DeltaAro

Samosas 🇮🇳 with chickpea filling! I 💚 Also, veggie lasagna is so good.

I'd say Gen X. Because of the suspicious attitude towards Big Tech. 😄 Sorry for the stereotyping.

Hi! So I assume that's tongue in cheek... in that case just don't overthink it. 🙂 But if you really mean it: You shouldn't get panic attacks when talking to people you like. 😟 You probably have social anxiety, so please seek help. It tends to become worse over time without proper treatment.

I like your avatar. 😄 When I first visited in Scotland, I couldn't believe how completely different English could sound. That was nice also because I associate "Oxford English" (Received Pronunciation) with my very strict English teacher. I imagine her right behind me when I hear it!! 😨

Yes, yes, that was the one that appeared most in image search for "furry flag". I think, I should've drawn the furry hand more like a paw, seriously. It looks like from cookie monster. But I'm neither a furry nor an expert on the aesthetics. Though, users on deviantart assume I am, because of my anthropomorphic aardvarks 😃.

I was inspired by a post in the Aromantic Flag Redesigns I've come up with + Poll thread, and took the opportunity to practice hands. Now, you might say: "But wait, isn't this a left-handed handshake?" Yes indeed, because the white ring is worn on the left middle finger. You wouldn't see it otherwise. So let's say we do the Scout handshake.

Reality... 😶‍🌫️ There's a world of difference between the edgy it-is-true-because-it-is-politically-incorrect "men and women can't be friends" and the nearly trivial truth that if people match each other's sexual preferences, then sexual attraction might sometimes - depending on many other factors, like personality - complicate their friendship. We know there are male-female friends, who would object to 1. But people who subscribe to this idea assume bad faith then, and we get into the "it's the friend zone" discussion. The problem with 2 OTOH is that it is so trivially true and really just sets a lower boundary. But the effect could be very strong and theoretically most friendships between men and women might be just bad, manipulative or full of hidden, unrequited feelings. So at this point, I guess anything that further could be said needs evidence, like a psychological study. Because it-is-true-because-it-is-politically-incorrect simply is a logical fallacy. PS: The video is not evidence! We haven't even seen the uncut footage!

Then you gotta do the poll. I know you did not because you're the first ISFP 🦄 here ! So no excuses! 😉 I'm 📣 INFP, 📣 for everyone who still doesn't know! 📣 INFP, INFP, I-N-F-P!! 📣 OK - I'm very strong on N and P, not so much F. S vs. N reminds me of William James' "tough-minded" vs. "tender-minded". So IMHO, this axis makes sense. I'm "tender-minded" ... what? I-E axis is also part of Big 5, obviously makes sense. F-T is so obvious that it was used in "folk psychology" since forever. P vs. J ... I don't know, never cared much about this axis. How big of a sin is "science denial" when it comes to psychology? 😆 I just dislike that you can't be neutral on an axis in the MBTI. That's ... obviously wrong. They should create a more "scientific" test, that doesn't include bad traits, as Big 5 does. As I said before, neuroticism is simply bad, period. Except for extroverted-introverted, the other traits also seem biased in the direction: conscientious, agreeable*, open. * OK, theoretically, "agreeable" could be bad if it means you follow immoral authorities. But then please name and describe it differently. "Disagreeable" sounds simply negative to me.

"Weird" is putting it mildly. Now everyone can accidentally do a faux pas, but for normal people this happens once, and they apologize by themselves. Here we have a pattern, that crossed the line to sexual harassment some time ago. It's clear that without reporting, it will continue. But I don't think it's a good idea to report both, because they then have it easier to paint you as the "oversensitive" one and weasel out that they "didn't mean it", "you should've told them" etc. all that nonsense. You also need evidence. AFAIK in most US states, you can record without permission if you're one party of the conversation. So you can record here (contrary to EU where bonkers laws make gathering evidence by recording pretty much illegal).

Vagueness by Timothy Williamson ... which is about vagueness, philosophically. 🙃 Starts with the paradox of the heap, of course. Eubulides of Miletus was pretty clever that we're still arguing about his riddles.

I can't answer it for you! 🤷‍♂️ Regarding the original question: You can adopt "aromantic" provisionally or tentatively. There's nothing to fear about the identity itself. If it doesn't fit anymore, drop it. So I don't know why it's such a big deal to find out if you're "objectively" aromantic. Identities don't work like "my image of myself must correspond to my real self". The real self is not strictly separable from the image. It's easy to end up ruminating about this endlessly, which is even recognized as a form of OCD. So for me personally, I'd only ask what practical difference does it make in your life? There's certainly a huge difference between a version of you who starts actively looking for someone or one who just gives up about this. So that's it. I don't have anything more to say. 🙂

After running through so many dungeons and getting killed so many times, I had enough of it and are now playing Dungeons 4, building my own dungeons, and killing the noble heroes. The humor of this game is very cringe, though. You can even dress the main character in a sailor moon costume. It's also a bit like an evil Sims. You have green horde, demons, undead units, and they all need to be kept happy.

You didn't experience any meaningful attraction before your relationship. Also, "I just didn't resist" is not what we usually mean by "bad choices" in this context. Instead, it means: falling in love with someone who turns out to have a bad, manipulative character and being in denial because of rose-tinted glasses (romantic feelings). Of course, celebrity crushes exist, but it's very common to adore celebrities non-romantically. Admiring somebody for their looks, talents, etc. feeling a close connection as a fan, that's not romantic. Yes, it could theoretically be 'romantic', but it's not likely - especially if you never experienced it for someone in your closer environment, which at 26 years of age really happens for most people. And even if we count it, it's still very rare compared to the average. Aromantic doesn't have to mean "no romantic feelings", it's enough to have "little-to-no romantic feelings".

Sorry, I didn't mean it in a confrontational manner. But doesn't "I tried [romance] a few times and it's not for me" sum up what aromanticism is about? 🙂 So you sound very aromantic to me. But if you have some other need for clarification, could you give me some more hints? I'm more extremely romance-repulsed. I couldn't have tolerated a relationship for 4 ½ years, for sure. Me after a few weeks: "I've gotta get outta here ASAP" But such strong romance repulsion is not necessary to qualify as aromantic. Yes, you're right. So you already know the drill. You searched for the turtles 🐢 and at some point decided there are none. I could similarly speculate about some "defense mechanism" that causes you to not feel sexual attraction, and you wouldn't care about it. Aside from your past relationships, is there anything different when it comes to romance?

Then it would be settled. Only discussion would be: are you a "legitimate" aromantic? But there's no World Aromantic Governing Body that can give you a certificate. 😉 I guess that only very few would not "accept" you, since it's not unusual to have some relationship history, including even long relationships. Or do you have fear of missing out? The problem with the comparison with gay people is that gay people have those situations that can hit them like a truck. When they feel attraction. For aromantics, there is no such thing. So if they aren't romance-repulsed, it can happen that they just tolerate and go along with a romantic relationship. This makes it so tricky. Aromantics are in the situation of someone who has to prove "There are no black swans".

Even if it was some "defense mechanism" the label "aromantic" wouldn't be misapplied. Aro doesn't mean "born aro". There's even a micro-label for this: Caedromantic. Anyway, I never met somebody who was effectively treated for such internal, subconscious blockages, that caused a lack of conscious romantic feelings, and then became open for romance. Contrary to that, I've met so many effectively treated people who had blockages from debilitating social anxiety, trust, anger. ... They all perfectly knew that they wanted to experience romance and they felt romantic attraction. They just couldn't translate it into action.

It's a phenomenon that I heard from other people, too, but it's quite scary: I sometimes remember information in dreams that I don't consciously know. It's rare, but it happens. And it was always random, silly factoids. It seems I picked up the information maybe in early childhood and forgot it, or maybe it sank in subconsciously (TV on while doing housework). But in a dream it comes to the surface again. For example, I dreamed that I visited some friends in Hungary (I don't know anyone there and never visited that country) and drank beer with them, but made them furious by clinking glasses! My attempts to apologize made everything worse, and it escalated to the point when I was thrown out and banned from entering the country. I remembered that dream because it was so strange, and later I learned that it is really true that clinking glasses is considered rude in Hungary.

There is no aro aesthetics, AFAIK. But good question, since we have lovecore, why don't we have arocore? 😭😄 At least you can wear aromantic symbols and aro colors! So any aesthetics that allows shades of green, a white ring, arrows, etc. can be "aromantic style". I don't wear anything of that, though. My aesthetics is solarpunk, to use a fancy word for slow fashion.

Lip kissing with merely friendly intention - while rare and a bit frowned upon - does happen. Long, passionate lip kissing really feels like either romantic or sexual to me. Open mouth more sexual. I wonder how we in general should deal with vagueness. Of course, the distinction between platonic and romantic is vague. But I'm not so sure if "You decide then!!" is such a good solution. I fear that with too much deconstruction and subjectivity, everything just loses meaning in the end. Though we don't precisely know where blue ends and green begins, we wouldn't call the following green, right:

I always wonder what people mean by "not real". Maybe ask her that. Are holes 🕳️ real? On the one hand, holes are nothing. But they certainly feel all-too-real if I have them in my bicycle tire! They probably mean that it's not a legitimate identity. But what again does that mean, exactly? There are certainly very ... unusual identities around, like xenogenders, but if I think about it, I don't think anyone could give a good definition of "legitimate identity" or a criterion for it. It's probably the assumption that somebody adopted an identity for the sole reason to feel special. Anyway, you'll come across many people who feel similar. Even in queer spaces many believe nonbinary people aren't real. And even in nonbinary spaces, many believe xenogender people aren't real, and so on. So I guess it's better to use that opportunity to learn how to handle this (because like it or not it's going to happen again), and not simply avoid her by switching room. But that's just my subjective opinion.

Hopefully your wish comes true. 💚 Having children is the only thing I find positive about romantic relationships, and about which I'm envious.

Hi, aromantic also includes people who experience little attraction (grayromantics). I don't mean just aromantic spectrum, but literally aromantic. Because the aromantic spectrum is even broader and also includes related orientations. For example quoiromantic, which by its nature - feeling not being romantically categorizable - arguably (!) isn't aromantic. The grayromantic flag is nice! 😃

It is of course unethical to break promises. Aside from the super-special status sexual monogamy has, the comparison to promises also breaks down since faithfulness is sometimes implicitly assumed, though no promise was given before. Of course, this is a generational thing and may be on its way out. But then I still sometimes hear about young people who didn't have the "exclusive talk" and then get furious after "cheating". When writing this I again notice how dating and relationships feel so cringe for me (please, I don't claim that they're "objectively" cringe). How do you even phrase that? How do they practically have that talk? "Hello, Nonexistica, I hope you like ❤️ me the same way I like you. So I would ask you if we are exclusive ❣️ now ⁉️" "Nope!" 🙈 I can understand why some people want to avoid that and just implicitly assume it.

I've seen agender, nonbinary persons use male or female pronouns. I have even seen cis persons use neopronouns. And no one cared... but the etiquette may change. Personally, I don't care about pronouns. Thought perhaps I should decide on one set to avoid confusion.