Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by DeltaV

  1. DeltaV

    Tea thread

    Today I tried a tea from Nepal and one from the Nilgiri region. The Nepal tasted exactly like a Darjeeling, and the Nilgiri exactly like a high grown Ceylon. Probably I overestimated my skills as a tea connoisseur.
  2. If it only was as easy like with other things we find childish and boring… sigh. Romantic love is a serious matter in many other ways… that’s how people find their life partners. And it’s not boring but sad if you find yourself strangely unimportant compared to your friend’s crush they know for three weeks. Really … it sometimes feels like I live in a parallel universe where nothing makes any sense. If a couple discusses things like a joint mortgage I cannot imagine how it probably has all started with the typical cheesy stuff …… maybe even baby talk. cringe.
  3. DeltaV

    Tea thread

    “Aren’t you drinking?” “I never drink… coffee.” Raspberry tea is not camellia sinensis. Bad! Oolong is good, though I like it more on the black side. I like the true milky oolong.
  4. Sex without commitment is a behavior, while “aromantic sexual” describes a certain enduring pattern of sexual and romantic attraction (← ok for aros this is defined by the absence of romantic attraction). That’s the difference. For me my aromantic allosexuality does lead to sex without commitment though I certainly don’t have some wild sex life. I don’t like it that way … and so it’s tempting to say “Why do you do it then?”. I don’t want a romantic relationship, in fact I couldn’t get one (non-disastrous) if I tried. Also sex strangely complicates human relationships, so it’s only realistic with people who are not emotionally close to me. Since I like sex and I would get same disapproval by society even if I made a vow of celibacy, I don’t see any reason to change. The romance + sex package may perhaps “ennoble sex”, but it comes at a cost: “Is not having enough sex a good reason to break up?” is considered a normal question (and “Is cheating a good reason to break up?” is a rhetorical question*). I can’t compute how people don’t see that sex with commitment also means in reverse that you commit a very important relationship to sex. That’s imho the darkest side of allo-allo romance – I’m committed to my friends and I don’t care one bit for their sexual orientation, their libido or whom they sleep with. * probably most aros can understand that cheating means breaking a promise (though AFAIK [I have very few first-hand experience of romantic relationship] this promise is rarely explicitly given) and therefore is bad. But that doesn’t explain the gravity allo-allos attach to cheating.
  5. If I could magically choose… I would prefer to stay aromantic. I’m now at an age when people get serious and think of marriage, while I have no real relationship experience. Either people were my “friends” (ok, to be less cynical there are two who don’t deserve the scare quotes). Or it was very shallow (just sex, without any illusions). How should I catch up now? I also sometimes experience loneliness badly. But at least I don’t feel any bitterness or resentment that I missed a major life goal. Romantic relationships feel very alien to me. I simply do not want any. I’m 150% sure. It’s not that I just convinced myself because I didn’t get one. I just miss deep, meaningful non-romantic connections.
  6. The stated job of nearly all English dictionaries is to describe the meaning as used normally by English speakers. They probably did that correctly here. In my observation someone not deeply involved in LGBTQIA+ issues would scratch their heads if they encountered “aroace lesbian”. To let Xs decide what X means sounds very nice and fair but runs into the obvious circularity problem. E. g. what if (!) cis women define “woman” in a way that trans women aren’t women? That “homosexual” is derogatory (usually regarded more so as a noun) is a different issue. Now, if we take the above definitions, there can obviously be aroace lesbians. I don’t know how a definition can ever be wrong. There can be other problems with a definition like that it is very far removed from standard usage, misleading/manipulative, offensive, harmful, unwieldy, etc. Since Merriam-Webster is a descriptive (not prescriptive) dictionary, they would simply state a wrong fact if they gave a definition that didn’t match what English speakers usually mean by a certain word. Don’t blame the messenger!
  7. The problem is the punishment of stoning for the woman if she in fact turned out not to be a virgin (or rather “no proof” for her virginity can be found). 20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you. Stoning for “being promiscuous [?! just once is enough!] while still in her father’s house” is pretty heavy stuff. Yeah, that’s true. I quoted it because if of the extremely odd rules for making the accusation. The punishment is described directly before. Surah 24:2 – The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment. I grant that here the Quran is a progress compared to the Old Testament. At least no one dies and they treat men and women the same way in this regard. Still 100 lashes just for that… oh well. The point here is Paul’s statement: 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Basically, you’d better live celibate, but not everyone can – like I do.
  8. I gave this as an example. Because I’m still wondering what is the question? Is it a question purely about the word lesbian (how it is used by whom, etc.) or is it a question that we have no sufficient understanding of because we do not have elucidated what lesbian means? Do we want to behave like Humpty Dumpty: "I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' " "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all." Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say! … or not? So would you want to tell me what the complex meaning of the word lesbian might be so that we can have a discussion if there can be aroace lesbians? Well, sorry. But I didn’t even ask “Is it ethical to use the label aroace lesbian?”. I just asked if that was the question! In general, I think that certain usage of words can be unethical – like manipulative. It could be downright illegal, as in fraud. It’s probably of no use in a court of law if I told you the stone in a ring is a diamond (yet in reality it is cubic zirconia) and defend myself like Humpty Dumpty.
  9. Read Deuteronomy chapter 22, Quran 24:5–14 and 1 Corinthians 7:1–7.
  10. That’s not the job of dictionaries. Most large ones today are descriptive, not prescriptive. They describe the predominant meaning of a word for all the speakers of a language. I’m sorry, I’ve gotten too old for untangling such obvious ouroboros situations. Do Xs decide who is an X? That sounds fair, but then who is an X? Ouroboros again. If aroace lesbians can exist or not depends on the meaning of words. Probably we don’t want to talk about this… maybe the question was: is it unethical to use/push the “aroace lesbian” label?
  11. We have words and meanings of words. The meaning of words can change. According to the modern meaning of the word “dolphin”, a dolphin is not a fish because it does not have gills. Yet, in bestiaries from the middle-ages dolphins were categorized as “fish”. This is not wrong, it just reflects a different meaning of the word “fish” (e. g. has such-and-such a shape and is an aquatic animal). What would be wrong is fully understanding the modern meaning of “fish” and believing that a dolphin is a fish in this sense. Virtually all major encyclopedias and dictionaries define “lesbian” (noun) as a homosexual woman. If we accept that meaning, aroace lesbians are not a thing. Like fish who are mammals are not a thing. Period. Case closed. We can only argue about if we should change the meaning of “lesbian”. There are two reasons for this: Cleaning up our words for economical reasons. If we still would insist on calling dolphins fish, this would be annoying for biologists. It’s more convenient if normal language and scientific language agree. So we have all been taught the new meaning of fish (= “gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lack limbs with digits” – which is much more precise yet in most cases still honors tradition). We value a word for certain reasons, for example because is evokes certain emotions, has a cultural heritage etc. and want to make it more inclusive. As the ranks of the army and navy have been expanded in meaning to be used in the air force, too. Who knows… maybe someone did protest like “In the good old days commodores were on real ships on the ocean and didn’t fly around in those newfangled aircraft!!!” To change the meaning of “lesbian” so that there are “aroace lesbians” imho clearly fails reason 1. It does not make anything clearer or more economical. Regarding reason 2 I don’t feel qualified to say something. For practical reasons I don’t think such attempts will be well-received.
  12. DeltaV

    Tea thread

    So that’s a blend, right? Who produces it? All black? Or also green and white?
  13. DeltaV

    Tea thread

    Do you drink tea? I mean camellia sinensis. 🍵 Sorry, no Yerba Mate. From Assam to Matcha to Yin Zhen! I never drink... coffee. I prefer 2nd flush Darjeeling.
  14. Hey, you’re only supposed to say nice things about the video in this thread!
  15. Also he was first in proposing that pure chemicals could be medicine. Still we’ve yet to find anything that makes him a great philosopher. You seem to like him more as a pioneer and reformer of medicine.
  16. You should try to interpret me more generously because we’re talking about very slippery concepts here. You can’t expect that much rigorous argumentation, otherwise everything comes to a standstill. Pair bonding with a claim to exclusivity (as strong as commonly observed in the case of a romantic relationship) presumably does happen in friendships, but I know this only from strange fictional characters, never witnessed it in real life. Therefore I wrote “this doesn’t really happen” = “it happens but only in odd cases”. If we apply such a level of rigor here, I would have to write a book about this. Let‘s keep it at feuilleton style, ok? All Abrahamic religions place a lot of restriction on sex – very roughly they traditionally declared sexual relations outside of heterosexual marriage as sinful. Therefore the sexual drive, or lust, is regarded as a strong source for temptation to sinning. That’s pretty anti-sex in my view. Well you can do this. Still, this work is quite controversial, so I’m skeptical. Of course! It does not apply to any context. But there is an extremely wide variety of topics from food, art, travel, work, etc. where how you talk to your closest friend is not necessarily that much different to what you can say at the State Banquet in Buckingham Palace. E. g. I don’t know a social setting in which a sentence like “My favorite place in India is Kullu Manali.” would appear inappropriate. Sure, but my post was about speech, not acts. Still, simply speaking too frankly about sex can – depending on the social setting – be even regarded as sexual harassment. But we can also observe those inhibitions in the written word where anyone can simply put down the book if it makes them uncomfortable and there is no possible threat. This can only be explained by feelings like shame or vulnerability on part of the writer.
  17. I’d regard romance as paradigmatically being about pair bonding with exclusivity. It doesn’t have to be, of course, but it very often is. Pair bonding with exclusivity is also something you don’t really observe in non-romantic bonding. Demonization is a pretty strong word. That’s only true in certain cultures, like those influenced by the Abrahamic religions. You could give an example of a culture without any inhibitions regarding sex. I don’t know one. I put the normal in scare quotes before you posted your reply. Here it means: what is normal in most other contexts.
  18. I regard the pair bonding of certain animals a very strong argument that romantic attraction in humans isn't cultural but a biological reaction. This, of course, could theoretically be wrong. Like it would be wrong to extrapolate from the “states” of eusocial animals as ants, bees, naked mole-rats etc. that humans have a similar instinct to form states. Well, it was probably regarded as an animalistic drive, but we don't have the “excuse” that it is for the survival of the individual like hunger. Also it is directed towards other humans, not towards things, which has a lot of strange implications. How much uptight people are regarding to sexual attraction obviously depends strongly on culture but it seems to me that nearly everywhere there is some element of shame or reservation involved. Even now in 95% of cases when people speak about sexual attraction it is in one of those variants (or a mixture of them): with a lot of “euphemisms” and shrouded in off-topic themes like romance in a ridiculous boasting/comedic fashion in a scientifically detached way with aggression and/or contempt [can we at least stop that one?] It is very rare that people talk about their sexual attraction in a “normal” manner. If we would talk in a similar convoluted way about our appetite to food… it would be like: “I went to this beautiful restaurant with my friends which had an enchanting courtyard and we decided to have something in the garden. It had a very lovely atmosphere and … well … I can't say I disliked what was on the plates, too.” “This new gigantic quadruple whopper you can't believe it… oh man, it is simply HUGE but I just gorged one of them down with three bites!” “Each allele codes for a bitter taste receptor protein with a slightly different shape, …” “I never enjoyed a tuna sandwich as much as when I ate one in front of starving children in Bangladesh!” But maybe there is some intelligent species in the universe which would be extremely disturbed that we humans simply can talk about food like “I especially like pizza topped with mozzarella cheese, tomatoes, and green basil.”.
  19. Yes, because he did also philosophy. Why is he your favorite philosopher? 🤔🙂 My favorite one is Descartes. I think his system is endlessly fascinating and a great pop culture inspiration, though I regard it as wrong. Still he's far more subtle than he’s usually given credit for. I learned that after reading Demons, Dreamers, and Madmen by Harry G. Frankfurt. I also like his writing style very much. After reading him it feels like having a conversation with a good friend. That's an interesting contrast to his eminence.
  20. Whos your favorite pokeyman philosopher?
  21. Oh yes, the Symposium again, it's like mandatory reading for aros … too bad that Plato is so difficult. That four-legged humans story though wasn't a real myth, though, but is rather regarded as a satire of Greek creation myths.
  22. To be fair, the ‘intrigue‘ and ‘uncover secrets’ thing simply follows from psychoanalytic theory… Most extremely shown in Spellbound by Hitchcock, though that's not about depression. I was some kind of Salvador Dalí fan as a teen, and I watched this movie just because of him.
  23. I prefer hot temperatures. I indeed experienced 40 °C once. During one exceptionally hot summer (very unusual in central Europe). I didn't feel uncomfortable, but in many trains the air conditioners were defect, and that was too much. I don't know what temperature it was in the train, but it felt like death valley.
  24. Well, I'm not even claiming that a romantic relationship cannot “cure” someone's mental health problems. It's just certainly not true for everybody.
  25. Psychiatry suffers from major foundational problems, for example take axis II disorders, which include “abnormalities” how somebody lives and sees themselves as a part of society. That's obviously shot through with value-judgments. So I'm not surprised that mental health professionals have a problem accepting aromanticism. Anyway, sorry for your experience. It feels pretty stressful to me without knowing somebody at least a bit.
  • Create New...