NullVector

On 6/4/2019 at 11:53 AM, Bri said:

What some people don't get is that this "phase" is something some people stay with forever.

Not that you need to 'sell' your aromanticism to them, but maybe you could try making an anaology with sexual orientation? I've not been sexually attracted to a man so far, but I suppose I cannot absolutely rule out that my heterosexuality is "just a phase" (i.e. who's to say I don't see a man tomorrow and feel sexual attraction towards them). And yet, most people don't talk about sexual orientation in this way. So, why do it with romantic orientation? (or maybe your friends think that everyone is actually latently bisexual to some degree? at least that would be consistent of them!)

7 hours ago, Mark said:

Issues surrounding emotional (and activity) monogamy have been showing up on polyamoury forums for a long time. Even before terms such as 'emotional monogamy' were coined.

That's interesting. Do you have any links to example posts where this topic gets discussed?

Couples

On 2/10/2019 at 5:45 PM, DeltaV said:

On 2/10/2019 at 4:22 AM, yester said:

I was just wondering this because I have horrible attachment issues with people (including in familial and platonic relationships), an avoidant personality, as well as depression and social anxiety, and was wondering if these or something else could be creating my aromanticism?

In general I'd say some probable candidates would be:

• avoidant personality disorder
• schizoid personality disorder
• social anxiety (severe)

• autism

• asperger syndrome

But don't we have to make a distinction here between, on the one hand, lack of intrinsic desire to make efforts to enter into romantic relationships (i.e. aromanticism) and, on the other hand, a lack of success at actually entering into them - despite making efforts to? For example, someone on the autism spectrum might struggle with the sort of social protocols that are typically followed to realise romantic relationships. But, I've heard of examples where such people were strongly motivated to get into romantic relationships and so invested a lot of time into trying to learn these sorts of protocols - to the extent that they eventually succeeded romantically. Me, on the other hand (possible mild aspergers): I realised at some point that I just don't care enough to learn and practice these things 

So, I don't think anything in your list could create aromanticism (aside from the first two, arguably), as I think the base desire to get into romantic relationships is completely logically separate from any psychological hurdles that would make this more difficult. But all of them could probably be mistaken for it, yes (as per the title of the thread).

On 2/10/2019 at 6:27 PM, DeltaV said:

I found it very, very, very, very difficult to admit to myself that I am “this kind of person”.

SAME! I'm still coming to terms with it I reckon . And yeah, as @ApeironStella put it, it's largely because I didn't want to be:

On 2/12/2019 at 3:13 AM, ApeironStella said:

portrayed as the heartless cis-white-male-who-just-uses-girls-because-heteronormativity

Which I guess was also me partially buying into a harmful narrative that girls don't really enjoy sex for it's own sake and, as such, as a male wanting sex, you've got to barter with them for it by offering romantic gestures?

On 2/10/2019 at 6:34 PM, NotHeartless said:

But I realized, thanks to arocalypse, most alloromantics seem to think "friendship with beneftis" is only about the sex, the "friendship" is basically non-existent or consists of exchanging a few words and that's it. So, no friendship at all and it comes down to casual sex all over again.

Yeah, I think we all came to that conclusion in this thread!

On 2/11/2019 at 11:05 AM, nonmerci said:

This is the huge contradiction of society : it sexualizes everything, but at the same time if you have sex you are seen as a bad person.

Yeah. That's a really interesting observation IMO. Like, the implication is very much that you should be having sex, but only in the right way! i.e. two people, long-term, monogamous, ideally married (and formerly only with specific genders related to your own; but that one has relaxed somewhat in recent decades). Anything else is still seen as a bit beyond the pale! Allo Aros are often very much wanting sex in the wrong way from this perspective! And I very much suspect that, in this hierarchy of wrong-ness I'm constructing, wanting sex in the wrong way is seen as more wrong than not wanting it at all! I've never been much of a daring rule-breaker, unfortunately for me.

7 hours ago, Holmbo said:

Also, many allo aros doesn't want casual sex with strangers but rather comitted non exclusive sexual relationships and those are pretty much non existent in media

Yeah, totally And pretty much non existent in life in general? Casual sex might get looked down on in popular culture, but at least it's out there as an option that we're aware of. With sexual relationships that aren't your traditional, monogamous romantic dyad, but also aren't casual sex, I dunno, it's like a language hasn't been invented yet to enable us to frame and conceptualize them as feasible options we could actually pursue and live out (or maybe it has somewhere and I just don't belong to the right sub-culture(s)?). Like I was never taught to speak aro 

@eatingcroutons what was the 'context' you were referring to?

I reckon most people (i.e allo-romantics) would find the statement that personal happiness derives exclusively from a romantic relationship to be a bit extreme. But, at the same time, I think they would also find it difficult to envision themselves living a fulfilling life without a romantic relationship being incorporated as a key component of that vision. This is where I think you and I (and others on these forums) are quite different from most people: it's not a key component for us.

Thinking in terms of Maslov's hierarchy of needs: I suspect many allo-romantics see romantic relationships as a non-negotiable requirement for meeting their 'belonging/love' related needs adequately. Whereas an aromantic could meet those same needs just fine with friendships and family relationships only.

Been watching a lot of Natalie Wynn a.k.a. Contrapoints recently (thanks YouTube algorithm! ). Her videos are smart, funny and have great production values, IMO. She doesn't talk about aro/ace though (at least, not so far)

4 hours ago, arolectriclady said:

Why can't the couple just acknowledge that it might happen and if it does just talk it out? Or maybe open the relationship? It would be unreasonable to tell your friends to only spend quality time and have heart-to-hearts with you...how is a romantic relationship any different?

I think the issue with 'cheating' is that there has been an (implicit or explicit) agreement made to have a monogamous relationship. So it's a breach of trust if one of the partners breaks that agreement. An open relationship is completely different to 'cheating' IMO. If it has been discussed and agreed that those are the terms of the relationship then 'seeing other people' isn't 'cheating' i.e. breaking the rules of an agreement. It's playing by those rules - by definition it's playing fairly and not cheating!

I agree that monogamy is essentially arbitrary and don't see why something true of friendship (you can have more than one friend at once) shouldn't be true of sexual relationships more often. People should feel more free to discuss and adopt  the type of relationship they actually want and not just assume a standard template. Tangentially, it's interesting to speculate on what the reasons for the 'standard template' could be. I was doing that here a while ago.

23 minutes ago, gravityspiker said:

since I really, really hate Yoda and the whole Jedi culture

Can you elaborate? What is it that you hate about it?

5 hours ago, Holmbo said:

I wonder if that means there are more guys in the ace forums?

Interesting... I guess @Tagor's 'theory' about how people discover marginalised identities would predict it.

I'm not familiar with the Aven site at all - anyone here know of any data on male:female membership ratio for it?

Yeah, I think you're probably right @Tagor. Also, women talk a lot more about their emotions than men in general, I reckon; romance being just one aspect of that. Conversely, a man might get the idea that he is unusually romantic and none of his friends are particularly romantic, as they hardly ever talk about their romantic feelings (even if they have them). Similarly, if he isn't particularly romantic himself, he may grow up thinking that he is perfectly normal in this regard i.e. think that his male friends don't talk about romantic feelings because they also don't have them (rather than because of make socialization and gendered expectations, which strikes me as a much more likely explanation). So it might take him far longer to come to the conclusion that he is unusual in some way and explore aromanticism.

I actually don't think men are inherently any less romantic than women. Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if they were inherently more romantic! And if women were instead evolutionarily biased to take more 'pragmatic' factors into consideration when selecting mates (with pregnancy being a short-term survival risk, it could be comparatively more important for women to (probably sub-consciously) take such  'un-romantic' factors as men's social status into account when selecting sexual partners?)

13 hours ago, Guest 9367b...ec6 said:

the only parts i could relate to where the posts about compulsory heterosexuality/romanticism where there were lesbians talking about how they fear being attracted to men.

Yeah, this is precisely what makes me think that certain things would be easier for me if I were gay! Two men or two women are effectively forced to negotiate gender roles at the start of a romantic relationship, as there is no obvious 'default' to adopt, which is a good thing, IMO (or, I suppose that as a gay person you can indicate what sort of 'default' you would prefer, by fashion choices and/or mannerisms; point being that biological sex isn't determining any pre-defined gender roles here). Whereas in heterosexual relationships the male-female defaults would tend to get assumed (unless you are constantly actively challenging them, which could get exhausting after a while?).

I feel like adopting the default 'female' role would make it easier for me personally (as a male aro) to start a romantic relationship, as I wouldn't be expected to actively initiate romantic gestures (which feels very inauthentic to me); rather it would be acceptable to more passively receive them and identify where my boundaries were, if I were being 'wooed'. But, um, I don't really know, that might have its own challenges (be careful what you wish for, lol).

In terms of belonging to a more visible, cohesive community where it was easier to talk about this stuff IRL: yeah, that might be nice 

17 hours ago, AllTalk said:

thinking that if he was already in a relationship, he'd just come to you for sex, not "couple things". 

"she just doesn't understand me like you do" 

You are given a pan of platecakes instead. It hurts to eat them.

I wish to be able to understand and speak in any language.

5 hours ago, eatingcroutons said:

Man I am so glad to discover that I'm not the only one who feels this way. I have always been utterly baffled by how people can just start dating someone they barely know.

Oh, you are definitely not the only one. I think close to 100% of the people I've interacted with on these forums feel this way ?

It got me thinking: what actually is 'dating' and why is it something that weirds out most of us here? I sort of get the concept of trying to get to know somebody that you are 'interested in' a bit better (perhaps most typically a euphemism for 'interested in having sex with', hah, since as you pointed out @eatingcroutons you know next to nothing else about them at this point!). But isn't 'dating' rather more than that? Well, I just skimmed through the very long Wikipedia article on dating and they say there that 

Quote

One of the main purposes of dating is for two or more people to evaluate one another’s suitability as a long term companion or spouse

and

Quote

Social rules regarding dating vary considerably according to variables such as country, social class, race, religion, age, sexual orientation and gender. Behavior patterns are generally unwritten and constantly changing

So maybe it's both the ends and the means that we take issue with here? Conventional dating IMO typically assumes you have a particular end goal in mind (finding one central person to spend most of your time with) and want to follow a particular set of prescriptive, culturally ritualized, but often ill-defined and confusing, steps to get there. But when neither of those things are true (as I suspect they aren't for most of us here) then where does that leave us? (in terms of having socially accepted procedures we can follow to establish sexual partnerships, for example).

On 3/30/2018 at 3:05 AM, Eklinaar said:

Everyone just wants romance or casual sex, and I don't like either of those.

Same. And I also don't know what to do about it. ?

@Thaa Yeah, I think you're onto something 

I think with strongly 'romantic' types, there is a tendency to

1. want all those 'intimacies' to be present in a single person (or perhaps two or three people, in the case of poly-amorous allo-romantics)
2. want all the intimacies present in that person(s) (a.k.a. romantic partner(s)) to also be at a greater level of intensity than they are for their friends (with whom not all the intimacies would be there at once - and those that were there at all would be expected to be more 'dilute')

Whereas a strongly aromantic person wouldn't particularly care how the numbers and intensities  of different 'intimacies' were distributed amongst their friends and/or sexual partners. For example, they might have strong sexual intimacy with one person but weak "in the moment" intimacy (outside of the sex act) and weak intellectual intimacy. With another person, they might have far stronger intellectual and "in the moment" intimacy, but no sexual intimacy whatsoever. And so on. And the aromatic person would be totally fine with this, whereas the strongly  romantic person might see it as a problematic form of 'emotional cheating' (as they would tend to want all the intimacies to be both present together and strongest with their romantic partner(s)).

On 5/28/2018 at 6:52 PM, Holmbo said:

The third one is George RR Martin

Hah, right, it's Tyrion! Some wires got crossed in my brain there! 

@Holmbo

Ooh, are there prizes of we know who the quotes are by?  (no google-ing/cheating allowed of course!)

I recognise one from The Dispossessed /Ursula le Guin, one from Douglas Adams / Hitchiker's Guide (I think?), the 'armour yourself' one is Stoic, either Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius, but I can't remember which! (I'm gonna say Epictetus, final answer!)

On 5/23/2018 at 12:04 AM, eatingcroutons said:

I know I'm replying to some really old posts here but this thread was a really interesting read, and I had thoughts, so!

This thread is badass, so please feel no guilt for bringing it back! ?

On 5/23/2018 at 12:04 AM, eatingcroutons said:

but pushing yourself outside your comfort zone is definitely a good way to start.

Haha, you have identified my Kryptonite! (well, that and probably some latent shyness/self-esteem issues). But thanks for the insightful advice and I will try to take it!

10 hours ago, Arivin said:

(Not sure if I'm doing this right but I found this post on tumblr which helped me so) YMBAI you relate to more than half of the points in this post:  http://anagnori.tumblr.com/post/69145328274/you-might-be-aromantic-if

Hehe, beat you to it 

On 21/02/2018 at 6:24 PM, Alyssia said:

When I was younger, like 13\14 years, my school mates were interested in finding a boyfriend or a girlfriend.. I didn't care and i thought that maybe we were still too young and they were just pretending

I thought the exact same thing! I assumed they were just copying what they'd seen adults do, or seen in movies, without there being much of an intrinsic drive behind it. It all seemed very silly 

5 hours ago, Apathetic Echidna said:

...so you might be aro if you delay getting your driver's licence

Interesting... I still haven't bothered to get mine!

2 hours ago, ladyasym said:

I think the biggest problem is that our society/culture has less room/demand for people who fall outside of the socio-cultural norm. Historically, close-knit social groups had a variety of roles that people could be in, not just pair-bonding/procreation, and all members were seen as of equal importance to the safety/culture of the group

Yeah, I agree with that. For example, in primitive cultures, even if you didn't have children of your own, I assume (although I've not done any detailed study of the anthropology) that you'd still play an active role in raising and teaching the children of the tribe. Whereas today most of that happens in the private context of the nuclear family setting and you're unlikely to have much intereaction with children if they're not your own (outside of specific jobs like teachers). So you're left a bit at sea re. partaking in certain natural human roles and responsibilities (like childrearing) outside of assuming very prescriptive and restrictive relationship archetypes.

2 hours ago, ladyasym said:

I wonder what the 'inciting incident' for this socio-cultural shift was?

Hmm, interesting question. I dunno. The agricultural revolution? The industrial revolution? Something else?

On 28/11/2017 at 7:46 PM, DeltaV said:

But I'm not a physicist, so don't let this transform into some exhibition of the Dunning-Kruger-effect.

I was training to be one at some point, but these days I'm barely able to comment on such things myself! (e.g. I couldn't make much headway with that Stanford article you linked ) Also, I never made a really serious study of General Relativity, aside from reading a few books and taking one or two undergrad courses on it. Einstein's field equations for General Relativity are kind of notoriously hard to work with and solve! Because of feedback effects between the matter-energy distribution and space-time backround, I think it is; the two co-evolve together and can't be treated independently, so only a handful of exact solutions e.g. Schwartzchild's are known. It's a lot easier when you have a fixed space-time background, like with Newtonian gravity (or Quantum Field Theory, for that matter, which still hasn't solved the gravity-incorporation problem)