Define aromantic

[Siggy]

From the avenwiki:

There is no concrete definition for "aromantic". Some people think of it as the lack of romantic attraction, whereas others define it as the lack of desire to be in a romantic relationship.

So, which of the two definitions is dominant in the asexual community? Which definition would you use? And do you believe being aromantic is a choice, or not?

[Charlieee]

As someone who is trying to figure out if he's aromantic or not, that's a very big question. Well, first off, I think that being aromantic is as much of a choice as being asexual/straight/gay/bi/etc is. Take that as you will.

Hm. After having given this some thought, I think that being aromantic is the lack of romantic attraction. Because, you can want to be in a relationship, wanting something is a conscious thing, yeah? But whether you actually experience romantic attraction or not, that's a much more subconscious, uncontrolled thing...

Sorry I'm a little incoherent right now.

[Justinfh2Point0]

As someone who is trying to figure out if he's aromantic or not, that's a very big question. Well, first off, I think that being aromantic is as much of a choice as being asexual/straight/gay/bi/etc is. Take that as you will.

Hm. After having given this some thought, I think that being aromantic is the lack of romantic attraction. Because, you can want to be in a relationship, wanting something is a conscious thing, yeah? But whether you actually experience romantic attraction or not, that's a much more subconscious, uncontrolled thing...

Sorry I'm a little incoherent right now.

I just want to add something. Speaking from personal experience, it seems like your sexual/physical attraction is something you're born with while your romantic/emotional attraction is something brought out from experience. For me, I was born asexual, but I'm aromantic due to bad experiences with relationships.

[Fi_Loubet]

I think I agree with a lot of the things said in this thread; and I myself have been wrestling with the question of whether or not I am aromantic.

I know I've never had a desire to be in a romantic relationship, and I don't think I've ever felt romantic attraction either. The problem is that if I did: how would I differentiate between romantic attraction and a strong platonic, friendship type of 'attraction.'

At the moment, I'm thinking that for me personally, it doesn't matter whether or not I'm aromantic. If I ever feel romantic attraction, good. If not? That's fine too.

[henshin]

As someone who is trying to figure out if he's aromantic or not, that's a very big question. Well, first off, I think that being aromantic is as much of a choice as being asexual/straight/gay/bi/etc is. Take that as you will.

Hm. After having given this some thought, I think that being aromantic is the lack of romantic attraction. Because, you can want to be in a relationship, wanting something is a conscious thing, yeah? But whether you actually experience romantic attraction or not, that's a much more subconscious, uncontrolled thing...

Sorry I'm a little incoherent right now.

Pretty much this.

While I've never had a romantic relationship I definitely feel romantically attracted to certain people.

[ghosts]

Before we even define "aromantic," I think it's difficult to come to an agreement about what "romantic attraction" or a "romantic relationship" is too. At least, it's difficult for me, so I don't really use the terms for myself.

[Bonza]

I'd say it's the absence of romantic attraction.

Some people have (or have had) romantic attraction, but don't want to be in a relationship. They might have had bad expriences in the past, be going through a hard time in other areas of their life, or have some other problem. If it's these peripheral issues rather than an orientation/preference causing their lack of desire for a relationship, I wouldn't say they're aromantic.

[Astryda]

From the avenwiki:

There is no concrete definition for "aromantic". Some people think of it as the lack of romantic attraction, whereas others define it as the lack of desire to be in a romantic relationship.

So, which of the two definitions is dominant in the asexual community? Which definition would you use? And do you believe being aromantic is a choice, or not?

I think it's a lack of romantic attraction. It's not a choice.

But, if you consider aromanticity as 'the lack of desire to be in romantic relationship', it might be either a choice as well as something you can't decide about.

[Lors]

I was going to say for me its a matter of never experiencing romantic attraction. Then, of course, I ask myself what I mean by that and come up with "desiring romantic interaction with a person" i.e. a romantic relationship.

However, desire for a relationship can be abstract from attraction. You can desire a relationship but not feel any desire for any particular person - you want a relationship but have never met anyone you'd want to be in a relationship with.

I don't think I've ever met anyone who made me think "I want to be close to that person" i.e. nothing I'd feel as romantic attraction. (Personally, I think what this feels like is down the individual).

On the whole, I don't desire a relationship because most of relationship-y stuff seems unappealing to me. It is related to my lack of attraction, but it is a part I consider more of a "choice". I have begun to wish (a little bit, occasionally) that I could feel attraction, so I could give this relationship business thing (which I have generally never had much interest in) a try.

Basically, I think you can experience attraction and not want a relationship, and you can in some way want a relationship having never felt attraction. Both would be difficult to achieve of course.

[Tio]

When I use the term "aromantic asexual" to describe myself, I refer to "lack of romantic attraction, lack of sexual attraction" respectively. We all have the asexual bit down fine so.... aromantic.

I've always thought of aromantics who aren't romantically attracted to anyone as well as not being sexually attracted to anyone. Aromantics can make friends, even have good friendships but there's never any desire to take it further. That's just it, friends.

In my personal case it's a little more extreme. I, by and large, don't particularly feel the need for friends either. I'm intensely solitary and prefer to spend my time alone than with others. Work and the meaningless interactions I have with my colleagues is quite sufficient for human socialization. And the internet of course, I'm happy to talk online. (There's always the 'block' button when I get tired of it.)

[AFlyingPiglet]

When I use the term "aromantic asexual" to describe myself, I refer to "lack of romantic attraction, lack of sexual attraction" respectively.

That pretty much sums up how I define as aromantic too. Is it a choice? No

[Amcan]

I'm aromantic.

Have never had a crush. Have never fallen in love.

I could in theory have a relationship but there wouldn't be any love involved.

Just as asexuals can be in relationships without sex being involved.

[you*hear*but*do*you*listen]

I feel like "not wanting a romantic relationship" is a silly definition because a "romantic relationship" is defined more by society than by the individual. Whereas "lack of romantic attraction" relies on the individual's feelings for picking a label more than "not wanting a romantic relationship." I don't think romantic orientation, aromantic or otherwise, is a choice.

[Isaac]

I consider myself clearly aromantic since I'm so with any definition. I'm aware of the circular definition of romantic things. It was discused by Rainbow Amoeba in this series of her blog.

[Individual]

Hm. After having given this some thought, I think that being aromantic is the lack of romantic attraction. Because, you can want to be in a relationship, wanting something is a conscious thing, yeah? But whether you actually experience romantic attraction or not, that's a much more subconscious, uncontrolled thing...

Ah, interesting take on the term - if that's the case then I'm aromantic as well. The other possible definition doesn't quite suit me personally; I don't find romance or the display thereof revolting, unless it's pornographic "hardcore" material or something.

[Charlieee]

Hm. After having given this some thought, I think that being aromantic is the lack of romantic attraction. Because, you can want to be in a relationship, wanting something is a conscious thing, yeah? But whether you actually experience romantic attraction or not, that's a much more subconscious, uncontrolled thing...

Ah, interesting take on the term - if that's the case then I'm aromantic as well. The other possible definition doesn't quite suit me personally; I don't find romance or the display thereof revolting, unless it's pornographic "hardcore" material or something.

Yeah, same. I think it's kinda nice, actually. I also am not revolted by sexuality or sexual activity (no, not even in a pornographic way), so I guess that puts me in a minority? But yeah.

[Snap-Dragon]

I define myself as aromantic, using the "lack of desire to be in a romantic relationship" definition. It's a bit tricky, though... I mean, I occasionally get crushes (although they tend to be very fleeting -- I think that counts as romantic attraction?), and I can certainly find someone physically attractive as well. But, even when I really like someone a lot, or have a crush on them, I don't have any desire to form an actual relationship. I might stare at them a lot, or daydream about some fairy tale-esque romance, but in reality, the very thought of a relationship bores me, and seriously considering it usually dilutes the crush feelings considerably. Guess it's the hardcore loner in me coming out. ;)

And that, I guess, is some parts choice, some parts not. I think a fair bit of it simply has to do with personality, which by now is rather difficult to change. But it can also be choice -- someone very busy, say with school or work, may not be interested in a romantic relationship, nor will someone who has mental hangups about such things. And that may change down the road as they finish school, or find the right person, or whatever. So, I guess, my answer to that part of the question is "a bit of both".

[Sciatrix]

For me, aromantic means "doesn't get romantic crushes/develop romantic interest," rather than "doesn't want to be in a relationship." I would classify the latter as being more like the romantic version of celibacy, yeah? Or otherwise it's rather a useless term for self-identification.

I can think "yeah, maybe I'll be interested in romance at some point," but it's not really a useful thing to focus on since I don't think I have had even a squish since I was four. And that was all hero-worshipy and ended when the kid in question turned out to be terrified of my beloved Jack Russell Terrier.

[Lors]

...even when I really like someone a lot, or have a crush on them, I don't have any desire to form an actual relationship. I might stare at them a lot, or daydream about some fairy tale-esque romance, but in reality, the very thought of a relationship bores me, and seriously considering it usually dilutes the crush feelings considerably.

Although, I've never had anything I've called a crush (only what I've thought of as a milder friendship crush), I just wanted to say that this sounds very, very familiar.

[Siggy]

If I may answer my own question (now that there are lots of other responses), I would use the "lack of romantic attraction" definition.

If we think of aromantic as "lack of desire to be in romantic relationships", then that seems like something which could be influenced by choice. It's not necessarily easy to change, but it seems possible. If it's about choices, wishes, and desires, it seems more analogous to celibacy than to asexuality. And that's fine; there's nothing wrong with celibacy.

However, if I am being honest, I probably like the "lack of romantic attraction" definition because that is the one which is useful to me personally. I don't want to be selfish with words, insisting that everyone use them to mean the exact same thing I do. If someone finds the other definition to be more useful in their own life, I'm totally cool with that.

[Snap-Dragon]

For me, aromantic means "doesn't get romantic crushes/develop romantic interest," rather than "doesn't want to be in a relationship." I would classify the latter as being more like the romantic version of celibacy, yeah? Or otherwise it's rather a useless term for self-identification.

Eh, I can see both definitions as valid, but the comparison with celibacy is rather... weak? I mean, for others it might be different, but as someone who doesn't feel any desire to form a romantic relationship myself, it's not really like denying yourself, like celibacy is. It's not like being romantically interested in someone but just saying, "no, no, I can't have a relationship right now". It's just... not being interested in the first place. Eck, I don't really know how to explain it, and I don't think that really cleared anything up. :( I guess, I think the line between the two definitions is very blurry, and involves a lot of overlap.

[The MoUsY spell-checker]

Since "asexual" means "not sexually attracted to anyone" (which is distinct from "not having a sex drive"), intuitively I would expect "aromantic" to mean "not romantically attracted to anyone" (which is distinct from "not wanting a romantic relationship").

This kind of assumes that the usage is logical though, and it doesn't really solve the problem of defining "romantic".

[chipmunkgirl]

Although I think both definitions are valid, I personally fall in the "does not experience romantic attraction" boat. I like the idea of being in a romantic relationship-- even as a kid, I always liked having one or two "best" friends, and a long-term relationship with your best friend always seemed liked something desirable to me-- but I don't feel any sensual attraction, don't get crushes, have never fallen in love. I tried being in romantic relationships, and without all of the above, it just doesn't work. So for me being aromantic is not a choice, because the romantic attraction just isn't there.

For me, aromantic means "doesn't get romantic crushes/develop romantic interest," rather than "doesn't want to be in a relationship." I would classify the latter as being more like the romantic version of celibacy, yeah? Or otherwise it's rather a useless term for self-identification.

Eh, I can see both definitions as valid, but the comparison with celibacy is rather... weak? I mean, for others it might be different, but as someone who doesn't feel any desire to form a romantic relationship myself, it's not really like denying yourself, like celibacy is. It's not like being romantically interested in someone but just saying, "no, no, I can't have a relationship right now". It's just... not being interested in the first place. Eck, I don't really know how to explain it, and I don't think that really cleared anything up. :( I guess, I think the line between the two definitions is very blurry, and involves a lot of overlap.

Concerning the comparison with celibacy... Couldn't you argue that a celibate might not be interested in having sex? Say that you are a nun, you may not be denying yourself because you are preoccupied with greater things. Or say you were sexually abused and you are sexually attracted to other people, but you are not interested in having sex because of the emotional trauma-- would you be denying yourself in that case? If you don't want to have sex despite being attracted to people?

Also, if you are aromantic but get crushes, etc. then surely you have a romantic orientation that you could act upon if you were interested in a relationship?

[Sabriel]

Although I think both definitions are valid, I personally fall in the "does not experience romantic attraction" boat. I like the idea of being in a romantic relationship-- even as a kid, I always liked having one or two "best" friends, and a long-term relationship with your best friend always seemed liked something desirable to me-- but I don't feel any sensual attraction, don't get crushes, have never fallen in love. I tried being in romantic relationships, and without all of the above, it just doesn't work. So for me being aromantic is not a choice, because the romantic attraction just isn't there.

For me, aromantic means "doesn't get romantic crushes/develop romantic interest," rather than "doesn't want to be in a relationship." I would classify the latter as being more like the romantic version of celibacy, yeah? Or otherwise it's rather a useless term for self-identification.

Eh, I can see both definitions as valid, but the comparison with celibacy is rather... weak? I mean, for others it might be different, but as someone who doesn't feel any desire to form a romantic relationship myself, it's not really like denying yourself, like celibacy is. It's not like being romantically interested in someone but just saying, "no, no, I can't have a relationship right now". It's just... not being interested in the first place. Eck, I don't really know how to explain it, and I don't think that really cleared anything up. :( I guess, I think the line between the two definitions is very blurry, and involves a lot of overlap.

Concerning the comparison with celibacy... Couldn't you argue that a celibate might not be interested in having sex? Say that you are a nun, you may not be denying yourself because you are preoccupied with greater things. Or say you were sexually abused and you are sexually attracted to other people, but you are not interested in having sex because of the emotional trauma-- would you be denying yourself in that case? If you don't want to have sex despite being attracted to people?

Also, if you are aromantic but get crushes, etc. then surely you have a romantic orientation that you could act upon if you were interested in a relationship?

I was about to make the comparison with celibacy after reading the first post. I suppose it's not quite the same as not wanting to be in a romantic relationship because you're not really denying anything as such, but if you do have romantic attraction then surely you're suppressing/not acting on that? So for me aromantic is a lack of romantic attraction. I don't always want to be in a romantic relationship, depending on how my life's going, but I always have the potential for romantic attraction, which I often feel even if I don't actually want to act on it, so I don't identify as aromantic.

[Snap-Dragon]

I was about to make the comparison with celibacy after reading the first post. I suppose it's not quite the same as not wanting to be in a romantic relationship because you're not really denying anything as such, but if you do have romantic attraction then surely you're suppressing/not acting on that?

Not really. It's more like the non-desire for one balances out the attraction of the other. If that makes any sense. There's not really anything there to suppress. Dang, I'm starting to confuse myself.

For me, aromantic means "doesn't get romantic crushes/develop romantic interest," rather than "doesn't want to be in a relationship." I would classify the latter as being more like the romantic version of celibacy, yeah? Or otherwise it's rather a useless term for self-identification.

Eh, I can see both definitions as valid, but the comparison with celibacy is rather... weak? I mean, for others it might be different, but as someone who doesn't feel any desire to form a romantic relationship myself, it's not really like denying yourself, like celibacy is. It's not like being romantically interested in someone but just saying, "no, no, I can't have a relationship right now". It's just... not being interested in the first place. Eck, I don't really know how to explain it, and I don't think that really cleared anything up. :( I guess, I think the line between the two definitions is very blurry, and involves a lot of overlap.

Concerning the comparison with celibacy... Couldn't you argue that a celibate might not be interested in having sex? Say that you are a nun, you may not be denying yourself because you are preoccupied with greater things. Or say you were sexually abused and you are sexually attracted to other people, but you are not interested in having sex because of the emotional trauma-- would you be denying yourself in that case? If you don't want to have sex despite being attracted to people?

Hm, actually, that does rather make sense...

Also, if you are aromantic but get crushes, etc. then surely you have a romantic orientation that you could act upon if you were interested in a relationship?

Hrm. That's true, and I've always waffled between calling myself aromantic and heteroromantic. Here's a somewhat related question: if you don't experience romantic attraction at all, can you still have a desire to be in a romantic relationship?

[Sciatrix]

Also, if you are aromantic but get crushes, etc. then surely you have a romantic orientation that you could act upon if you were interested in a relationship?

Hrm. That's true, and I've always waffled between calling myself aromantic and heteroromantic. Here's a somewhat related question: if you don't experience romantic attraction at all, can you still have a desire to be in a romantic relationship?

Well, yeah. I don't get crushes at all. (The closest I might have come is a squish I may have had when I was four or so.) But I think the idea of a romantic relationship is an interesting one, and I love close friendships and a society-supported long-term close friendship is very appealing to me.

[Siggy]

Hrm. That's true, and I've always waffled between calling myself aromantic and heteroromantic. Here's a somewhat related question: if you don't experience romantic attraction at all, can you still have a desire to be in a romantic relationship?

Yes. Maybe it's because society has conditioned me to wish for it, with all its damned romantic comedies. Or maybe it's some deeper dischord. Whatever it is, I think it's a curse.

In an ideal world, we would never need to distinguish between the two definitions of aromantic, because they'd always come together.

[chipmunkgirl]

Also, if you are aromantic but get crushes, etc. then surely you have a romantic orientation that you could act upon if you were interested in a relationship?

Hrm. That's true, and I've always waffled between calling myself aromantic and heteroromantic. Here's a somewhat related question: if you don't experience romantic attraction at all, can you still have a desire to be in a romantic relationship?

Well, yeah. I don't get crushes at all. (The closest I might have come is a squish I may have had when I was four or so.) But I think the idea of a romantic relationship is an interesting one, and I love close friendships and a society-supported long-term close friendship is very appealing to me.

yep

[Isaac]

I think that aromantic should be defined keeping parallelism with the definition of asexual. Regarding asexuality, orientation of the attraction is distinguished form its intensity and both are so from libido, although not everybody distinguishes so fine. Storms' and AVEN triangle models represent bidimensionally orientation and intensity of attraction, but we know that libido is independent. Shouldn't we make the same distinctions about romantic stuff? The poll-thread Romantic drive doesn't distinguish attraction intensity from undirected romanticism, which would be the analogous of libido if it exists.

I think that I had never considered this refinement of our concepts about romantic drive before, whilst I consider this distinction for sexual stuff, because my settings are mismatched for sex (mild or high libido with neglectible or inexistent attraction) but for romance both are equal zero. This could be the explanation of why I feel my aromanticism far more clear than my asexuality. How could be the case swapping sex and romance in my case? How could be an asexual person with high romantic drive but no romantic attraction? Does it correspond to the stereotypical old maid who waits for her prince charming without being attracted to any real person unless far and idealized?

[Justinfh2Point0]

From the avenwiki:

There is no concrete definition for "aromantic". Some people think of it as the lack of romantic attraction, whereas others define it as the lack of desire to be in a romantic relationship.

So, which of the two definitions is dominant in the asexual community? Which definition would you use? And do you believe being aromantic is a choice, or not?

I don't see how you can have "romantic" attraction without the sexual. So to me, aromantic would mean the lack of desire to be in a romantic relationship. I think part of the reason why I'm aromatic is because I'm asexual. Although maybe bad experiences in another reason?