Jump to content
Aveyond Studios Community
Sign in to follow this  
Kleptin

Love, Marriage, Comittment

Recommended Posts

Aeternus wrote:

I identify as an aromantic asexual, so really, I've never been in a relationship, have never desired to be in one, and don't see myself getting into one in the future.

 

Actually, I have a friend who used to be the same way. She's rather attractive, not quite introverted. She is attracted to guys, but only just enough to be designated heterosexual, but never acts on it and brushes it off when guys make a pass at her. It's as if though she has no interest in dating whatsoever.

 

I've never quite understood why.

 

When you say you "identify as" an aromantic asexual, what exactly do you mean? I've learned that when we label ourselves, we start forging our personalities further into a label, instead of have the label describe us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@KTC

LOL why, thank you. I'm wearing a nice perfume a friend bought me for my birthday xD

 

@Kleptin

That sounds a lot like me, actually. Even if a guy did show an interest in me, I'd feel very "meh" about it. I'm pretty indifferent to it all. I can't understand why I'm like this, either, but how can you explain a lack of something?

 

As for the "identifying" bit, you are right to an extent. I'm 22 now and found out about asexuality maybe a couple years ago, so let's say I was 20. By that age, many of my peers had dated, lost their "V cards", and even a few had children. I had not and showed very little to no interest in such things.

 

When I read about asexuality, my mind pretty much thought, "That sounds a lot like me!" and so I put that label on myself because I think it fits me best out of all the sexual orientations. As a result, it has solidified my belief that I am disinterested in forming romantic or sexual relationships with anyone else. I've found that, since then, I have even less interest in going out and finding "that special someone" because it's perfectly ok to not want to do what everyone else is doing (and what everyone expects you to do, too).

 

In any case, I believe identity is fluid. As you grow, you change, therefore your identity will change as a result. Your identity is what you believe you are at that point in time. For example, I identify myself as a nurse, but was I always a nurse? Of course I wasn't! But as it stands now, it is a big part of my identity and who I am. Maybe one day, I will figure out I'm not asexual and get together with someone. I don't know - I'm not psychic xD But right now, I identify as an asexual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aeternus wrote:

That sounds a lot like me, actually. Even if a guy did show an interest in me, I'd feel very "meh" about it. I'm pretty indifferent to it all. I can't understand why I'm like this, either, but how can you explain a lack of something?

 

I remember you posting your picture a couple years ago when I was still active. Based on that, I'd say your sexual indifference is a major disappointment to single men everywhere >.>

 

As for the "identifying" bit, you are right to an extent. I'm 22 now and found out about asexuality maybe a couple years ago, so let's say I was 20. By that age, many of my peers had dated, lost their "V cards", and even a few had children. I had not and showed very little to no interest in such things.

 

When I read about asexuality, my mind pretty much thought, "That sounds a lot like me!" and so I put that label on myself because I think it fits me best out of all the sexual orientations. As a result, it has solidified my belief that I am disinterested in forming romantic or sexual relationships with anyone else. I've found that, since then, I have even less interest in going out and finding "that special someone" because it's perfectly ok to not want to do what everyone else is doing (and what everyone expects you to do, too).

 

In any case, I believe identity is fluid. As you grow, you change, therefore your identity will change as a result. Your identity is what you believe you are at that point in time. For example, I identify myself as a nurse, but was I always a nurse? Of course I wasn't! But as it stands now, it is a big part of my identity and who I am. Maybe one day, I will figure out I'm not asexual and get together with someone. I don't know - I'm not psychic xD But right now, I identify as an asexual.

 

I wouldn't be so quick to make a conclusion. Psychology tends to be at the root of things just as often as Biology.

 

Nerds don't tend to be socially ostracized as children because they are academically oriented. Nerds tend to be academically oriented because they are socially ostracized.

 

People seek validation and self-worth. For kids who get ostracized, they psychologically tune out the negative feelings of being denied that validation and seek it elsewhere. Grades become an objective indicator, their source of validation.

 

As they progress, this defense mechanism builds upon itself and eventually, they *IDENTIFY* as people who don't care about social validation, so long as they can rely on their objectivity, their intelligence, to validate them as individuals of achievement.

 

I don't mean to be rude or assuming, but I think that your asexuality isn't biological. I think it is an outgrowth of your experiences. Perhaps you witnessed the negative effects of your peers having relationships too early on. From that, you developed this slight bias against love and sex as it pertains to your wants in life. Then, after reading about asexuality, this baseless, self-applied label began to solidify even more strongly. Then, as you get older, your mind selectively strengthens that label by focusing on the instances where you surprisingly show no arousal, and subconsciously suppress the trickles of arousal that get through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kleptin

Sounds like a nature v.s. nurture debate, LOL. Honestly, I don't know why I have this indifference to romance and sex. It's like a homosexual person trying to explain why they prefer the same sex over the opposite sex. Or why I like broccoli but not green pepper.

 

Also, I have to say that I grew up surrounded by strong intimate relationships. My paternal grandparents are 99 and 93 and are still together. My maternal grandparents stayed together until my grandfather died at the age of 90. My parents have a very strong relationship. My brother started dating his (now) wife when they were 18 (so I was 8 at the time) - they dated until their engagement and marriage, and they now have two sons together. Most of my aunts and uncles have remained in long marriages that are still going, too.

 

Also, it's pretty common for many young romances (i.e high school and perhaps earlier) to not last; so, if my asexuality was a result of seeing young romances gone wrong, why aren't many of my other peers asexual, too? They would have seen the same phenomena as me.

 

As well, there are people who come from marriages that resulted in divorce. You would think, then, that seeing their parents divorce would make them rather cynical, but not always so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a study on self-labeled asexual women done in Vancouver that tried to answer that very question. The study was very crude in its design, but very effective.

 

Essentially, women of various self-designated sexual orientations were tested for subjective and objective arousal response when shown erotic and neutral video.

 

I only have access to the abstract here at home, but I'll check it at work tomorrow. The conclusion however, is very interesting. In terms of "genital-subjective response", there was no difference between asexual, homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual. However, in terms of reported arousal and affect, self-described asexuals declared significantly decreased results.

 

In other words...a mind/body split in terms of wanting sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@kleptin: You said the study was on self-labeled asexual women so how did the scientists conclude there's no difference between asexual/homo/hetero/bi? Oo?

 

could ya put up the link to it also? i'd be very interested in reading that after tomorrow's midterm lol.

 

edit: sociology (man, all that class is about how the whites screwed up the world.) is ruining my reading abilities. missed the part that women of diff sexualities were tested. *facepalm*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KTC wrote:

@kleptin: You said the study was on self-labeled asexual women so how did the scientists conclude there's no difference between asexual/homo/hetero/bi? Oo?

 

The population was a mix of all sexual orientations. The group they actually meant to study was the asexual group. The control group was made up of self-designated heterosexuals, bisexuals, and homosexuals.

 

could ya put up the link to it also? i'd be very interested in reading that after tomorrow's midterm lol.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20857185

 

It's not a strong study, as you can see from the sample size. However, it does warrant further investigation.

 

Why is it that self-labeled "asexual" women respond biologically to erotic stimuli just as strongly if not even stronger than non-asexual women, when they psychologically report otherwise?

 

My guess is that asexuality is not the same as other sexual orientations. There is a biological component to those. For asexuality, I think it's psychological, and this study leans toward the same conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh. I still think that Klep and KTC would be a perfect couple. :D Being from different states is not much of a problems nowadays. ;) (And I've just realized this is referring to a recent post in the topic about "sexual identities"... having more opened tabs. But the topics fits here as well XD)

 

Aeternus - That's very interesting what you wrote. There was a period of time when I used to think I was asexual. But my disinterest was rather caused by my fear of/lack of trust in relationships. And thinking that there isn't anybody who would be compatible with such a complicated personality. But then love still found me. I don't know, maybe by this labelling you're closing yourself to a possibility that eventually might come... But the main thing is you're content with your life as it is; I would never doubt that there are some people who are happy living without a spouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hoooooohkay.. so what's up? :)

been a while since i last logged in here and i'm happy i did :)

 

but just a random thought/question..

 

i know we have different cultures/religions/beliefs/philosophies etc etc, but i wanted to ask and hear from y'all...

 

i believe that a person can love another person even if they haven't met/interacted before. for example, a baby, though unborn is loved by its mom.

 

but is it really possible when a person meet this certain person and just *poof. love? just like that (snaps a finger) and then fall in love?

 

hoho.

 

THOUGHTS? :)

thanks for sharing! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you asking if love at first sight possible? Honestly, no. All you get at first sight is attraction, which can lead to love. But you're not really going to love that person. Love takes time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there are three bonds between people - physical, intellectual and emotional.

 

You might see someone and bond with them physically - this is attraction, more exactly lust - but this is not love. You might find someone cute and adorable on first sight, this is emotional attraction. Well, it's all simplified. But these are mistaken examples, which are in fact simple attracton.

 

When connection was successfully established on all three fields, I guess it can turn into love.

 

 

Take it from a girl who's falling in love, but who wouldn't say she's fallen in love on first glance. ^^ This kinda stuff takes time.

 

I'm talking about romantical / storgic love.

 

Motherly love is..different. Certainly because the intellectual and physical bonds are temporarily overruled, because it's your offspring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me I don't believe it. Mother-child love and romantic love are totally different. Mothers have a physical and emotional bond to their children, since they're one flesh and blood, especially because the mother carries the baby in them for a long period of time. Of course, there's always the exception of mothers who don't like their babvies and want them aborted etc etc etc.

 

Love takes time to nurture and grow. "Love at first sight" is usually just physical attraction. Like Mopiece said, that initial attraction CAN be what kick-started the love to bloom, but never instant love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"mothers who abort because they don't feel for their babies" is just wrong and paints them all in a bad color. Plenty of females abort because their baby is genetically defective and/or cannot raise them in any way. Having feelings for a child in no way means you can actually support them for the next 20+ years.

 

In addition, this mentality does not count for the females who abuse their babies, abandon them, etc.

 

Also, I would be careful of any "my own flesh and blood = i be loving to it" arguments because research shows that adoptive parents can be just as, if not more sometimes, affectionate and loving than the biological parent. By saying these types of arguments, it immediately implies that adoptive parents are inferior and this is wrong as research shows.

 

So just because a female carried a fetus to full term does not automatically mean they will be loving to it also.

 

as for love at first sight: it's more likely lust at first sight than love. Lust is easy and fleeting: you see something attractive to you. Love, if the media is correct, is more permanent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed with Mopiece and agas, with no love at first sight. You might find it attractive and become attached/curious about the person, but I'd say it isn't love.

 

And I ever crossed something says that it'd called love if it lasted at least to 6 months[or was it 3?] since you found it, otherwise it'd be crush or akin to that. Dunno if it's true or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if there is a set minimum amount of time that needs to pass before it can be love, but I do agree that it is not instant nor immediate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think there's a time limit, but certainly not on first date.

 

Well. I don't even believe I could fall in love with anything else than a friend anyways.

 

What's the point in dates?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If my understanding of them is correct, dates are suppose to be "get to know the other person" things so you know whether you like them more than physically or is it just a lust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@aveyond06: in a sense, they are.

 

On dates, generally both parties are on their best/not real behaviors so you're not getting a sense of how the person really is. You are seeing their 'best behavior' facade, not their true personalities.

 

It's probably why many relationships crumble after a short period of time because it's only a matter of time before people resorting to baseline personality which might not be compatible with the other person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@KTC:

"mothers who abort because they don't feel for their babies" is just wrong and paints them all in a bad color. Plenty of females abort because their baby is genetically defective and/or cannot raise them in any way. Having feelings for a child in no way means you can actually support them for the next 20+ years.

 

In addition, this mentality does not count for the females who abuse their babies, abandon them, etc.

 

Also, I would be careful of any "my own flesh and blood = i be loving to it" arguments because research shows that adoptive parents can be just as, if not more sometimes, affectionate and loving than the biological parent. By saying these types of arguments, it immediately implies that adoptive parents are inferior and this is wrong as research shows.

 

So just because a female carried a fetus to full term does not automatically mean they will be loving to it also.

 

Eh, assuming you were talking about my post.... I think you're going off on an entirely different subject there.

 

I didn't say "the mothers abort babies because they don't feel for it". I said "mothers who don't love the babies want them aborted".

 

Of course being related flesh and blood does not immediately equal to loving relationship, but I was replying to the "mothers instantly loving their babies" thing mariedan said. Unloving birth parents and loving adoptive parents are entirely different subjects.

--------------------------------------------------

Long-winded reply aside, I do want to know how to recognize love myself. Lust and infatuation come and go, and I do want to know what "real love" is like, since it sounds... well, super-awesome and all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also most probably why marriage relationships fall apart- because neither parties are able to hide their 'true colors' anymore; the partner who doesn't know of this usually ain't pleased once they find out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KTC wrote:

@aveyond06: in a sense, they are.

 

On dates, generally both parties are on their best/not real behaviors so you're not getting a sense of how the person really is. You are seeing their 'best behavior' facade, not their true personalities.

 

It's probably why many relationships crumble after a short period of time because it's only a matter of time before people resorting to baseline personality which might not be compatible with the other person.

 

This, I suppose, is one of the main reason why marriage fall apart after a while. Both parties are no longer able to hide their 'true colors'. Their respective partners, who doesn't know about this, is not pleased.

 

@d_a: I think love is overrated. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@agas: i wasn't pointing at your post specifically but there was a general sense among the posts before mine that biological mother = loving parent generally.

 

Which obviously isn't true and I felt that adoptive parents were getting the short end of the stick in this regard.

 

As for females who abort: alright, i misinterpreted your post.

 

as for romantic love: I too would be interested to see what the whole hubbub about it is since my idea of love is very abstract. I don't understand it and don't know how it feels. I feel appreciation to friends, a forced....servitude? feelings to the parents [meaning they only support me if I follow their decisions. As soon as I step a toe out of line, they'll disown me.], and strong sisterly affection to my sister. Does any of that count as love?

 

But I wouldn't search for love. I'm content with my current set of feelings so I see no reason to tip the status quo for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...