Jump to content

NullVector

Member
  • Content Count

    452
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    47

About NullVector

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Personal Information

  • Gender
    male
  • Pronouns
    male ones
  • Romanticism
    probably aro
  • Sexuality
    hetero

Recent Profile Visitors

1,878 profile views
  1. I'm pretty introverted and enjoy it in small, irregular doses, but find it takes a lot out of me. I wonder if aromanticism fits extroverts more naturally than introverts? Or, does it not matter too much and they each come with their own set of challenges? This is the most painful aspect of it IME. Friendship communities built up over years disintegrating as people move to take new jobs, etc.
  2. I think you're right. I should have taken more time and care with my reply. That part about not taking aromanticism to mean that the relationship "never meant anything" to him in particular. I wasn't meaning to imply that I thought @Inez saw things in those terms. Just that someone might think something like that in a similar context; whereas the meaning for aromantic people could be felt as different but not lesser to the meaning for romantic people. But I think it was clumsily worded. Sorry @Inez
  3. No, sorry. But I wanted to pick up on this: Why? If you've realised that your partner experiences their emotions based around attraction somewhat differently to you and recently encountered a label that captures some aspects of that difference, then why should that discovery be "devastating"? I don't know the details of your relationship, but I presume that it's functional on some level if you've remained partners for 13 years and raised 3 kids together? If people with quite different inner worlds are able to do that kind of interpersonal bridging then personally I think it's neat. Why should finding a word that captures some aspects of how his inner world differs from yours now challenge or threaten what you've built together? Him being aromantic (if he is) IMO certainly shouldn't be taken by you to mean that the relationship "never meant anything" to him. It might be that his experience of its meaning would be different to yours. But I would expect that to be true of any relationship and more a cause for celebration (that we can relate to each other despite our differences) than concern.
  4. @aro_elise yeah, my answers are the same as your OP, pretty much word-for-word. Yeah, that's an interesting one! I did always think of myself as 'straight', but now I'm not so sure how well that works as a shorthand. One could argue that a homo-romantic gay person's experience of relationships is closer to traditional heterosexual (amato)normative relationship standards than an aromantic heterosexual person's. So, to say that only the former belongs under a broder non-straight/'queer' identities umberella doesn't quite seem right... So I guess I'd think of myself as 'straight-ish' or 'straight, but...' now, hah.
  5. I don't really know where that would be! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm also a pretty hardcore introvert; I tend to find social interaction with lots of new people drains my energy very quickly and I get easily over-stimulated (I don't think I would cope well with something like a pride parade )
  6. Neo: What are you trying to tell me? That I can dodge bullets romance? Morpheus: No, Neo. I'm trying to tell you that when you're ready, you won't have to. But on a more serious note: what did you actually do to establish these connections, if you don't mind answering? It seems to me like "the system" is broadly enabling of meaningless sexual connections in a non-romantic context, or meaningful sexual connections in a romantic context, but not much else - and I'm not a very good hacker at the moment!
  7. I did initially wonder this as well. Having thought about it some more, I now lean more towards the idea that romantic love is its own thing (at least to the same extent that sexual attraction and friendship are their own things). I think romantic crushes are of a different character to sexual 'crushes'. I don't know what it's like for you, but I don't think obsessively 24/7 about doing non-sexual activities with someone I'm sexually attracted to. That does seem to be typical of romantic crushes, from what I've observed of them or read about them. I wouldn't put it as "too stupid to understand their own feelings". But how certain are you really about that first sentence? (I'm inclined to agree, but I'm far from certain about it). It seems harmless enough to me to speculate that romantic love may be some sort of epiphenomena that can be explained in terms of more basic feelings. I mean, would you consider Buddhism's abhidhamma (which breaks down all mental phenomena into a finite number of constituents - cetasikas) or particle physics (which breaks down all physical phenomena into a handful of subatomic particle interactions) similarly offensive?
  8. I guess what I'm postulating here is that in secular cultures that were formely Christian, when most people stopped believing in the metaphysics of Christianity this left a kind of 'meaning gap' behind that the newly secular culture tried to fill with romantic love. Which did not make a very good substitute IMO (eros and agape are not the same kind of love). What country are you from, by the way? (if you don't mind answering, that is)
  9. I'm not aware of any "rules" per se. I'd say if you read an old thread and find it interesting then why not revive it? (Not that I'm a mod or anything; but I've done this a few times and I'm still allowed on here ) Yeah, I don't think that specific term has come up here. I'm not sure what to make of it yet. The idea that more stuff won't make you happier seems fairly widely accepted/ uncontroversial (albeit often more in theory than in practice!). But I'm not entirely clear on what is meant by Does this refer just to external material events that happen to me? Or to significant internal re-orientation as well? I can buy the former (e.g. inheriting, or losing, a fortune) not making too much long-term difference to my baseline happiness. But I buy the latter less (those sorts of experiences get broadly referred to as 'transformative' for good reasons, I'd suggest). Are things like a 'spiritual awakening' or major trauma being included here amongst 'major positive or negative events or life changes'? The 'hedonic' suggests reference to the impact of external (material?) stuff only to me, but it's not totally clear just from what you quoted. Then there's also the complication that extreme external circumstances can provoke an internal transformation. One that can ultimately lead to somebody realising greater happiness (or misery, I suppose; like finding a notebook that kills anyone whose name you write in it might turn you into a monster). The concept doesn't seem to account for that dynamic very well.
  10. I think you can find those discussions on here, if you dig around a little. Myself and others have, for example, speculated on here that romantic love plays a significant ideological role in maintaining state-capitalist system hegemony. As in, people may be more likely to put up with the somewhat shitty 'stick' of our present social contract in the context a degenerating/failing overarching system, if the 'carrot' of transcendent romantic fulfillment is being ever dangled tantalisingly in front of them by that same system? In this sense, I think romantic love has come to take on a similar ideological buttressing role within late stage state-capitalist systems to the role that religious belief in the afterlife took on in a previous era (back when Marx was writing about it as 'the opiate of the people'). Romantic love gets taken almost spiritually, as something that can be expected to wash away all our worldly sins and troubles, finally bring fulfillment and wholeness to empty and fractured lives (just listen to the songs on popular radio and many of them strike me as having this underlying message). And, crucially, romantic love does this in a way that IMO presents no meaninful challenge to the ideological basis of the system that so disproportionaty promotes it (similar to how encouraging focus on fulfillment in the afterlife could be used to distract from agitations for fulfillment in this life).
  11. @Coyote thanks. It's not explicitly stated, but I guess that to work as an explanation, that hypothesis would be assuming that (per heteronormative social conventions/codes) : 1. female-to-female touching = ok 2. male-to-female touching = prohibited outside the context of (heterosexual) romantic relationships 3. male-to-male touching = prohibited outside the context of (homosexual) romantic relationships i.e women can get their tactile needs (at least partially) met outside of the context of romantic relationships (via friendships) but most men can't. Either that, or men just tend to have disproportionately more male friends and women more female friends? (in which case, perhaps 2. is not 'prohibited' per se, but most men just lack the social networks to access it?)
  12. @Coyote apparently it's not possible to read most of the articles you posted (paywalls ) but I was intrigued where it mentions in one of the abstracts that Affection deprivation shows no correlation with age and no relationship with ethnicity, but men report significantly higher average affection deprivation than women. Do they go into more detail as to why that is?
  13. Welcome @Koraka I think we're similar ages and, in case it helps, what you wrote seems very relatable to me. Particularly this: Really, I just imagined a friend to discuss philosophical ideas and have sex with . From time to time. Without the other anxiety-inducing commitments that would typically be expected.
  14. Not such a fan of that, as 'amorous' can refer to sexual as well as romantic. If we're looking for a more general purpose term then 'amatodivergent' is one suggestion (I just made it up). To contrast with amatonormative (similar in usage to how neurodivergent contrasts with neurotypical).
  15. @Coyote when I wote that I saw elderley care as "less of an issue", the context I meant it in was as "not something I would expect to disproportionately imact aros and/or the childless/childfree, given how our society works in practice". I agree that how our society works in practice is not great in a lot of ways. The question here is whether those ways disproportionately impact aros in a way that makes aromanticism itself a political issue. For me, they don't. For others, they might. I think I'd prefer the political discussions to happen at a lower level of resolution e.g. focusing on social issues that impact all single or all childless people, rather than just aromantic ones. Or, going even lower level, social issues that impact all people lacking in informal support networks, for example. Okay, I am new here. Which phrases I should have avoided not to come off as impolite? Oh, I wasn't implying reference to anything you wrote. Just that elswhere on the interent, what I wrote might have been phrased in terms like 'snowflakes' getting 'triggered' by 'facts' they encounter outside their 'safe spaces'. I don't find that type of phrasing to be helpful! So I did not write my post that way.
×
×
  • Create New...