I stumbled across this today, and WOW. What a way to start off Arospec Awareness Week!

This is exactly the kind of thing I was thinking about when I made that post about activism not being ready for aro-influenced politics yesterday.

Holy shit. This is radical. This is aro-influenced politics. And this is exactly the kind of thing alloros would be enraged about; it would make them feel personally attacked; it challenges amatonormativity in the most direct and bold-faced way possible: DESTROY ROMANCE. Not just the hierarchy around it - the social construct it is.

I have so many thoughts about this. This is so radical that it intimidates me! I don’t know if I believe we should abolish romance entirely - but do I feel that way because I’m afraid of the backlash against such a goal? have I been convinced of romance’s superiority in the way this zine sets out to expose? Now I’m asking myself those questions, thinking about them. I don’t know if I’ll have an answer anytime soon, but I’m thinking about it.

One thing that struck me about this was the structure of aromanticism as a utopia and as a political movement, not an orientation. It reminds me of political lesbianism, which while I am not The Most Informed About, I believe has a sticky history….and deep ties to radfem ideology, so uhh. Idk about that.

I’m hesitant to adopt the idea of aromanticism as inherently political. To me it is first and foremost an orientation; it is not a choice. It is political, yes, but it is not an ideology.

Perhaps it should be. Or perhaps I am misreading this. Or perhaps I’m right.

You can’t choose to be aro, just like you can’t choose to be a lesbian. (I’m not talking about “which label should I use”; I’m talking about the experience of attraction.) Then again, I don’t think this is advocating for everyone choosing to be aro…I think it’s advocating the abolition of romance as a social construct, and therefore the elimination of romantic orientation as a whole. (Which is different from political lesbianism. Though again: I am not an expert.)

I am incredibly intrigued by this concept of social aromanticism. Maybe for now it would need a different name… Aromanticism as an orientation is not the same as what this zine - this Manifesto - proposes. Aromanticism as an orientation is “not experiencing romantic attraction.” This manifesto’s idea of social aromanticism is the abolition of romance and the expansion of relationships. They are linked, absolutely, but…not the same.



I don’t know. This is all an initial response to this mind-blowing document I just read. I will probably end up changing my mind on these subjects, and complexifying my responses.

But this doesn’t have many notes right now - despite having been posted over 6 months ago - so I’d like to boost it. I want us to talk about this as an aromantic community. We need to have these discussions.

Outside our bubble of radical aromanticism, people aren’t ready for this. I admire the OPs of this post; from scrolling through their blog I believe they were handing it out at a convention! Which is great. But alloromantics aren’t ready for this kind of activism.

If we adopt this manifesto, how do we make it palatable for them? Can we do that without betraying the ideals of the manifesto? Queer spaces are built around the reclamation of romance; this will be seen as a threat to that, even though it shouldn’t. And straight spaces…god, I don’t want to think about what my religious mother woudl say about this.

I’ve rambled for too long. @aromanticmanifesto Thank you for your work. I hope that the aro community can have a rich discussion around your manifesto.





[also: I use the word radical a lot in this post. I DON”T want that to be associated with radical feminism, which is bad for reasons i’m not going into now. I use the word in the most literal definition of the word “radical”

radical (adj) 1. (especially of change or action) relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough.

2. advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social change; representing or supporting an extreme or progressive section of a political party.



(thanks google for the def..)

uhhh yeah. the zine is explicitly trans-inclusive and i am too. i’m also not about separatism or the superiority of one group of people over the other, which is what being a radfem is about afaik. they’ve warped that word; they aren’t radical at all. i have a post in my drafts about hierarchies Fand how they are inherently bad….anyway, that’s a discussion for another time. if i’m falling into the trap of radfem rhetoric while analyzing this please call me out, but i don’t think i am. just wanted to clear that up.]