The concept of squish

General discussion about relationship issues.
Isaac
Established Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:44 am

The concept of squish

Postby Isaac » Mon Sep 14, 2009 12:57 pm

The word squish has been coined recently in AVEN as aromantic parallel of crush. This blogpost summarizes the coinage of the word and gives a couple of explanations of the concept. The word is gaining acceptance in AVEN, since now is used without reference to the descriptions. So, I wanted to bring this topic into this forum, where the discussion is more mature. What about the definition, the word itself, its need or not, its usefulness for recognizing aromantics...?

User avatar
Sciatrix
New Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 6:42 am

Re: The concept of squish

Postby Sciatrix » Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:18 pm

I've never understood it, to be honest. I'm aromantic, and as far as I can tell I've never had a squish--so is someone going to come up with some new way to parse the people I make friends with? It actually bothers me a little because I feel like the implications of "squishes" being discussed alongside romantic orientations as a form of crush means that friendships are somehow supposed to boil down to being types of romances.

Probably more to come later; I've got to run.

Isaac
Established Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:44 am

Re: The concept of squish

Postby Isaac » Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:44 pm

No, Sciatrix, I don't see that friendship is reduced to a kind of romance, but that a part socially deemed central in romance is given its own relevance, showing that it can lead to friendship. As I see it, some friends are gotten from acquaintances by slowly forging a closer relationship due to circumstantial closeness, in other cases the closeness is looked for a previous squish, ether unidirectional or bidirectional, and sometimes squished are developed on stablished friends.

User avatar
Dargon
Mega Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:34 pm

Re: The concept of squish

Postby Dargon » Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:59 pm

Perhaps it is simply inability to relate, but it sounds unnecessary and, to be blunt, outright stupid.

Having read the post, it sounds like a desire to be close friends with someone. Does that really need a name? And moreso, does it need to be paralleled with a crush?

Based on this, there are three people I have "squishes" on. I call them my best friends. I admit to loving them. Calling them squishes seems redundant, and perhaps even degrading. I suppose it may have to do with the connotation of the words. Friend, to me at least, carries the connotation of being someone close, trustable, etc. Squish, especially when paralleled with crush, seems to imply something strangely superficial, and dare I say something seedy.

Due to it's nature, a crush is often kept secret from the person being crushed on. Would this apply to squishes? If so, it seems dishonest.

I'd like to hear other people's opinions, but right now I rather dislike it.

User avatar
Siggy
Regular Member
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: The concept of squish

Postby Siggy » Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:40 pm

I'm aromantic and I don't experience crushes or squishes. Because I don't experience crushes, entering a romantic relationship seems difficult, if not impossible for me. But even without squishes, I have no trouble making lots of good friends. Squishes seem a bit superfluous in that respect. That's not to say squishes don't exist. But if they do exist, they're absurd. Almost as absurd as an asexual's sex drive. It's completely pointless.

I'm somewhat skeptical of squishes, but it's a tricky thing. If we wanted to question the concept of a squish, there are two opposite routes to take. We could see it as an attempt by aromantics to elevate their desire for friends to crush-like status. Or we could see it as an attempt by asexuals who don't want relationships to frame their crushes as non-romantic. Dargon is taking the first route, but I'm more inclined to take the second route.

I think it arises from the mixed definitions of aromantic on AVEN. There are two definitions going around:
Aromantic-1: Lack of romantic attraction (ie no crushes)
Aromantic-2: Not interested in romantic relationships

When prompted, most people say they like the first definition best. But people seem to think the two definitions always go together, so they don't pay much attention to the distinction. I think the distinction is important. In particular, I think there are a lot of people who are aromantic-2 but not aromantic-1. They have the potential to be romantic, but have chosen to be aromantic. I'm not saying this is a bad choice, but if you are aromantic by choice alone then that's not going to stop you from experiencing crushes. But since most people go by the aromantic-1 definition, these people are led to believe that what they're experiencing can't be a crush. So they name it something different, a squish. And this way, they also get to exchange something they don't want (romance) for something they do want (friendship).

So that's one hypothesis. Or, I suppose, squishes could be real, something entirely different from a crush, and entirely different from mere desire for friendship. I don't know.

User avatar
ghosts
Regular Member
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:59 am

Re: The concept of squish

Postby ghosts » Tue Sep 15, 2009 5:34 am

Well, the term kind of annoys me (although to be fair, I suppose "crush" is a bit silly as well, but I'm used to it ;)). I don't really see the point - and that's because I've always used "crush" to describe these sorts of feelings, and so have most of my friends. It's not confusing to use the word "crush" when you're talking about your feelings towards someone who you wouldn't be interested in dating at any point. Some of my male heterosexual friends, for instance, have said that they've had crushes on other guys - that initial excitement of someone new in your life that you just want to spend a lot of time with, stuff like that. And it doesn't cause any confusion with other people. So, I guess I just don't see the need for it personally - crushes come in all shapes & sizes, I suppose?

Isaac
Established Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:44 am

Re: The concept of squish

Postby Isaac » Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:02 am

Siggy wrote:I'm aromantic and I don't experience crushes or squishes. Because I don't experience crushes, entering a romantic relationship seems difficult, if not impossible for me. But even without squishes, I have no trouble making lots of good friends. Squishes seem a bit superfluous in that respect. That's not to say squishes don't exist. But if they do exist, they're absurd. Almost as absurd as an asexual's sex drive. It's completely pointless.

Asexual's sex drive does exist. Call it sex drive, libido or whatever you prefer. And not-driven-to-romance crushes do exist, though it seem pointless. And of course squishes are superfluous for getting friends, since crushes are not necessary for getting partners.

Siggy wrote:I'm somewhat skeptical of squishes, but it's a tricky thing. If we wanted to question the concept of a squish, there are two opposite routes to take. We could see it as an attempt by aromantics to elevate their desire for friends to crush-like status. Or we could see it as an attempt by asexuals who don't want relationships to frame their crushes as non-romantic. Dargon is taking the first route, but I'm more inclined to take the second route.

I am arromantic according to any criterion, and I consider friendship above coupling. So, in this case, we would degrading something from the orbit of friendship to the orbit of coupling. I see the concept of squish as elevating to the field of friendship something traditionally deemed essentially romantic.

I don't know if some people are fooling themselves saying that their crushes are squishes. I've read testimonies in AVEN of people who don't want relationships but get bothering crushes and, knowing how difficult was killing them, have gotten them to cold down and become squishes. These people recognize that they were initially crushes and then squishes.

Siggy wrote:I think it arises from the mixed definitions of aromantic on AVEN. There are two definitions going around:
Aromantic-1: Lack of romantic attraction (ie no crushes)
Aromantic-2: Not interested in romantic relationships

When prompted, most people say they like the first definition best. But people seem to think the two definitions always go together, so they don't pay much attention to the distinction. I think the distinction is important. In particular, I think there are a lot of people who are aromantic-2 but not aromantic-1. They have the potential to be romantic, but have chosen to be aromantic. I'm not saying this is a bad choice, but if you are aromantic by choice alone then that's not going to stop you from experiencing crushes. But since most people go by the aromantic-1 definition, these people are led to believe that what they're experiencing can't be a crush. So they name it something different, a squish. And this way, they also get to exchange something they don't want (romance) for something they do want (friendship).

These 2-aromantics but not 1-aromantics could be called romance-celibates. I think that the analogy holds.

ghosts wrote:Some of my male heterosexual friends, for instance, have said that they've had crushes on other guys - that initial excitement of someone new in your life that you just want to spend a lot of time with, stuff like that. And it doesn't cause any confusion with other people.

Did nobody question his heterosexuality upon this guy-crush? Your circle of friends may use a broad concept of crush enough to include squishes. But a native speaker may surely speak with better knowledge.

Clarity
New Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:29 am

Re: The concept of squish

Postby Clarity » Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:22 am

fwiw, I was on this thread on another forum: http://giftedhaven.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=1928. Nothing to do with asexuality, but the people there found the concept of a squish to be helpful. (Although I'll agree that people there, including me, said some arguably foolish things.)

A crush can be shallow, on someone you don't know well enough or who doesn't want to be great friends with you, or a crush can be part of what makes a romantic and sexual relationship so mutually exciting. A squish can be the same way--you can suddenly like someone way too much for no good reason, or no reason they would accept, but if you have the word squish paralleling crush, it gives you a way to point out that it's involuntary. It's not something you're doing because you have bad taste or no self-control or feel entitled or have irrational ideas about what your relationship with this person should be like--it's because you're caught up in some crazy feeling. That would be great if it were mutual, but that as it is you have to struggle with. Kinda like, "Dude, I'm not insane, I'm just squishing." The feelings of a squish are not considered normative in our culture, so even if a lot of the people here feel like they're well-accepted and well-understood, there are plenty of people who feel like they can't communicate what they're feeling and like they may suffocate, and like no one else ever feels this way. Having a word for a set of feelings many people might have toward acquaintances and friends allows the concept to be popularized and normalized so that people can have open dialogues about what they're feeling and how to deal with it. That's kinda the opposite of keeping something a secret.

I'll admit that I probably can't personally tell the difference between squishes and crushes in me, because I don't think there really is much difference--they all tap into the same set of desires and attractions, although the proportions of each may vary depending on the person who's sparking them.

User avatar
Dargon
Mega Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:34 pm

Re: The concept of squish

Postby Dargon » Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:50 am

Siggy wrote:Dargon is taking the first route, but I'm more inclined to take the second route.


I'm taking that route because that's what I gathered it was from the post. I suppose definition would be a better term than route. By the second definition, I cannot relate at all.

User avatar
ghosts
Regular Member
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:59 am

Re: The concept of squish

Postby ghosts » Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:53 am

Isaac - no, I don't remember anyone questioning his sexuality - enough people around here use the term similarly to know what he's talking about. I can imagine there being some occasional confusion with people that aren't of my generation, but regardless, it's not difficult to clear up. I think a lot of people can relate to the feelings of being really excited about someone new in your life, regardless of where you might be interested in having the relationship go.

User avatar
Siggy
Regular Member
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: The concept of squish

Postby Siggy » Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:25 pm

Isaac wrote:
Siggy wrote:I'm aromantic and I don't experience crushes or squishes. Because I don't experience crushes, entering a romantic relationship seems difficult, if not impossible for me. But even without squishes, I have no trouble making lots of good friends. Squishes seem a bit superfluous in that respect. That's not to say squishes don't exist. But if they do exist, they're absurd. Almost as absurd as an asexual's sex drive. It's completely pointless.

Asexual's sex drive does exist. Call it sex drive, libido or whatever you prefer. And not-driven-to-romance crushes do exist, though it seem pointless. And of course squishes are superfluous for getting friends, since crushes are not necessary for getting partners.

Yeah, that was my point. Just because it's pointless doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The asexual's sex drive is pretty pointless, but also really common.

Sorry, I wrote that post when I was kind of tired, and it doesn't parse as smoothly as I thought at the time.

Maybe a squish is comparable to the idea of a man-crush. It's in the urban dictionary, so you know it's legit. ;)

User avatar
ily
Regular Member
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: The concept of squish

Postby ily » Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:19 am

Dargon wrote:Perhaps it is simply inability to relate, but it sounds unnecessary and, to be blunt, outright stupid.


Ha, I like your bluntness, probably because I agree. To me, "squish" defines the problem inherent in coining words online. Did whoever came up with "squish" try saying it aloud a bunch of times first? Personally, I'd feel weird using this word in a conversation, to me "squish" sounds like something yucky, like a bug on your windshield. It doesn't sound flattering to me. We already have "friend crush" and "man crush" to roughly identify the feelings of a squish. Even regular crushes don't necessarily mean that you want to have sex with someone or be in a relationship with them.

Isaac
Established Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:44 am

Re: The concept of squish

Postby Isaac » Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:29 pm

ily wrote:To me, "squish" defines the problem inherent in coining words online. Did whoever came up with "squish" try saying it aloud a bunch of times first? Personally, I'd feel weird using this word in a conversation, to me "squish" sounds like something yucky, like a bug on your windshield. It doesn't sound flattering to me. We already have "friend crush" and "man crush" to roughly identify the feelings of a squish. Even regular crushes don't necessarily mean that you want to have sex with someone or be in a relationship with them.

Yes, I tried, but I'm unable to do to properly. In particular, I'm unable to pronounce it in a single syllable. S plus occlusive is something that I need to split into different syllables. I think that I will never use this word in conversation, unless I meet another AVENite who doesn't speak Spanish, so I don't worry about this, but about finding a suitable equivalent in Spanish. Considering that neither Spanish nor French have specific words for crush, applying your argument, it would be superfluous to have such a word in English. And having a specific word of different root gives an aura of legitimacy to the concept. It's no longer a variant or deviation of something, but something by itself. It's the difference of describing Madrid as in the South-Western extreme of Europe or as in the middle of the Iberian Peninsula.

User avatar
AFlyingPiglet
New Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:19 pm

Re: The concept of squish

Postby AFlyingPiglet » Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:49 am

Interesting discussion. I identify as Aromantic, yet I have had what I would describe as couple of crushes/squishes – one when I was in my teens and one in my early 20s (I’m now 37).

Having looked on a couple of teenage websites regarding crushes, my experience is more what they are describing there (you ‘crush’ on someone you can’t have). As I reflect, both crushes/squishes went on for some time (so the feelings were not exactly fleeting). The feelings I had were extremely powerful and almost debilitating to me – I didn’t exactly enjoy the experience, whilst at the same time I did.

I didn’t really know either person particularly well and never got to know them, even though I could have done - and for me that is the point. The feelings I had for the people were at a distance and largely based upon fantasy and ‘the unobtainable’. They were not based upon any real relationship with the person and the feelings I had didn’t drive me to want to know them better, in fact they drove me away from the people involved.

I assumed (because I was told) that one day I would be romantically/sexually attracted to someone. I’ve never been driven to personally want to be in a romantic relationship, yet I have been involved in a number of ‘relationships’, because of societal pressure, trying to feel some sort of attraction at some point – but experienced nothing, apart from the guilt of living a lie.

I have lots of friends and deeper friendships without feeling that same ‘rush’ that I experienced with these crushes/squishes, so based on that I would say that I don’t normally get squishes. I guess the question for me is - were the crushes that I had romantic attraction (whatever that means) or were they squishes, or were they something comletely different? This is something I have pondered over again and again and don’t know the answer and probably never will. I assumed at the time that it was romantic attraction, but now I am not so sure.

All I know is that the feelings I had were definitely not the ‘norm’ for me. They were certainly involuntary and were almost like a ‘blip’ in my normal equilibrium. I would say my ‘normal equilibrium’ is both:-

Aromantic-1: Lack of romantic attraction (i.e. crushes - assuming that a crush is romantic attraction)
Aromantic-2: Not interested in romantic relationships

Um – interesting!

sinisterporpoise
New Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:53 am

Re: The concept of squish

Postby sinisterporpoise » Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:53 pm

I'm in the camp with the people who didn't think much of the idea, unfortunately.

apsaf
New Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 8:28 am

Re: The concept of squish

Postby apsaf » Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:10 pm

I'm in the camp with the people who didn't think much of the idea

Me too. I don't know if I'd warm up to it or be persuaded by it later on (I'm not stubborn) but now, I'm not sure I even get it. I mean I understand the definition but not the feeling. I agree the most with Dargon on this and perhaps it's due, in fact, to "the inability to relate."

From what I gathered, I guess I've always called them "crushes" and I think I've only had 2 or 3 of those throughout my whole life and they were all on celebrities or TV characters (Bugs Bunny is one of them :lol: ). I called them "crushes" because I cared about them, love certain aspects of either their physique (eyes, lips, voice, even the body) and/or their principles and ideologies, but I never thought of them sexually or romantically and I never even wanted to "be" with them.
Perhaps the word "crush" that I had adopted wasn't the right one in the first place? I don't know.

As for friendships, I NEVER ever mix friendship with romance; I usually disapprove of friendships that turn into romances. I've ended a few blossoming friendships because I sensed the guy wanted something else; either sex or romance or both. I felt betrayed, honestly. But I think I now matured enough to realize that maybe they weren't being hypocritical, they were just acting on a feeling and that perhaps I should have felt flattered instead. I used to despise people who were sexually attracted to me. Thankfully, I also grew out of it a few years ago (again, thanks to QAF, the show I'd mentioned in my introduction).

If the word "squish" is used to describe being friends with someone but being attracted to them in a different way, it still seems like a synonym to "crush" to me and, thus, redundant and unnecessary. I also agree that the word itself doesn't sound too good. It does sound a bit "icky" and even negative.

As for the two definitions of "aromantic," thank you "siggy" for bringing them up here and trying to explain them, but I'm afraid I still can't make the distinction between the two, personally. I feel I lack romantic attraction and I'm not interested in romantic relationships. I don't know if one led to the other or if they originated simultaneously. Maybe I need more time as I'm still learning to view myself from an "asexual" perspective?
Any advice or thoughts from "senior" (irrespective of age) aromantic asexuals would be greatly appreciated.

User avatar
ily
Regular Member
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: The concept of squish

Postby ily » Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:35 pm

Adding to my lack of understanding is the fact that I don't know how sexual people experiences crushes. Research time! I've heard my friends say they have a crush on someone, but I don't know what that means. For me, my crushes never compelled me to seek a relationship or sex, which is analogous to a squish...maybe. But for all I know, sexual people have crushes like that also. You can definitely have a crush on someone that you could never have. I feel like asexuals have the tendency to separate out our feelings from those of sexual people, when my own theory is that they might be more alike than we realize.

User avatar
AFlyingPiglet
New Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:19 pm

Re: The concept of squish

Postby AFlyingPiglet » Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:18 pm

ily wrote:Adding to my lack of understanding is the fact that I don't know how sexual people experiences crushes. Research time! I've heard my friends say they have a crush on someone, but I don't know what that means. For me, my crushes never compelled me to seek a relationship or sex, which is analogous to a squish...maybe. But for all I know, sexual people have crushes like that also. You can definitely have a crush on someone that you could never have. I feel like asexuals have the tendency to separate out our feelings from those of sexual people, when my own theory is that they might be more alike than we realize.

It will be really interesting to hear what they have to say.

ily wrote:I feel like asexuals have the tendency to separate out our feelings from those of sexual people, when my own theory is that they might be more alike than we realize.

Maybe that's because, generally speaking, they don't think about these things so much, they just do them as they are the 'norm'.

It would also be good to consider how those who consider themselves as Romantic Asexuals would describe their experience of a crush too. From what I can tell from my reading on Aven, quite a few romantic asexuals seem almost 'driven' to seek a romantic relationship. It seems as though they feel incomplete without a Romantic Partner. Although I fully respect their feelings and their experiences, I feel that, in many ways, I am living on a totally different planet to the one they are on.

I have to say that I don't like the word squish as, to me, it sounds rather juvenile and any term (however much it is narrowed down) will mean different things to different people to some extent. I'm talking gibberish now so I'm off to bed!

User avatar
ily
Regular Member
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: The concept of squish

Postby ily » Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:33 pm

AFlyingPiglet wrote: It seems as though they feel incomplete without a Romantic Partner. Although I fully respect their feelings and their experiences, I feel that, in many ways, I am living on a totally different planet to the one they are on.


I totally understand what you're saying here. I have my hopelessly romantic moments, but in general I don't understand why someone feels they MUST have a partner. Sometimes I wish I had a partner, but the feelings I have of being left out and isolated are so strong that I can't separate them from whatever inherent desire I may have (fwiw, I don't ID as aromantic or romantic). I still remember a friend of mine (who is sexual) yelling at me because I said I didn't understand why having a boyfriend was so important to her. However, one of our good mutual friends, who I can only describe as an aromantic sexual, may not have understood it, either.

Isaac
Established Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:44 am

Re: The concept of squish

Postby Isaac » Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:08 am

ily wrote:I feel like asexuals have the tendency to separate out our feelings from those of sexual people, when my own theory is that they might be more alike than we realize.

I think that sexual people have the same kind of feelings as asexuals, and romantics as aromantics, but they don't think too much about this. The have also more normative feelings and it hides their asexy side. Surely it happens that sexual people confuse squishes with crushes and spoil good friendships, hence I think that they could find benefit in the concept of squish and the so-called ace toolbox. It's not that we have essentially different feelings than them or weird variations of theirs, but that they have ours with additionally sexual and romantic variants.

Aromantic sexuals could be an interesting separate thread. I have an aromantic heterosexual friend and he's the only non-asexual person I can connect speaking about relationships.

individual
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:15 am

Re: The concept of squish

Postby individual » Tue Sep 29, 2009 4:46 am

You people think too much. You intellectualize too much. You categorize too much. You don't see heterosexuals getting on forums discussing, debating and thinking up new terms to describe all of the nuances, all of the intricate little differences in the degrees of feelings they have for other people. They don't go about discussing what they are. They just know what they are and they live it.

Stop thinking and start feeling - and start living. Feel what you feel and accept it. Stop trying to label it. Stop making such a big deal about all this stuff and just be. This kind of behaviour is what I'd expect to see on gay and lesbian forums. They also make a big deal out of what they are. They hold a Mardi Gras once a year to tell a world of people who couldn't give a damn, that they exist. Why don't asexuals start up their own Mardi gras? Then we can wave our flags and banners to tell everyone else (who don't care) that we exist. Really, it doesn't matter, all this stuff. It really doesn't matter, what you call it or who knows about us. Squishes - it all sounds so childish. Just be what you are, know it, get on with your life and shut up about it all.

I'm a 42 year old male who's been married for 18 years, I've got a 14 year old daughter and I've known I've been asexual since I was in my teens. Back then, it wasn't categorized but that didn't matter to me. I knew what I was. I knew what I liked and what I didn't like. I knew what I wanted and what I didn't want and I didn't care to categorize everything I felt or was. I knew I wanted a life partner/friend. I knew I wanted a daughter. I knew I enjoyed being close to someone else and liked the squishy loving feelings of snuggling up to someone I loved and trusted (especially on cold nights). I also knew I wasn't interested in sex. It was no big deal. It was just the way I am and that was fine (for all concerned). I just lived (and am still living it). I suggest you youngen go do the same.

Now go. Be quiet, at peace and happy with yourself.

apsaf
New Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 8:28 am

Re: The concept of squish

Postby apsaf » Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:27 am

Individual, I agree with you about a bunch of stuff, especially the labeling and making up childish words. But I guess you're lucky because your asexuality didn't cause you any "problems" and, in my opinion, it didn't cause you that much trouble because you're a romantic male. Most of the females I know would LOVE that kind of man, who prefers romantic gestures to "technical" sex.

As an aromantic female, I've been taken to doctors to see what's wrong with me, people labeled me antisocial, man-hater, lesbian... whatever. None of them would've mattered to me had they been correct. I was always different and in the minority. I felt I was fighting the whole world when I'm just trying to give an opinion at a social gathering. A simple response like, for instance "I had never dreamed of wearing a white wedding dress, I'd feel silly in it" would cause me endless debates usually resulting in "You're not normal." When you've lived in such an environment for 30 years, almost everyday of your life, and suddenly discovered that there are actually people like you, that you're not a mistake, you're not from outer space and there's nothing wrong with, you get this feeling of wanting to scream it from the top of your lungs.

So, yes, I understand why homosexuals would want to celebrate and be proud, after so many centuries of being oppressed (actually, my country is still VERY homophobic).

Heterosexuals don't need to discuss their heterosexuality because they are accepted and never challenged about it. A simple refusal from my part to wear makeup or high-heels would cause me endless discussions. I ALWAYS have to explain why I believe the things I do and why I behave the way I do. My choices are always questioned and, since our society is largely heterosexual and patriarchal, it's not easy for an asexual woman to "just be herself."

Now, after finding out asexuality, I need to figure myself out from this "normal" perspective.

You said:
It was no big deal. It was just the way I am and that was fine (for all concerned). I just lived (and am still living it).

That's what I'm striving for, but not everyone is as lucky as you. I'm surrounded by people who care about me, but they don't believe that I'm happier this way, they want to fix me so that I'd meet someone in order to be happy. :roll:

User avatar
Dargon
Mega Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:34 pm

Re: The concept of squish

Postby Dargon » Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:02 am

I'm going to have to echo apsaf. The reason we spend too much time on this is because the rest of the world says we're broken, and we'd like to not be considered broken. Glad you can live your life, but for others it is not quite as simple.

User avatar
ily
Regular Member
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: The concept of squish

Postby ily » Tue Sep 29, 2009 10:58 am

Individual, I know you probably think you're telling us this "for our own good", but it comes across as rather mean. If intellectualizing isn't your bag, fine, but why are you coming here and telling us how to live our lives? You're making an awful lot of assumptions about people.

User avatar
Noskcaj.Llahsram
Regular Member
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: The concept of squish

Postby Noskcaj.Llahsram » Tue Sep 29, 2009 8:01 pm

wo wo wo, hold on a second, too much intellectualization? how much is too much is definitely subjective, but just because others (heterosexual) aren't doing it (and somewhere some totally are/did at some point) doesn't mean we don't need to, and while I agree 'squish' is, frankly, a retardedly stupid sounding name (Mea Culpa, personnel opinion) we need to have these conversations, otherwise at some time some, nay, most of us will reach out for a concept, an idea, or even a simple colloquialism, and be left empty handed, devoid of the tools necessary for us to get from these shy shadow dwelling people (metaphorically; as far as legitimacy, and external perception goes) to 'fine for all concerned'
What is love? Well, you know that feeling you get when you've been locked in a tiny dark space alone for a year? It's kind of the opposite of that.

User avatar
AFlyingPiglet
New Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:19 pm

Re: The concept of squish

Postby AFlyingPiglet » Sat Oct 03, 2009 11:09 am

individual wrote:Now go. Be quiet, at peace and happy with yourself.

I am at peace and happy with myself and busy living my life thanks very much.

I understand what you are trying to say, but I have to point out that many Asexuals are not part of any forum (or upon discovering they are asexual, don't stay on the forum for very long but "get on and live their life"). But some of us, by nature, like to chew things over. I personally don't see this as part of my Asexuality, it is simply part of who I am.

Actually I think many people are like this about certain things and like to focus upon them - my sister (who runs marathons) spends hours involved in running. She spends hours chatting to people on runners internet forums, hours in running training (e.g. 20 mile runs most evenings) or in the gym to help towards running, hours studying the psychology behind running, having runners physio etc - plus she's 45 years old, married with 4 children of school age and works etc.

Many of us on here have balanced and happy lives, but we like to chew over Asexuality and what it means, maybe at a deeper level than other places - that is why we are here. I know who I am and I know what I like - and one of the things I like to do is to discuss the issue of asexuality with other asexuals - or in fact anyone!

I don't mean to offend, but by my standards, your own life sounds fairly 'normative'. I am happy with my life and and living my own life, thanks very much - its just radically different to yours. I am glad you love your life the way it is, but I wouldn't want your life in a million years - get over it!

User avatar
Shockwave
Regular Member
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:46 pm

Re: The concept of squish

Postby Shockwave » Sat Oct 10, 2009 9:28 am

So, it's like what some people are calling a "man-crush" (where a man really likes another man and wants to be friends with him, but not in a romantic or sexual way since that would be an affront to his masculinity) but not specific to one gender?

rain_2_fog
New Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:42 pm

Re: The concept of squish

Postby rain_2_fog » Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:06 pm

Individual, every post from you I've read thus far on this site has an extraordinarily authoritarian tone to it... ARE, you, in fact, the leading authority on How To Be an Asexual?

Wow...can I have your autograph?

Forums like this one exist because many people are trying to understand themselves. They do NOT need someone like you telling them that they are/are not asexual, or are/are not justified in their own feelings, just because of your own nearsighted judgments. I've met young people who are depressed over their sexuality issues to the point of being suicidal. For myself, and for them, I will tell you: KNOCK IT OFF. Now. Really.

You're not helping anyone with this stuff. You're just masturbating (strokin' that big old Ego, my friend). Again...really.

If you want to help, focus on other people more than yourself, and cure that control-freaky right-itis. Being "right" all the time is just a fantasy. So..."go. Be quiet, at peace and happy with yourself".

Mage
New Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:37 pm

Re: The concept of squish

Postby Mage » Tue Dec 07, 2010 11:28 am

This thread may be over a year old now, but it's fascinating to me. I'm always late to the party.

First, to address the concept of squish. To me it sounds like a juvenille slang term for limerence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerence), which romantic asexuals experience and describe as a crush (without the sexual component of course). Personally I have strong feelings of limerence, to the point that I am usually repulsed by the person I have them for, like AFlyingPiglet was describing about themselves. I see myself as a romantic asexual, but I have an aromantic relationship style (the #2 definition of aromantic), partly because of feeling repelled but also because I wouldn't know how to (or even want to) make a romantic relationship any different from a friendship. I can see how one would have purely romantic limerance, and I can also see how one could have platonic limerence. Either way it's limerence.

The other part of this thread that interests me is how some members have defended (very well I might add) this conversation from Individualist, given the current discussions that are happening about asexual safe space. Including the idea that (on AVEN) things are dropped and nonasexuals are accommodated, while asexuals who make oppressive comments are either ripped into or completely ignored. I think this case in particular is a good example of how a safe space (Apositive feels like one to me) can make it possible to stand up against someone who is making oppressive comments that come from a place of privilege, regardless of their orientation. Unfortunately this appears to have been difficult to model in another forum that is far larger, where the same problems arise again and again with new members, and where the conversations are somewhat less "mature" or focused.
"If I didn't define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people's fantasies for me and eaten alive.”
—Audre Lorde

My blog: http://acefeminisms.blogspot.com

User avatar
Dargon
Mega Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:34 pm

Re: The concept of squish

Postby Dargon » Tue Dec 07, 2010 6:45 pm

Mage, just want to say thanks for introducing me to the term "limerence." This is the first I have heard of it, and it does seem to describe this whole "squish" thing.