Jump to content

Rising Sun

Member
  • Content Count

    160
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Rising Sun

  1. @aussiekirkland So true. I'll try to remember this every time I have a breakdown when I feel lonely. This is the kind of true positivity people need in life.
  2. Because they can't decide to like somebody or not. And they have no control over the things they like. Crushes are an involuntary visceral experience, and I'd say even much more than simple physical attraction as they trigger feelings of attachment. The person has a list of things they like in a person, including things that they never consciously chose, and even things that they wish weren't in the list. A crush is merely their instinct saying "you've got a match" in some kind of harsssing way and forcing them to get attached to the target. Mind spamming. I can imagine how it can be annoying to have it. I'd say it's like hunger or pain, it's almost impossible to suppress it once it's there.
  3. Pejorative or not, it would be inaccurate, as limerence can fade while romantic feelings stay. It would create only confusion as there are nonlimerent romantic relationships.
  4. I never needed to explain it. My father has always known how much I value friendship, and told me it's unhealthy
  5. Oh, I didn't know, sorry I'm just trying to express how old people really are inside. Somebody can be physically older but be actually much more immature than their partner in their mind. Lack of maturity makes people much more incompatible than they'd think at first.
  6. Yes and no. I agree with this if it's mental age you're referring to.
  7. Indeed. What I've seen around me is that such relationships aren't based on friendship. They're based on attraction and only that. Other than that, those couples are just strangers, so if attraction fades, nothing remains. As those people are often repulsed by the idea of combining friendship with romance, they're unable to build sustainable and truly loving relationships. It looks passionate but inside, it's all empty.
  8. I think I got 21 when I did the test. I ticked almost everything except sensitivity to horror movies because I don't find fiction scary contrary to real events on TV.
  9. It's originally an asexual joke, asexuals are supposed to reproduce asexually, supposedly like plants or amoebas. Like, you must reproduce by mitosis and budding. I like to imagine what it would mean. You'd wake up one day, and pop, you've got a surprise baby who grew from your arm or whatever other place on your body. I'd like the ability to photosynthesize instead, that would be quite useful !
  10. I don't think that the model works either. Because companionate love in the model is what happens after passion is gone in couples, but they still feel romantic attraction for each other. It's just... "domesticated" ? (I'm not finding a better word right now) Romance shouldn't be reduced to the usual limerence, there's much more than that.
  11. The only time i remember I had butterflies is during hugs but I think it's because I have sensory overload when it happens. It never happened when I like somebody. I wish people didn't systematically associate butterflies to attraction, because I heard that many times, "if you have butterflies, it's that you like them / you don't have butterflies, you're certainly not in love".
  12. I don't necessarily think that being quoiromantic is immature. It's just that i can imagine how weird it must be to being unable to make the difference between romantic feelings and friendly feelings. I suppose this is only possible if the person isn't very romantic, to the point where they can feel only a hint of attraction that easily gets integrated in more platonic feelings. A confused grey-romantic variant. About demiromanticism, I'd be completely unable to imagine that friendship couldn't be valued as the most important component, as romance can only derive from friendship and therefore is a transformed subset of it, sort of. But I can easily imagine somebody who expects a demiromantic person to automatically fall in love, especially if this person is somebody they have a crush on. They expect their feelings to be returned one day, simply because they desire it, and the contrary would sadden them so much that they don't want to take the possibility into consideration.
  13. I agree about lifelong bonds in general. I think it's natural to desire having life companions who never stop loving us. However, this desire being restricted to romance and viewed as abnormal in friendships must be the cultural element here.
  14. "Allosexuel" as a synonymous for "LGB" is used exclusively in Quebec, I never heard about it in France.
  15. In the past, I saw a few times "verisexual" with the same use as "allosexual". I haven't seen it being used for a while though. Although I'm not a fan of those kind of words, I find "verisexual" / "veriromantic" (or with a y instead of the i) more positive than "allo". Plenty of people say "I'm very sexual / I'm very romantic" so it sounds exactly the same.
  16. I don't think that the word is totally useless. But it isn't very useful, in general. So the only context where I use it is to talk about people who are "fully romantic", like not aromantic, not grey-romantic. Same with allosexual. But even there, it's more truly nitpicking than anything else.
  17. This should be a basis for making THE aromantic meme.
  18. In my personal opinion, I'm feeling like there must be something more than just demi, even if you are, because of how your feelings seem to be on the line between romance and friendship. So whatever it is, it sounds like some type of grey... I'd say to use demi if ever at some point, you're pretty sure that there is something genuinely romantic about your feelings that apply only to close friends. If ever you aren't sure and you use this identification, and you have a partner, your partner might expect something more romantic from you with time than what you might be able to give. So it may give a wrong message to a partner, like "please wait until I'm ready, because once I'm ready I'll be fully romantic with you". It's even a problem for any demiromantic person as anyone interested might imagine that a demiromantic person will necessarily become romantic with them with time while it's actually only a random (and very small) chance.
  19. Honestly this test has more stereotypes than true characteristics of romance. There are items that can make the difference, but the majority of items is more associated to cultural influence on romance and delusional mental disorders.
  20. Heat is horrible. Any temperature above 25°C is too much for me. And anything above 20°C in my bedroom. 15°C must count as "cold" in tropical countries Or maybe it will count as cold in 2100 with global warming LOL. Here, true "cold" is -10°C and less. It was -28°C when I was born, with a good snowstorm and blizzard. I like snow, ice, and how it's ideal to go outside with my telescope during windy cold nights because atmospheric turbulence is reduced. It's perfect for exercising too.
  21. The above post. Being demiromantic means being unable to be attracted until the switch happens, generally with a very close friend, but nothing prevents squishes to happen long before. Just no crushes. It's like being aromantic, but with a very rare exceptions for a few best friends, and platonic relationships can be valued and desired as much as for aromantics or not depending on the person. There isn't any confusion of feelings, more of a dual personality if you want. I find that your posts remind me more of quoiromantic feelings. A bit like Amy Ghost's posts on AVEN.
  22. Same thing with love. I've had the same comparison or almost, with food and spices. About the words, I still think it's possible to reclaim them. After all, the LGBT+ community successfully managed to reclaim "queer", and despite being relatively invisible right now, I don't think that being aromantic is that rare, so I'm more optimistic about the future and giving some words a more positive meaning as well
  23. This is something I've thought about for so long, and after being inspired by this thread, I decided to make it a thread as well. http://www.arocalypse.com/forums/topic/216-importance-of-platonic-relationships/ The article mentioned "friendship affairs". When a bond is emotionally deep, people feel the need to compare it to romance. But the thing is that this isn't something only romantic people do. Aromantic vocabulary is full of comparisons with romance, and therefore unconsciously implies that our friendships are actually romance in denial. What are "queerplatonic", "platonic attraction", "passionate friendship", "squish / friend crush" implying at an unconscious level ? People who are skeptical of the nature of deep friendships are jumping on the occasion. We're using romantic vocabulary ! We're implying that everything is made of attraction, of desire for passionate intimacy. This is confusing to say the least. Isn't the aromantic community involuntarily taking a wrong direction with using words that constantly make references to romance and other relationships based on attraction and desire rather than "plain" affection and fondness ? To make it short, isn't current aromantic vocabulary dangerously amatonormative ? Isn't it the time now to reclaim the right word : giving a deeper meaning to friendship, affection, love, a much more serious and deeper meaning than what society wants to enforce, and being proud of it ? I'd like to know what others are thinking of the current situation, and if there is indeed a problem, or not. PS I'm sorry if the thread seems a bit asexual-centered, but I haven't taken the time for implications on romantic references with FWB situations, and I'd like to hear an aromantic sexual perspective too.
  24. The only kind of true hatred I've experienced or seen was at school. Teens are cruel sometimes. The rest, IMO, is just trolls, or something rarely seen in modern western cultures.
×
×
  • Create New...