.jpg/1024px-Couple_kissing_in_front_of_pansexual_flag_(42328506944).jpg) |
| Credit: ong somos |
A review of "The Love and Sex Life of an Aromantic Asexual"
The other reviewer has a point. This is hardly even an article. It feels more like a single, short posting on a discussion thread. While I didn't mind paying for it (the other reviewer warned me, after all), others might.
That being said, I was confused and somewhat intrigued by the author's self-description as an “aromantic asexual”. To me, she seems neither non-romantic nor non-sexual. She has strong crushes on people which at least borders the romantic/erotic (they seem comparable to the idol worship of a teenager, say the girl fandom of a boy band). She also has sexual fantasies. They are weird, but they are sexual in nature. It seems that the “asexual” aspect simply means that the author never *actually* has sex with anyone, physically speaking, and is fine with that.
Fair enough, but why call this aromantic and asexual?
The terms are confusing, especially since there probably are people who are genuinely aromantic or asexual. It's also curious that the author sees herself as a representative of a specific “orientation”, when it's more likely that her original ideas about love are her own. People who call themselves asexual and aromantic have even created their own “identity”, apparently similar to the LGBTQ identities, which makes the whole thing even stranger!
For more, see my review of “All About Demisexuality”.
The other reviewer has a point. This is hardly even an article. It feels more like a single, short posting on a discussion thread. While I didn't mind paying for it (the other reviewer warned me, after all), others might.
That being said, I was confused and somewhat intrigued by the author's self-description as an “aromantic asexual”. To me, she seems neither non-romantic nor non-sexual. She has strong crushes on people which at least borders the romantic/erotic (they seem comparable to the idol worship of a teenager, say the girl fandom of a boy band). She also has sexual fantasies. They are weird, but they are sexual in nature. It seems that the “asexual” aspect simply means that the author never *actually* has sex with anyone, physically speaking, and is fine with that.
Fair enough, but why call this aromantic and asexual?
The terms are confusing, especially since there probably are people who are genuinely aromantic or asexual. It's also curious that the author sees herself as a representative of a specific “orientation”, when it's more likely that her original ideas about love are her own. People who call themselves asexual and aromantic have even created their own “identity”, apparently similar to the LGBTQ identities, which makes the whole thing even stranger!
For more, see my review of “All About Demisexuality”.
No comments:
Post a Comment