Jump to content

NullVector

Member
  • Content Count

    412
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    45

About NullVector

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Personal Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

1,557 profile views
  1. It's okay, there are consolations to being this way "I am a horse for single harness, not cut out for tandem or team work. I have never belonged wholeheartedly to country or state, to my circle of friends, or even to my own family. These ties have always been accompanied by a vague aloofness, and the wish to withdraw into myself increases with the years. Such isolation is sometimes bitter, but I do not regret being cut off from the understanding and sympathy of other men. I lose something by it, to be sure, but I am compensated for it in being rendered independent of the customs, opinions, and prejudices of others, and am not tempted to rest my peace of mind upon such shifting foundations" -- Albert Einstein
  2. and some people get a kick out of subverting the ideals For instance, when I read this in Alain de Botton's book Essays In Love, it made sense in the context of how I've subjectively experienced beauty in the opposite sex:
  3. I think the two can be closely connected. An awareness of death and the fleeting nature of life can make us less complacent and more sensitised to the beauty of the everyday, perhaps? In buddhism there are a lot of practises centred around bringing to mind the fragility of life and the inevitability of ones own death. I suppose you're only really one breath or one heartbeat away from death; it's a sort of improbably beautiful miracle that we're even alive moment-to-moment Fully appreciating that can (purportedly) bring you peace of mind through an acceptance of things as they actually are. In contrast, you might say that our culture likes to keep death at an unhealthy distance? There I go trying to systematise beauty again, eh? I think it's kind of sanitising or sugar coating reality, robbing it of something essential, to ignore it. It's not satisfactory. It doesn't let us develop fully as integrated people to push the darkness of the world aside. I liked this scene in Donnie Darko Actually, when I was a little kid, I was heavily into some animations that were full of darkness and death! Like Animals of Farthing Wood and Watership Down (and the moments where there was some reprieve from the death and darkness of the characters' worlds were rendered the more beautiful by that, IMO). I think children have the capacity to appreciate the prevalence of death and darkness in the world and it's probably not good for their emotional development if parents try to overly insulate them from that...Like maybe children are stronger and more mature and more intuitively aware of how the world really works than they are commonly given credit for? In Brave New World, Helmholtz insists on being banished to an island with terrible weather, on the grounds that it will be better for his writing
  4. There's also this second quiz to try: http://www.yourpersonality.net/relstructures/
  5. Hah. That guy really likes Oak trees. Well, I guess being old and ravaged, but still clinging on somehow, is part of the 'ideal oak tree' aesthetic? That's all I got @DeltaV ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  6. There's a broader context with that image than just 'tree' though. Like, why link it with an abbey? With a graveyard? There's also an interesting ambiguity there: are we watching a sunrise or a sunset? With the suggestion perhaps: are we looking at things whose time has passed, or things whose time may come again? Perhaps it's the richness of the interplay of the components and the ideas they suggest that generates the aesthetics here, rather than the components by themselves? A bit like how in Chinese, by combining base symbols in different ways, very different meta-meanings can emerge. Haha, I'm not much of an art critic, but that's what I got from it.
  7. @aro_elise sounds like an interesting topic . Actually, reading the thread again, a connection occurred to me between what is considered beautiful, what is considered natural and the concept of freedom. I'd not put the three together before, but, freedom in the positive sense strikes me as something's freedom to express its ideal nature or form. And Plato seems to connect that with ideas of aesthetic beauty. So, like, an "ideal tree" might be the tree that gets enough water and sunlight and nutriments, such that it is most fully expressing its "tree nature". As such, we see it as more aesthetically beautiful - and more free - than a sickly tree kept in relative darkness, or poor quality or dry soil, for example. So, self love might be seen as our wish for ouselves to be as beautiful, natural and free as we can be and the three are all bound together and somehow different aspects of the same underlying whole? Well, I was going to mention Plato's Symposium, but sounds from that like you've already read it!
  8. In general I'd say some probable candidates would be: avoidant personality disorder schizoid personality disorder social anxiety (severe) autism asperger syndrome But don't we have to make a distinction here between, on the one hand, lack of intrinsic desire to make efforts to enter into romantic relationships (i.e. aromanticism) and, on the other hand, a lack of success at actually entering into them - despite making efforts to? For example, someone on the autism spectrum might struggle with the sort of social protocols that are typically followed to realise romantic relationships. But, I've heard of examples where such people were strongly motivated to get into romantic relationships and so invested a lot of time into trying to learn these sorts of protocols - to the extent that they eventually succeeded romantically. Me, on the other hand (possible mild aspergers): I realised at some point that I just don't care enough to learn and practice these things So, I don't think anything in your list could create aromanticism (aside from the first two, arguably), as I think the base desire to get into romantic relationships is completely logically separate from any psychological hurdles that would make this more difficult. But all of them could probably be mistaken for it, yes (as per the title of the thread).
  9. I was also quite interested in how under-represented we cis-males were in your survey @running.tally - it looked like about 1-2% only from your pie chart? Unfortunately, in cis-male hetero-normative culture, I think there's still a lot of resistance to association with anything whatsoever that might be seen as 'gay' - as is explored in this youtube video, for example. So, yeah, there would be both a) less awareness of those communities and b) reluctance towards any initial explorative engagement with them. I think there's still somewhat of a perception amongst cis-males that one must be either 'all-in' or not engaged at all (100% 'straight' or 100% 'gay') but that any blurring of those categories is not really acceptable. Yes, I also think this is a big factor. An aromantic man might just see themselves as 'normal, default man' as opposed to something unusual that might prompt them to seek out a distinct community and/or identity. Not sure if you've seen this thread yet @running.tally? You might find it interesting in terms of exploring some potential reasons for lack of cis-male participation in your survey.
  10. One alternative metaphor that occurred to me as I read your posts here - that might help to encourage a better relationship with your body - was this. Could you maybe see your body as being like a child, which, although it isn't the brightest, or strongest or most most eloquent child, it's your child and it tries its best? I don't know if that would help or not? Bear in mind that I don't suffer from any bad chronic conditions myself, so I might have said something dumb here; worst thing I've really had to deal with is eczema that occasionally gets bad (but is mostly fine). But, it has caused me to feel like I was at war with my skin in the past, which probably was not a helpful way for me to view things. Thinking about my body in the way i just described was more helpful for me.
  11. SAME! I'm still coming to terms with it I reckon . And yeah, as @ApeironStella put it, it's largely because I didn't want to be: Which I guess was also me partially buying into a harmful narrative that girls don't really enjoy sex for it's own sake and, as such, as a male wanting sex, you've got to barter with them for it by offering romantic gestures? Yeah, I think we all came to that conclusion in this thread! Yeah. That's a really interesting observation IMO. Like, the implication is very much that you should be having sex, but only in the right way! i.e. two people, long-term, monogamous, ideally married (and formerly only with specific genders related to your own; but that one has relaxed somewhat in recent decades). Anything else is still seen as a bit beyond the pale! Allo Aros are often very much wanting sex in the wrong way from this perspective! And I very much suspect that, in this hierarchy of wrong-ness I'm constructing, wanting sex in the wrong way is seen as more wrong than not wanting it at all! I've never been much of a daring rule-breaker, unfortunately for me.
  12. Can you please change your pronouns to "he/him"?

    1. NullVector

      NullVector

      Why? I don't mind doing it, but I'd like to know the reason you asked...

    2. Ace of Amethysts

      Ace of Amethysts

      Pronouns aren't inherently tied to gender. Nonbinary people can and do use he/him and she/her.

    3. NullVector

      NullVector

      Okay, I've got two issues with that reason:

       

      1. I'm not convinced that your first sentence is factually correct for the specific case of English language third person singular pronouns (which is what we're discussing here)
      2. I disagree with the implication that your first sentence logically follows from your second sentence.

       

      For point 1: as far as i can gather, he/him pronouns are classified by linguists as 3rd person masculine singular. Like here, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_personal_pronouns i.e they are taken as inherently tied to gender (male gender, in this case) and that assumption is built into the structure of the language (so, English language just assumes a male/female gender binary exists, as I understand it). So me putting 'male ones' on my profile as shorthand for he/him/his/himself pronouns seems consistent with the standard category names linguists have adopted for English pronouns.

       

      For point 2: non-binary identifying people might indeed choose to use he/him (or she/her) pronouns to refer to themselves; but that doesn't alter whether or not the English language (and the majority of the people that speak it), by assumption, map these pronouns to a specific gender identity. If yes, then I guess that leaves any person identifying as non-binary with a choice - they can either accept and use the standard pronouns and everything they're taken to imply (most likely with some misgivings). Or, they can refuse to use these terms at all and seek to encourage change to the basic structures and assumptions of the language itself - with adoption of new pronouns for example (and perhaps other related changes). 

       

      It's unfortunate and I don't know what the best option is here. But, in a sense, it's just one example of the sorts of issues that come up all the time around socialisation; we have to compromise on various aspects of our individual identities and thought processes to be able to participate in society and communicate with others. I mean, a person identifying as 'Buddhist' might find a linguistic convention like "my body" similarly problematic - it implies a separate notion of "me", a separate notion of "body" and a relationship of ownership between them (with the "me/my" owning the "body"). Considering that it leads to all sorts of erroneous assumptions and thought processes, they might wish to invent a new language, free by design of these sorts of assumptions, and encourage other people to adopt it. But, this seems unlikely to happen. So, they may instead adopt the common linguistic conventions whilst simultaneously being aware that what they are taken to imply by most people is not actually true or (perhaps more importantly) helpful. Maybe non-binary people are in a position somewhat like that? English spelling is another (more trivial, perhaps) example. It's non-phonetic and this causes all sorts of issues for children trying to learn to read. But what to do about it? You've got a subtle kind of 'legacy code' problem to solve there.

       

      I'm not being intentionally stubborn. I'm very much open to changing my mind on this. If you (or anyone else on here) can give me additional reasons then I'll definitely think about them. But I'll leave my profile it as it is for now.

  13. Yeah, totally And pretty much non existent in life in general? Casual sex might get looked down on in popular culture, but at least it's out there as an option that we're aware of. With sexual relationships that aren't your traditional, monogamous romantic dyad, but also aren't casual sex, I dunno, it's like a language hasn't been invented yet to enable us to frame and conceptualize them as feasible options we could actually pursue and live out (or maybe it has somewhere and I just don't belong to the right sub-culture(s)?). Like I was never taught to speak aro
  14. I put movies, tv shows and scientific acticles. I feel like movies and tv shows are the place where amatonormativity tends to get pushed the hardest and they are very popular. So, having (positive!) aro representation here would challenge that head on and also give a lot of visibility to the identity in popular culture. Science articles would be cool because I'd like to see research into people living unconventional lifestyles and making different choices re. personal relationship networks vs. the conventional 'nuclear family' approach.
×
×
  • Create New...