...

[Lord Jade Cross]

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lord Jade Cross]

.

[swirl_of_blue]

I don't know what other people think, but I'm envious as hell of someone who doesn't need others. I would probably give ANYTHING to be like that. So I wouldn't be surprised if people were negative just to conceal how envious they actually are...

[SorryNotSorry]

I think it has to do with a notion that some of us get what can only be interpreted as sadistic glee from withholding kindness. While this is certainly true in a small number of cases, for the rest of us it's because we're genuinely not interested, or we're preoccupied with other things.

[Amathy]

Media brainwashing motivated by the desire for societal control?

[AIRbooks]

I think the main reason for this is the media. It has a lot to do with amatonormativity, I guess. The idea that everyone should want a relationship like that and hold it above all others. This is ingrained in us from childhood: movies, books, TV shows, our parents, etc. There's no escaping it. The problem is that people are ignorant and seem to think that everyone has to feel that way. All you can really do is ignore it. Or educate them.

[Galactic Turtle]

1 hour ago, Jade Cross said:

"But you need someone in your life/everyone needs somebody/you're going to be miserable all your life if you dont find someone/etc."

I get this all the time and struggle more and more to understand it. When I was younger I assumed it was because of my age and that later on (perhaps somewhere in my teens) I'd just start forming crushes on people and wanting to spend time with them and wanting to hold their hands. And while I have seen romantic partnerships last a lifetime and amongst my friends watched them endure for... long enough to be considered a relative success, the way they talk about them oftentimes baffles me. Some relationships seem like a constant dumping of emotional baggage in exchange for sympathy instead of advice, others seem to last simply because both involved don't have enough confidence that anyone else will like them and being single is a worse fate than being with someone they argue with constantly. Some have numerous physical benefits and the feeling of being constantly doted on and desired. 

 

These are all feelings I don't understand. If I reach a problem, I may consult with a family member or friend or even AVEN while additionally going over my options in my head with my own logic. I have never voiced an issue purely to receive sympathy back. I don't understand the feeling of something "missing" if I have no romantic interest in anyone. I don't get jealous when my friends date and at one point or another they've all expressed surprise saying that I'm the only one they feel comfortable talking about their significant others with because I don't show any signs of jealousy or envy and put them down for it. To be desired physically whether that be sexually or sensually seems the most unnatural of all so to crave that feeling is something hard to understand on a personal level. 

 

It's because my emotional and physical needs seem considerably sparse compared to the average person that perhaps this is why I haven't connected with anyone and the one time I even considered letting someone have a chance it was because we worked together and I saw this person was thorough and earnest in their work ethic. But my range of needs are easily covered and sometimes overly covered by the platonic relationships I hold with others so it doesn't feel like there's anything missing. If anything at times it feels like I receive too much and "too much" can come in the form of being pressured to enter into a romantic relationship. 

 

I sometimes think about it how no matter how old I get my family still insists I go to church. They say I might not think so now but in the future things will be hard and I'll only have God to turn to and going to church and bible study will give me the tools to take such a step. That was what I was always told until I started reaching the age of 17 or 18 when they started asking about boys more instead and how I'd need to open myself up to receive love and feel like a woman. Now those two sentiments have intertwined. I take modesty seriously as to try to prevent myself from tempting other people. I don't have a libido and as such have never pleasured myself. Even if I don't understand the things my friends feel I go out of my way to help them through whatever it is they're going through. I'm just afraid that the "hard part of my life" that my parents always warned me about might come in the form of having to accept someone as a partner and doing things that I don't want to do in order to make a family and make my life meaningful in the eyes of others.

[Lord Jade Cross]

.

 

 

[BinaryFission]

I guess you can say that having no emotional dependence on someone or not really showing it makes a person look arrogant and too "proud" of themselves (not saying you are, just an opinion to your topic). Along with that, society pretty much conditioned us that we must find a romantic partner one day (especially girls, my grandma is like, "you need to find a husband"). But I think we are slowly drifting from those ideals. I think that really showing no emotional dependence on someone or anyone shows that you don't care about anyone to do so in the first place. So I guess that's why your parents are so against your way of living; because they grew up in a world that you are supposed to eventually have a romantic partner which explains why they are also so against emotional independence. 

 

I hope this helps you in some way!

[Podsnap]

If it were socially acceptable to not partner, lots of people would rather have a house all to themselves and not have to share the Cheerios or the frozen blueberry waffles or the remote control and just have all of their time and all of their money all to themselves.

[RoseGoesToYale]

I've wondered about this myself. Perhaps deep-rooted ancestral beliefs about the "clan" or "family unit"? Back when basic everyday tasks were time-consuming or required special knowledge, it made sense to have multiple people in a unit and divvy up the work. To protect from invasion, there were warriors or guards. One or two people might forage and cook food for everyone in the unit, which might take all day. Someone else might tend house or raise livestock, and marriage was a way to get some more economic stability and prestige.

 

But that way doesn't fit the modern world. Today, a single person can: forage (in the supermarket) and cook for themself, keep a small house with things like vacuums, washers, dryers, iWhatevers, do their own taxes and budgets, and protect the house with an alarm system and locks, all without assistance from another member of the "unit". With the rise of the internet, people have more and more access to information that can make them self-sufficient.

 

It may come down to tradition, since partnering and marriage have been a staple of humanity for so long. I think some are afraid that being single will corrupt the fabric of human sociality, which there's no basis for. There will always be people out there who want a traditional family unit, anyway.

[arowace]

I've also heard of a lot a people who really depend on a romantic relationship to feel happy... I don't know if that's the norm but maybe they can't imagine a person that can live without something they so desperately need? But I think that's just their problem. Just go out their and show them how wrong they are! 

[ColeC]

People's views about the world and how others are supposed to act and feel are clouded by their own long held beleifs. So if someone doesn't think that they could live without a partner they will usually believe that nobody else could possibly be healthy/happy without one. In most cases those who believe you have to have a partner and no other options are possible are looking for something outside of themselves to feel complete. The idea that you can be happy, healthy and whole by yourself is foreign to them.

 

Plus I've noticed that people tend to give those who have chosen not to have  any sexual or romantic relationships because of a "higher purpose" a pass. Like a catholic nun or a buddhist monk taking vows of celibacy. But when the idea of someone never having sexual or romantic attraction is proprosed it then gets turned into a disorder.

[Lord Jade Cross]

.

[Lord Jade Cross]

.

[vega57]

Some people tend to view the world as THEY are; not as IT is.  That is, if THEY feel like THEY "need" a romantic partner in their lives, then EVERYONE must need a partner in their lives.  Since they are 'happy' with a partner in their lives, they figure that everyone else must feel the same way.  It's a black or white philosophy.  If having a romantic partner=happiness, then being single MUST=unhappiness. 

  

The idea that we all "need" someone in our lives has been thrust upon us by the medical profession, media, etc.  Some social scientists claim that we, as the human race, are biologically "programmed" or "wired" to find a mate.  Medical science is now split on whether or not married folks enjoy more longevity than their single counterparts. 

 

Maybe one reason why many people believe why we "need" these emotional ties with another human being is because they believe what they hear from "experts", plus, it's something that THEY want. 

 

In all honesty, I find more satisfaction in being uncoupled than I ever found with a partner. 

 

 

 

 

[Lord Jade Cross]

.

 

 

 

 

[Lord Jade Cross]

.

 

 

 

 

[ColeC]

18 minutes ago, Jade Cross said:

nuns and other servers of the altar express that while they are perfectly capable of a sex free life, they are not capable of a human free life, which makes me wonder how that would be percieved and how it would affect the overall view of the catholic church given that the core objective in the life of service is mostly between you and god.

 

 

 

 

That is interesting. I know in Buddhism one of the major tenants of their beleifs is that they take refuge in the Sangha or community. This means the monks/nuns and the lay people( non monks/nuns) that they live and work with. Helping and teaching others is considered a part of the path to enlightenment.

 

I grew up in a christian household but I've never really studied Catholicism. It seems odd to me that on one hand there is the teaching that service is supposed to be between you and god and yet the service that is being required is generally done to help your fellow man. It's an interesting dichotomy. 

As far as I can tell humans are social creatures by nature and there are clear benefits to having other people in your life. However I believe the degree to which people need other people can vary wildly depending on the individual. It is unfortunate that society and old traditions keep trying to push eberyone into a one size fits all situation. 

 

[Lord Jade Cross]

.

 

 

 

[ColeC]

I'm with you on the contradictions, they always drove me crazy. I grew up in the LDS religion and there are plenty of holes in their logic as well. The most irritating answer I got when questioning the dogma and I got it a lot, was "You just have to take it on faith." That always drove me crazy. The idea of blind beleif was just so alien to me I couldn't stick with the religion. It's just like the unquestioning beliefs people have

towards sexuality and relationships.

 

Kudos on busting out the Allan Watts reference by the way he's one of my favorite philosophers. 

[vega57]

59 minutes ago, Jade Cross said:

Ive always found the idea that humans are "programmed" to seek a mate to be really sketchy at best.

 

Societies spend such a staggering amount of time and effort to make sure a population behaves a certain way, that the entire idea of "seeking" gives off a bad vibe.

 

Like a previous post, humans cut those who go into some "higher purpose" service some slack but why does anything else make the very same way of behaving a pathology?

 

We all get thirsty and nobody has to tell us "You MUST get thirsty; we all get hungry and nobody has to tell us "You MUST get hungry"; we all get tired and nobody has to tell us "you MUST get tired" and so on. So why is it that mating, being the so called "programmed by nature" behavior thats supposed to be undenibale, is among the few, if not the only behaviour that humans spend so much time reitirating and pressuring others to do so, consequently freaking out when others dont do it?

 

Perhaps because "they" fear that if enough people don't do it, it would reduce the likelihood of having children, and the human race would eventually cease to exist. 

 

Also, could be because if enough people rallied against all this sex, 'they' would feel like 'they' were suddenly the 'abnormal' or 'pathologically disturbed' ones. 

 

Could also be because of what sex represents to them.  For some, it's about total acceptance.  If a woman allows a man to penetrate her, he feels "o.k." about himself.  He feels 'validated' as a man/human being/lovable etc. 

 

Just a few possibilities I can come up with for now.

 

 

[Lord Jade Cross]

.

 

 

 

[vega57]

16 minutes ago, Jade Cross said:

Not sure about the third one. Validation through sex seems a bit, shallow? If a person validates me, a mere recognition will do. I dont know about others but I dont have to have my privates inside a girls privates to feel validated or accepted. A good debate will make me feel ecstatic, provided the person can keep up or surpass me, which will just motivate me to lear more and either meet or surpass them. Its the entire process of validation, acceptance and provided they dont try to take a childlike "nu uh"/uh huh" approach to it, recognition.

You'd be surprised at how many people seek validation through sex.  They make claims of feeling "loved" or feeling more like "men" or "women" through sex.  Basically, they feel o.k. about themselves because someone wants to have sex with them.  Sex to them can validate their adulthood (they're now an "adult", even if they're only 14) or maturity.  It can validate their 'power' to 'give' another person an orgasm. 

 

Ironically, psychology tells us that in order to be psychologically 'healthy', we should find our own validation from within ourselves; not through others. 

Except, of course, when it comes to sex.  All bets are off then. 

 

I'm with you, Jade.  A simple "thanks" would suffice as validation.  But even if I didn't receive it, I wouldn't feel "hopeless" or "worthless" as some sexuals describe themselves if they're not getting sex. 

 

So, consider your point of view VALIDATED by me, Jade.  Don't you feel better about yourself now? 

[Lord Jade Cross]

.

[vega57]

3 hours ago, Jade Cross said:

Sounds like some bad porn dialog. "F***me so I can feel more like a man/woman"?

 

I'll be a kid all my life if sex is suppose to validate my adulthood, so where's my candy, corndogs and video games?

 

*Looks in the mirror* You superior minded being you.

LOL!!!  Yeah, riiiiiight.  If I told you about my first experience with porn, it would be a thread-jack.  Later.  Maybe....

 

I am serious, though.  Seems that lots of people get their emotional validation from having sex.  Thought I wouldn't get mine from candy, corndogs and video games, I'll take on a good game of bowling. 

Anytime.

Anywhere.

 

Guess I'm just a bowling "slut". 

 

Oh, the horror...the horror...

 

If you're lookin' in the mirror, so am I.  Yeah.  Us asexuals are soooooo "superior" to sexuals, just like sexuals are soooooooo superior to asexuals. 

 

*yaaaaawwwwwwnnnnn*  Uh, huh....

 

But to get back to some portion of your OP, I do have one thing to say.  Narcissists aren't typically "loners".  They "need" a "host"...a "victim".  They "need"  (and I'm sure you recognize that I'm putting the word "need" in quotes...) someone to validate their existence.  Many of them get that validation through sex.  Someone gets to show them how "wonderful" they are, just by having sex with them. 

 

I could go on and on about narcissists and sex, but that would take another thread...or...a book.

 

 

[200 Ponies]

8 hours ago, ColeC said:

But when the idea of someone never having sexual or romantic attraction is proprosed it then gets turned into a disorder.

I think that's a pretty powerful statement there. Someone who genuinely does not want a relationship for no reason other than not wanting one is considered insane by society's standards. I know I've been ridiculed and argued with about that countless times. I also went to a Christian high school so everyone thought I should "find a nice man and become a homemaker." (Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it just isn't what I want.)

 

If you don't find a partner, you're "doomed" to a life of being single and looked down upon by all your married friends. Oh well. I guess I'll just have to trade marriage for emotional and financial independence! 

[ColeC]

I've been wondering if the reason for some people not accepting asexuality and aromanticism is due to how society sees sacrifice. I'm not sure about other cultures but in western ones the idea of  sacrificing for a higher purpose is considered admirable like a priest or nun taking their vows. Even if others don't believe in the cause or the message being taught, people will respect the supposed conviction needed to give up what is thought of as a major component of human life.

 

On the other side with asexuality it seems some people think that we are deciding to not have certain kinds of relationships out of, I don't know spite or something. There is this pressure to provide society with kids and romance and if a person doesn't, then some people act like we are witholding something from society maybe even taking something away out of petty defiance. So what is considered an act of selflessness for one group is turned into one of selfishness for another. 

Just something I was thinking about. 

[Laplace]

I'm big on the idea of being your own person and being proud of being an individual. Maybe it's just me, but I feel a bunch of people go on and on about being yourself, and then they turn around and conform to societal expectations at their own detriment or throw themselves at someone else's feet. I don't want to rely on someone for my personal happiness. I disdain the belief that I need someone else to be "complete," like I'm somehow fractured or broken until I find my "other half." I see myself as a complete person with a fully realized personality and beliefs.

[AIRbooks]

So, uh, this doesn't have much to do with the topic, but I remembered it while I was reading this. So yeah.

 

I just randomly remembered a conversation we had in class at my school while talking about Ralph Waldo Emerson's Self-Reliance (which is a great essay, even if you don't agree with all of it) and we were all talking about nonconforming and stuff: why you shouldn't, why you should. Stuff like that. I personally believe: screw society, I'm going to do what I feel like doing and what I need to get done for my future and to make me happy. I like that. That's my thing. But, I remember this one girl in my class raised her hand and said (I'm paraphrasing here): "Well isn't it easier to conform sometimes? Can't it be better?" My teacher, being the boss that he is, said it was a valid point, but all I could think of was: "That's how society functions. People conform." (But, I mean if you're happy, yeah, but...yeah. It can create some really awful things, conforming, especially when society is being stupid.)