Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won



Personal Information

  • Orientation
  • Gender
  • Pronouns

Recent Profile Visitors

1,226 profile views

Ikarus's Achievements

  1. Inquiring minds want to know.
  2. Good question. In my opinion it goes back to the patriarchy. Men have often been seen as better. Men are the leaders, go getters, they get stuff done. Woman are conditioned to obey men, and had lower roles such as maids or matrons. Now from an insecure sexist mans brain I can see why femboys are sneered at. Femboys are dudes who have chosen to emulate the weaker gender. I suppose sexist woman think men should be the breadwinners not soft spoken sensitive weaklings so basically same toxic patriarchal tendencies from men except they want their big man to provide and protect them. Tomboys dared to become men, to become the apex gender rather than stay in their subservient gender status. Femboys on the other hand are merely weak men. This is all just speculation for what goes on in the minds of sexists who reinforce the patriarchy. Also their are some men who are attracted to femboys and deny this by acting unnecessarily aggressive towards their acceptability. On the subject of fembro fashion. I remembered David Bowie existed, and then I found this radical picture of a kiss band member and thought. Yep...Thats 100% what I mean by a fembro aesthetic. Rock and roll, specifically in the 80s! Thats it Chief! Now I know Its the extreme end of fembro fashion, and there are probably more subtle ways to nail the look.
  3. We have all heard of femboys. A guy that prefers to dress or act feminine. Femboys are not merely a sexual kink, not all of them are into being seen and talked to in a hypersexual manner, not all of them are gay etc. Now what on earth is a fembro? This meme explains it quite well. Its actually the first and last time I have ever heard of this...uh...aesthetic. The femboy wants to cuddle, look cute, wears pink, basically hyperfeminine. The fembro wants to wrestle, wears a cap, looks like a jock. Bro energy is radiating from this individual. How is this dude feminine? Well its in the long hair, eyeliner, and arched hips. Not a femboy, and not a tomboy? Instead a fembro is a strange combination of both which in theory shouldn't be logically conceivable. Now this is where we get into the quintessential essence of the fembro paradox. Ultimately a fembro is a delicate balancing act of a guy appearing feminine enough to look like a tomboy while actually being a dude. In a nutshell its a tomboy aesthetic but for guys. Take a minute to digest this idea and also let me explain the aro flags around the private region. If you look for this image you will notice both drawing are packing some luggage down under if you catch my drift. There's no nudity, just a considerable bulge. I wanted to keep this image pg for the forum. Here are some questions for this new aesthetic. What are some more examples of fembro fashion? I think this aesthetic could take off. How does one look feminine as a dude while wearing masculine tomboy esque threads. I guess you need to wear make up to some degree while also wearing some suits. Maybe a pink suit with makeup while acting masculine. Is that fembro? I think so but I would like to geek out about more looks for this under rated aesthetic which to me at least has untapped potential.
  4. Realization At first I thought love but a hoax, surely no one buys into loves false cloaks Truth lies beneath hyperbole, poetic games to entertains folks Romance, with its grand gestures and absurd serenades Grandiose oaths of eternal devotion, poetic spectacles meant only as masquerades Truth be told lovers are simply special friends who enjoy poetic charades Not my flavor but others have taste for the operatic Poetries veil obscures loves nature through the melodramatic In truth lovers are best friends who magnify their affection for one another After the sirens song has ended reason will begin to recover Reality and fantasy are separate realms, romance belongs to the latter Over time the worlds began to collide, boundaries began to shatter Allos described their love fantasy as reality Romance was in actuality a universal normality In earnest where these songs sung, sincere reflections of the inner soul Love poems where no illusion, my fears began to unroll All must fall into love, a destiny for lovers, turned into cruel fate in my eyes To surmise I would never fall into loves demise would be unwise Who has not fallen into love? To fall is human, to rise above loves snares divine. Fate demanded I eventually fall, it was Cupids inescapable design. Time passed through the hourglass, Cupids arrow never struck my heart Anxiously I awaited loves inevitable spark, by George when would it start! Sight alone of beautiful people gave me no romantic lure As I began to mature no allure seized my soul, of that I was sure Who has not fallen into love? Only me as far as I know Isolated in great darkness, I feel an unsettling feeling begin to grow Am I the only one? Whose love burns with a glow of green. Could their perhaps be hidden attraction left unseen Or have I not yet bloomed as fate demands Throughout the years the glow of green expands Dare I search for others who experience this green flame Infatuations red flame lays no claim to the aromantic name Although aros can experience some red flickers amongst the green Not everything is black and white, there is always grey in between Who has not fallen in love? Others burn green, it was never only me Validation unchains my doubts now I am free In conclusion I now know a word for what I do not feel Aromantic is a deprivation of love, it doth work to conceal For love I do feel, love of friendship garners my appeal Infatuation bondage of the will Infatuation spawns from the ether Possessing its victims soul as does the thresher With whiplike tail used to round up small fish on which to feed One must take heed, know one cannot plead with this beast, no one must concede one is in love and then proceed Of course one has agency over loves raging fire Choose not to act romantically towards the one you admire if it be fair to call this flaming fire your own desire Rather it was cupids arrows who began your affliction Taking reason under passions jurisdiction Infatuations spontaneous causation escapes all explanation despite my best evaluation Though condemning the very nature of infatuation was never my motivation. Limerance eludes my imagination by its seemingly unknowable abiogenetic generation While romantics see their salvation, I see cupids machinations To each their own, romance I simply find strange. If others enjoy romance consensually there is no reason for any outrage. No infatuation felt today means none shall be felt tomorrow Rest assured cupids arrow never hit an aro. Love Lottery Limerances spell from the outside appears most enigmatic Reasons description gives an incomplete and simplified schematic Fleeting limerance is, there and gone with time. Though of paramount importance it is, mutual infatuations must align True love is a lottery, one must hope the fates are benign There is no guarantee loves sporadic spark is mutually shared No promise that loves fragile string will not snap, will you be spared? Lovers like candles burn twice as bright with intensity, burning half as long Long lasting relationships are prolonged not by the hearts changing song In the allos mind it is imperative to fall into love, but to stay in love? For surely the only permanent truth is change, a maxim none stand above Falling into love is an illogical imperative with an arbitrary cut off point Longevity is ensured through marriage vows, then a wedding day to appoint Love becomes a habit rather than changing currents of feeling Though unknown it is when infatuation is no longer appealing Infatuation cannot last yet it must exist in a romance My mind looks from the outside of loves illogical trance Fall in love for a season, then be chained together forever Not feeling in love is enough to severe a romantic endeavor Alas the power of love which hangs on a hair Such is the nature of fair weathered lovers in their affairs A smooth circle, that is me, trying to explain the nature of boxes and squares Immune to lovesickness, never feeling the arrows point Loves lottery appears very cruel, who does Cupid not disappoint?
  5. Gender is equally confusing for me as I am also agender. For now on I will use the term posgenderism in my replies since it comes with less baggage. Is a posgender world possible. Theoritically their is a future where people have gone far beyond the reaches of gender binaries. The philosophy of gender liberationists is normalized. This philosophy being there is no right or wrong way to be boy. Now for the sake of argument lets say this principle is practiced for several generations or so. How long does it take until gender becomes a meaningless category since anyone can be boy and boy begins to mean nothing? Let me just say this, a society without gender playing a big role in peoples lives is very easy for me to imagine as an agender person but is it at least plausible in some world that gender loses its meaning over time? The binary will become more and more vague. Men woman, demi girls, all the genders will be less attached to personality traits, ways of dress etc since their would be gender freedom to break the binary. It would be as common to see a woman acting sterotypically masculine as a man acting steretypically feminine but both could be commonly accepted as either a man or woman. What is gender then over time? This is just a theory though, a gender theory, thanks for reading. Also let me add that the message I got from my limited experience of watching youtubers talk about posgenderism is that gender liberationism will eventually lead to the break down of the gender binary which will then lead to gender being less identifiable or noticable in society. Men and woman will be thought more as people first rather than gender. It is a long process not a rule enforced by the government. Its basically a long social evolution theory.
  6. What is gender abolition? or put quite simply, why be boy? In a nutshell gender abolitionism or postgenderism argues that gender creates unnecessary harm by enforcing arbitrary limitations on the human experience. Imagine a world where there are no men or woman, just people. In this world people would dress however they wanted without being pidgeon holed into a restrictive social category. Basically there would be no expectations based purely on an individuals appearance or genitals. Changing ones expression or body would be unimportant since there are no more expectations attached to painting nails, or wearing tuxedos. What do we call blue eyed people? People, not bleebs, nor do we use special ble/bler pronouns. The genetic trait of blue eyes is irrelevant. This is what we do with gender. We attach an arbitrary set of social rules for people based off of their sex. Society conflates sex and gender, those who do not conform are treated with contempt. In this world there would be no harassment because no one would care anymore about the implications of dressing or acting a certain way. But what about trans people? Trans people would still exist. In a post-gender society, some people would feel dysphoria and need to make changes to their body to feel comfortable and happy. Also there is some evidence that being trans can be a matter of biology for some folks. A transgender person is someone who does not identify with the gender they were assigned at birth. Consider the implications of a posgender society to a trans person. If you were never assigned a social gender and forced to abide by its rules, there is nothing to transition away from, socially speaking. Well that is what gender abolitionism is. Are you a gender abolitionist? Is postgenderism the future?
  7. Im just curious. Do you believe it is possible for an aro person to be inherently aromantic or that all aromantics are influenced by socio cultural contexts and thus become aro? Im just curious about why you believe that attraction definition labels are less than labels built around social construction. Is it because it will hypothetically benefit more people and challenge the social construction of romance? Also I don't know how the term aro becoming less defined helps anyone. Allos have their terms, celibate, being single, those are lifestyles. Aro is not a choice it is a reality. Aros are hidden by the veil of amatonormativity or what I call the love monopoly. The specific definition of aro revolving around attraction gives us a light to shine through the isolating void imposed on us from the love monopoly. I tell you now remaking the aro definition would certainly not benefit aromantics for this reason. And allos don't need it. So why do it for everyone?
  8. I think zee-romantic or zero-romantic are both great terms, the beauty is in their simplicity. In the proper context of a conversation these terms provide clarity without invalidating aromantics on the aro specturm. I love it and didn't realize I needed it until now. It would be interesting to note how allos react to this sublabel.
  9. saw that you like skeletons! do you own any bones?

    1. Show previous comments  2 more
    2. Ikarus


      Well not any real bones. I have skeleton models and a Skeletor action figure. I want to get a skull head for my computer desk. Then I can monologue Shakespeare to myself lol.  Monks use to have real skulls on their desks, no joke. Pretty wild tbh.  

    3. Ikarus


      @organs and boneDo you own any bones yourself? 

    4. organs and bone

      organs and bone

      v. cool!

      yeah, I have 12 now, I think! and several animal anatomy 4d models. 

  10. When I first discovered the term Aromantic I felt a massive sense of relief that my experiences could be encapsulated and subsequently validated by one word. Next I found several aro sub reddits and to my surprise there where a lot more aromantic people then I expected. It was a breath of fresh air to be free from the isolating world of amatonormativity. It was a little unnerving but ultimately delightful how much I related to all the memes I found there. Having the word aro gives me confidence and a sense of community knowing I will never be alone with my lack of attraction towards this ridiculous romance thing everyone seems to be into.
  11. Ultimately it depends on you, if you feel asexual and want to use that label then by all means do it. Also remember that asexuality is on a spectrum. There is no asexuality rule book everyone must follow to be asexual. You can be gray ace, demi ace, lithosexual and more. Based on what you said I think your closer to the experiences of no sexual attraction or interest category.
  12. Allos can be infatuated to anyone spontaneously, maybe not love at first sight but the feeling can suddenly come up. It can also suddenly go away as well. If infatuation is so fleeting, and if the feeling obscures who the person really is, then why do allos make so many movies and song about infatuation? It seems to get in the way of knowing who the person truly is stopping someone from achieving true love ( by that I mean love based on knowing and accepting who the person really is and loving each other from a foundation of truth.) Why does someone else have to reciprocate this temporary feeling that only impedes the most important step of a relationship. Infatuation seems incredibly unproductive to my aro mind. Well it brings people together...sometimes, but if the other doesn't feel equally infatuated in this strange love lottery charade then its taken as a loss. This sudden spark of attraction called infatuation seems to bring more problems than solutions. I mean sometimes I think there is a fat flying diaper man messing with us all.
  13. Most likely no because allo people generally expect a mutual feeling of both falling in love and going through the infatuation stage of a crush. If you are not infatuated with them then you aren't in love. Not in love then you just like them but you don't love them and then yada yada yada your basically hard crunchy unbuttered toast to them. Is this always true? I am thinking it is generally what to expect. For an example lets say I want a monogamous relationship involving regular sex, sharing our lives together, living together, mutual finances etc. No kids though. A lot of traditional romantic expectations have been met except one big one. You love them but you don't fall in love with them. I never go through the infatuation stage. This is actually what I want by the way not hypothetical. Being in love is very different than loving. Its usually described as a spontaneous emotion you have no real control over. It is a strong feeling spawning immediately from the aether. It can dissipate as quickly as it can generate. Romantic partners feel much more possessive over being someones everything. A romantic partner is your lover, therapist, sexual partner, best friend, household manager, and you are expected to enjoy every activity the most with them. (Possessiveness doesn't necessarily always happen but its more likely to happen with romance). In romance everything seems to be about how they make you feel. For example the whole I love them I love them not. When Allos talk to friends about their romantic feels its usually all about how others make them feel. On the other hand love focuses more on how the other person feels about you, do they feel appreciated, valued, or understood. Instead of all the infatuation guiding me I choose to love them after knowing them gradually, and I see them as a partner not someone I am possessive for. I do not expect to be the others everything in life and I care more about how they feel vs how they make me feel romantically. That is actually where I am at right now. I want a monogamous relationship without romantic ownership expectations, and without infatuation being expected from the two of us. On a side note why is infatuation such a big deal in romantic relationships? Is it possible to love an allo in a qpr without allos insisting on you falling in love with them?
  14. I think this video perfectly sums up the amatonormative cultural attitudes around men / woman friendship. The institution of marriage, heteronormativity, amatonormativity definitely influence peoples view of men and woman friendships. If all of the influences lifted above lost their influence, would allo people still see men and woman as potential dates? I would like to hear your thoughts on some of the answers in this interview video. I think its interesting to hear allos answer to this question. Obviously the answer to this question at the end is incredibly amatonormative. "As we can see after interviewing everyone in the library, it is impossible for men and women to be just friends and under no circusmstances can it happen." But it sounds like the guy says this somewhat jokingly by the tone of his voice when he says, we can clearly see after interviewing just a few folks in a library.
  • Create New...