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.
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.
How?
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.
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!
(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)
These two things make my point. You say
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.
No, those can certainly be connected. There's plenty of people who wish for nothing more but someone to love, relate to, etc.
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.
That's fair. She asked and you answered honestly.
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 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'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.
I know, the same still applies.
That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that one objectively has a bigger negative effect than the other.
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.
Lol the blind person may say love is more important but they're wrong and I know better.
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."
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.
I don't know what they consider important. It's a disability. Blind people need certain accomodations that other people don't need.
Again, totally different things. You're essentially comparing a disability to a personality trait. The blind person gets a disability certificate for a reason.
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.
I think permissiveness is better word.
I think permissiveness is better word.
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 our desire, vice, tragedies are parts of us, freedom meaning the absence of higher authority than ourselves.
I think it is interesting way to disposal the excess, doesn't fit into the conventional methods erotism, religion, violence, art and literature.
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."
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"
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
