantic as their sexual orientation. Finally, while “emotional attraction” isn’t a particularly common phrase, it could be interpreted to mean “romantic attraction”, which would be grounds for including aromanticism on a page about sexual orientation. 

Admittedly, whether aromanticism is mentioned or not in the APA style guide is a fairly low-stakes issue in the grand scheme of things. The style guide can be released in a new edition that mentions us the way we want, and the APA already puts a big emphasis on bias free language. But at the same time, how we think and talk about where aromanticism fits in this example can help inform our opinion when it comes to more impactful writing. 

The Equality Act

The Equality Act is a piece of currently pending U.S. legislation “[to] prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and for other purposes.” Anti-discrimination legislation like this is important, and it would wonderful if this was made into law, but its wording leaves a lot to be desired. See, the Equality Act says that “‘[the] term ‘sexual orientation’ means homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.” (Sec. 1101(a)(5), Definitions and Rules). In addition to erasing a number of identities, that definition is quite a bit narrower than you might expect for something that’s supposed to completely prohibit discrimination. 

To reiterate, I’d love to see this turned into a law, and this wording probably does protect against discrimination on the basis of being aromantic. But while the argument that such discrimination would still be legal because the text doesn’t explicitly mention romantic orientation or aromanticism (or even emotional attraction like the APA does) feels flimsy, I don’t know for certain what would happen if someone used such an argument in court. It would be nice to have a stronger guarantee that legislation that’s been billed as “[providing] consistent and explicit non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people across key areas of life” would consistently and explicitly provide those protections to everyone, aros included, or at the very least have some acknowledgement that the legislation has some potential holes. If we’re drafting legislation that moves people from the legal gray area of maybe-having-rights to definitely-having-rights, we don’t want to inadvertently leave anyone behind. 

And if you zoom out and look at the question of what terms like LGBTQ and queer encompass, you’ll find lots of discussions and definitions having to do with gender identity and sexual orientation, but very rarely romantic orientation or orientation in a broader sense. Combine that with how lots of organizations have almost no resources on aromanticism, and you end up with this weird mixture of erasure and othering from the things that should be on your side, that should be able to at least acknowledge your existence. 

Solutions and a Wishlist

How can we stop aromanticism from being left out from these and other places? I see two options. We can shift the language other people use from “sexual orientation” to just “orientation”, or we can start talking about aromanticism as a sexual orientation. I think the best solution is to talk more generally about orientation instead of specifically sexual orientation, in no small part because my gut says that asking for aromanticism to be folded in as another sexual orientation would be a mistake. But honestly? I think that the latter would be easier to accomplish than the former, especially on a wide scale, because we can change how we talk about aromanticism, but we can’t force other people to change how they talk about orientations. 

At the end of the day, there are two things on my wishlist. First, I’d love to see some discussion in the community about what to do about all this. I know that I’d rather have people talk about orientation in more general terms than have people talk about aromanticism as a sexual orientation, but I’d like to hear what other people think. It’s also entirely possible that there’s one or more solutions that I’ve missed. Secondly, for anyone who wants to be a good ally to aromantics? Contact us. Listen to us. Raise our voices. Make resources with us. Work with us on the issues we care about. We’re as real and important as any other identity, and we deserve to be mentioned. 

6 thoughts on “Where Does Aromanticism Fit?

  1. Sexual orientation is a part of individual identity that includes “a person’s sexual and emotional attraction to another person and the behavior and/or social affiliation that may result from this attraction” (APA, 2015a, p. 862)

    On that note, this is exactly the thinking — this “your emotional attraction and partnership interests are a subset of your sexual orientation” — that aces are trying to dispute when they emphasize that asexuality =/= aromanticism, which is why it’s so confusing to see people criticizing aces for saying not all aces are aromantic, i.e. introducing the idea of romantic orientation and aromanticism. That’s not to say people don’t do this badly — I know they do (and I agree that “stereotype” is the wrong word to use there) — but this is the bigger picture here. This is already the mainstream idea about how sexual orientation works. If you say you’re sexually into any given group, people are going to assume your romantic partnership pool is a *smaller* subset of that, not a *larger*/more expansive set.

    Finally, while “emotional attraction” isn’t a particularly common phrase, it could be interpreted to mean “romantic attraction”

    I see the latter as a subcategory of the former, yeah.

    I think the best solution is to talk more generally about orientation instead of specifically sexual orientation

    I agree, in part because some people don’t have axial orientations (or map them to a different axis), and in part because getting to specific just reproduces these same problems for other groups. You don’t want to leave an aro ace out in the cold just because they think of their of their bi identity as nonromantic/nonsexual, y’know?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. which is why it’s so confusing to see people criticizing aces for saying not all aces are aromantic, i.e. introducing the idea of romantic orientation and aromanticism

      yeah, I saw this a while ago (thanks for linking to the response, which I’d missed), and it’s…definitely a weird dynamic. I think it’s really easy to forget that, outside of the aspec community, most people see attraction as more-or-less monolithic, which leads to weird interactions like that (which also feels like the see-saw cycle, in a way?).

      Re: emotional attraction, I was trying to find something to link to that I thought you had written about it, but the only thing I could find was this: https://theacetheist.wordpress.com/2019/05/17/a-mini-history-of-different-types-of-attraction-in-the-ace-community/. Did you write something having to do with emotional/affectional attraction and/or respond to some historical narrative of romantic attraction/SAM that surfaced on Tumblr? Or am I just making all of this up?

      I agree, in part because some people don’t have axial orientations (or map them to a different axis), and in part because getting to specific just reproduces these same problems for other groups. You don’t want to leave an aro ace out in the cold just because they think of their of their bi identity as nonromantic/nonsexual, y’know?

      Yes, exactly. The only question is, how effective can we actually be in changing how society thinks and talks about attraction and orientation?

      Like

      1. Did you write something having to do with emotional/affectional attraction and/or respond to some historical narrative of romantic attraction/SAM that surfaced on Tumblr? Or am I just making all of this up?

        Depends on what you mean. I’ve written several posts about the antiace term “split attraction model,” the most recent post being Remodeling: on the Reclamation of the Term “Split Attraction Model.” Before that was Romantic Orientation and the “Split Attraction Model” are not the same thing. Neither of those are really about emotional attraction itself, though. Were you thinking of reminders on attraction? I don’t talk about emotional attraction much apart from those contexts, because it’s not a concept that I use, personally.

        The only question is, how effective can we actually be in changing how society thinks and talks about attraction and orientation?

        *shrug* Remains to be seen, I suppose. For me it helps to recognize that it has already changed before, so wherever we’re at, that’s not set in stone as the only way things have always been and can ever be. And besides — we ourselves are a part of “society,” aren’t we? Then when we change, society is already changing.

        If you’re asking about specific activist strategies to address things at a more institutional level, well. I might take a page from the taskforce who got the asexual exception added to HSDD in the DSM, for instance.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Were you thinking of reminders on attraction? I don’t talk about emotional attraction much apart from those contexts, because it’s not a concept that I use, personally.

          Hm, none of those were it. Might have also been an arocalypse thing from a while ago? Or AUREA? But it’s entirely possible I’m just imagining it.

          *shrug* Remains to be seen, I suppose. For me it helps to recognize that it has already changed before, so wherever we’re at, that’s not set in stone as the only way things have always been and can ever be. And besides — we ourselves are a part of “society,” aren’t we? Then when we change, society is already changing.

          Hm. That’s a comforting thought.

          If you’re asking about specific activist strategies to address things at a more institutional level, well. I might take a page from the taskforce who got the asexual exception added to HSDD in the DSM, for instance.

          Do you have any info on how this happened or who was in charge? I’d love to find out more.

          Unrelated, but re: people being turned into ace flamewar talking points, I just came across this: https://fuckyeahasexual.tumblr.com/post/189438246081

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Do you have any info on how this happened or who was in charge? I’d love to find out more.

            It’s not something that was made very public, but Omnes et Nihil has a post called How the DSM (sort of) came to recognise “asexuality” as (sort of) legit, and that’s where I found out about that background. Basically, the way that FSIAD/HSDD are defined has problems, and they still has problems, but what changed was that in 2008 or so, when the DSM was up for revisions, a group of aces got together through AVEN, put together a report called “Asexuality, HSDD, and the DSM: A Collaborative Report,” and sent it to the DSM-IV-TR Review Committee. The result was that when the new DSM was published, in some versions, there’s a little exception written in that “If a lifelong lack of sexual desire is better explained by one’s self-identification as ‘asexual,’ then a diagnosis of [FSIAD/HSDD] would not be made.”

            Like I said, those diagnoses (as they’re currently defined and conceptualized) still have problems, but that was a change that ace activists were able to make happen by sending the right info to the right people at the right time.

            If you’d like to get aromanticism on the radar for, say, the APA, then I’d recommend finding out more about how those guidelines get created/updated behind the scenes and getting together a taskforce (preferably w/ people who know their stuff) to attempt a similar intervention.

            Unrelated, but re: people being turned into ace flamewar talking points, I just came across this: https://fuckyeahasexual.tumblr.com/post/189438246081

            Horrifying, but good for them on finding some agency in the situation. I hope things start looking up for them in the future.

            Anyway, I really do not get people posting screenshots to headlines without including the links, and also wow is that a news story that I do not want to hear people’s reactions to.

            Like

            1. If you’d like to get aromanticism on the radar for, say, the APA, then I’d recommend finding out more about how those guidelines get created/updated behind the scenes and getting together a taskforce (preferably w/ people who know their stuff) to attempt a similar intervention.

              Hm okay.

              Someone linked me the article by it’s not in the notes for some reason, so here it is if you’d like to read it.
              https://www-pinknews-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/11/29/asexual-person-parents-conversion-reddit/amp/?usqp=mq331AQNKAGYAYW42KKmga-ebg%3D%3D&amp_js_v=0.1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinknews.co.uk%2F2019%2F11%2F29%2Fasexual-person-parents-conversion-reddit%2F

              Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s