Jump to content

DeltaV

Member
  • Content Count

    393
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Everything posted by DeltaV

  1. If just the mangers wouldn't suddenly be so suspicious... Because of Corona I now feel like a very overworked hikikomori. At least I can sleep longer, because no commuting. yeah, well... In professionally very ambitious people I sometimes notice a strange contrast between their intelligence and their shallowness. 😃 I can't complain about interesting new projects. But at some point you start to pine after specialization. After all, it's not just for insects. Human malemployment is possible, too! I know it!
  2. Dutch: eekhoorn (= squirrel), English: cauldron, French: noir (this is very unoriginal), langoureuse (= languishing, languid), German: Nebel (= fog, nebula), Greek: ψυχή (psyche, but I like that in Greek it's a four letter word), Russian: мир (= peace, world), that's a great one!
  3. There exists a little bit of non-fiction about aromanticism... But it sounds you want rather "primary sources" (like autobiographical) or literary non-fiction, right? Probably very difficult to find if it's supposed to be more than a blog post or article.
  4. Split Attraction Model. Now, different types of attraction have always been differentiated (stock example: Aphrodite Pandemos vs. Urania). But still, the idea that sexual attraction is necessary, though not sufficient for romantic attraction, is and was extremely popular. Which is a connection. From the pure wording, calling it a model makes it very ambitious. And using split hints at the claim that they simply are split, as a matter of fact. We don't just differentiate, we observe that they are objectively split. Any connection is just a contingent, statistical thing. So it could perhaps be understood as the claim that humans have two completely separate "brain modules" for romantic attraction and sexual attraction, which some future neuroscientist might discover. I like to compare it to color vision, where our subjective experience leads to wrong assumptions about how our vision is organized. Without any physiological knowledge (that the retina has cone and rod cells) we would assume that we cannot see "Stygian Blue": a color that is black and blue at the same time. Hue and lightness are strongly connected in the sense that for any object we've ever seen being black excludes having a hue - so our eyes' organization should mirror this reality. But with some tricks, we can surprisingly experience such "chimerical colors". So lightness and hue are separate for our eyes. I'm not so optimistic, though, that this is easily translatable to human psychology and the brain. Compared to that the eye is "extremely simple" and research is "extremely straightforward".
  5. I agree that sexual attraction can easily happen without seeing the genitals. As you point out, when people are not undressed. But I fail to see what all the factors you list ("aesthetics, symmetricality, pheromones/smell, fashion, makeup, hair, style, body type, etc") have to do with gender. Strictly speaking they have nothing to do with it. Only in a loose, indirect sense. With gender we have the situation that it can be a self-identity (self-concept) and a social grouping that is imposed by others - in different ways. Point 1., the self-identity, is most likely completely irrelevant for sexual attraction. Whoever is attracted to, say, Miley Cyrus, it's rarely of any importance here that she identifies as genderfluid. So it must be about point 2., gender as externally-imposed grouping. People think they're straight if they are only attracted to people they themselves categorize as the opposite gender (most likely that equals perceived / assumed biological sex). I reckon that the run-of-the-mill straight man puts Miley Cyrus squarely into the group "women" and doesn't doubt that he is straight if he's attracted to her. Now if he gets the information about her gender-self-id he has two options: either he drops his own attraction-self-id or he thinks "Yeah, fine, but I'm still straight". And he'll likely choose the latter option. So we are in the uncomfortable situation that there is a conflict between gender-self-id and attraction-self-id. This might sound far fetched. But there are more drastic cases, like if said straight man declares: "I'm not attracted to Laverne Cox because I'm not gay!". This results in quite a mess that reminds me of the status of Trent Reznor and fans as "industrial musician" and "fans of industrial music" respectively. Reznor is usually regarded as industrial musician. Indeed as one of the most popular and established ones. Yet he never "identified" with that genre. Still he can't escape this externally imposed grouping. Even Wikipedia lists him under this category. And then there are some people that accuse him of not producing "true industrial music", despite he himself never expressed any intent of doing that. And if you're a fan of Reznor does that make you a fan of industrial music? Are you "allowed" to identify as such? While in the case of "music-associated social groupings" this just leads to relatively harmless bickering, the takeaway from this comparison is: this issue has not been resolved after many, many years of argument --- how could it be? there is no rigorous theory behind it! Gender is taken a bit more seriously than music subcultures. To apply a similar "theory", which is perplexingly vague and most of its fundamental terms are elusive to the point of becoming evanescent, may be a bad idea. I hope that the happiness people get out of this "gender" and "attraction" classification thing outweighs the negative effects. But I wouldn't be surprised if that's not case. Personally, I'd rather opt out of it.
  6. I wonder if sexual attraction as you defined really exists. If it does, it seems to be extremely rare and overall of virtually no importance in motivating sexual behavior for most people.
  7. It's funny how this all makes perfect sense to me, like one of the most commonplace problems you could have. While in reality we're part of the tiniest minority... Now I don't go 4 years without feeling sexual attraction, as you said somewhere else... perhaps 4 days. 🙃 Still the list of my special "demands" and mood killers is sooo long, it does rarely translate into action; sometimes it feels too me like I border on graysexual, too... maybe "light gray" 🤷‍♂️
  8. Yes, that's a less loaded way to put it. I mean, of course it's bad to break agreements and lie about it. The question still remains why it is taken so seriously in this case compared to other agreements. Also, in some cultures this agreement of monogamy is not made explicitly, just implicitly assumed.
  9. I think it needs four ingredients for allosexuals to regard sex as just some kind of sport (it's never strictly speaking like a sport, it needs a bit more responsibility than... badminton): they see it as disconnected from genuinely loving another person their sex drive isn't high or persistent they have no interest in something beyond vanilla activities (otherwise it can become very complex) it's not something their sense of self-worth depends on So (1) is a typical aromantic thing. (2) and (3) are likely unrelated to aromanticism. And (4) ... I don't know.
  10. DeltaV

    Word Association

    vending machine
  11. This shutting down announcement of Arocalypse just fitted into this general doomsday feeling. I think there should be an 𝓐𝓻𝓸 𝔼ℕ𝔻 of the 🅦🅞🅡🅛🅓 Party (8. p.m ... till?) but please keep a distance of at least 6 feet from the other guests. Romantic behavior is considered unsafe. There will be free beer...
  12. Input: '2' + 1 Output: '21' Input: '2' - 1 Output: 1
  13. Doctor LBMango, if aros don't get PhDs who will? They have more time!
  14. Since (I hope) nobody desires to eat humans here, I wonder what taste attraction is? So is it about ... licking?❔⁉️ Would still be strange imho. The word attraction certainly doesn't include actually doing it... it means "drawn to"... like with gravitational or magnetic attraction. I guess it's unusual to you how those terms are used here... like there is also platonic attraction and romantic attraction ... and very important differences are glossed over by classifying them all as attractions. It's probably safe to say that platonic and romantic attraction have overall a way less mercurial nature than sexual attraction. They are weaker but long-acting. It's again similar to physics... like the gravitational attraction of the whole Earth can lose against the magnetic attraction of a humble refrigerator magnet. But OTOH gravitational attraction rules the grand scheme of things over long timeframes. Thinking a lot about sensual or aesthetic attraction is probably typical for asexuals, because both can be confused with sexual attraction. But if you've ever felt sexual attraction, you won't confuse it – the difference is very clear and specific. I don't think that sensual and aesthetic attraction are generally strong or enduring enough to make allosexual people reflect about them deeply (contrary to their platonic, romantic and sexual attraction).
  15. Ok, so this has to do something with religion and I'll shoehorn something in about aromanticism... Last Friday I saw all these guys running around with roses in the public, for real. What was this again? Oh... of course. Then I wondered if Valentine's Day isn't like in a really bad time of the year! Still deep in the winter!!! Where do you get the roses from? 🌹 + ❄️ = 😕 This tradition must be relatively modern. Only after the invention of air cargo ... or at least greenhouses. Is this perhaps ... a celebration of romantic craziness? This is true only for the Northern Hemisphere, of course. Only logically, on the Southern Hemisphere there are some Wiccans and Celtic neopagans etc. who celebrate Beltane on 31 October / 1 November. It switched places with Samhain (Halloween) for them. Sooo... shouldn't Valentine's Day be on a different date for the Southern Hemisphere, too? Like on 14 August? Then we could transport via air cargo the roses that naturally bloom in the Northern Hemisphere's summer to the Southern Hemisphere. And the other way around. Wouldn't that be great?
  16. Normal as “alloromantic”... I find also it rather difficult to distinguish schroromanticism as described in the original post from alloromanticism or greyromanticism (greyromanticism if 6 [romantic] crushes over the course of many, many years are a bit on the low side? Don’t know how many are typical…).
  17. quio-* seems, if we want an analogy to quantum mechanics, more like the particle-wave duality.
  18. A few questions about schroromanticism: (1) If the word is, at the end, an analogy to Schroedinger’s cat, is the schroromantic person in something analogous to a quantum state like ψ = 1/√ 2 ( |romantic〉+ |aromantic〉)? (2) Can it be some other combination of those eigenstates? Or is it, as above 50% - 50% ? Maybe it’s rather ψ = x |romantic〉+ y |aromantic〉) with x² + y² = 1. (3) Is there something corresponding to the collapse of the wave function? Yes, I'm really wondering if I missed something. I haven’t seen anything that corresponds to the wave function collapse by quantum measurement in the description of schroromanticism!? (4) But if there is indeed some kind of collapse of the schroromantic’s wave function, what happens after that? Repeated quantum measurements afterwards would yield the same eigenvalue (0 or 1) or eigenstate (either be |romantic〉or |aromantic〉). Just like with Schrödinger’s cat: |dead〉or |alive〉! (5) Yes, (3) and (4) do fit for Schroedinger’s dating where people can look back at the event afterwards, and then can determine what it truly was. Again, how does this apply to schroromanticism?
  19. What does "X doesn't exist" even mean if X is class? Witches don't exist Numbers don't exist Vegetables don't exist Something different each time. If it's like 1. then I agree that "Gray-romantics don't exist!" implies "You are not gray-romantic!". But if it's like 2 or 3, then no. PS: in the aro-community the label "gray-romantic" is widely accepted and it would be a very unpopular opinion to challenge it. But aren't there labels that would strike us as "strange"? Do we have to accept all labels without criticism? Or is it at least okay if we suspect satire (this suspicion can be wrong! So is it the lesser evil to be a "victim" of satire?) if the definition of the label contradicts mainstream aro ideas?
  20. On a more serious note, “schromantic” is mentioned in “The Invisible Orientation” book: * Participants were allowed to choose more than one answer. Some people aren’t sure how to describe their romantic orientation, or they reject the idea of specifically defining their attraction patterns, don’t find any of the existing definitions useful in describing their feelings, or don’t know whether they have a preferred gender or set of genders. A variety of creative ways exist to express this ambiguity. Terms that have been seen in asexual, aromantic, and questioning circles include WTFromantic, quoiromantic, ambiguously romantic, and Schromantic (describing romanticism in terms of Schrödinger’s cat[3] as having the possibility of being romantic and aromantic at the same time). and probably “schroromantic” is a variant word of “schromantic”?
  21. That sounds very interesting. Thank you for raising awareness about this ignored yet fascinating and important romantic orientation! But I must unveil my former ignorance in this matter and admit that I had never heard “schroromantic” (not to be confused with “schromantic”, a relatively popular and mainstream romantic orientation) until a month ago! Back then some other schroromantic mentioned it. I was surprised and, as usual, first looked it up in “The Uplifting Aro Primer for Times of Need” by Arthur Frogg – yet it was nowhere mentioned in there. And then I wondered if schroromanticism is even real… The schroromanticism issue troubled me and I did not sleep well that night. I always thought myself well-educated about romantic orientations and often boasted that I knew every single one of them! Yet here I was, having never heard anything about schroromanticism. And even having serious doubts about it. I woke up at 4 am after having a nightmare how I deeply offended a schroromantic by ignorantly questioning the very existence of their romantic orientation! And mocking them! Then I went down into the dungeon of my house and consulted my private library. And sure, I did make a find. Schroromanticism was mentioned in a footnote on page 3784 in “The Grand Compendium of Aromantic Knowledge and Lore both Familiar and Arcane” … and I can tell you what was written there exactly fits your own description! So though I am not a schroromantic and was very ignorant about schroromanticism, please note that I have educated myself and now fully support schroromanticism as a concept. tl;dr schroromantic people exist and are valid!
  22. Öööööh... another early sign that I'm aro: I find the word "romantic" has a much nicer vibe to it if written with umlauts: römäntic or with a slashed o: rømantic or with haceks: řomantič or with misused Cyrillic letters: ЯOMДИTIC
  23. I'm gonna say that this is even more simple. If an alloromantic comes here and asks a question, it does cost those who write a decent answer time and effort. I don't think that it is rude not to put in this effort and time. This is an extra-courtesy on top of polite behavior. What can justifiably regarded as rude is that we make a lot of disparaging comments about romantic love and associated behavior. This is something we do actively. It can be excused perhaps because this is a little club here – we don't like plaster the city with giant aro billboards at Valentine's day (“BUTTERFLIES 🦋 in your STOMACH?? 🥰 No, you confuse that with HELICOBACTER!”), run aro TV ads or Google adwords (so that when searching for "crush" you get a link to a site that informs you about "the dangers of romantic love").
  24. Likely most people don't think so far and instead simply conflate sex and gender on the concept-level, but okay... now we're back to if gender should be seen as an ascription by society or rather as a self-concept (self-description)? There is an ascription/self-concept-spectrum for social groupings: Economic class is mostly ascribed (with some odd exceptions like Bruce Springsteen is accepted to implicitly identify as "working class" though he's objectively wealthy). Some is more in-between: you can call yourself a "nerd", and you may be called a "nerd" by others - no matter how you reject that label. Religious group is mostly accepted as a pure self-concept (self-description). Certainly, saying to Tiger Woods that he's not a real Buddhist is regarded as a very aggressive comment, a personal attack, while saying to Bruce Springsteen that he isn't really working class would be accepted. I obviously don't know what every trans person or everyone who deeply engaged with their gender thinks about this. But the current trans mainstream idea is from my observation that gender should be a self-concept (therefore, what TripleA wrote is not mainstream). That is, we should apply neither the idea of a brain sex nor the "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck" approach (for an extreme example see here. semi-NSFW). Of course, here the usual definitional-loop-problem "Let's X-people decide what 'X' means... doesn't that sound fair? But ... but ... how do we then know who belongs to X in the first place?" rears its ugly head. In sum, I don't think the trans mainstream idea of gender can be logically defined and defended. Sounds hostile, but I'm really willing to change my mind, if someone can give me a coherent definition / justification "It's not logically coherent" is not sooo bad. It's only sounds bad because of the idealisation of Enlightenment rationalism in our culture. It can be like the concept of "free will", which can only be grasped in a mystical sense but then is (probably) too important to be simply dropped.
  25. A lot of strange romantic insider jokes revolve around "still be friends".
×
×
  • Create New...