Constraints of Freedom

[EmptyHeaded]

And you know what, fuck it, I'll say that even if someone is asexual and aromantic but perfectly content I still feel a little bad that they can't experience it because sex and love feel awesome.

This is exactly what makes so many of them feel terrible. It assumes that something is missing in their lives, that they are missing something.

I don't like soccer. I think it's boring and stupid. I wish I didn't think that. I feel a little bad for myself about it, because I've known a lot of people who really like it and I just can't get myself into it. I would prefer to enjoy it.

That's because the people around you like it. You certainly wouldn't say this about something like Korfball.

 

[derpyderpins]

I don't think you can compare being in constant pain with something like not knowing love. I specifically mentioned the inability to experience love.

That's fine, and I granted you that if someone is perfectly content with themselves and doesn't experience love that is different than what I am talking about. I am talking about people who are in psychic pain, wanting to kill themselves, and are also not experiencing human connection. I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say the two things may be connected.

It's very different to the inability to see or hear or walk.

How?

• Basic part of the typical human experience
• opens up many possibilities
• there are cases where people don't have these abilities but live fulfilling lives anyway.

Where's the difference?

It certainly is patronising to pity someone who can't experience love; it makes quite a few people feel like something is wrong with them or that they're "broken" in some way.

I'm broken in many ways. I would say everyone here is not functioning optimally in one way or another. That shouldn't be a news flash. And it's okay. Telling someone something in their life could be better is not automatically patronizing.

To my understanding, sserafim is simply not interested in it. That's to be respected and no amount of "I'm sad you never felt love" is going to change it. You don't need to experience something to know that it's not for you.

Man, she asked me about it after I brought up love in response to someone else. I'm not going to sugar-coat things and lie to people so they think everything is fine. And there are plenty of instances where people think something is not for them but then they try it and realize it is. I can think of 10 just from my life where my stubborn ass was sure I wouldn't like something and then I did. Oftentimes it was anxiety from trauma that was holding me back!

Most people benefit from human connection. The ability to connect can be messed up by trauma. She has experienced trauma specifically in a foundational relationship. If she wants to assume that she is just one of the very very very few people who naturally doesn't benefit from human connection that's her business, but if she asks me about love and how it can be a benefit and tells me she doesn't understand I'm going to tell her what I honestly think, which is that her trauma has warped her view but human connection could make her see life very differently. I don't see any point to running in and trying specifically to stop the consideration of something that could make a positive difference.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

Some people like me are aromantic and asexual. Love and sex are not requirements of life

(I'm just going off of my knowledge from the time I've spent in aroace dominated spaces online. I am not aroace, so take this with a grain of salt)

Technically, aromantic and asexual individuals usually do still crave love and sometimes even sex, it's just that they cannot feel sexual or romantic attraction. Hence why queer platonic relationships are commonly talked about in many aro-spaces online and why many asexuals talk about liking smut or even downright enjoying sex.

Asexuals use the terms like sex repulsed, sex neutral, and sex positive to describe their feelings on sex, though these terms can also apply to many allosexuals. Some aces are sex-positive and some even describe having a high libido. You can't really define your stances on love and sex by using just sexual and romantic orientations. There are many alloromantic allosexual people who don't view love or sex as being things they require in life and vice versa. Being aroace just means not feeling sexual or romantic attraction, it doesn't mean not craving sex or love or that they don't view it as requirements for them.

 

[derpyderpins]

This is exactly what makes so many of them feel terrible. It assumes that something is missing in their lives, that they are missing something.

That's because the people around you like it. You certainly wouldn't say this about something like Korfball.

These two things make my point. You say
(1) they feel terrible because they assume something is missing because other people enjoy it, then
(2) You're just saying that because the people around you enjoy it!!

Do you not see the contradiction?

 

[SexyIncél]

Reminds me of how an anthropologist & an archaelogist mentioned "the freedom to move, the freedom to disobey and the freedom to create or transform social relationships":

The freedom to abandon one's community, knowing one will be welcomed in faraway lands; the freedom to shift back and forth between social structures, depending on the time of year; the freedom to disobey authorities without consequence – all appear to have been simply assumed among our distant ancestors, even if most people find them barely conceivable today.

— Graeber, Wengrow, "The Dawn of Everything"

These freedoms often need to be implemented. For example, cultures of hospitality (like famously in the Middle East) support the freedom to move. So you gotta be welcoming to foreign travellers, so you too can expect to be welcomed when you travel

We try recover some of these freedoms in online communities, I imagine

Just a brief thought, hope it applies; am procrastinating but gotta do stuff

 

[EmptyHeaded]

I'm broken in many ways. I would say everyone here is not functioning optimally in one way or another. That shouldn't be a news flash. And it's okay. Telling someone something in their life could be better is not automatically patronizing.

The issue is "Telling someone something in their life could be better" to someone who can't change in that aspect is not very nice. If someone is aromantic and you tell them that it "could be better", that's quite rude.

That's fine, and I granted you that if someone is perfectly content with themselves and doesn't experience love that is different than what I am talking about. I am talking about people who are in psychic pain, wanting to kill themselves, and are also not experiencing human connection. I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say the two things may be connected.

No, those can certainly be connected. There's plenty of people who wish for nothing more but someone to love, relate to, etc.

How?

• Basic part of the typical human experience
• opens up many possibilities
• there are cases where people don't have these abilities but live fulfilling lives anyway.

Where's the difference?

It's different because it doesn't affect you nearly as much, if at all. A blind person is much more affected by their lack of sight than an aromantic by their lack of love. Someone who can't walk needs a wheelchair, wheelchair accessible buildings, etc. Someone who can't love doesn't need any accommodations, any help, and is generally not affected by it. It's not a disability.

Man, she asked me about it after I brought up love in response to someone else. I'm not going to sugar-coat things and lie to people so they think everything is fine. And there are plenty of instances where people think something is not for them but then they try it and realize it is. I can think of 10 just from my life where my stubborn ass was sure I wouldn't like something and then I did. Oftentimes it was anxiety from trauma that was holding me back!

Most people benefit from human connection. The ability to connect can be messed up by trauma. She has experienced trauma specifically in a foundational relationship. If she wants to assume that she is just one of the very very very few people who naturally doesn't benefit from human connection that's her business, but if she asks me about love and how it can be a benefit and tells me she doesn't understand I'm going to tell her what I honestly think, which is that her trauma has warped her view but human connection could make her see life very differently. I don't see any point to running in and trying specifically to stop the consideration of something that could make a positive difference.

That's fair. She asked and you answered honestly.

These two things make my point. You say
(1) they feel terrible because they assume something is missing because other people enjoy it, then
(2) You're just saying that because the people around you enjoy it!!

Do you not see the contradiction?

Are you trying to compare a sport with something like love? I can assure you that you're in the minority here. Most people that don't like a sport simply don't care about it. No "I wish I liked it". The same goes for something like not experiencing love. You're in the minority that feels bad about it because other people enjoy it. This minority also exists among aromantics, but as I said: most of those that feel bad about it do so because people feel "bad for them". I'll go out on a limb here and say that nobody pities you for not liking football. I don't know if this makes sense. You just can't really compare your feelings about football to an aromantic's feelings about love.

 

[derpyderpins]

The issue is "Telling someone something in their life could be better" to someone who can't change in that aspect is not very nice. If someone is aromantic and you tell them that it "could be better", that's quite rude.

I specified, from the beginning, to both of you separately that I was not exclusively referring to romance. I meant love and connection in all forms. Still, my guess that she's not actually aromantic seems safer than your guarantee that she is 100% asexual because she thinks she might be.

It's different because it doesn't affect you nearly as much, if at all. A blind person is much more affected by their lack of sight than an aromantic by their lack of love. Someone who can't walk needs a wheelchair, wheelchair accessible buildings, etc. Someone who can't love doesn't need any accommodations, any help, and is generally not affected by it. It's not a disability.

I'm not physically disabled so I won't speak for them, but I think it's possible a blind person would tell you love is worth more to them than the ability to see.

Are you trying to compare a sport with something like love? I can assure you that you're in the minority here. Most people that don't like a sport simply don't care about it. No "I wish I liked it". The same goes for something like not experiencing love. You're in the minority that feels bad about it because other people enjoy it. This minority also exists among aromantics, but as I said: most of those that feel bad about it do so because people feel "bad for them". I'll go out on a limb here and say that nobody pities you for not liking football. I don't know if this makes sense. You just can't really compare your feelings about football to an aromantic's feelings about love.

I didn't say it's keeping me up at night and I'm looking at them with sad puppy dog eyes. I'm saying, "oh you don't enjoy this thing I like? That's too bad because I really like it." And I don't think that's patronizing regardless of what it is. You made the whole "you only feel bad because other people enjoy it" that completely contradicted your other point. You're still having to walk a fine line because you want to say love is no more important than anything else and people don't need it at all but to call me patronizing you need love to be more important than a temporary dopamine rush.

 

[EmptyHeaded]

I specified, from the beginning, to both of you separately that I was not exclusively referring to romance. I meant love and connection in all forms. Still, my guess that she's not actually aromantic seems safer than your guarantee that she is 100% asexual because she thinks she might be.

I know, the same still applies.

I'm not physically disabled so I won't speak for them, but I think it's possible a blind person would tell you love is worth more to them than the ability to see.

That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that one objectively has a bigger negative effect than the other.

I didn't say it's keeping me up at night and I'm looking at them with sad puppy dog eyes. I'm saying, "oh you don't enjoy this thing I like? That's too bad because I really like it." And I don't think that's patronizing regardless of what it is. You made the whole "you only get feel bad because other people enjoy it" that completely contradicted your other point. You're still having to walk a fine line because you want to say love is no more important than anything else and people don't need it at all but to call me patronizing you need love to be more important than a temporary dopamine rush.

That's the problem: you didn't just say "I like it and they don't", you said "I like it and feel bad because they don't". That's very different.
Again, I don't see the contradiction. I never said that they can't feel bad because others enjoy it; I said most (who feel bad) feel bad because of the pity they receive.
I don't know where you got the last part from. I never claimed that love isn't important; I claimed it's not important to those who don't experience it. I even agreed with you that there are people experiencing psychological pain because they feel unloved or feel like they don't have any meaningful human connections. Furthermore, I didn't directly call you patronising. Some of the statements you made could be considered patronising.

 

[thenamingofcats]

For me freedom is about freedom from:

- force or coercion
- authoritarianism
- unfair working conditions (including unlivable wages)
- abuse and cruelty

Freedom to me is also a life that includes:

- the ability to work in a way that's dignified or at least community oriented and cannot include any of the above
- reasonable living conditions
- the opportunity to be part of a community
- the right to dissent without punishment

 

[derpyderpins]

That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that one objectively has a bigger negative effect than the other.

Lol the blind person may say love is more important but they're wrong and I know better.

I never claimed that love isn't important; I claimed it's not important

Yes it's an unfair edit. But come on. "I didn't say sight isn't important. I said it's not important for blind people."

I didn't directly call you patronising. Some of the statements you made could be considered patronising.

Sorry if I misinterpreted. I thought when you said "It certainly is patronising to pity someone who can't experience love" you meant that I was being patronizing for feeling bad for people who can't experience love.

 

[EmptyHeaded]

Lol the blind person may say love is more important but they're wrong and I know better.

I don't know what they consider important. It's a disability. Blind people need certain accomodations that other people don't need.

Yes it's an unfair edit. But come on. "I didn't say sight isn't important. I said it's not important for blind people."

Again, totally different things. You're essentially comparing a disability to a personality trait. The blind person gets a disability certificate for a reason.
All I'm saying is that people who can't experience love don't miss it and usually aren't bothered by it either. They're not disabled or anything like that, so they don't need anyone to feel bad for them. To use your football example: you wouldn't feel bad for someone just because they don't like football. That obviously excludes those that are negatively affected by it.

Sorry if I misinterpreted. I thought when you said "It certainly is patronising to pity someone who can't experience love" you meant that I was being patronizing for feeling bad for people who can't experience love.

It wasn't directed at you, but rather a general statement about your example of pitying them the same way you'd pity someone who is in physical pain.

 

[xinino]

Freedom is emancipation from all constraints including morals, languistic barriers, rationality.

And most importantly, it is not privilege seeking from higher authority.

Freedom is about your right to act without someone else actively hindering you. That is not a textbook definition, but I think it's important to keep in mind.

Freedom of speech/press/religion = I can say/write/practice what I want so long as I'm not actively harming others, and someone else isn't controlling what I say/write/believe through threat/force.

So, freedom from bills: you have that, as long as you don't use services that you'll get billed for. (I would argue property tax violates this freedom but that's another argument.)

Freedom from a job: unless you're a (literal, not figurative) slave, you have this. You don't have to have a job.

imo you can't have a "right" to someone else's labor. . . because that is slavery. If you have a right to shelter, you're saying someone else must build and maintain a shelter for you. If you say you have a right to food, you're saying someone else must provide that food. If you argue you aren't "free" unless you can not have bills or a job but also you must have food and shelter provided to you, you're just saying you want to be the slavemaster. Also, that means no one has ever been free ever.

I think permissiveness is better word.

Freedom is about your right to act without someone else actively hindering you. That is not a textbook definition, but I think it's important to keep in mind.

Freedom of speech/press/religion = I can say/write/practice what I want so long as I'm not actively harming others, and someone else isn't controlling what I say/write/believe through threat/force.

So, freedom from bills: you have that, as long as you don't use services that you'll get billed for. (I would argue property tax violates this freedom but that's another argument.)

Freedom from a job: unless you're a (literal, not figurative) slave, you have this. You don't have to have a job.

imo you can't have a "right" to someone else's labor. . . because that is slavery. If you have a right to shelter, you're saying someone else must build and maintain a shelter for you. If you say you have a right to food, you're saying someone else must provide that food. If you argue you aren't "free" unless you can not have bills or a job but also you must have food and shelter provided to you, you're just saying you want to be the slavemaster. Also, that means no one has ever been free ever.

I think permissiveness is better word.

You've never felt it. And I hate that for you, seriously; I know that sounds weird or insincere because you struggle to connect with people, but even though I've never met you I feel for you. Your parents may "love" you, but they also abused you, which completely fucked up what should have been your example of what love is.

I value love . . . because it makes me feel like I'm whole, and when I feel like I'm whole I realize that before I was whole I was incomplete. Caring for someone else and knowing they care for me gives my world structure and purpose. It's like the world is this vast, empty, pointless matrix of nothing, but putting in people I care about gives me some waypoints, and I start understanding how the map is laid out. I'm not just talking about romance, either.

you at least find some of them interesting, though, right? Else you wouldn't post here nearly so much. They offer you more than nothing at all.

Some people have innate self-objectification, which we should respect and appreciate. Also, finding other people interesting doesn't necessarily reflect a love tendency, we can deem it a use for self-gratification.

I think thats another angle. We are all slaves so something, even ourselves, our desires, our vices, our tragedies. Freedom from societal conformity and cultural expectations?

I think our desire, vice, tragedies are parts of us, freedom meaning the absence of higher authority than ourselves.

In fact "To choose evil is to choose freedom, emancipation from all restraint."

Georges Bataille

 

[xinino]

Some people like me are aromantic and asexual. Love and sex are not requirements of life

I think it is interesting way to disposal the excess, doesn't fit into the conventional methods erotism, religion, violence, art and literature.

Lol the blind person may say love is more important but they're wrong and I know better.

It is controversial tho, love can be better to him precisely because it sustains others and his survival "high in functionality", and can also be a way to transcend the ordinary and rational aspects of life 'acting irrationality" and losing himself, espeacially if love was high on intensity. " Not saying irrationally is bad, irrationally is future rationality."

Your example emphasize fine line between self functionality and irrationality, which is the definition of sacred.

 

[xinino]

All I'm saying is that people who can't experience love don't miss it and usually aren't bothered by it either.

I think love still unconsciously exists in oneself to prevent suffering and pain, permeate this love to others "in my opinion and in this context, can prevent more suffering and provide more happiness and meaning than mere self-indulging"

 

[Forever Sleep]

That's a really interesting idea. I think you're right too. I remember decades ago feeling really unhappy. I told myself I could do anything, spend any amount of money (within reason) to try to make myself happy.

You've got to be willing to take that freedom though. I think I have too many mental blocks to be all that free. I was raised with a strong work ethic, so a NEET lifestyle isn't very workable for me. I have old fashioned ideas with regards to relationships, so promiscuousity is off the cards. (Even if it were physically attainable! Lol.)

I think many of us are hardwired to feel guilt when we don't comply to certain standards. So, maybe we don't enjoy the freedom we have because we always feel guilty about not living up to something. I guess that's why I find the idea of suicide comforting in a way. It feels like freedom from all of that.

I always liked the lyric from the song: 'Dumb it Down' by The Divine Comedy:

''Cause freedom's wasted on the free
You just don't see the beauty all around'

 

[carac]

Op have you heard of the social contract theory?

 

[DarkRange55]

Op have you heard of the social contract theory?

Yes, I have, friend! Interesting point! Whats your take away?

 

[carac]

Yes, I have, friend! Interesting point! Whats your take away?

I think just that in any society you can't really have true freedom because you are bound by the rules and constraints of the societies conditions. It's the price you pay for benifiting from what society has to offer, but you could argue some benefit more than others.

 

[sserafim]

I think just that in any society you can't really have true freedom because you are bound by the rules and constraints of the societies conditions. It's the price you pay for benifiting from what society has to offer, but you could argue some benefit more than others.

None of of us even chose to be born or to live in society anyways. We were and are all forced to participate in it

 

[DarkRange55]

I think just that in any society you can't really have true freedom because you are bound by the rules and constraints of the societies conditions. It's the price you pay for benifiting from what society has to offer, but you could argue some benefit more than others.

Excellent point! Freedom can have its tradeoffs