anonymous:

Not sure if you’d seen this post on tumblr recently….by friendzoning-ninja that said: I don’t know why people had to invent the term “lithromantic” when “person with low self-esteem” works so much better. Well, that or “celibate”. Would like to hear your response to that…..thanks!

No, I missed that. Thank you for bringing it to my attention!

Okay, let’s debunk this, shall we?

How about we start with “person with low self-esteem”. Sorry, there is no way in which that “works so much better”. For one thing, it’s so much easier to say lithromantic than it is to say “person with low self-esteem”. Fewer syllables in lithromantic. And you can even shorten it to lithro if you have to.

Also, they mean completely different things. It’s completely unhelpful to say one thing when what you actually mean is something else entirely. You’re probably going to confuse people.

In all seriousness, though, some lithromantics do have low self esteem. Just as there are people of every romantic orientation, every sexual orientation, every gender, every age, every race, nationality, religion, ability status, etc. who have low self esteem. Lithromantics may be more likely to have low self esteem, just like members of other minorities, as a direct result of people saying things just like this.

Although being lithromantic in an amatonormative world might lead to low self esteem, having low self esteem cannot make you lithromantic. Nothing can make you lithromantic. Lithromantic people just are, the same as people of any other orientation.

Now, moving on to the second part.

“Well, that or “celibate”.”

Can we talk for a moment about how romantic orientation is not the same thing as sexuality? Saying that lithromanticism and celibacy are synonyms is harmful both to lithros and to celibate people, simply because it erases the identities and lived experiences of many in either of those groups. Even if this weren’t intended as an insult, it would still be harmful. As it is, it’s just that much worse.

Some lithromantics may be celibate. Some may not. Just as individuals of any romantic orientation, and any sexual orientation, may or may not be celibate. Being sexual active is a valid choice, just as celibacy is.

You know what isn’t a valid choice? Purposefully misrepresenting and insulting a minority group.

EDIT: I waded through a fair amount of friendzoning-ninja’s blog and found the original post. It’s tagged with: #Invented subcategories of sexuality. You know, because romantic orientation and sexual orientation are the same things, and because all other identity labels just spontaneously emerged into existence without any unnatural human interference.