squish - sort of like a crush, but platonic instead! the terms exact meaning has fluctuated over time, so sometimes this might refer to platonic feelings in a non qp way (friends and not a qp relationship) but sometimes this might be how someone refers to the attraction they feel that makes them want to pursue a qpr!
for example, I have a squish on someone! I’d like to be in a qpr with them, and then we would be qpps!
qprs are a lot more subjective in definition than romantic relationships tend to be! as long as the relationship isn’t romantic/isn’t fully romantic, you can call it a qpr, so play around with your qp dynamics in shipping! have fun and I’m so glad this is starting to take off more!!!
Wanna just add a little more vocab!
Plush - Like a squish, but instead of it being platonic feelings in general, it’s specifically a desire for a qpr with someone. Not as widely circulated as squish and a much newer term, but more specific if you wanna go for that.
Zucchini - A relatively outdated term for a QPP, but you’ll still hear some aros (especially older aros) use it to refer to their QPP, and tbh I think we should bring it back. It was cute af.
I’m also not entireeely sure squish’s meaning has fluctuated? As far back as I can remember it’s always been used in a general way, I think the only real change is that some people use squish to not refer to qp attraction/desire now that plush exists as a term? But even then I think that’s a minority as it’s not as widely circulated. Don’t quote me on that though, because I’m too tired to go digging up on history at the moment.
Ok this has been on my mind a lot, too many times have I come across people who don’t get this
Theasexual spectrumandaromantic spectrum are TWO. SEPARATE. THINGS. Fighting against ace exclusionists is great but you need to fight against aro exclusionists, too
Including the ace pride flag and not the aro pride flag is not fully inclusive
Saying ace people belong at pride/in the LGBT+ community but not mentioning aro people belonging at pride/in the LGBT+ community is not fully inclusive
Responding to something talking about the entire A spectrum with things like “Yea, support aces!” is not fully inclusive
“Aspec” and “aphobia” refer to the ace and aro spectrums combined. If you only mean aces then it’s “acespec” and “acephobia”, if you only mean aros it’s “arospec” and “arophobia”. Don’t call something aphobic if it’s only attacking the ace community, and don’t call it acephobic if it’s clearly attacking the aro community
To my knowledge, the concept of queerplatonic relationships was coined by the aro community, not the ace community
If you’re going to say you support aspecs, then include arospecs as well as acespecs, and treat them as their own independent identities
Since I’m tired of DMing people all the time about this, gonna make a post about it.
Aromanticism is not a subset of asexuality. You can be aro and not ace. My blog, while for all aros, has a special focus on aros who aren’t ace.
Tagging posts explicitly about aromanticism and not asexuality as asexuality/asexual/ace/etc, especially while not tagging them as aromanticism/aromantic/aro/etc, contributes to aro erasure and the idea that aromantics are inherently asexual, and is incredibly tone deaf when you consider the audience of this blog.
Using my my posts about aromanticism, especially when most of my posts are targeted towards nonace aros, to talk about asexuality without making meaningful additions, is derailing. For example: Using a general post about amatonormativity to share your experiences is one thing and probably okay. Using a post telling bisexual aros that they don’t need to feel bad for their sexual attraction and that they aren’t feeding into stereotypes by living as their authentic selves to talk about your troubled dating experience as a biromantic ace and how frustrated you are with the expectations of sex people have of bi folks is another and very tone deaf. Don’t get me wrong, that is a genuine issue and one you should absolutely talk about, but maybe not on that post.
Please stop doing this. It’s fine if you as an ace relate to a post, but please be mindful about how you’re engaging with aro content. Please stop centering yourselves around our discussions. Your struggles and issues are valid and many of them overlap, but please please PLEASE be careful that you are actually relating to us or boosting our voices rather than speaking over us.
TL;DR - Aro is not the same as ace. Stop tagging aro content as ace. Stop derailing posts about aromanticism, especially those by nonace aros, to talk about asexuality. Please be mindful of how you engage with aro content.
Itincludes alloaros but the term doesn’t mean justalloaro.
Don’t forget about non-sam aros, aromids and others aros who don’t ID as alloaro or aroace.
I’ve been seeing “non-ace aro” to mean “alloaro” in quite a few posts now.
Please don’t forget us.
@ibdora Non-sam aros refer to people who are “just aro”. They don’t define their sexuality.
Aromids refer to strictly aromantic people who are somewhere on the ace spectrum, but may not consider themselves fully ace.
[ID: tumblr user ibdora says: “Aromids? Sam-aros? What are those” End ID]
Any aromids feel free to correct me if my definition is incorrect.
[ID: tumblr user yanderehiro says: “Okay these words are nothing I have yet heard of, I only know of aro and ace, perhaps aroace. End ID]
Hi@yanderehiro ! As I stated before, non sam aros are aros who don’t define their sexuality. Some non sam aros refer to themselves as "just aro”
Aromids refer to strictly aro people (no romantic attraction at all) who are technically somewhere on the ace spectrum but may not consider themselves fully asexual.
(sorry for the tag, but) @star-allos has more information. I believed they coined to term.
Thanks for reaching out!
No worries about the tag! I am the person who coined the term, correct. It can also refer to someone strictly aromantic who does not consider themself either allosexual or asexual as well (another term this falls under is arohaze). It (and its sister terms, acemid and amid) was a term coined for those who felt uncomfortable with the a/allo dichtomy for part(s) of their orientation but for whom their limited attraction still matters a lot to them, and thus the non sam aro label isn’t quite right for them either.
Living as a romance repulsed aro often feels being a dog kept under the logic of owning a fish. The pet owner keeps wondering why the dog tries so damn hard to keep afloat and get out of the tank. Fish Are Pets So Are Dogs And Fish Need Water And Surely That Means Dogs Do Too, so they keep putting the dog back in the tank and submerging it because Fish Need it To Live. It’s not even malicious, because they think this is what will help you, but the end result is still that I am Not A Fish and that water is Suffocating Me.
