I haven't even opened this ask yet, but I can guarantee that if you're asking a question that starts this way, the answer is yes!

Glad it helped :)

~~~

Yeah, that's really rough, I'm sorry you're going though that. I always found it really hard to get over strong unrequited feelings like that, because it's not like you can just distract yourself by being into someone else like it seems happens with a lot of alloromantic people.

My kind of generic advice (the last time I dealt with this was... many years ago and at no point in time do I ever think I handled this well...) is to give yourself some space just to feel sad about it and frustrated that it's even happening and whatever else is coming up. Then maybe try some strategies for dealing with intrusive thoughts? (Pretty easily googleable). And give yourself permission for at least some space away from this person - distance is the one thing that reliably works for me.

Any other suggestions please add them in the notes for anon.

I'm having thoughts about how aros tend to react to the phrase "just friends" and... none of this is to negate those ideas, but rather to add to them. Also these thoughts are half formed, so please do engage with them that way. I'm looking to start a conversation, not make a well-put together point.

Anyway.

I think maybe, when people say "we're just friends" and the like, sometimes (not all the time) the "just" isn't alluding to a hierarchy where friends are below romantic partners. It might be alluding to something else:

I think some people consider romantic relationships to be "friendship + romance." In fact, I also see comments that are like "oh, if you're not best friends with your romantic partner then that's an inherently lesser relationship than [friendship + romance]." Romantic flings that do not have strong elements of friendship are also seen as lesser under amatonormativity.

It's this idea that you need to get all your emotional connection needs met from *one person* (because capitalism) and if a person is not that one person, then it's an inherently lesser relationship.

Anyway, that's the thought, would love to hear other perspectives.

Yes! Just make sure to navigate up to a version where I wasn't responding to comments. Thanks :)

I would have loved to use the reply feature for exactly that reason, but unfortunately Tumblr does not let me reply from this blog. So, if you have any other suggestions, I'd be glad to hear them, but that one doesn't work. Tumblr sucks, I know.

I try to mitigate the impact of this flaw of Tumblr as much as possible, but my policy is that I do not leave bigoted comments unchallenged on my posts. Specifically because comments like those make our community an unsafe place for others (including myself). I reply or I delete. I debated deleting those comments, but I judged them to be potentially well meaning (it really was not clear at all from either person's first comment - second person seemed more clearly well-meaning on the *second* comment), so I responded to give those individuals the chance to learn how to do better. Could I have been gentler? Sure. But I am just so fed up with that kind of sentiment in our community, and it didn't happen.

I specifically offered to delete all of those posts if the commenter was okay with me also deleting their comments because I recognize what you mention as a problem. The commenter's response did not include a request to do so, so I did not. (That offer still stands, btw). One thing I didn't do which I probably should have was request that people not reblog that version of the post, and I apologize for not thinking of that at the time. I will make a point to do that in the future.

I also use the tag "#intracommunity issues" so that my followers who do not want to see those kinds of posts do not have to. And I do not promote or condone a blog culture of having my followers pile on (hence why one of my problems with that commenter was that they were responding to something I already addressed). This problem is one I've thought through, and that was the best solution I had to it at the time. I'm also, again, happy to hear more suggestions if you have them, but the reply feature is a no-go.

I do want to be abundantly clear: "new people trying to figure their stuff out" don't have a free pass on saying things that harm others. Gatekeeping based on attraction is something I find to be hurtful to me personally, and while I generally try to have those kind of conversations gently, it doesn't happen all the time. If a newbie is actively making a space unsafe *for me*, that's already "an unsafe space for healthy discussion"!

Lastly, while the standards you are expecting me to live up to are actually ones I aspire to, it is also not appropriate to tone police. Conversing gently with people who do things that hurt you is something to personally aspire to, not something to demand of others when they respond harshly to something that hurt them. (Especially given that I don't have masses of followers who are likely to do harm, like some people on the internet do.) That personal aspiration has to go *hand in hand* with doing your best to listen to people even when they're at their last straw and being a bit harsher, otherwise it's just another tool to cause harm. I'm not overly bothered by this, but it's something to keep in mind for your interactions with others.

ETA: I also define "well-meaning" to be not rigidly holding bigoted opinions. People can see their intent as positive while causing harm (most people do when they cause harm, no matter how abhorrent) - I do not consider this to be well-meaning (i.e. more deserving of an understanding response) unless it is accompanied by willingness to see the harm they caused and try to fix it. The view the second commenter expressed in their first comment is one that is often held quite rigidly, so I am very hesitant with assuming someone is well-meaning when they say things like that.