This is a discussion on Ask an INTJ a question. within the INTJ Forum - The Scientists forums, part of the NT's Temperament Forum- The Intellects category; Originally Posted by OdinsVardogr INTJs Do you ever find your goals far outreach what society can cater for? In a ...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Are you aromantic?
brightflashes said is pretty in line for me too. I don't generally look to have a relationship to have a relationship, that has never been me. It's always the person specifically that then leads to wanting or having a relationship. Then I usually get the yearnings for that closeness or relationship with someone, but it's usually stirred up by having an interest in a specific person who has turned that switch on, so to speak.
I used to think that was normal for everyone but I have since learned it is not and I guess some people want to be in a romantic relationship no matter what and the person they have the relationship with is kind of interchangeable in a sense or a "this will do". I don't mean that at all to disparage people who think that way, I do think they truly love and are into their romantic partner they end up with or whatever, it is just foreign to my mind on how to approach relationships: looking for someone to be in a relationship with (not me) vs. meeting someone who makes you want to be in a relationship (yes me)
But yeah, generally no I am not aromantic if I understand the definition correctly.
Last edited by EyesOpen; 08-22-2019 at 01:51 PM.
i can sort of divide what seems to be the cultural spectrum on 'romantic' into a kind of pyramid. kind of. i think i have the bottom layers pretty taped out, but don't get very far into it before i run out of gas.
bottom of the pile: people who say 'romance' when what they're discussing is 'sex'. i despise these people.
next up: the cliche bucket. candles, beach walks, gestures involving some form of 'see what you're worth to me' performance counter from either side. definitely never been into this stuff.
level 3: um?
lol. i guess based on the pitifulness of that performance there's evidence that i'm romance-deaf if nothing else. but i'm serious when i say i don't know waht people are talking about when they use the word. i googled the concept and some sources seem to imply it's about relationships, which seems right there to be a bit of a mismatch to me. to others, it seems to be about a performative yardstick - not just that the 'romantics' these people are talking about are defining 'romance' by the gestures performed towards them, but also that there's some concept of 'romantic attraction' making the 'romantic' person want to make gestures like that to the other person. or want the other person to make gestures like that to them.
none of that makes any sense to me. i think - but this is a mental-struggle kind of topic just figuring out what my terms of engagement with it are - i thiiink that i don't relate at all to 'romance' as a presentation concept. like, the best i can tell from a quick poll of my internal self, i can't see the difference at all between the gestures you make because you love someone and the gestures you make that get given the 'romantic' tag. i don't get why one gets the markup or special flavour to it, and another doesn't. it's just affection to me. the rest is individual detail about how emotionally precise and true to the affection the gesture might be.
tl;dr i am damned if i know.
Last edited by lilysocks; 08-22-2019 at 08:58 PM.
From what I understand in use in culture currently, aromantic = not interested in romantic relationships, as opposed to friendships, with others (i.e. being in a relationship like boyfriend/girlfriend, having a special person, coupling up, whatever), not referring to “romance” as a concept.
I think it may have come about in the whole asexuality realm in that asexual people are not necessarily aromantic and making a distinction as they tend to be conflated with asexuality, that’s my suspicion anyway.
aaghhh. to me all of htis really gets nebulous when you start analyzing.