If humanity did not reproduce sexually...would romantic love still exist?

[TheKindredSoul]

This thought comes into my mind a lot. If romantic love and sexual love often go together, then this is nature's way to beckon us to reproduce (or so science says) and to keep the relationship together to rear the offspring. Homosexual relationships exist, though reproduction is impossible, since only man and woman can reproduce (which I find to be unfair, but nature can be cruel sometimes). However, as many of us know, romantic orientation and sexual orientation can be separate. What would happen if we reproduced asexually though? If sexual love did not exist (because it would not exist if we reproduced asexually), then would romantic love go out with it? Also, if those two loves (sexual love does not truly qualify as love to me, but I call it that anyway) disappeared, what would be left? Would love be more unconditional? To me that would make sense, but then again...I have no clue what I am saying here.

[Arctic_Revenge]

If not from sexual connection, I think the only other way "romantic" love might come about is by pro-social cooperative behaviors helping each other survive.

In other words, we might create deep bonds with those of us who help us live better. Help us hunt, help us maintain a home, help us solve personal problems, etc.

Would that be the same as "love" inspired by sexual chemistry? I don't know. But family/tribe/friendship bonds are just as deep. :D

[TheWheatOne]

By natural selection, probably no. There would be no motivation for it to happen or develop in our brains to want that specific feeling or set of actions that we see as generally romantic today. It would probably be seen as unnatural and creepy.

[Lambda Corvus]

I would think romantic love would still exist. After all, asexuals, people who have never experienced sexual attraction, are still capable of experiencing romantic attraction. When romance can still be experienced even when sexuality is not the driving factor -- that is a strong indicator to me.

[Guest]

By natural selection, probably no. There would be no motivation for it to happen or develop in our brains to want that specific feeling or set of actions that we see as generally romantic today. It probably be seen as unnatural and creepy.

*bites my tongue not to outright snark*

I do think that sexuals can see romance as unnatural and creepy, just as well. Thinking that one would need to be ace to recognize it for the mess that it is has unpleasant elitist vibes, IMO.

I think it's really more a matter of nurture than of nature... even if humans reproduced asexually, society could still be as obsessive and indoctrinating about romance as it is today; and in return, romanticism would become drastically reduced in this world if society stopped being so hung up on it, 99% of people being sexual notwithstanding. (Actually, I'd hate to live in a world where I'd have to give up hope that romance could, at least in theory, be mostly eliminated if we just stopped poisoning people's minds with these concepts from an early age onwards. :p)

I really don't see much of an intrinsic connection between sex and romance, in either direction. The end of romance would certainly not be the end of sex. I think that ould remani true vice versa, too.

[Philip027]

Of course it would. For me, they aren't even related, and the way I feel is not at all influenced at how we go about reproducing (because I have no interest in reproducing)

[Squirrel Combat]

I think there would be romance between people still. But somebody would still have to squirt out babies or else we're in for a dark fate.

My answer is still yes, though in a practical sense, no.

[TheWheatOne]

By natural selection, probably no. There would be no motivation for it to happen or develop in our brains to want that specific feeling or set of actions that we see as generally romantic today. It probably be seen as unnatural and creepy.

*bites my tongue not to outright snark*

I do think that sexuals can see romance as unnatural and creepy, just as well. Thinking that one would need to be ace to recognize it for the mess that it is has unpleasant elitist vibes, IMO.

I'm not sure how I should respond to this. I'm not even an ace. I'm celibate. If we reproduced asexually there would be no need for romantic or sexual attraction, and so we would evolve our minds for single-parenthood. We wouldn't even know those feelings would exist. The closest feeling would likely be a communal one, much like colony ants. The closest we would feel for the 'emotion' of 'love' would be very close friendships or with our children and single parents.

I'm not sure how you interpreted I was making elitist vibes. Or are you referring to asexuals as an orientation, for the lack of sexual attraction, instead of asexuals, as a form of sexual reproduction involving no insemination.

[TheKindredSoul]

By natural selection, probably no. There would be no motivation for it to happen or develop in our brains to want that specific feeling or set of actions that we see as generally romantic today. It probably be seen as unnatural and creepy.

*bites my tongue not to outright snark*

I do think that sexuals can see romance as unnatural and creepy, just as well. Thinking that one would need to be ace to recognize it for the mess that it is has unpleasant elitist vibes, IMO.

I'm not sure how I should respond to this. I'm not even an ace. I'm celibate. If we reproduced asexually there would be no need for romantic or sexual attraction, and so we would evolve our minds for single-parenthood. We wouldn't even know those feelings would exist. The closest feeling would likely be a communal one, much like colony ants. The closest we would feel for the 'emotion' of 'love' would be very close friendships or with our children and single parents.

I'm not sure how you interpreted I was making elitist vibes. Or are you referring to asexuals as an orientation, for the lack of sexual attraction, instead of asexuals, as a form of sexual reproduction involving no insemination.

I do not see how you were being elitist at all.

I think romantic love is nature's way of having us bond to our mates to raise the children, or at least the main reason for it.

Even a homosexual couple, though they cannot reproduce with each other, they can still adopt and treat a child as their own. Romantic love bonds the parents together, and this raises the likelihood of the offspring's survival. That is why I think it exists. If we reproduced asexually, there would be no need for us to bond to a mate romantically. We would be single parents. Romance would not exist in our biological make up. I would even say romance is a mammalian drive (or at least primarily). Romance is just as primal as sex.

[Princessstabity]

Humans by nature are social animals so I think some sort of bond would form. Some people don't like being lonely, so I think romantic attraction would still form between people to keep others company. Evolution wise, I believe having a bond with someone would increase the likelyhood of survival, since it's more protection and two heads are better than one.

[WhenSummersGone]

I think it would. I like companionship and being affectionate which is a desire I have all on my own. I don't know what the purpose of it is but some people like myself feel this desire.

[PeterDave]

From an evolutionary standpoint, the OP is what a philosopher might call "a question wrongly put."

How is this non-sexual species going to reproduce? Much more importantly, how are the offspring raised? The link between Romantic traits in animals has MUCH more to do with how closely the parents stay to the young (and how few there are).

Following human evolution (though of course there are no non-sexual vertibrates, or even much past sponges...), social and romantic behavior grew from communitis, who all had a shared stake in their offspring, because the primate/othher community was sexually interlocked.

Without the genetic ties to those nearby, we had little reason to evolve relationships like romance in the first place. It wouldn't likely have happened.

That said, it is a VERY VERY different question to think what would happen if Non-sexual reproduction became a common part of our culture in the future. Frankly, I don't see that as a hypothetical as much as a strong prediction.

On-topic, I think that romance could flourish in that society. I like to think that with sexuality totally decoupled from reproduction and childrearing, We would grow far closer and more emotionally connected as a species.

As Memetics rise in society, Genetics will be less noticed.

[Ashmedai]

Funnily enough, we would reproduce asexually. There would be absolutely no need for gender, so I highly doubt romance would be involved.

[Guest]

I'm not sure how I should respond to this. I'm not even an ace. I'm celibate. If we reproduced asexually there would be no need for romantic or sexual attraction, and so we would evolve our minds for single-parenthood. We wouldn't even know those feelings would exist. The closest feeling would likely be a communal one, much like colony ants. The closest we would feel for the 'emotion' of 'love' would be very close friendships or with our children and single parents.

I'm not sure how you interpreted I was making elitist vibes. Or are you referring to asexuals as an orientation, for the lack of sexual attraction, instead of asexuals, as a form of sexual reproduction involving no insemination.

The part I saw as elitist was in that the creepiness of romance could only be noticed if people are (orientationally) asexual, as if asexuality were somehow "enlightening to the truth".

I also disagree with the idea that if we were an (biologically) asexual species, romance would not happen. I do not think romance is caused by the natural facts about sex or reproduction; romance simply does not require sex to develop. If anything, I'd think that romance could be "raised out" of us (or rather, never get taught to us in the first place) if our early childhoods were spent in big communalities (kibbutz-like, maybe?), with a large-ish and somewhat de-individualized group of caretakers - the bigger the "pool" of people you see as your early support group, the less likely emotional dependencies would develop for any single individual. And still, I'd bet that the overwhelming majority of people raised like that would still regularly have sex when they grow up - just a lot more casually/FWB-ish.

Also, I don't think there's a need for romantic attraction/orientation even in a (biologically) sexual species. I like to think we'd be better off without romance altogether, actually... and that sex and reproduction would still work just fine if we were.

[TheWheatOne]

The part I saw as elitist was in that the creepiness of romance could only be noticed if people are (orientationally) asexual, as if asexuality were somehow "enlightening to the truth".

I also disagree with the idea that if we were an (biologically) asexual species, romance would not happen. I do not think romance is caused by the natural facts about sex or reproduction; romance simply does not require sex to develop. If anything, I'd think that romance could be "raised out" of us (or rather, never get taught to us in the first place) if our early childhoods were spent in big communalities (kibbutz-like, maybe?), with a large-ish and somewhat de-individualized group of caretakers - the bigger the "pool" of people you see as your early support group, the less likely emotional dependencies would develop for any single individual. And still, I'd bet that the overwhelming majority of people raised like that would still regularly have sex when they grow up - just a lot more casually/FWB-ish.

Also, I don't think there's a need for romantic attraction/orientation even in a (biologically) sexual species. I like to think we'd be better off without romance altogether, actually... and that sex and reproduction would still work just fine if we were.

I think I'll just summarize my response to this, that I think our outlook on what romance and sexual encounters are in human culture, is too different to compare, when making our answers to this topic question and expecting it to comply with the other outlook.

[Guest]

I think I'll just summarize my response to this, that I think our outlook on what romance and sexual encounters are in human culture, is too different to compare, when making our answers to this topic question and expecting it to comply with the other outlook.

Yup. Wouldn't be the first time that happens to me when talking about romance, either. ^_^:p

[romantic-woman]

Romantic attraction has no connection with sexual attraction. In my case if someone is sexually attracted to me , it kills my romantic attraction and i feel bad or weird. So we are the evidence that romance (in any type but without sex) can exist without sexual attraction.

[Braydin]

I always thought romantic attraction was evolved for the purpose of rearing children. To encourage participation of two people in raising a child has greater advantages than only one parent (evolutionary speaking), so the by product of that need is romantic attraction. Sexual attraction is like a secondary support, other than actual reproduction, sex is meant to be 'bonding and enjoyable', note many species that do not raise offspring together don't require 'pleasurable sex'.