Page 2 of 2

Re: The concept of squish

Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:56 pm
by KAGU143
Some trolls are worth feeding and some are not.
The new and very inaptly named user "Love Angel" has been banned.

Re: The concept of squish

Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:05 pm
by Michael Smoker
Lol Nancy, there was very little "Love" in that particular specimen. I just hope the people being insulted aren't sensitive.

As

Michael

Re: The concept of squish

Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 9:49 pm
by Dargon
Awww, I didn't get to see the troll.

Re: The concept of squish

Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:16 am
by Mage
I didn't get to see the troll either. :(
lol

Dargon, you're welcome for (to?) the term limerence! It's a word that I found useful a long time before I even became aware of asexuality, because I was trying to understand why I was both attracted to people and repulsed by them at the same time. It's still kinda wonky and difficult to understand, but I think that the feelings which come with limerence can at least partly explain that.

More on topic, I don't see why limerence couldn't exist in a non-romantic relationship. I've had feelings of being totally excited and a little heart-throbby over new friends for one reason or another, without also feeling that there was somehow a romantic component.

Hmm... human bonding is so interesting to me. There are so many ways to love a person, and sometimes I don't know if having more words with ever-increasing complexity is helpful or just confusing.

Re: The concept of squish

Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 1:59 pm
by Danielle
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).

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.


Well, I'm aromantic, meaning I have no interest what so ever in a romantic relationship and this is not a choice. I experience only a little romantic attraction towards men, however falling in love for me is something that takes a lot of time and I can only love someone with whom I have a connection. I don't like to be in love though. I was once in love and wished I had a knife so I could cut away my heart and throw it away.
I am romantic though when it concerns other people and I find it very nice when people around me love one another. It makes me happy too. So I'm not indifferent towards love that people feel for each other. It is just not for me.
A crush for me is a sudden feeling of finding someone so attractive that I can only stare.

Re: The concept of squish

Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:57 am
by Danielle
Coming back on my former post on this.

I have indeed no need for a romantic relationship and this is no choice and it sorts of annoys me that people think this. This is just me you know and it defines me.

Re: The concept of squish

Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 12:35 am
by Ragdollphysics
I found this concept hilarious mainly due to the fact that for years I've used this word...but as another word for female ejaculation hahahaha (otherwise known largely as "squirting" lol and hahahaha :)
So I can't use this word with any real seriousness at all lol.
:lol:

Re: The concept of squish

Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:15 pm
by KAGU143
:lol: :rofl:

Re: The concept of squish

Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 5:13 am
by PiF
Dargon wrote: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.


I wouldn't agree with this. I think it would fall into the thinking too much individual mentions. I've yet to have anyone say to me you are broken let alone solely on the basis of being asexual.

The broken I have seen has always been on the internet and always been the perception of that individual rather than any other basis.

Re: The concept of squish

Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 5:36 am
by apsaf
I've yet to have anyone say to me you are broken let alone solely on the basis of being asexual.


I guess it depends on each person's experience and social environment. Even though most people aren't familiar with the term itself, I've been constantly told I was broken and needed help (even or mostly by "caring, well-meaning" friends and family), on the basis of being asexual and aromantic (sometimes lumped together and sometimes separately).

The older I get, the less I'm challenged (I'm now called obstinate for not trying) but even though my orientation (or lifestyle as a single and not looking, to them) is now more accepted or tolerated, it's not because they accept asexuality in general, but because they love me in spite of my "uniqueness."

Re: The concept of squish

Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 5:55 am
by PiF
apsaf wrote:The older I get, the less I'm challenged (I'm now called obstinate for not trying) but even though my orientation (or lifestyle as a single and not looking, to them) is now more accepted or tolerated, it's not because they accept asexuality in general, but because they love me in spite of my "uniqueness."


I believe also that as you get older you feel less inclined to label yourself other than falling in the "I don't give a f*ck what others think"

getting older definately has it's benefits

Re: The concept of squish

Posted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 7:35 am
by KAGU143
As you get older you tend to get a tougher shell which is very resistant to being punctured or dented - even by extremely powerful peer pressure.
The passive (or active!) disapproval which is so devastating to younger people just bounces off and it's a wonderful sense of freedom.

Agree that getting older has a lot of benefits ... other than, you know, getting older.

8)

Re: The concept of squish

Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2014 6:07 pm
by PiF
So the squish does not exist, it is just another silly aven label. Crushes are fine and dandy if you please.

Re: The concept of squish

Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2015 7:25 am
by PiF
Some one asked me yesterday what does a crush feel like?...I replied, well if you have a big fat hippo on top of you I would imagine it might be quite painful. Their face was a picture.

Re: The concept of squish

Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 4:55 pm
by CatBunny
I'm aromantic and probably my attractions could be labeled as that. Something that isn't quite friendship but isn't romance. I think it does exist because I experienced it and many other people have as well. It's more than friendship really. I guess people want to invent new labels for stuff that lacks labels. Also i'm sure squish has been around for a while now, its kinda accepted.

Now alterous... which literally means friendship I think is ridiculous. If it's not platonic and its not romance and you just like being with someone, it's friendship. Google it, I think it's really dumb.

Re: The concept of squish

Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:28 am
by PiF
The one thing I have learnt from Asexuality over the past 7 years...just when you think they can't make up any more stupid terms....they pop up and surprise you with a new one