Queen of Spades Posted May 15, 2017 Share Posted May 15, 2017 Sometimes my thoughts wander and I become aware of the lies our world is drowning in and I can't help but wonder who started spreading them in the first place and why people are so easy to deceive. There's this one lie which hasn't given my mind much rest lately: I've realised that media often features book/film characters who are rather execrable people (douchebags, bitches, advantage-takers, excessively self-centered ones, those with some psychopathic tendencies and so on - I think you get the idea). But, guess what. They meet someone, fall and love with them, and BOOM - they've become humane. Well, my fellows, this "conclusion" is as much of a falsehood as "1+1=10", and now I'm going to explain why. It is undeniably true that "falling in love" is human, as it is a characteristic which applies to the vast majority of the individuals. However, this does not necessarily make one humane - in other words, whether one can or cannot fall in love doesn't have anything to to with their degree of humanity. Why? Because romantic attraction, as the noun would suggest, is something which happens involuntarily, which means the individual didn't do anything for that. Loving someone, whether that "someone" is a family member, a neighbour, a colleague, friend, a life partner, or whatever else, takes effort - it means one cares about their well-being and tries to help them when in need and so on. It gives importance to that person's needs and acts accordingly. This is one of the things which make us humane. Romantic attraction is just a chemical reaction in the brain, which any alloromantic can experience because it's in their DNA. But true love is not something just anyone is capable of. Don't tell me all the shitty people on this planet are aromantics, 'cause I don't believe you. For instance, it doesn't matter if someone has ever fallen in love or not as long as they've committed all kinds of terrible felonies. A criminal is a criminal and they shouldn't get any special treatment because oh God, "they fell in love and now they changed". They didn't. It just happened because it happened, it's not like they lifted a finger for it. Or to give an even more illustrating example, there's this woman who broke up with her boyfriend because he became possessive and so on. And guess what, the man has been threatening to kill her! He clearly doesn't love her, and besides, he's also a murderer. Don't tell me he's humane just because he's in love, 'cause he's not. Murderers aren't humane. Those having been said, we can now draw the conclusion: (romantic) attraction is human, but not humane. Humane alloromantics exist. Inhumane alloromantics exist. Inhumane aromantics exist. Humane aromantics exist. Any of the four combinations is possible. As far as one's humanity is concerned, attraction or lack thereof is totally irrelevant. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamwiseLovesLife Posted May 15, 2017 Share Posted May 15, 2017 6 minutes ago, Ice Queen said: It is undeniably true that "falling in love" is human, as it is a characteristic which applies to the vast majority of the individuals. However, this does not necessarily make one humane - in other words, whether one can or cannot fall in love doesn't have anything to to with their degree of humanity. Why? Because romantic attraction, as the noun would suggest, is something which happens involuntarily, which means the individual didn't do anything for that. PREACH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ettina Posted May 15, 2017 Share Posted May 15, 2017 That trope isn't only hurtful to aromantics, but also dangerous for alloromantics. I've seen so many people who think they can change a bad person with the power of love, and it gets them hurt. It's a major contributor to abusive relationships. One thing I really like about Buffy and Spike in Buffy the Vampire Slayer is how this trope fails. Spike is still not good relationship material, despite all his growth, and by the time he actually becomes a good guy, he no longer wants to be involved with Buffy, and keeps the relationship platonic from that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apathetic Echidna Posted September 17, 2017 Share Posted September 17, 2017 @Ettina for the Buffy mention. Spike and Buffy both recognise that they are bad for one another, they are either trying to change each other or themselves but nothing works for them except platonic respect and care ~ with Spike realising the best thing at the end is to leave Buffy to know he is dead. (HA that isn't even a spoiler because he is a Vampire!) There are some hideous historical examples of people thinking they could use love and devotion to reform and/or save someone else. This myth has been perpetuated long enough and it gets people hurt and killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 On 15/05/2017 at 3:46 PM, Ice Queen said: It is undeniably true that "falling in love" is human, as it is a characteristic which applies to the vast majority of the individuals. However, this does not necessarily make one humane - in other words, whether one can or cannot fall in love doesn't have anything to to with their degree of humanity. Why? Because romantic attraction, as the noun would suggest, is something which happens involuntarily, which means the individual didn't do anything for that. The really odd thing here is that concept of romantic attraction is modern. (Around 500 years old.) With the idea of it being normative being even more recent. (200 years at most.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippiecat Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 Yaaaas, love this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.