Jump to content

DeltaV

Member
  • Content count

    301
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

1 Follower

About DeltaV

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Personal Information

  • Pronouns
    he

Recent Profile Visitors

1,518 profile views
  1. DeltaV

    Article

    ↑ ↑ too much conflation. ok, just one thing: Most (virtually all) actions are motivated by certain expectations. That does in no way mean they are considered transactional; because a transaction is defined by some sort of legal or at least moral entitlement to a certain compensation. (Example: probably most writers are motivated by the expectation that their books will be bought, but few feel entitled to it (and they aren't). Yet if they write something as a work for hire, they expect and feel entitled to get paid for it (indeed they are).)
  2. Well, traditionally romantic love is defined by the sexual element – it's assumed to be included in the concept or to follow necessarily from the nature of things (like something which is green all over cannot also be red). If we go around and claim that (completely contrary to this firmly entrenched tradition) romantic love is sui generis and only usually related to sex (that is, in a contingent way)… that's not easy. What would be an example?
  3. I had a same-sex experience much earlier than you and I thought my attraction to men had tapered off in the meantime. Well that turned out to be wrong… so I'm technically bisexual. Now, if you're gay or lesbian and have or want a live-in partner, the big issue arises that everybody around you (family, friends, neighbors, …) can infer your sexual orientation. That's not a problem for me, obviously. Also I'm totally out of the loop regarding how to actually try a M|M experience again; it won't be a relaxed experience as when I was in my teens – I spare you the details. So I don't. Therefore my technically non-straight sexual orientation is a total non-issue for me. Who needs to know? With aromanticism sharing your sexual orientation with the people around you for me feels a bit like telling them about random other sexual preferences. And if they're pretty much theoretical it becomes even more pointless… like massive oversharing? If I was gay and wanted a romantic partner it would be very different.
  4. DeltaV

    Article

    Indeed my mileage varies. My experience is that people mean very different things by “Nice Guy” and this also aligns with the evidence I've presented so far. The comic certainly isn't that black-and-white. For example the guy also engages in self-deception: “I'll tell myself it's because I ‘value our friendship.’” – which makes him also a slightly tragic character. But okay, let's accept your summary. Still, I simply don't see how the the top definition on UrbanDictionary (you referred to) applies to that, which is solely about factually incorrect beliefs: – not questionable (manipulative) tactics. If you believe those two issues are the same, it's clear why you think there is a consensus about the meaning of the term. And you'll probably regard anything I further write about it as nitpicking. So that's it from me, the topic is depressing enough and I don't want to start an angry argument about it.
  5. DeltaV

    Article

    Why are the examples I gave not representative? ~3K upvotes?? That's how you want the term to be understood but that doesn't mean it is generally understood that way. IMHO “Nice Guy™”: nice, unassertive and “does something wrong”. That's it, the only commonality – the rest varies. Especially how sinister Nice Guys™ are regarded. One of the psychologists in the article you linked (Dr. Robert Glover) has a questionnaire titled “Find out if you are a Nice Guy” on his website. It's clearly possible to get the result “You are definitely a Nice Guy!” without fitting your definition. So you don't even have consensus there.
  6. DeltaV

    Aromantic added to dictionary

    Now the article is gone completely… You are complaining again!
  7. DeltaV

    Aromantic added to dictionary

    Of course it is! Always! It does work with an US proxy, though. Anyway, this link works for me (EU) and has the same content.
  8. DeltaV

    The Expanse tv show

    Romance issues in The Expanse: James (trying to conjure up the invisible ‘Miller’): “Now I need you, Miller. If you're ever coming back, this would be a good time.” Camina (to Naomi): “I still don't understand what you see in him.” James: “Come on, Miller, talk to me.”
  9. DeltaV

    Article

    Well, also see here. I mean, yes the guy is somewhat manipulative. But the problem starts with the mentioning of “crush” – what if you never have any? Don't even understand the concept? In my aro mind, “relationships should grow smoothly out of friendships” seems 100% correct! Though it's not that I'm afraid of rejection, but that just how it seems normal from my perspective. The rest of humanity doesn't share this sentiment, though. And then there is a difference between “entitled” and “disgruntled”. I'd say that those lines are blurred in the discussion. If your love interest chooses somebody who has a recent conviction for embezzling the funds of an orphanage over you, it's hard not to feel disgruntled. It often feels that somebody who only suffers from the “just world fallacy” is regarded as a “nice guy”. Also there is this weird rejoinder that being nice is just the bare minimum requirement to date. This is not remotely true. I know way too many counterexamples. I'd say in the sense of the Attack on Titan quote “Someone who can't sacrifice anything, can't ever change anything.”, we have to sacrifice the notion that romantic love is not shallow. I hear that so often, never understood it… what happened to all those people? Did they study at some laid-back hippie college and then went to PwC? As long as I don't work like at a Tesla R&D, I don't think any work is going to be more time and energy consuming than university was. The lack of flexibility is an issue, though. I mean aside from that, how many friends did you ever have who were willing to take you at least somewhat as seriously as their romantic partner? It seems even if people have a lot of time on their hands, it's rarely going to happen.
  10. DeltaV

    Article

    I don't insist on it. And in a perfect world, I wouldn't give such advice. But the shaming simply isn't going to go away just because I wish to. And you don't need a sexual relationship to have sex with someone. There's simply no evidence this is likely. Most people know that the first time may suck. What terrible thing do you think would happen, precisely? Okay, what I would also say regarding those chronically dateless guys: the problem is on a purely pragmatic level that further shaming won't work. Their situation is already attached with so much shame that if you're going to add any more shame and blame (call them nice guys and entitled), they reach the breaking point and you'll “lose” them permanently. You should not want people to accept some identity as horrible social outcast – it's dangerous. Instead I think it would help: it should be honestly acknowledged that romantic success is not correlated with how good you are at a person. Romantic love can be extremely shallow (regardless of gender)! Very bad people are often romantically successful. if we want people to be more direct about their intentions from the start we have to clearly state this is acceptable behavior. For this we need to get to some consensus about what kind of sexual approaches are definitely acceptable. That is, if a person is made uncomfortable by them, it's still not your fault. There was a video posted by “Think Tank” (Hannah Cranston) called “Take This Quiz To See If You've Sexually Harassed Someone”, which has now been removed, that shows this problem. The quiz it refers to is still online, though. Examples of sexual harassment it includes: “Looked at her in a way that made her visibly uncomfortable.” (I would agree with this if it was interpreted as staring, but it was explained as checking someone out) “Looked at her breasts while talking to her.” “Failed to get explicit consent before sexual contact.” (the problem is the “explicit” part. If it is interpreted as detailed, verbal consent… I rarely got that) “Made sexual remarks about a woman with your friends.” (this is especially bad. Though I surprisingly never do this! But how can this be connected to sexual harassment?) “Made a comment about her body when she didn't ask you to.” “Touched a woman you know without her consent.” “Touched a woman you don't know without her consent.” “Manipulated her into sleeping with you.” (this depends on how you understand it, but the examples were like “putting on a fake Australian accent”. I regard this as stupid and bad behavior but clearly not sexual harassment) “Asked about her sex life, unprompted.” “Tried to hook up with her and only stopped when you found out that she had a boyfriend.” “Apologized to a man for flirting with his girlfriend.” I don't think that it is possible to get zero points on this quiz if you are not asexual. I got the result “Your behavior is a part of the problem of harassment against women.” with 12 points. But you get that with only 1 point, too. If I would be neurodivergent, I might take this quiz seriously… so what should I do? It seems the only way to get sex without sexually harassing somebody is befriending women in the completely unrealistic hope that they will unambiguously and explicitly approach me. Heck, even if I were an asexual, I can remember instances where “Touched a woman you don't know without her consent.” would apply, so I would always get one point. Like it sometimes happens a woman with headphones stands in the way of the train exit. Then I'm going to shortly tap her on the shoulder. The problem with sexual harassment isn't like “Loki's wager”, it's far worse. At least with Loki's neck we have parts where everybody agrees they clearly belong to the neck and not the head. But we have no agreement on how it is even possible to not sexually harass somebody without becoming celibate. And bizarrely there seems to be a resistance to get to this agreement.
  11. DeltaV

    Article

    Yes, I agree with that. I'm nearly pushed to give everybody the advice to try it at least once, except if the person is very secure in their asexuality. But what I referred to was explicitly mentioned in the article linked there. The one who lost his virginity late and deeply regretted not having had sex in his 20s. I also didn't have sex for years (after I gave up relationships) and never regretted that. What I mean is that I suffer from loneliness1, sometimes severely, already now and this seems a problem for many here. But do we have good advice what to do about that? I find it very difficult to attain a friendship which is taken as seriously as people take their romantic relationships. 1 interestingly sex makes me feel not lonely. But only for a short time.
  12. DeltaV

    Another Aromantic Test

    So 58% aromantic, 33% aromantic asexual, 8% not aromantic. Rest 0%.
  13. DeltaV

    Article

    I 100% get the shaming part, I still suffer from it a lot (while I lost my virginity at a normal age, I have a very odd sexual history). But what they say still sounds too genuinely miserably depressed to me for any of them being aro. I would've never written something like this. There are so many different issues packed into that word. I even found this: to me that sounds like the only way I could even imagine getting into a successful relationship… Ok, I don't remotely understand how somebody can regret missing out on sex that much. It feels like a not that impressive hobby to me, that's all. But we must acknowledge that, sadly, I'm the odd one out here – it's very important for most people. And then there's the strange romo-sex-connection. This is a total mystery to me, but (by all observations) is regarded to be of supreme importance. But also friendships which are equivalent to the closeness of a stable romantic relationship aren't easy to attain in our times. I mean, we could only offer relief if we could offer it to ourselves in that regard.
  14. DeltaV

    Scariest movies for you as a child

    From the movies I was actually allowed to watch as a child it would be Gremlins and Fantasia; I guess my parents didn't even look at the age rating because the covers were too cutesy. And then Dance of the Vampires (The Fearless Vampire Killers in the U.S.). Of course, it's not a remotely scary movie for an adult, but you don't get how silly it tries to be as a child. I once sneaked to the TV in the evening (I was 7 years old AFAICR) and of all movies, it was Natural Born Killers running. It just totally freaked me out, obviously.
  15. DeltaV

    Religion Thread

    Well, to clarify what I regarded as weird belief wasn't simply believing in gods who aren't a live option for most people (which surely applies to Svarog and Lugh); perhaps not even believing in gods from multiple different religious traditions (Celtic/Slavic in your case). But rather… Tamara Siuda, who founded Kemetic Orthodoxy claims to carry Horus' kingly ka in her; though not even this is so surprising – after all, also the pope claims to be the earthly representative of Christ. What's surprising though, is that she's also a high-ranking member of the clergy (a Mambo Asogwe) in Haitian Vodou. And this religion, because it is monotheistic (the Loa aren't gods), makes a major truth claim which is incompatible with polytheistic Kemeticism. I'm really surprised that people don't see a problem with this. Regarding Lokeanism we have to remember what happened to Loki according to Norse mythology: he was chained for his role in the killing of Baldr (crafting the mistletoe spear) and will only break free at the onset of Ragnarök. So as Lokean you (a) worship a immobilized god who therefore can't do much for humans or (b) believe Ragnarök has already occurred (when?) or (c) believe, contrary to the tradition Loki was taken from, that Loki can somehow supernaturally escape his imprisonment, like being at multiple places at the same time (why don't the Æsir notice that Loki isn't actually chained?) or (d) believe in a very different Loki, who was never chained. Then there is believing in multiple whole pantheons from different religions so you end up with many “competing” different gods doing the same job and so many major incompatible truth claims. Finally, believing that you yourself, literally, here and now, are a god. While the concept of self-deification is present in quite a few religions (Greek paganism, Mormonism, Sethianism), it's not taken to such an extreme; it's regarded as something that happens later after you left this earthly plane or is regarded symbolically. If you claim that you are literally a god here and now… well, I would at least associate powers far beyond those of normal human beings with a god and I'll have some doubts that you actually possess such powers.
×