Jump to content

DeltaV

Member
  • Content count

    220
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

1 Follower

About DeltaV

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Personal Information

  • Gender
    male
  • Pronouns
    he
  • Location
    Europe
  • Occupation
    mathematician
  • Romanticism
    aro
  • Sexuality
    allo (basically hetero)

Recent Profile Visitors

579 profile views
  1. Is asexuality sinful?

    It seems the latter. IIRC Duns Scotus wrote that angels can experience “lust of the eyes”, which is one way for them to spiritually sin, like obviously the fallen angels did. So if we would go with this, they only experience aesthetic attraction. Which is interesting, because then even stereotypical sex demons like succubi and incubi don't feel sexual attraction. They just act as if they would. Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi! Well, modernity drives aromantic allosexuals to sin. In earlier times probably many of them would have tolerated arranged marriages pretty well (if the spouse had a somewhat decent character)… Yes, yes, arranged marriages are really bad, don't take away people's freedoms in such a way! Still, it seems more like the situation when Möngke Khan kidnapped the Parisian goldsmith Guillaume Boucher. Boucher was paid very well and had all freedoms in his personal life, but he couldn't leave the Mongol court and was forced to work them. So he was indeed no more than the Khan's slave. Wrong, sure, but not “recoil in horror”-wrong like an innocent person being enslaved to row in a galley. The good thing about original holy scriptures (even the Quran) is that they're mostly very vague, so they can be interpreted in a different way. It's easy to say that St. Paul was just giving his personal opinion here; but trying to get away from the declared dogma that the divorced-and-remarried are so deeply sinful that they can't receive communion is a different matter (as we see with the considerable turmoil Pope Francis caused). There seems to be a parallel between development of religions and information technologies: At first there is some prophet or some original genius programmer. Then many, many other people become inspired. There is uncontrolled growth of the religion or several different incompatible versions of the technology are developed (“Unix wars” or the good ol' proprietary HTML tags). After some struggle an institution gains acceptance and canonization or standardization occurs. Everybody not following it is declared heretical or standard-violating. Big tomes of binding theological interpretation or monsters like the 800 page C++ library standard are written. Soon the whole thing becomes sclerotic. Because of infallibility dogmas or legacy codebase it becomes extremely difficult to repeal past decisions. The deadlock gets so serious that even what to everybody looks like mild changes on the outside will cause extreme opposition. Like catholic clergy accusing the Pope himself of heretical teachings: The IT equivalent are endless “X considered harmful” articles. In the final stages of such vexing impasses, the competitors are already evilly smiling. Only with great care and ingenuity one can escape the fate of becoming irrelevant.
  2. Is asexuality sinful?

    Disclaimer: this post is more meant as entertainment. Do not to take it too seriously. Since the Catholic Church declares that even wanking can be a MORTAL sin, is there ANYTHING that isn't sinful in Catholicism? Is asexuality sinful? At first it seems odd to believe that heavenly chaste asexuals could sexually sin (of course their gluttony is serious and most likely constitutes a mortal sin) – but wait! Asexuality falls under “insensibility” (= you do not derive pleasure from carnal acts). In Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas answers objections to the claim that “insensibility” is sinful: Objection 3. Further, that which is a very effective means of avoiding sin would seem not to be sinful. Now the most effective remedy in avoiding sin is to shun pleasures, and this pertains to insensibility. For the Philosopher [Aristotle] says (Ethic. ii, 9) that "if we deny ourselves pleasures we are less liable to sin." Therefore there is nothing vicious in insensibility. Reply to Objection 3. In order to avoid sin, pleasure must be shunned, not altogether, but so that it is not sought more than necessity requires. So asexuality can be sinful? But what about all those celibate priests, monks or nuns? Thomas Aquinas writes: It must, however, be observed that it is sometimes praiseworthy, and even necessary for the sake of an end, to abstain from such pleasures as result from these operations. Thus, for the sake of the body's health, certain persons refrain from pleasures of meat, drink, and sex; as also for the fulfilment of certain engagements: thus athletes and soldiers have to deny themselves many pleasures, in order to fulfil their respective duties. On like manner penitents, in order to recover health of soul, have recourse to abstinence from pleasures, as a kind of diet, and those who are desirous of giving themselves up to contemplation and Divine things need much to refrain from carnal things. Nor do any of these things pertain to the vice of insensibility, because they are in accord with right reason. Asexuals don't have such excuses, they don't shun sexual pleasures in accord with right reason, they simply don't desire them (or at least the sex-repulsed, non-libidonist asexuals). So is asexuality sinful in Catholicism? But “asexuality” is not an act, it's a state… so is it more like a vice?
  3. More “mature” than my silly classmates High standards Seriously dating challenged Emotionally dried cod (can one say this in English?) Incompatible with anyone Sociopath Maybe something very broadly related to asexuality? (wrong, but it was the right track!)
  4. Aromanticism and depression

    But is there a general definition of mental/psychiatric disorder in the ICD? Probably alloromantics can form friendships. It just seems that they are often regarded as “second rate”. I didn't want to suggest that aromanticism in general is pathological, of course. Quite the reverse, that one could pathologize it on the basis of the DSM-V, which shows that its definition of “mental/psychiatric disorder” is problematic. I'm sure that I don't suffer from depression. It doesn't get worse than having a tendency to feel emotionally blunted, or suffering from slightly melancholic dissatisfaction. The changes in this “psychological undercurrent” are also, like you experience it, slowly cyclic. I don't know if that's a good coping mechanism (well, if we exclude the “wine” part – obviously ): You have to be always drunk. That’s all there is to it — it’s the only way. So as not to feel the horrible burden of time that breaks your back and bends you to the earth, you have to be continually drunk. But on what? Wine, poetry or virtue, as you wish. But be drunk. – Charles Baudelaire But it kind of makes sense to me. Damn… It's interesting that medication had no effect. There are so many people who claim that antidepressants have completely changed their lives. I don't have enough knowledge on the matter to form a decided opinion but it seems safe to say that their effectiveness is … still a matter of ongoing controversy. Not that getting medicated doesn't have on average a strong, measurable effect; it's just that the placebo tends to have a very strong effect, too. Studies like this make me question that they are really the “life saving wonder drug” as it's often claimed.
  5. @James Yes, it seems that you maxed out the aromanticism scale. It sounds really bad. Do you think it's totally rigid or could it become less inhibitory?
  6. I know that phrase! It''s the “mundane” part that makes it so funny… like as if everybody had become totally used to aromanticism.
  7. Aromanticism and depression

    If we look at DSM-V definition of mental/psychiatric disorder: A a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual B is associated with present distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning) or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom C must not be merely an expectable and culturally sanctioned response to a particular event, for example, the death of a loved one D a manifestation of a behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction in the individual E neither deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) nor conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict is a symptom of a dysfunction in the individual … aromanticism seems to check all the boxes, if one wants to. For example (point B), it's easy to feel some kind of distress because of aromanticism. Even more critical is “impairment in one or more important areas of functioning”. Social functioning is one of the important areas of functioning – but what on earth should “correct” social functioning include? Romantic love? Then even the most happy, sociable, well-adjusted aromantic could be pathologized. I generally like this proposal more. It's good to have “significant” to be added to “distress”. And especially F and G seem to be very sensible: F that has diagnostic validity using one or more sets of diagnostic validators (e.g., prognostic significance, psychobiological disruption, response to treatment) G that has clinical utility (for example, contributes to better conceptualization of diagnoses, or to better assessment and treatment) J seems also a good consideration: J when considering whether to add a psychiatric condition to the nomenclature, or delete a psychiatric condition from the nomenclature, potential benefits (for example, provide better patient care, stimulate new research) should outweigh potential harms (for example, hurt particular individuals, be subject to misuse)
  8. Immaturity

    The ridiculousness of romantic behavior makes me often CRINGE. So I should feel more mature? But then, I completely agree with @SamwiseLovesLife: I feel alienated by the general adult population (all the topics surrounding romance; or being out of place when everybody appears coupled). That makes me feel immature. Now, regarding sexual orientation: As an aro-ace I would feel less “bad”, that is less like a “Slaanesh cultist” (yeah, sex with no feelings), which would be positive. But probably even more developmentally stunted, prudish and awkward because I didn't even “get” the sex part everybody thinks is so important. And at least Slaanesh cultists are not immature. So in the end, I clearly prefer being aro-allo instad of aro-ace.
  9. Unconditional Love

    Romantic love (Eros) and familial love (Storge – it also can be felt in special friendships ) with their instinctual force are decidedly un-Vulcan. That's why many aros also have been called “Mr. Spock” (one of the nicer insults). They are easily in conflict with a rationally applied ethical value system. But if we go even further with precision, we see that it's really difficult to define ‘unhealthy’. In reality we never come even close to perfect Vulcanness – with romantic and familial love humans just tend to stray from it massively compared to normal friendship (Philia), which is more reflective. But where to draw the line and why? It seems difficult to give a completely rigorous argument. And admittedly, while from an abstract standpoint I understand that familial love can be weird, this doesn't resonate much for me. Yet “Romantic love can be weird”, oh dear, how does it resonate. Expectations to reciprocate can sometimes feel mildly annoying, but it comes mostly effortlessly for me; not a burden. Now, what you wrote intuitively seems cold to me, but it would be hypocritical to criticize you. Sadly, I have no further ideas what to do in your situation, it's like the purely academical discussion if aromanticism is pathological – I refuse to even argue against that as long as there simply can't be anything done about it (and no, there is no “cure” for aromanticism)! The big difference with familial ties is of course, that there you just have to accept your indebtedness / responsibility and act accordingly.
  10. Yeah, there is no firm line. That's it. It obviously depends so much on context and the situation. And there are variations between aros. It even can even change for a person over time. What I posted some months ago in this thread, seems quite extreme to me now. But I think that there is still behavior that falls squarely under “romantic” and behavior that falls squarely under “sexual”. In this thread, at least, it's very much admitted.
  11. IDK why, but that sounds so funny and cute.
  12. Libido versus attraction

    Yeah, curiosities are my passion. But romantic love is the only curiosity I can't warm to. From the 25,000 holy rats of Karni-Mata to the golden rock of the Kyaiktiyo Pagoda, from Belphegor primes to medieval textual reports of America, I really like them all… but romantic love? Meh. Yes, but it's still a work in progress. I aspire to lead the Order of the Emerald Arrow!
  13. Unconditional Love

    I would describe it that way. But maybe it's just the human tendency to seek absolutes IDK… Or perhaps I want to use this over-the-top description to say “it's not like this volatile romantic love!”. In principle, I would agree with that: For example, if it came to light that my sister hired a hit man to kill me because she doesn't want to share the inheritance, yes, I would not love her anymore. But such “unconditional love”-breaking events would need to be really like this, world-shattering. It's the stuff where you would feel horrified for having been deceived to love somebody like this in the first place. That's totally okay. And of course how you feel about it is absolutely in the norm. Even if you were very much outside the norm that you wouldn't form any stable, loving relationships, this alone wouldn't make you a bad person. It probably doesn't have something to do with empathy. You could be like a quiet, wandering nun who always helps people in need but when somebody wants to thank her, she's already gone.
  14. I'd rather ... than get Married

    I rather organize a sham-marriage for @Apathetic Echidna than get married.
  15. @cute kitty Meow! Mewo! Put that “collage” safely in a spoiler box? Also, isn't its pink-tintedness slightly scary? Is that how it looks like inside of the… Romo-Matrix? Many took great offense that “aromantic” is supposed to be an “identity”… but the word can also be interpreted as a quality, if it refers to orientation (which cannot straightforwardly inferred from behavior, of course). Maybe that's more palatable? And so even on the “how useful is this adjective?”-level “aromantic” seems obviously way more useful than “afootball”. It can be easily described in one short sentence that you are not interested in football. “Aromantic” on the other hand is a nice abbreviation for something which can't be concisely described with the language we have. If only because it's possible to enjoy being in a romantic relationship while still being aromantic. Of course, as an identity, “aromantic” gets its justification because romantic love has kind of a bit more gravitas to it than football, right? Similarly to religion, where “atheist” as an identity makes sense.
×