(thread) i feel like a pretty common response when i try to explain aromaticism to people is like "well what even is romance? how do you define it?" and i always have a hard time coming up with a response for that bc theyre kinda understanding the issue but also kinda not?

i think its a weird point where amatonormativity is so ingrained in people that it becomes a second thought maybe? like allos dont "define" it bc they dont need to(?) and the concept of needing to kinda throws them off? maybe??

i think to that i would say ok. for example, yes i agree that intimacy is not inherently romantic. yes i like to cuddle my friends. yes i would theoretically partake in things that are inherently "romance-coded". BUT.

to me... in a romantically inclined situation there is this just like.... this underlying Hum of intent from the other person that they may not even be aware of that i am somehow just SO perceptive of

and it always just manifests in the tinyest things, like fuckin...... idk bedroom eyes or the way someone laughs differently or any of that sort of "gaze" that someone has on someone when they are interested in them,,,

so i guess?? thats how i would define romance?? like i get how people would not consider these things bc they are like,, so tiny and minute, but in my experience they always fuel these big decisions between people, decisions that i, an aro, would not make

and this is the reason i would say to the people in the first tweet (dang putting my comms degree to good use) that the fact that peoples actions, that they might not even know that they are making, are the reason we need to define romance, because

if they are just second nature to the vast majority of people to the point of being invisible, and aros are not only able to pick them out, but have no capacity for these actions / attitudes then it becomes very obvious how they might see themselves as broken. end thread