Romanticide Revisited – Rejecting Redemption

I loathe writing posts on the maturation and mindfulness that I’ve acquired in recent years.  The reason for this is that I do not want the reader to frame these posts under the romanticized light of redemption.  When I think of redemption, I think of love stories where someone cleans up their act in order to be welcomed back with open arms by a paramour.  Or, I think about the mythical hero of the day, throwing away their background and the odds in order to heroically save those around him.  These are tired tropes.  I would propose that the antisocial is beyond redemption but not necessarily for the reasons you may think.

Redemption should be thought of as a verb and not a noun.  I say this as to redeem oneself, there has to be buy-in from oneself.  The gratitude and amazement of others of a radical change in someone else is not sufficient for that person to be redeemed.  Redemption requires that the individual take ownership of, and pure concern in, the reformation of oneself.  The antisocial may be able to take ownership of their ways, but by the very definition of the disorder – a disorder rooted in the lack of concern for the “rights” of oneself and those around them – it is not possible for the antisocial to take legitimate concern in that reformative process.  This should immediately be tantamount to romanticide – the crashing down of erroneous weight put into the process of redemption.

So when I write of those processes that went into my maturation and restraint in my current place and time, do not misunderstand; I do not share your concern for my transformation.  My concern lies in fixing broken processes of old, not in honoring new processes for the sake of others.  Embrace romanticide; your heroes are not necessarily heroes after all.

Drag the Waters


  1. MA32 says

    Honestly, this is pretty much how envision a session with you: The therapist is quite concerned – if not exactly for you, for the “before and after” to see the results, and you’re like “meh”…

  2. Anonymous says

    love is something that benefits the person themself too. true altruism does not need to exist, and why should it? human nature does not have to be like an ant. why be a robot for someone else when the benefit of doing good and loving others has a reward? your cynicism(read:reality lmfao) of heroism is certainly true, but perhaps those stories for children are meant to give children an attractive idea to be kind and brave and later find that they enjoy the thing in question, if and when it works

    edit: im not going to use grammar

    • Anonymous says

      This looks to be something that would help with alexithymia, but not with an actual lack of complex emotions. I’ve tried MDMA and while it feels kinda nice, physically speaking, there’s no difference in how I perceive other people. If anything it’s impossible to explain to someone that it doesn’t in fact affect me in the way it does them, so I can see why you’d be thinking this would indeed help.
      Incidentally miserable is not the word I’d use here, although again I can see why you’re struggling to follow. There simply isn’t an emotion here.

    • FNP says

      There’s a huge difference between what qualifies as a psychopath in the US vs the Netherlands. In the US, it’s a score of 30+ on the PCL-R. In the Netherlands, it’s a score of 16+.

      Kinda makes the study invalid when the people they’re working with aren’t actually psychopathic.

      • Jessica Kelly says

        It is as if there is incentive to make as many people psychopaths as possible. Makes it easier to lock them up longer that way.

        • FNP says

          That’s pretty much the justification for it in Europe. Anybody who steps out of line with the governmental narrative is branded a psychopath and their sentence is doubled.

Leave a Reply