Talk:Aromanticism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article

This article needs to stay. Its a decent beginning for the subject and we can build it over time. As it is the discourse on Aromantism is limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tariqadib (talk • contribs)

RfC: Should this article be merged?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This page previously redirected to a section in the Asexuality article. It just went through an AfD, which I somehow overlooked even though this page was on my watchlist during that time. The AfD closed as no consensus. Two argued for keeping the article while the others argued for redirecting and/or merging the article. The options for the merge were the Asexuality or the Romantic orientation article. So should this article be redirected and/or merged? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. Anyone who is familiar with the asexuality literature knows that aromanticism doesn't really widely exist outside of that topic/community. Not truly. This is also reflected by the sources in this article. It's the same for romantic orientation, even though it currently has its own Wikipedia article. Either way, this is not a case where a standalone page is needed. This topic should be covered in one of the two aforementioned articles, preferably the Asexuality article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• Yes I am not involved in the topics of the article, but purely from a practical standpoint, currently there is not enough substance in the page to merit its own article. I can't give a qualified opinion on the article to be merged to, but definitely one of the two. Not objected to keeping if substantial expansion occurs. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Not an expert, so not voting, but recent expansion makes a merge impractical unless someone convinces me otherwise. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• No. I have expanded the article, and I think it looks fine now. 79.67.81.118 (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• Not a topic matter expert, but I think that after the expansion there is a bit too much content to reasonably merge. Sandstein 14:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Eddie891 and Sandstein, the IP's expansion of the article is an attempt to make the topic look more notable than it is. Given its ties to asexuality and romantic orientation and that what is stated about it so commonly applies to asexual people as well, it's not much of a standalone topic. Look at the sources the IP-hopper included; many of them are poor for this topic, and just about all of the sources the IP-hopper included define this identity within the concept of asexuality, just like all of the other asexual identities. I had to make this edit just to remove WP:Undue weight based on an opinion piece and poor blog source and the IP pushing aromanticism as distinct from asexuality. Yes, they don't always mean the same thing and there are some people who identify as aromantic without identifying as asexual, but, for the most part, "aromantic" is defined within the asexuality community and is specifically noted by numerous reliable sources as being an asexual identity. That is why this "Community" content that I just removed is based entirely on asexuality sources. For that content, the IP focused on the aromanticism identity aspect and made it seem like the sources are talking solely about the aromantic identity. They aren't. All of what the IP added for that section applies to asexuals as a whole. Even the "underrepresentation of aromantics in the media and in research" piece in the article by the IP is associated with asexuals, as seen by the sources used for it here and here; they are about the asexual community in general. The latter source is very clear that aromanticism is on the asexuality spectrum. So far, the IP-hopper has added poor media sources (a few okay ones), WP:Undue weight, and has engaged in selective editing, WP:Editorializing and WP:Synthesis to try and save this article. The IP-hopper, who is no newbie, has done this before with other pages. And this includes the demisexuality topic, as seen at that (now closed) merge discussion, where Atsme, Ozzie10aaaa, KateWishing, CityOfSilver, Comatmebro and HelpTheBear weighed in. Do see the list of scholarly sources I listed in the collapse box below making it clear that aromanticism emerged from the asexuality community and/or is an asexual identity.

Some sources on aromanticism/aromantic emerging from the asexuality community and/or being an asexual identity

This 2015 "Asexuality and Sexual Normativity: An Anthology" source, from Routledge, page 46, states, "Interestingly, educational materials produced by asexuals have highlighted this feature thus generating a number of 'new' identities such as demisexual, aromantic asexual, biromantic asexual, and gray-A. Asexual 'language' or 'vocabulary' is another dimension that medical scales tend to overlook." This 2015 "Gender and the Modern Sherlock Holmes: Essays on Film and Television Adaptations Since 2009" source, from McFarland, page 222, when speaking of asexuality research, states, "This distinction between the sexual and the romantic appears to be featured prominently in the selfproduced asexual materials, discourses, and discussions that selfidentified asexual people are likely to have encountered. It is in this context where identity labels such as demisexual, hyposexual, romantic, and aromantic asexual, hyporomantic, straightA, gay A, biA, gray A, etc. take on meanings, as people attempt to position themselves not only according to the genders of people to whom they experience attraction, but also according to the degrees to which (and the ways in which) they do so." This 2015 "Gender and Sexual Diversity in U.S. Higher Education: Contexts and Opportunities for LGBTQ College Students: New Directions for Student Services, Number 152" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 21, states, "Various terms exist to describe asexual people's romantic inclinations, such as aromantic (do not experience romantic attractions), heteroromantic (romantically inclined toward people of a different sex/gender), homoromantic, biromantic, panromantic, and so on." This 2016 "The SAGE Encyclopedia of LGBTQ Studies" source, from SAGE Publications, page 92, states, "[...] within the asexual community, an important distinction is drawn between romantic sexuality and aromantic asexuality." The source goes on to note that neither group experiences sexual attraction...but that there is a difference between these two groups. As the source shows, the identities are focused (primarily at least) within the asexual community. This 2017 "Nonbinary Gender Identities: History, Culture, Resources" source, from Rowman & Littlefield, page 256, states, "People who experience low or no sexual or romantic attraction are generally called asexual or aromantic." It does go on to note, though, that "nonbinary people can be straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, asexual, aromantic, or any number of other sexual identity terms." This 2018 "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Americans at Risk: Problems and Solutions [3 volumes]" source, from ABC-CLIO, page 218, states, "Within asexuality, one may possess a romantic identity, which defines the emotional, not sexual, attachment to another individual. These romantic attractions operate on a spectrum. Individuals may bear a homo-romantic attraction to individuals of the same sex, or they may bear a heteroromantic attraction to those of the opposite sex. Ultimately, the romantic spectrum is similar to the scaling of homo- and hetero- attraction on the spectrum of sexuality. [...] The romantic/aromantic spectrum creates divides with the community and questions whether asexuality is 'queer.'"

All that stated, because some people who are aromantic don't identify as asexual, and the same applies vice versa, it is perhaps best to redirect the term to the Romantic orientation article and expand on this and different asexuality-related terms there. I have cut the article down, and might need to do so again if the IP goes back to their typical "need to save the article by any means" editing. It can be reasonably merged to the Romantic orientation article and cut further to focus on that topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC) As it was, it was mainly stuff that applies to asexuals as a whole. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - I agree with Flyer22 Reborn, which I understand to be merge/redirect/expand at Romantic orientation (the main article). There is always room for it to grow beyond the capacity of the main article, so let it incubate there first instead of splintering off into separate articles before it's time. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• Yes per Atsme. Having a separate article seems premature. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Pinging previous editors who were involved in the AfD: Eddie891, Szzuk, Valoem and Sandstein. IPs can't be pinged. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: The IP also keeps adding poor media sources, a number of which are mainly about asexuality, and sometimes attributes these sources to aromanticism. The IP has also resorted to using interviews regarding certain people's personal experiences with asexuality/aromanticism to generalize material about aromanticism. And Atsme is correct that I'm saying these asexuality-related terms can be expanded in the Romantic orientation article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

If I quote an interview, then per attribution I avoid using factual language. 79.67.81.118 (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, most sources I have used are also used on many other pages. 79.67.81.118 (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

You are adding any and everything to the article and hoping it sticks. You are artificially expanding this article in the hopes that it will be kept and people will say don't merge, some without even analyzing the topic and sources. Well, people can also vote to trim and merge. Like I stated on your talk page, you need to read WP:Reliable sources. Random online sources are not automatically reliable sources. We have the WP:Reliable sources guideline for a reason. And random comments about how certain celebrities, or non-notables, feel or what they state is WP:Undue weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Only two sources quoted an interview. You on the other hand removed 15 sources.79.67.81.118 (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I said nothing of quoting interviews. I said you have resorted to using interviews regarding certain people's personal experiences with asexuality/aromanticism to generalize material about aromanticism. As for removing sources, did you even read WP:Reliable sources? Did you not understand any of what I stated about reliable sources? You keep adding unreliable sources. Most of the sources you added were unreliable. And with stuff like this, you are acting like I focused on removing HuffPost. I did not. Those HuffPost sources are there in either version. I focused on removing the piss-poor sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I see that you have taken the matter to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Good. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split article back.

There are enough references and information to be a stand-alone article and teach the reader. Analog Horror, (Speak) 21:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Analog Horror, I reverted you per the above WP:Consensus discussion. You need to get new consensus for splitting this out. Do not WP:Edit war on this. From what I see, a split is still not needed. And I still stand by what I stated above. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

And sources such as these that you added are poor. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You barely put any effort into the article's recreation, which is seen by the previous incarnation, what you restored, and what is currently seen in the Romantic orientation article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I concur with the RfC. There is no basis for a separate article. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Recreation

Apologies all, I failed to check the talk page to see previous discussion on merging before bringing in content. I should have sought consensus. Mea culpa. I'm now trying to rectify this so I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. I wasn't sure whether to self revert, as I'm not sure the protocol here.

I have brought over what was in Romantic orientation and personally, I feel there is enough to justify an article of it's own. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll restore the redirect, as this seems to duplicate what's in the other page anyway. If you wish to pursue this further you can do so at Talk:Romantic orientation, where this has come up in the most recent discussion. So far there has not been a consensus to spin off an article at this time. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Much thanks friend. I'm sorry for any inconvenience Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

This is a bit of an old thread of conversation, but the suffix -ism is purely a nominalizer. True, it has uses for ideologies, but it is also used, as Wiktionary notes, "to form names of a tendency of behaviour, action, state, condition or opinion belonging to a class or group of persons [...]." This is the sense of it used in words such as aromanticism. Arayaz (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

That's my thought too. And there are also more than enough sources to justify keeping this article at its present title Historyday01 (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Autisticml: Please check MOS:NEO. Unlike transgenderism and homosexualism, aromanticism isn't seen as offensive or pathologizing. Although the word aromanticity exists, it's not recognized in dictionaries or even used as often as aromanticism. In Portuguese, more specifically in Brazil, we do use arromanticidade more than arromantismo and transgeneridade (English: transgenderness, transness, transgenderity, transitude) more than transgenerismo, while lesbianismo is more used than lesbianidade (this is equivalent to the aromanticity case but in Portuguese, because it has no apparent translation), but this is about language change. Autism isn't an ideology either and carries its suffix. --MikutoH ^talk! 02:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Aplatonicism

Can there be a mention of aplatonic individuals or platonic attraction in general? --MikutoH ^talk! 01:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The Article Platonic love is probably a better article to discuss it in detail, but we could add a link to it in see also or so if there’s a good context that links it in some way - do you have a specific suggestion on the context to add in in? Raladic (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I've added it to the aromanticism article, I think that was the best place to mention it.

I felt people would think this label is fringe to be there, alikely how people are dealing with fictosexuality article, which is originally an a-spec identity but now is seen as controversial. --MikutoH ^talk! 02:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I think the addition you made is fine since we already mention platonic love right where you added it.

i think you could still probably add it to the platonic love article if you wanted since it about the opposite of platonic love, but I understand your point that it is a bit novel as a term. Raladic (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)