Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won



About eatingcroutons

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Personal Information

  • Name
  • Orientation

Recent Profile Visitors

1084 profile views
  1. Mid-thirties here, and I know there are a handful of others older than me hanging around. I have to admit that a lot of the discussion about school and college makes my eyes cross. I only have so much mental capacity for trying to get myself back into that early-twenties headspace to give thoughts or advice; It's exhausting even to remember some of the ridiculous drama that went on when I was at uni. So I'm not super active on these forums compared to on a few Discord servers where there are more people around my own age.
  2. So you admit the scale graphic is amatonormative? That's a start, at least. So you're using an amatonormative image to describe non-romantic relationships to people who aren't familiar with the aspec community? That is a problem. What your graphic is doing, is telling people outside the aspec community that relationships exist as a hierarchy. That there is a spectrum of relationship closeness/strength that goes from "stranger" at one end to "romantic partner" at the other. That idea is deeply, deeply harmful to aromantic communities and people. Your graphic reinforces the idea that "romantic partner" is objectively a closer/stronger relationship than "queerplatonic" or "friend". Your graphic perpetuates the extremely harmful and amatonormative idea that relationships exist in a hierarchy where "romantic partner" is an endpoint, a pinnacle, the strongest and closest kind of relationship that can exist. Again, you've got some good infographics here. But the graphic you yourself admit is an "oversimplified amatonormative scale" is not one of them. It's not helping anyone. It's not teaching anyone anything new. It is, in fact, perpetuating harmful amatonormative ideas.
  3. When you put relationship types on an axis that lists "stranger" and "romantic partner" as opposite ends of a spectrum, that carries a strong implication that "romantic partner" is the polar opposite of "stranger", and therefore the closest possible kind of interpersonal relationship. That implication is actively harmful to aromantic people. I think it's misleading and extremely unhelpful to rank relationship types in the way that you have, as though "Queerplatonic" is closer than "Friend", and as though "Romantic partner" is closer than anything else. You've done great work on the rest of the infographic but I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with that panel.
  4. I'm AFAB, have been to mixed onsen, and didn't feel unsafe going in naked. On the contrary, I thought it was hilarious how many men were obviously uncomfortable when my female friends and I walked in naked to enjoy the mixed baths. This despite the fact that every man there was completely naked. Honestly, fuck that double standard.
  5. I love that I've trained myself out of being a kid so terrified of social interaction they couldn't even start a conversation, into an adult professional who actively jumps into leadership roles when a problem needs to be solved.
  6. To be honest, the main impact for me has been that many of my friends are more willing to have sex with me knowing that it won't lead to any kind of romantic attachment.
  7. It can be really tough to realise that the things you've been taught to expect and want your whole life aren't actually things you want for yourself. It can be especially tough to realise you don't want those things when your entire social and cultural worldview tells you that those things are necessary to make your life normal and fulfilling. But can I let you in on a couple of secrets? You don't have to have a committed, romantic, sexual relationship to live a fulfilling life. Romantic love isn't objectively the best feeling in the world. It is subjectively the best feeling in the world for some people. It isn't remotely close for others. It's really, really hard to change the expectations you might have had for yourself and your future. It's really, really hard to realise that you're never going to have the white picket fence and 2.3 children that you've always been told would make your life complete. A word of advice, though: That "ideal" life is only "ideal" for people who genuinely want romantic relationships and kids. The internet is littered with stories from people who got married or had kids because society told them it would make their lives "normal and fulfilling", and who now feel like their decisions to marry or have kids have destroyed their lives. So when you talk about things being "yanked from your grasp" it might be worth sitting down and asking yourself: did I really, genuinely, ever want those things? Would it actually make me happy if I had those things? It's okay and totally understandable to be angry and upset that your life will probably never conform to society's expectations of what's "normal", and that your parents will never understand. This is an experience that all sorts of people go through - for example when they realise they're gay, or trans, or in any way non-conforming with the status quo. But not being "normal" doesn't preclude you from living a happy life on your own terms that fulfils your own ambitions and needs. The important thing is to be honest with yourself about what you want, and pursue it regardless of what bullshit society expects. What would you say to a gay person who believed they can never live a "normal and fulfilling life"? What would you tell them if their parents were unable or unwilling to understand their orientation? Could you say the same things to yourself?
  8. This would be my first question too. In my experience the main advantages of using labels are (a) to use a shortcut to convey information about yourself to others, and/or (b) to find a community of people with similar experiences to yours. How important are these things to you? Is there some other reason having a specific label would be important to you?
  9. INTx types are over-represented in pretty much every kind of MBTI self-assessment. Various factors contribute to this; one example is that people generally see themselves as more rational than they actually are. Two things to mention here: 1. Tests with binary options have a LOT of flaws in determining your MBTI type because they simplify the whole system down to E versus I, N versus S, etc. This is not at all how actual MBTI types work. For example it's a common misconception that the difference between say, ENTP and INTP is simply that ENTP is more extroverted and INTP is more introverted. That's not true at all. They have completely opposite primary cognitive functions (extraverted intuition versus introverted thinking). 2. It's absurd to think that everyone fits neatly into one of 16 personality types. Personalities exist on a spectrum. Some people fit very well with a given MBTI personality type; others are vaguely borderline between multiple types. Like any other psychological categorisation, MBTI types are more useful for some people than others. If you don't neatly fit one of the pre-described boxes then the whole system is probably a waste of your time. Case in point: In online tests I always score right on the borderline between ENTP and ENTJ. But when I actually look at how I approach problem solving it is abundantly clear that my thought processes are absolutely stereotypically ENTP. Because my personality aligns so closely with one of the 16 stereotypes, it's been really really useful to me to understand that about myself and realise that, for example, not everyone approaches interpersonal conflict the same way I do. But I have many friends for whom this is not the case and no particular MBTI type really fits them properly.
  10. I always used to say something along the lines of, "If I happen to meet someone then great, but it's not a priority for me right now," as a segue into talking about other things that are priorities in my life. I've always been pretty ambitious academically and professionally so people have generally accepted than answer. (Since becoming more certain that I'm aro, these days I just say "Nah, I don't do relationships." I find most people also accept that if you get the tone right, but it does sometimes lead to pushback and confrontation.)
  11. Things that are invasive: Sending or showing any sort of explicit sexual or romantic material to a person who hasn't consented to receive or view it. Stalking or harassing people for any reason whatsoever. Things that are not invasive: Fantasising about other people, or relationships between other people. Sharing those fantasies in spaces that exist to share fictional fantasies and are clearly marked as such.
  12. No-one has the right to declare anything about anyone else's orientation, full stop. And many people's orientations shift or fluctuate over the course of their lives. It looks like some posts have been removed from this thread so maybe I'm not getting the full picture, but I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Why is it important to you to know exactly how every person you describe as a "non-romantic, highly sexual guy" identifies in terms of orientation?
  13. Because amatonormativity as generally defined is not just about prioritising romance, it's about prioritising a particular model of monogamous, lifelong romance. The opposite might be a word that encapsulates embracing a diversity of relationship types - or embracing people's freedom to make their own choices about what kinds of interpersonal relationships they engage in.
  14. I was about to ask/suggest exactly this. Presumably you have mechanisms in the group for accommodating romance-repulsed people, while making space for discussions about romance. You can apply the exact same principles/mechanisms to manage discussions about sex!
  • Create New...