DeltaAro

I only know that I like straight black hair... a lot. Usually height is given in lower limits for guys. ?

I think that we can roughly imagine what romantic attraction feels like through analogies. But those are still imperfect and it would be interesting for me to experience it once first-hand. Still I'm not especially troubled by this lack of knowledge.

I have some problems with the concept of gender expression / presentation. It's defined as "outwards appearance, body language, and general behavior" which can mean anything. There are many of such characteristics which don't have anything to do with gender but are e.g. simply expressions of being part of some other sort of group. So it's no real definition, just a vague hint. If Greg and Kristy live as squatters, have mohawks, a lot of piercings and tattoos, wear spiked leather jackets, drink a six-pack of beer every day, swear a lot and listen to punk rock non-stop ... they're very similar in appearance, body language and behavior. If William and Hannah are business consultants, work a lot, are very eloquent, well-dressed, use industry jargon terms, are very polite but sometimes send off an arrogant vibe, etc. ... they're also very similar in appearance, body language and behavior. Now let's say Greg and William are generally regarded as men, and Kristy and Hannah as women without any second thoughts. How can that be? It must be because gender expression is restricted to a certain dimension of similarity (regarding "outwards appearance, body language, and general behavior"). In modern Western countries skirts are regarded as feminine. So if Kristy and Hannah wear skirts, as different as those skirts might be (punk attire vs business), they share a similarity in stereotypical feminine gender expression. But it's not like humanity at all times regarded skirts as feminine. So IDK the gendered characteristics come at a scale. From "very hard" (difficult to change, culturally pretty much universal) to "very soft" (easily changeable, different depending on time and place) characteristics. "Very Hard": Skin, facial features, body composition. "Hard": pitch of voice, the automatic/unconscious manner body movements are executed (distance between legs when walking). "Soft": intentional gestures, choice of words. "Very Soft": Fashion. E.g. Imperator Furiosa from Mad Max retains the "very hard" characteristics associated with women, but lacks nearly all "softer" ones. I may be wrong but I think that the "hard" characteristics are way more important than the "soft" ones. For classification and likely sexual attraction. So no matter how I think about it, gender always connects somewhere down the line to some sort of biological sex concept. Now biological sex doesn't have to be considered in an essentialist manner. It's just if we'd truly believe biological sex is wholly made up, there is nothing to it whatsoever, like as if we categorized humanity in Tolkienesque fantasy races ("I'm a dwarf, and you're an elf"), then I think we could also earnestly speak of a "Punk gender". Because gender would be just a random sort of social grouping and a self-identity.

I found it quite ... creative. ?

Sexual (and romantic, but I skip that) orientation and gender are logically related terms. So if both are supposed to be self-identities a conflict or inconsistency will arise. We can say that the terms are vague and that would defuse the situation somewhat. But imho it doesn't really help it because then we would have to describe a situation where they definitely do not fit. Like "'heap of rice' is vague, but three grains of rice are not a 'heap of rice'". And then we would be back to the start: That someone's self-id could be simply invalid, which I guess is what's to be avoided. I guess sexual orientation and gender seem rather to be like terms used in a mystical tradition or an unsolvable paradox like from Zeno (modern mathematics has not given us the tools to solve these paradoxes, just a ways around it. The failure is unavoidable, we cannot precisely conceptualize the "process" of a continuous line being created by stringing together zero-length points. Cauchy's ingenious definition of a limit is just the expression of the human mind wrestling with it. Ok, sorry for the off-topic).

Also Recursion by Blake Crouch? Reminds me of the unbearable Padme romance. Anakin is a mass-murderer too. Maybe his "not completely deranged" motive is enough excuse? So when it happens in Star Wars nothing is "mainstream" enough to not contain such stuff – it seems there's a romance equivalent of Poe's law: Without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an sincere portrayal of romance and a parody of romance. Ok, ok, one has to make it very, very, VERY obvious for the audience to not take it seriously. Probably there are people out there who even think that the "Sword of Avowal" is "sooooo romantic". ?

I like that one, if it's absurd enough. Romance is where I have a strong tendency for black humor. In the Overlord light novels (an isekai story) there's one human adventurer who falls in love with the humanoid looking non-human Narberal, who despises humans and can barely disguise her hatred to not ruin her stealth missions. She rejects him with utter scorn and threats of a violent death but he still keeps going on flirting with her. There are many more examples of romance in these novels and all are grotesquely unhealthy. There's "innocent" Princess Renner who is actually a psychopath; she's infatuated with her bodyguard Climb and his "puppy eyes". And tries to impress him with good deeds for the sole reason to see him make that look. She is later granted the wish to transform into a demon and manipulates him to become one, too, to fully indulge in her obsession. A bit off-topic b/c it's not novels. There was exactly ONE thing about Dark Souls 3 I liked – only played it because the cult around it convinced me as if it were some "obligatory life experience". Egged me on and on, so to even go for the secret ending. (I mean in retrospect it's the most overhyped game. 90% of the world looks just like Aberdeen when the garbage collectors are on strike – with no anti-aliasing ... which existed in 2016, right? And the substance of the convoluted story is just: ULTRA-stupid protagonist goes on a long rampage to annihilate cooler and smarter people than him/herself and achieves nothing of value /end of rant). But ... there's one quest for the secret ending where you get married. Now you don't get a ring there for the wedding but a sword. So why do you need a sword for a wedding? It's called "sword of avowal" and you use it to .... impale your spouse. Yes, that's the marriage ceremony. He/she is undead so it doesn't matter. But I found that just too funny. Regarding romance it can't get too dark and absurd for me to not think "Nod, nod, there's still a kernel of truth in there". I don't like when romantic love gets abused as a plot device to explain certain stupid action. But when it driven to the point of absurdity, it becomes funny.

Difficult to find fiction that doesn't involve romance at all. Romance is most palatable to me when the author doesn't observe the rule "show don't tell". Spare me the details, just tell me the info about the love interests and relationships relevant for the plot.

Why is Greek mythology and philosophy such a big issue for aromanticism? ? I had to translate this section with the sirens in school. Sadly I forgot the details... but if it were romantic I would remembered it ... as especially sinister. The attraction seemed rather aesthetic. But of a more powerful otherworldly / supernatural sort.

Only that "platonic" shares the fate of other words coming from Greek philosophy: sophistic, cynic, epicurean, stoic... they're all at least a bit distorted and disparaging. I also don't think that Plato is given that much prestige today. The metaphysics espoused by him and Aristotle are regarded as archaic and "thankfully overcome" in favor of a modern materialist world view like by Hume and others. And the people who aren't into the latter, don't like them, too, because they are too elitist. I'm going to read the texts since this comes up so often in aro discussions. It should be noted that Eros also has another property in the Symposium AFAICR. The unions motivated by him are "productive". At its most basic that would be children, but they can also produce virtuous deeds etc. The "reproduction" of the Guardians in The Republic is odd... They don't marry and have families, instead they have temporary sexual relations determined by lots... so it's pure sexual attraction; the lowest rank of Eros as described in the Symposium. But it's the best for the state that the second highest caste just lives without any romantic love?

How do alloromantics deal with this wildly unrealistic portrayal of romance??? It's on par with Hollywood hacking, but most people aren't hackers. Most people are allos, though, which makes it really surprising. Even if a romantic relationship is shown to begin realistically in a normal boring setting and not when fighting an alien invasion, the other tropes which are used are still insane. Except for comedy the romantic interest is ... mostly ... super, super special. E.g. the mysterious alternative, artistic, sophisticated, charisma demigodess, intellectual French girl who lives a bohemian lifestyle and is so deep that everything she says opens up new vistas of thought. Most French women HUMANS aren't that interesting. Even the person with the most fascinating personality, dazzling intellect, ... on this planet needs some time to recharge and can't hold up that level 24/7. ... do allos see their romantic partners in this way? I've bothered so much trying to understand romance but there are still new disturbing questions coming up!

Surely anyone (except who has been secluded from human society and is extremely ill-informed) should recognize that sexual attraction without any romantic feelings does happen. In fact it's not even a rare occurrence. Of course we can't read people's mind but we can infer that from their behavior. Allo-allos run into certain "situations" where sexual attraction isn't solely present but also coupled with romantic attraction. Some do most of the time, some more rarely. For allo-aros it never happens, but they still experience sexual attraction on its own like allo-allos sometimes do. Aro-aces experience neither. By this logic I wouldn't be surprised that someone who first came to know the terms would think that aces are a subset of aros (I don't believe it of course, since alloaces are the obvious counterexample). But how anyone could think the reverse is true, that aros are a subset of aces, is beyond me.

Yeah, but that's not really an argument. It would take quite some effort to find out the true etymological history of "platonic love" (Plato's ideas, their renaissance interpretation etc.). A 100 word elevator pitch like in the link doesn't cover all the nuances. We'd have to study at least the Symposion, Phaedrus and Marsilio Ficino's writings about amor platonicus. But what would we gain from this effort? Words regularly change their meanings over time, and words regularly suggest false associations. E.g. the programming languages JavaScript and Java, it sounds they're related -- but they are not at all. IMHO, the most common modern use of "platonic" is to describe a relationship where sex is to be expected, but does not happen. It seems "platonic" isn't used for relationships where sex is not expected. E.g. between two straight women "friendship" is used, not "platonic". The problem with this usage is that "expected" is very subjective and also needs inferring (guessing) sexual orientations. But that's how it is and not likely to go away soon. I think that "platonic" shouldn't be used to describe aro relationships. It leads to a lot of confusion since the general meaning of the word is so different.

The underlying reasoning is likely that (1) for you to regularly enjoy an activity, you must desire it. And (2) desiring sex is equated with desiring a person sexually (which is sexual attraction, right?). We usually don't make the inference (1) if we're talking about less intense activities. Like the proverbial walk in the park. We often enjoy walking in the park without a desire preceding it (could for example be just a routine or we have to take the dog out). But sex is regarded as an intense experience ... it's not assumed to be like e.g. "a bit boring but still enjoyable". Though I don't know where this comes from, there's so much evidence that some people experience sex this way. The equation in (2) is more understandable to me. Strictly speaking it's not the same but imho the difference seems very subtle. At least if we're talking about a strong desire. Sex can (always) be a negative experience for a sex worker. Wouldn't be a problem, I would say. At least as long as it's not intensely negative. Like cleaning a toilet -- I'd rather avoid doing it but it certainly doesn't do me psychological harm. I think part of the reason why sex work is that controversial is that so many people cannot imagine anyone could ever experience sex as a non-intense activity.

It's only that even teenagers know their mom for more than a decade. But a romantic partner of 3 weeks is usually regarded as more important than a friend. Aro thinking, sure.

Mmh, should I write more controversial posts again? ?

There isn't a clear definition of 'aromantic' or 'romantic attraction' and if someone took the time to construct one it would be just their individual opinion that the words should be used this way. There is no World Central Authority for Aromanticism. A prescriptive definition like in the DCM-5 is not possible. Even if it were, it would be strongly resisted and dismissed as 'essentialist' (though in fact a clear definition doesn't have anything to do with this deep philosophical issue. You can just logically connect different qualities as you want; that's what AND and OR are for. It can be very precise and clear but not 'essentialist'. Psychiatric diagnoses often use a scoring system so that for a larger number of people with the same diagnosis it's possible they do not share a common feature). The real issue is the trouble many have with the idea of excluding someone -- "You're not aro". Therefore the only agreed meaning of 'aromantic' boils down to a vague "lacking in the romance department". In my subjective opinion it doesn't make much sense to dwell too much about the question "Am I aromantic?". Personally I could ask myself if I'm not aromantic too but just ultra-picky regarding personality.

As a means for something else? Like with business partners... Pragmatic support (help with housework, etc.). Doing something enjoyable together, but just for the sake of the activity (not that strange. Some people even enjoy shared activities with people they actively dislike. E. g. rivals in a competition). Obviously for sex, which in its very raw/pure form doesn't have a social component. Duh, it's like aro relationship problems x 10000. But you don't want to get harmed. You need someone who is indifferent to you. Sociopaths or narcissists aren't. So asocial / schizoid is the kind of partner you want. But it's difficult to find. It would help being wealthy. Someone who is in a destitute situation and you can compensate with money is likely willing to put up with all that. This is outside of my expertise, though. I have no idea how to build such relationships. I only know they exist. It's very important to appear (and obviously be) non-threatening because there are strong suspicions about being so much out of the norm. And you also have to be careful to not to get screwed over yourself. Sounds quite bad. But then relationships with head over heels romantic love also regularly turn out to be goddamn awful.

The more liberties you take, the easier it gets. It could be done with an in-universe mythology or legend where this distinction (sexual / romantic attraction) is hinted at. I mean, if magical creatures occur... Or maybe just make them sex-repulsed, romance-favorable (or the other way around) aroace.

queen

Very nice. I should've added: not on aro related social media. On this board I've already seen it once before.

Still the original question was about close friends who have sex, and I really don't have ever heard of that. The topic is very sensitive and honest information isn't easy to get. Still, people straight-forwardly told me about non-serious flings and basically booty-call relationships.

Rene Descartes. A known from Ghost in the Shell, though Bato misrepresents him there. What's this hairstyle called? It's not a knot but a brush. No matter how much Sekiro gets pummeled in the game (the hardest I know), his haircut never takes damage. ?

It would be interesting if there was a culture where women had shorter hair than men. I vaguely remember that Spartan men had all long hair, but the married women had short hair.

Yes. It only has a standard aro-community meaning, which doesn't conform to the general use. The general use tends more in the direction of "non-physical" and comes from a distortion of Plato's Symposium and Phaedrus (he does not exclude sexuality absolutely, especially not in Phaedrus). What word should we use then? The Greek and Latin root words for "friend" are occupied and overused: Amic* and phil*. Perhaps we go with Hebrew as the third classical language (well, Georg Cantor did that for set theory ℵ !!). Friend is chaver in Hebrew... reminds me too much of "chav"! Ok, Sanskrit then! That would be sakhi. Sakhiatic attraction? I'm giving up. Any ideas? Merriam Webster is the only definition which mentions absence of romance. Oxford says not sexual. Cambridge is much the same. Urban dictionary ditto. vocabulary.com says not sexual or physical. Ok, aplatonic is such a minefield that "I'm aplatonic, ..." could be the intro of some risqué joke.