WTFRomantic?

[mchrestine]

So I've seen this romantic orientation on Tumblr called "wtfromantic" which is basically perfect for me. Kind of like queerplatonic as a description of a relationship, it is very subjective and very much means what the person who employs the term wants it to mean, but the description I saw of it that I really identified with is that we literally cannot distinguish between romantic and platonic attraction. It's for people for whom no other romantic orientation seems to fit.

In any case, it is a term I've latched onto. Problem is, it's not very practical for actual verbal use in conversation. It's a mouthful for one thing, and for another, it sounds rather like a joke--which is a big problem when people already seem to have a hard time understanding that asexuality can be a real thing. I was wondering whether anyone had ever come across a term with similar meaning or whether we needed to work to invent a more professional-appropriate term?

[Mezzo Forte]

The closest thing I've seen is "quoiromantic" which took some serious google-fu for me to define the first time I came across the term (which admittedly, was rather recent), and it's basically supposed to be an alternative term for "wtfromantic". The term is probably going to be even more foreign to others than wtfromantic is, so I can't vouch for its usefulness and the term is too rarely used for me to gauge the general reactions to the term are.

In my experience, sometimes it's just best to be able to describe your experiences to others without a term, but I know that not everyone likes that approach. It is pretty frustrating when a term was clearly not invented in a verbal context first. I actually find saying "asexual" aloud in context of the sexual orientation to be incredibly awkward, and "ace" is only marginally less uncomfortable, but way less likely to be recognized for its slang meaning in the asexual community. I could only imagine that the awkwardness is worse when you have a term like "wtfromantic", especially when it describes your experiences so well.

[mchrestine]

That looks better for sure. How do you pronounce it, though?

I usually do describe myself as-is as well, but having a term makes it easier both for me and often for people I talk to. Like, for some reason, it's easier for people to "get it" if you have a fancy word to describe yourself. Also, I'm maybe a little overly optimistic that in the not-too-terribly-distant future, the asexual and aromantic spectrums will be more widely understood and known. Hopefully by then, the terms we use now will have solidified and become more well-known throughout pubic knowledge.

And I agree about asexual. It's surprisingly weird to say out loud. I had to when I first came out to my close friends and family, but I almost immediately switched to referring to my sexuality as "the Ace thing". Terms are weird.

[Philip027]

it sounds rather like a joke

Oh thank goodness, I'm not the only one who thinks so.

[Mezzo Forte]

That looks better for sure. How do you pronounce it, though?

I usually do describe myself as-is as well, but having a term makes it easier both for me and often for people I talk to. Like, for some reason, it's easier for people to "get it" if you have a fancy word to describe yourself. Also, I'm maybe a little overly optimistic that in the not-too-terribly-distant future, the asexual and aromantic spectrums will be more widely understood and known. Hopefully by then, the terms we use now will have solidified and become more well-known throughout pubic knowledge.

And I agree about asexual. It's surprisingly weird to say out loud. I had to when I first came out to my close friends and family, but I almost immediately switched to referring to my sexuality as "the Ace thing". Terms are weird.

To be honest, I don't know how to pronounce it. Apparently, it's derived from some French word, but I couldn't say more than that because of how new the term is. (It's awful, but I have trouble remembering the name of the term because my brain reads it as "QWOPromantic" for some reason. :lol: )

I can't say that I have enough experiences discussing my experiences with or without the term to compare, but depending on who you talk to, some react better when there's a term, but some react worse. It's a gamble either way, I suppose. I think that more people are picking up on asexuality as a concept, though I think the very concept of romantic orientation is going to take time, especially since most of the discussion of having mismatched sexual/romantic orientations is within the asexual community with very little visibility of the concept outside of the asexual awareness efforts.

I think it's the "sexual" part of the term that makes it kinda uncomfortable. When someone comes out about being attracted to the same sex, they tend to say "I'm gay" instead of "I'm homosexual" because one just rolls off the tongue a little less awkwardly in general conversation (I think it's the same with heterosexual/straight and bisexual/bi, because all the slang terms remove the "sexual" part of the terms)

it sounds rather like a joke

Oh thank goodness, I'm not the only one who thinks so.

For some reason, I thought that sentiment was more established here, since the structure of the term is pretty awkward. It was pretty clearly developed in an online setting and the people who started the term probably didn't consider how it would be spoken much at all when coining it.

[Philip027]

(It's awful, but I have trouble remembering the name of the term because my brain reads it as "QWOPromantic" for some reason. :lol: )

That's actually a significant improvement in my eyes, because it's at least pronouncable, plus QWOP is a hilarious game.

[byanyotherusername]

What exactly do you mean, you cannot distinguish? Do you suspect you might be in love with your mother? Joking aside, I feel like most people should have a frame of reference for platonic affections--that's what you feel for family, friends, pets, etc. If you feel some other fundamentally different type of affection for certain people, those feelings could be romantic. I have no idea what that feels like, but that's one of the things that makes me so sure I am aromantic. If I had experienced romantic attraction, I would know what it feels like. If you have never had an experience that you are sure was romantic attraction, you are probably aromantic.

That's the first thing that gets me about the WTFromantic label--most of the people who describe themselves that way explain it in a way that sounds indistinguishable from aromanticism. But perhaps I am just misunderstanding.

The next thing that gets me is that romantic orientations imply that you understand romantic attraction and who you feel it towards: homoromanticism if you feel romantic attraction towards the same gender, heteroromanticism if you feel it towards the opposite, aromanticism if you do not feel it towards anyone. If we're being consistent, WTFromanticism would mean attraction to the letters WTF, or perhaps towards individuals whose gender identity is WTF. Oritentations answer the "who" question, not the "what" you feel question, the "what" is already stated to be romantic attraction. If you do not know what romantic attraction is, why are you labeling yourself a WTF"romantic"?

Describe yourself that way if it feels right, but I have no advice about how to make it sound more serious--it just doesn't sound serious. What you experience is serious, I am not trying to invalidate the way you feel in anyway. I just don't understand the use of a label that both sounds ridiculous, and doesn't seem to have a helpful meaning.

A lot of the people who use it also seem to use it almost politically, from what I've seen--they believe that the platonic vs. romantic distinction is pointless and serves only to limit people and relationships. They don't tend to care that the term wtfromantic sounds ridiculous because the whole point they are trying to make is that basing behavior on arbitrary, highly subjective experiences such as romantic and platonic attraction is ridiculous. (A point of view I am sympathetic with, to a degree.)

What you could say is something like "I'm not a very romantic person," "I'm not big on labels," "the way I love my friends and the way I love my partners doesn't really feel that different," or even "I literally cannot distinguish between romantic and platonic attraction." Basically, I would stick with a definition, not a label. People will take you more seriously if you just honestly describe your experience than if you attach yourself to a label that is rare and dubious sounding.

That being said, however you identify should not be dependent on whether other people will take you seriously for it. How you feel is important, and if you have found a label that feels right, do not let what other people think of it stop you from using it. It's your identity, no one else gets a say. Good luck!

[I'd rather be in band.]

I've never actually looked into this and I am curious to see more replies to this topic. Congrats on finding your identity!

[Janus the Fox]

AVEN has its definition of it as well... From the Romantic and Aromantic Lexicon and FAQ

Wtfromantic is a very loose definition. A wtfromantic will typically be someone on the aromantic spectrum, who does not experience romanticism in the traditional manner, but who cannot fully say they are aromantic or grey-aromantic. It is usually used by someone who knows they are not a full romantic, but has no better term for what they are. The specific meanings of the identity is up to each individual. *

Wtfromantics may differ from grey-aromantics in many ways. While grey-aro individuals are those who fall somewhere along a line in between romantic and aromantic, wtfromantics may not be on the line at all. Wtfromantic is generally used as a catch-all term for those who fall somewhere in the category of semiromantic or alternatively romantic, but do not better fit into any other label. (source).

Interesting links on and off AVEN:

Explanation of wtfromantic

WTFromantic - Question for aromantics

My romantic orientation is?

A set of affections difficult to characterize

[mchrestine]

What exactly do you mean, you cannot distinguish? Do you suspect you might be in love with your mother? Joking aside, I feel like most people should have a frame of reference for platonic affections--that's what you feel for family, friends, pets, etc. If you feel some other fundamentally different type of affection for certain people, those feelings could be romantic. I have no idea what that feels like, but that's one of the things that makes me so sure I am aromantic. If I had experienced romantic attraction, I would know what it feels like. If you have never had an experience that you are sure was romantic attraction, you are probably aromantic.

I can obviously only speak for my own experience--though from what I gather, my experience seems to be rather regular with people who identify as WTFRomantic--but there is a very distinct and obvious distinction between familial platonic and friendly platonic, and only friendly platonic gets confused with romantic attraction. I wondered if I was aromantic for a bit, but I don't identify with most aromantic sentiments--for example, I do very much WANT a romantic relationship. When friends asked me what I thought my romantic orientation was, I often said I was either panromantic or aromantic because I don't make distinctions between gender. And when I describe the kind of relationship I want to people who are romantic, they often agree that it sounds like what they would consider a romantic relationship. However, this relationship is something I can very easily see myself in with anyone who I consider a close friend. There is no "I am very close to this person platonically but I cannot imagine a romantic or queerplatonic relationship with them". If I am close to a person, I can see us in a romantic/queerplatonic relationship. Period. Because of this, I feel uncomfortable identifying as aromantic, but because I don't get crushes in any conventional sense and because I don't feel more attracted to one close friend than to another (this is difficult to explain in text), I don't feel comfortable identifying as panromantic. This was extremely confusing and very frustrating for quite a long time.

Sorry for that long explanation; really the explanation I gave above--a lack of ability to distinguish between platonic and romantic attraction--is the best way I can think to describe it. It is definitely different from what I understand aromanticism to be, though. There is a reason we are more comfortable inventing another term entirely than identifying under an existing one.

The next thing that gets me is that romantic orientations imply that you understand romantic attraction and who you feel it towards: homoromanticism if you feel romantic attraction towards the same gender, heteroromanticism if you feel it towards the opposite, aromanticism if you do not feel it towards anyone. If we're being consistent, WTFromanticism would mean attraction to the letters WTF, or perhaps towards individuals whose gender identity is WTF. Oritentations answer the "who" question, not the "what" you feel question, the "what" is already stated to be romantic attraction. If you do not know what romantic attraction is, why are you labeling yourself a WTF"romantic"?

WTFromantic as in (pardon my French) What the Fuck is my Romantic orientation? or What The Fuck is romance anyway? It intentionally implies that romantic attraction is a strange and foreign distinction. Also, as for prefexes only describing who you are romantically attracted to, there is also demi-romantic and lithoromantic, meaning romantically attracted only when a strong emotional bond has been formed (but not necessarily with every emotional bond like with WTFromantics--also it implies a discernable change in the way you see the relationship. This is not the case with WTFromantics) and feeling romantic attraction but not wanting it to be reciprocated, respectively. Neither of these orientations use their prefixes to define who they are attracted to, but how they experience attraction, just like WTFromantic.

Describe yourself that way if it feels right, but I have no advice about how to make it sound more serious--it just doesn't sound serious. What you experience is serious, I am not trying to invalidate the way you feel in anyway. I just don't understand the use of a label that both sounds ridiculous, and doesn't seem to have a helpful meaning.

A lot of the people who use it also seem to use it almost politically, from what I've seen--they believe that the platonic vs. romantic distinction is pointless and serves only to limit people and relationships. They don't tend to care that the term wtfromantic sounds ridiculous because the whole point they are trying to make is that basing behavior on arbitrary, highly subjective experiences such as romantic and platonic attraction is ridiculous. (A point of view I am sympathetic with, to a degree.)

I don't know what to say other than it DOES have a helpful meaning. Finding this term and the definition associated with it helped me to define how I felt about my romantic orientation. I wish it was an easier orientation to explain but it is a very confusing one to figure out, and having a label and a group of people to identify along with definitely helps. As for it sounding ridiculous, that was the point of this topic. There is no play on WTFromantic that will make it sound serious--Quoiromantic seems on the right track, though. Hopefully by talking about it, we will be able to a) bring awareness to the orientation and b) come to a more universal agreement on which term(s) should and can be used for this definintion.

I don't know about people who use it politically--I've not seen that use of it before. Personally, I don't think the romantic attraction vs. platonic attraction distinction is pointless, I just know that it is not a distinction I am capable of making. Obviously I thought the distinction was important enough to do a lot of research to try to better understand what romantic attraction was and to better understand if and how I experience it. I can't speak for everyone who uses the term, but this is how I use it and how I've most often seen it used.

What you could say is something like "I'm not a very romantic person," "I'm not big on labels," "the way I love my friends and the way I love my partners doesn't really feel that different," or even "I literally cannot distinguish between romantic and platonic attraction." Basically, I would stick with a definition, not a label. People will take you more seriously if you just honestly describe your experience than if you attach yourself to a label that is rare and dubious sounding.

That being said, however you identify should not be dependent on whether other people will take you seriously for it. How you feel is important, and if you have found a label that feels right, do not let what other people think of it stop you from using it. It's your identity, no one else gets a say. Good luck!

The thing is, some people (like me) legitimately find a lot of comfort in labels and terms. Of course, when I describe my romantic orientation to people, I always accompany the term with a definition (the same goes for asexuality, btw). In my experience, people take me most seriously when I have both a label and a definition, because a label implies that I have done enough research to find said term. Again, the dubious-sounding quality of the term is something I find issue with. That is the reason I started this topic.

[byanyotherusername]

What exactly do you mean, you cannot distinguish? Do you suspect you might be in love with your mother? Joking aside, I feel like most people should have a frame of reference for platonic affections--that's what you feel for family, friends, pets, etc. If you feel some other fundamentally different type of affection for certain people, those feelings could be romantic. I have no idea what that feels like, but that's one of the things that makes me so sure I am aromantic. If I had experienced romantic attraction, I would know what it feels like. If you have never had an experience that you are sure was romantic attraction, you are probably aromantic.

I can obviously only speak for my own experience--though from what I gather, my experience seems to be rather regular with people who identify as WTFRomantic--but there is a very distinct and obvious distinction between familial platonic and friendly platonic, and only friendly platonic gets confused with romantic attraction. I wondered if I was aromantic for a bit, but I don't identify with most aromantic sentiments--for example, I do very much WANT a romantic relationship. When friends asked me what I thought my romantic orientation was, I often said I was either panromantic or aromantic because I don't make distinctions between gender. And when I describe the kind of relationship I want to people who are romantic, they often agree that it sounds like what they would consider a romantic relationship. However, this relationship is something I can very easily see myself in with anyone who I consider a close friend. There is no "I am very close to this person platonically but I cannot imagine a romantic or queerplatonic relationship with them". If I am close to a person, I can see us in a romantic/queerplatonic relationship. Period. Because of this, I feel uncomfortable identifying as aromantic, but because I don't get crushes in any conventional sense and because I don't feel more attracted to one close friend than to another (this is difficult to explain in text), I don't feel comfortable identifying as panromantic. This was extremely confusing and very frustrating for quite a long time.

But not getting crushes in the conventional sense is the defining characteristic of aromanticism--that is what aromantic means: does not experience romantic attraction. It does not mean "does not want a romantic relationship." Many aromantics want and have romantic relationships, and they tend to have them with people they consider close friends, since they do not feel romantic attraction.

I can also see myself in a queerplatonic relationship with anyone I consider myself close to, or even a romantic one depending on what that involved. The types of relationships you want and the types of attraction you feel are very different matters. Orientation =/= behavior.

I do not experience "friendly platonic" and "family platonic" differently, though, so maybe that's one of the reasons I am having trouble understanding your experience? The way I love my best friend feels the same as the way I love my sister. Love is love to me.

I don't know what to say other than it DOES have a helpful meaning. Finding this term and the definition associated with it helped me to define how I felt about my romantic orientation.

If it's helpful to you, that's all that matters. I wish you luck in spreading the term "quoiromantic" or whatever else you feel will increase social understanding and acceptance of your experience.

[TheWheatOne]

This is getting confusing, like semantics for your semantics confusing.

Okay, lets set a scenario here to get some clarity, in fact, I'll use a story/character I'm developing (and love to reference here in these forums). He's a naive (high school here) boy, that do in part to his nontraditional family (reclusive mother, outgoing uncle, close cohabitant/roommate woman), and his own rather odd values, manifests in his seeing friendships as the pinnacle of what he wants, but how he sees friends is extremely open and variable.

He considers his family his friends, and will do things with them that most people would only do with their friends, like hang out with them (be it at a movie or hobby club), tell various secrets (he'd have no trouble coming out as gay if he was, even if he saw them as conservative/traditional), communicate a lot (texting, phoning), and so forth that would normally be age-restricted for most social circles, but at the same time he'll try to get as intimate as possible with even casual school friends. If they allow him to hug, he will, he'll gift them, and even 'date' them, all this with no gender restriction. He doesn't want sex at all from them, and doesn't expect it. This is all just unconditional service with no thoughts to partnership or sexual orientation (including asexuals) influencing his future with them.

If his friends did not obviously place limits do to his general weirdness (giving boy flowers but not expecting a gay relationship), he'd likely love them as much as a spouse, (which gets into incest-territory when the public sees him so intimate with his mother or uncle, as I talk about in another what-if topic with him). He just sorta loves loving friends I guess, and is happy there is no sex or marriage or legal license needed to show that it can only be done with one other person (such as cuddling in bed), or be afraid of flirting to another person with a 'lover' next to him (he does so for playful reasons, rather than as hooks for sexually aimed dates).

Now, what is he here? I assumed this was WTFRomantic behavior, and that seemed to fit him, but now I see the term is just confusing itself from what I'm reading here. To me it fit him as a catch all term, he didn't care specifically about traditional 'dates', sex, and marriage-progression (such as the baseball bases analogy), but loved platonic friendships to however high he could get with them to a romantic-like degree.

I guess aside from the sexual/romantic-type labels here, he'd be best described as that lovable dog you just love sitting on your lap/bed, cuddling up to you, and licking you, and does those the more close you are to him. He doesn't think of it as sexual though, its just a doggy thing I guess. And no, he isn't an actual dog. His 'pack' is his family, friends, 'lovers'(no sex) or whatever all encompass what he thinks of as just friendship at various degrees. He doesn't force change or insist on getting closer, and respects any boundaries a person has in relation to him, much like a friend would, or even a far off acquaintance that you like but don't see much.

Again, what is he? What is his label? I'd personally like one, as it would be confusing to discuss this all again and again. We already have enough trouble explaining asexuals in general to a person that doesn't know the term. Just look at the list for #AsexualProblems in the rant forum! Its tough as it is. I know there likely isn't a term for him specifically, but a general orientation that doesn't care about specific rules of romance or platonic limits would be nice, to see as at least a definition that is commonly agreed upon.

[mchrestine]

Your character sounds WTFromantic to me. WTFromantic really is a catch-all term for anyone who feels they don't fit into other romantic orientation titles--I used it rather exclusively in my last comment for sake of convenience, which I probably shouldn't have done--WTFromantic can mean a lot of things, not all of them related to my experience. Basically if you feel this character doesn't fit under the aromantic label or any alloromantic label, then WTFromantic is probably a good fit. Good luck with your story! It sounds interesting!