James White

@Apathetic Echidna wow that takes some commitment. I'd rather write a six-page paper on amatonormativity in two hours than get married. Every day. Forever.

I'd rather be trapped in a polar research station over winter with a murderous shapeshifting alien than get married.

THAT CAN BE ARRANGED Are there martian scientists involved?

I'd rather swim to an island (in the middle of the ocean, mind you), across big water, ocean water, than get married.

Banned for making me feel insecure in my own picture-posting habits

@RyanThe fact that you're actually doing your homework on the subject is impressive. Too many have resorted to resentment instead of coming to an understanding in your situation. Thank you for that. I must agree with @omitef here. It's wonderful that you accept her, and I hope she appreciates that. However, aromanticism isn't something that can be made insignificant through understanding. It doesn't just alter the way we think. It changes what we do and what we are capable of. She might have been thinking about this breakup for a very long time, but that's for her to say. Not me. To understand the potential leverage aromanticism can have over someone's actions, I present myself as an example. It's difficult to comprehend the force of such an impulse, so I'm not sure how to describe it. I'd describe it as pressure. When someone tries to get emotionally close to me, it hurts in a bad way, like my lungs are being slowly crushed. I get a fight-or-flight response as I think of ways to escape. I've resorted to physical force against my own best friends to keep them from holding hands with me. In a moment like that, I'd do anything to get away. No matter how much I like someone, all bets are off if they put me on a pedestal. It's really great to see when people don't mind that I'm like that, but that doesn't make the pressure go away. If your girlfriend was able to survive a romantic relationship for two years, I guarantee she doesn't feel the pressure as much as I tend to. I just figured my example might give some perspective to what we're dealing with here. Just the cultural association we have with the practice of marriage may cause her to associate it with romantic pressure, and say no. That's already assuming she can even stand the feeling of being an aromantic person in a romantic relationship, which is a massive if. If you want scientific background, start by understanding epigenetics. That system of gene regulation is the most probable basis for differing sexual and romantic orientations in general, but no precise information exists on the subject of aromanticism yet.

I've been seeing the signs that I was aromantic since before I even knew I was attracted to female humans. I figure that's a good case for it being an independent, inherent trait. At least in me. It's possible that there are multiple potential causes. Also, mate guarding and monogamous pair formation have been around a lot longer than humans have. It's a fairly common set of behaviors in many animal species. We may rationalize them as romance when we experience them, but It's not like we invented those behaviors. We just made words that describe them.

That's good to hear.

I suppose it would be alright as long as they know what to expect. For someone to "date" me would be theoretically fine as long as they tread lightly around my romance repulsion. That's a big if, but I'm not opposed to trying it out of curiosity.

@NullVector Unfortunately, there is very little official scientific background on aromanticism. However, its properties suggest that it's epigenetic, much like sexual orientation. That means that it's inherent, but not necessarily heritable. Epigenetics is a catchall term for chemical control of genes without actually removing them. For example, you have the genes required to go through rapid growth spurts. You only need those genes when you're a kid, though, so your body silences them after a certain period. It does so by tacking a methyl group onto that growth regulatory gene. That methyl group makes the gene permanently inactive after that first use as a kid. You inherit the genes for the growth spurt, but it's a separate system that turns it off. It's already been substantiated that that's what governs sexual orientation. Some gene regulates it, but that gene doesn't get turned on until puberty (or never). By extension, aromantics probably have the genes to experience the romantic instinct, but it's permanently (or in some, partially or impermanently) silenced. Every cell in our body might have the gene, but it's literally inaccessible to the RNA polymerase enzymes because of that chemical suppression. We have it, but it doesn't do anything at all. The lack of a chemical stimulus might also allow our brain to fully develop without ever forming the neural circuits needed to process romance. There's a number of potential causes for it, but nothing is certain. I'd leave out that last bit. When I talk about aromanticism to most people, I don't go that far in depth. I explain it clinically. Describe the symptoms. For example, I've never kissed anyone, and have literally resorted to physical force to stop it happening. It's an instinctive fear that has nothing to do with logical thought processes. When I say "use scientific language" I don't mean "cite everything." We unfortunately don't have any scientific papers to cite. I mean "be precise." Say what you've done. Say what you know. Don't use subjective language, because that encourages people to doubt you.

I've found that talking specifically about pair-forming instincts makes it easier for people to understand. If you start with "I've never been in love," they subconsciously put up mental blocks. It's easy to discount someone else's feelings if you don't understand them. They'll have a much harder time if you make it sound like a scientific issue (which it absolutely is). Your A's are innate, permanent, epigenetic functions of neurochemsitry. The pair-forming, sex-having, gender-choosing circuitry that most people have in their brains literally, physically does not exist in your brain. If it did, it would be pretty damn obvious. Gender, sexuality, and romance are all easily tangible subjects. Allo, hetero, and cis people are usually exposed to a more emotional, touchy-feely argument for accepting diversity, and have already developed barriers preventing them from understanding such things. However, science has an authority all its own, and borrowing that language is a good way to lend ethos to your argument. That's my trick: make it literal. If you can ground your argument in concrete terms and absolute reality, your friends will have a much more difficult time convincing themselves to ignore it. Saying how you feel is all well and good, but sounding sure of the absolute reality and tangibility of your orientations is the most important step to making people believe you. They can ignore feelings. They can't ignore reality. As a scientist-in-training, I'd normally be opposed to the use of scientific language to force people to acknowledge a specific social viewpoint. However, your case, as well as the collective case of everyone on this forum, is far more important than that maintenance of academic neutrality. We deserve recognition, and I'm prepared to use all the tricks I know to get it. You deserve that recognition too.

Always yum. Dark chocolate can go with anything. Mole (the sauce, not the rodent or the dermal feature) is evidence of that. Durian? I hear it tastes way better than it smells.

Isaac Newton

@Mark Good point. Let me just add "getting anally probed by Martian scientists" to the list of things I'd rather do than get married.

I'd rather go to Mars to get married. Honestly, I'd probably be happy going to Mars specifically to avoid getting married. It's the perfect excuse to tell the stubborn, "hopeful" alloromantic in your life. "I'm sorry, but I can't marry you. My heart belongs to another: someone small and green with huge, black, soulless eyes. And they do such amazing things with their probing technology..."

I can't beat the reversal of entropy. That's too good. If not that, definitely an orbital laser. Think, for example, of Ronald Reagan's failed orbital missile defense project. It was nicknamed "Star Wars" for trying to focus the x-rays from nuclear explosions into massive, single-use lasers. X-rays don't pass through the atmosphere very well, but maybe this one uses gamma or even just visible light. Seriously though, glass is basically inert. To combust it, you'd need hydrofluoric acid. It's not the most dissociative stuff but it's still extremely dangerous. I feel like taking this question literally is probably a bad move. Alternatively, the combustion of water could be explained by simply experiencing nonlinear time. How trivial!

I'm offended because the insides of mouths are gross. Tongues included, you hypocrite.

I like the Beatles song Eleanor Rigby even though it's supposed to be about the sadness of not being in a romantic relationship.

YMBAI if the phrase "to be with someone" has always sounded weird and stupid because it doesn't mean anything you can relate to. Seriously though, the English-speaking people of the world couldn't think of something more descriptive than "be with!?" Of course I understand that "to be with" is a euphemism (because such romantic feelings apparently display emotional weakness and even some allos are embarrassed by them), but that doesn't make the term any less bizarre. It says literally nothing about what someone actually does in someone else's company. It's purposefully nondescript so as to avoid making people describe what they feel and thus open themselves up to others. Even though the term still implies that they will do so. Humans are weird.

I recently heard a quote from the famous feminist, Gloria Steinem. When asked why she wasn't married, she responded with this gem. "I don't mate in captivity." It's now my favorite sentence in the English language because of how elegantly it sums up my aromantic experience. I'd like to hear if anyone else in the community knows some nice and simple ways of communicating that kind of aro pride with such concision. After all, we could all use a more efficient and well-tuned way to explain aromanticism. I look forward to reading some other examples.

WHO RUNS CAPSLOCKIA? HOW DO POLITICS WORK AROUND HERE? CAN I BE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT?

My feeble American mind has too much difficulty pronouncing that. Ew. also I'm vegetarian so ew again. Live octopus, still trying to crawl out of your mouth as you swallow it? I swear this is actually a thing in Korea.

Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkaban. I was afraid of Professor Remus Lupin's werewolf form. Oddly, I only ever thought of it when I took a shower. For a year or so of my childhood, I would check the shower for werewolves every time I entered the bathroom.

Lose a limb. My left arm isn't doing that much for me. WYR see a delightful meteor shower one fine evening OR become able to parallel park very gracefully with minimal effort for a week?

Long hair. I couldn't use a sword correctly if my nails grew continuously. Or a keyboard. Or a pencil. Or any other human implements intended for use by hand. @SamwiseLovesLife A video, you say. Would you rather drink a shot of human urine or be literally shot with a tazer? Assume no hepatitis and no heart failure.