Well, I’d never read Ovid’s Metamorphoses before I read that article. But once I did, I realised there’s no other way to read the original story except as aphobic. Everyone regurgitating the same old cliche that narcissism is abusive is just taking the word of aphobes at face value. Reading that article was the first time I thought critically about things, and I see that anybody using narcissism as an insult has never thought critically. And people have a duty to think critically about the queerphobic propaganda that they regurgitate.
Which is why I tell people that Narcissist means asexual and invite them to also think critically.
then I urge you to think critically a little bit more and realise that one reading of an ancient story is not the divine truth of what the story means or tries to convey.
In my reply to the blog’s perspective I outlined several different reasons why Narcissus might’ve not responded to the affection of others. Why are you insistent on him being asexual being the only “correct” interpretation of the story? Are you being ableist by saying that he’s not autistic?
Arguing that a story only has one correct reading is not critical thinking, it’s foolish at best.
I once again urge you to use the critical thinking you’ve grown so fond of because no.
For all we know exactly one person and one god actually cared about Narcissus’s not reciprocating their affection - Echo, and Nemesis, and Nemesis only cared because Echo wanted revenge and well, that’s Nemesis’s thing after all.
(edit: oh and once again, referring to the wording of the curse, if Narcissus was asexual the curse would not even be a curse for him. The predisposition of said curse is falling in love, if he was ace/aro then that wouldn’t even apply)
Do not claim one intepretation to be above all else. “Can only be read” - it can be read as anything the reader reads it as. It can be read as Nemesis being a piece of shit or maybe bored, it can be read as Echo being a misguided victim and that rejection being the last straw for her, it can be read as Narcissus having a severe intellectual disability, it took him several paragraphs to realise the person in the water was his own reflection after all. It can be read as anything.
The only thing that matters is the value we attribute to a specific reading. And although the “Narcissus is asexual” take is an interesting perspective it’s incredibly foolish to think people will know that such reading even exists, let alone instinctively understand what you mean, it’s just not wildly taught and obscure to the point where when I first attempted to google it the only things I found were broken links. In fact when you first said that asexuality is narcissism I thought you were acephobic, and you implying that asexual people are selfish, it wouldn’t even be the first time I saw that argument.
👁👄👁 you good?
they probably don’t know about a random person’s blog where they read a world famous story in a different way than others
what? “why they don’t accept the right of asexuals to not be in a relationship” what are you on about??
Well, I’d never read Ovid’s Metamorphoses before I read that article. But once I did, I realised there’s no other way to read the original story except as aphobic. Everyone regurgitating the same old cliche that narcissism is abusive is just taking the word of aphobes at face value. Reading that article was the first time I thought critically about things, and I see that anybody using narcissism as an insult has never thought critically. And people have a duty to think critically about the queerphobic propaganda that they regurgitate.
Which is why I tell people that Narcissist means asexual and invite them to also think critically.
then I urge you to think critically a little bit more and realise that one reading of an ancient story is not the divine truth of what the story means or tries to convey.
In my reply to the blog’s perspective I outlined several different reasons why Narcissus might’ve not responded to the affection of others. Why are you insistent on him being asexual being the only “correct” interpretation of the story? Are you being ableist by saying that he’s not autistic?
Arguing that a story only has one correct reading is not critical thinking, it’s foolish at best.
There are many correct readings of Narcissus’ identity, but the Greek gods’ and people’s reaction to him can only be read as aphobia.
I once again urge you to use the critical thinking you’ve grown so fond of because no.
For all we know exactly one person and one god actually cared about Narcissus’s not reciprocating their affection - Echo, and Nemesis, and Nemesis only cared because Echo wanted revenge and well, that’s Nemesis’s thing after all.
(edit: oh and once again, referring to the wording of the curse, if Narcissus was asexual the curse would not even be a curse for him. The predisposition of said curse is falling in love, if he was ace/aro then that wouldn’t even apply)
Do not claim one intepretation to be above all else. “Can only be read” - it can be read as anything the reader reads it as. It can be read as Nemesis being a piece of shit or maybe bored, it can be read as Echo being a misguided victim and that rejection being the last straw for her, it can be read as Narcissus having a severe intellectual disability, it took him several paragraphs to realise the person in the water was his own reflection after all. It can be read as anything.
The only thing that matters is the value we attribute to a specific reading. And although the “Narcissus is asexual” take is an interesting perspective it’s incredibly foolish to think people will know that such reading even exists, let alone instinctively understand what you mean, it’s just not wildly taught and obscure to the point where when I first attempted to google it the only things I found were broken links. In fact when you first said that asexuality is narcissism I thought you were acephobic, and you implying that asexual people are selfish, it wouldn’t even be the first time I saw that argument.