I read through the relevant parts and “narcissus is asexual” was certainly not the reading I had, and aside from maybe 2 lines I can’t see anyone reading it like that. Majority of the poem focuses on how he’s fallen in love with himself, that’s his defining trait (and when the reflection couldn’t love him back he died of sad). And that has nearly always been what people think when they hear “narcissist”: someone in love with themselves above all else
Narcissus only loved himself because one of the incels he rejected prayed to Nemesis and said “let him also love what he cannot have”. It was a divine curse. It’s not Narcissus’ fault what the gods did to him.
Narcissus was cursed with being enraptured by his own reflection as a punishment by Nemesis, and Nemesis agreed to punish Narcissus because he didn’t date anyone.
The words of the curse, though slightly different throughout various translations, only say, in essence, “when he falls in love may his love not be returned”, none of the translations I’ve seen imply he’s being cursed to fall in love with his reflection. And surely if he was asexual/aromantic the curse would mean fuck all to him right?
This entire interpretation depends on the words of the curse making him fall in love with his reflection, and I have not seen a version where that is what happens. Perhaps original Greek would be enlightening but I don’t speak that.
Yes the story isn’t the epitome of queer representation seeing as it assumes, at least in my mind, that being an ace is not an option and you’re curse-worthy if you don’t want to fuck people - but then again his sexuality is not brought up in the story at all. He was a 16 year old boy who’s only description we got is “really pretty and likes hunting in the forest”. Sure he could’ve been ace, but he could’ve also been autistic and missed all the usual neurotypical displays of affection, or maybe he just didn’t like how nobody seemed to like him for him and not his body, maybe he himself didn’t like anybody in his hometown.
My point is, the “Narcissus is ace” reading of the story is one of many, and sure we can play around with different interpretations and try to see different perspectives, it’s all good fun. But friend, you’re in a public forum presenting a niche interpretation of a famous story as if everybody was aware of it, and seemingly misinterpreting what the conversation is about overall because of it.
Nobody will say narcissism means asexuality without a supporting block of text to explain their position. When you see the word “narcissist” it’s going to mean “obsessed with self”, because the word has travelled through centuries and has been codified as such, a niche reading of the story from an ace’s perspective isn’t going to change that
If someone who uses the word says narcissism means obsession with the self, I’m going to question why exactly they accepted a queerphobic cultural interpretation of an ancient Greek story, and why they don’t accept the right of asexuals to not be in a relationship.
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.
Ovid’s Metamorphoses.
would you mind giving me a quote then?
I read through the relevant parts and “narcissus is asexual” was certainly not the reading I had, and aside from maybe 2 lines I can’t see anyone reading it like that. Majority of the poem focuses on how he’s fallen in love with himself, that’s his defining trait (and when the reflection couldn’t love him back he died of sad). And that has nearly always been what people think when they hear “narcissist”: someone in love with themselves above all else
I learned the true meaning of the word from this article: https://medium.com/@viridiangrail/narcissus-wasnt-an-abuser-he-was-queer-15a74e456838
Narcissus only loved himself because one of the incels he rejected prayed to Nemesis and said “let him also love what he cannot have”. It was a divine curse. It’s not Narcissus’ fault what the gods did to him.
from the article
The words of the curse, though slightly different throughout various translations, only say, in essence, “when he falls in love may his love not be returned”, none of the translations I’ve seen imply he’s being cursed to fall in love with his reflection. And surely if he was asexual/aromantic the curse would mean fuck all to him right?
This entire interpretation depends on the words of the curse making him fall in love with his reflection, and I have not seen a version where that is what happens. Perhaps original Greek would be enlightening but I don’t speak that.
Yes the story isn’t the epitome of queer representation seeing as it assumes, at least in my mind, that being an ace is not an option and you’re curse-worthy if you don’t want to fuck people - but then again his sexuality is not brought up in the story at all. He was a 16 year old boy who’s only description we got is “really pretty and likes hunting in the forest”. Sure he could’ve been ace, but he could’ve also been autistic and missed all the usual neurotypical displays of affection, or maybe he just didn’t like how nobody seemed to like him for him and not his body, maybe he himself didn’t like anybody in his hometown.
My point is, the “Narcissus is ace” reading of the story is one of many, and sure we can play around with different interpretations and try to see different perspectives, it’s all good fun. But friend, you’re in a public forum presenting a niche interpretation of a famous story as if everybody was aware of it, and seemingly misinterpreting what the conversation is about overall because of it.
Nobody will say narcissism means asexuality without a supporting block of text to explain their position. When you see the word “narcissist” it’s going to mean “obsessed with self”, because the word has travelled through centuries and has been codified as such, a niche reading of the story from an ace’s perspective isn’t going to change that
If someone who uses the word says narcissism means obsession with the self, I’m going to question why exactly they accepted a queerphobic cultural interpretation of an ancient Greek story, and why they don’t accept the right of asexuals to not be in a relationship.
👁👄👁 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.