The last decade's discourse on sexuality has led to a number of new terms being established that has hardly been treated seriously before. While a number of these are spurious or unnecessary hair splitting, i find the idea of "aromantics" rather interesting.
Aromanticism is, of course, the lack of ability to feel any romantic attraction at all, or not significantly enough to be of any importance, and it's heavily associated with asexuality. But there's also aromantic sexuality, which is what's interesting here.
That is of course, sexuality without romantic feelings, without the need for any deep emotional ties. This has often been thought of as unhealthy, dangerous, predatory - even among those claiming to be tolerant of all sexualities, something which is now questioned by those who claim "aromantics" to be a legit sexual orientation that should be respected.
Their view is basically that the fear of aromantic sexuality is based on conservative values, a glorification of "true, big love and romance" as necessary for any healthy sexual relation, and the lack of it is somehow dangerous and wrong.
While this discourse is pretty much limited to the politically correct LGBTQ movement (and currently not even that great within it), i'm thinking it really has a lot of impact on how society views zoophiles.
I'm convinced that most zoophiles are mostly aromantic, and the notion of "big romantic love" and monogamous relationships with an animal is overly promoted by zoos who want to make it seem more acceptable, more "normal" to non-zoos.
Sure, posters here and there are talking about their "great big love" for an animal partner, but i feel that they are mostly overblowing it, and they are a small minority anyway.
And one reason that our movement has had almost no success in making us more acceptable, is the fear of aromantic sexuality in the first place. Maybe if aromantic sexuality is seen as more normal and tolerated in general society, it will also make it easier for us to get accepted.
Aromanticism is, of course, the lack of ability to feel any romantic attraction at all, or not significantly enough to be of any importance, and it's heavily associated with asexuality. But there's also aromantic sexuality, which is what's interesting here.
That is of course, sexuality without romantic feelings, without the need for any deep emotional ties. This has often been thought of as unhealthy, dangerous, predatory - even among those claiming to be tolerant of all sexualities, something which is now questioned by those who claim "aromantics" to be a legit sexual orientation that should be respected.
Their view is basically that the fear of aromantic sexuality is based on conservative values, a glorification of "true, big love and romance" as necessary for any healthy sexual relation, and the lack of it is somehow dangerous and wrong.
While this discourse is pretty much limited to the politically correct LGBTQ movement (and currently not even that great within it), i'm thinking it really has a lot of impact on how society views zoophiles.
I'm convinced that most zoophiles are mostly aromantic, and the notion of "big romantic love" and monogamous relationships with an animal is overly promoted by zoos who want to make it seem more acceptable, more "normal" to non-zoos.
Sure, posters here and there are talking about their "great big love" for an animal partner, but i feel that they are mostly overblowing it, and they are a small minority anyway.
And one reason that our movement has had almost no success in making us more acceptable, is the fear of aromantic sexuality in the first place. Maybe if aromantic sexuality is seen as more normal and tolerated in general society, it will also make it easier for us to get accepted.
