Sensual attraction is not romantic attraction

[Miav-desu]

I get quit annoyed somethines when I read post on AVEN.

Someone decribes something lets say "I want to kiss that person" and then people say that means they are romantic.

For me its really annoying.

Can we please stop asuming that aromantic automatically also means asensual?

In general can we please stop asuming that aromantic feeling any type of attraction outside romance cant be aromantic?

i am not saying people cant be romantic and that its not an option when people here ask, what im saying is I find it annoying when people dismiss the option just because of some trait or action that may be previewed as typically romantic.

Some aromantics like hugs, some dont, some like to kiss, some dont, some like to cuddle some dont. Some get huge squishes, some dont, some want a queerplatonic relationship, some dont

If a person like to cuddle and kiss there squish and be in a queer platonic relationship with them it makes them no less of an aromantic, Than an aromantic person who dont like those actions or dont experience squishes and dont want any kind of relationship at all. Just saying

Anyway that was all, I hope im not the only one having this opinion.

[Guest]

Much agreed.

Can we please stop asuming that aromantic automatically also means asensual?

And vice versa. All the "some aromantics" statements are also true when stated as "some romantics" - there are romantics who aren't into physical touching, and that doesn't make them aro.

Romance is about emotions and nothing else. It has nothing at all directly to do with the types of physical touch one does or does not desire. Blanket equating aro with asensual makes just as much sense as blanket equating ace with aro (i.e., not very much, even though there is, of course, overlap for a sizeable number of folks).

[Star Bit]

True, there is a difference between romantic sensual attraction and actual romantic attraction; the two can be seperate. But the two are normally together and why people on here put them together. But i still agree that the difference should be known. I think the only thing that separates platonic sensual attraction and romantic sensual attraction is chaste kissing vs extencive kissing/making out. So yah, people can have the urge to make out and not have romantic attraction. There's also sexual sensual attraction; physical contact with the intent of sexual arousal, which is possible for an asexual to have as a kink because it is not sex.

[Tarfeather]

My brain now reads the topic title as "[undefined] is not [undefined]". Which is technically correct. Gosh, the discussions here are going to get confusing for me. ._.

[Lost247365]

I think part of the problem is that romantic attraction is so poorly defined.

When I first came here I thought I was a romantic asexual, but upon reading further almost everything I considered romantic attraction could be better described as sensual, platonic, or emotional attraction and now I am left scratching my head wondering if romantic attraction is something more than a mere concept and if I experience it or not.

[cbay89]

I think part of the problem is that romantic attraction is so poorly defined.

When I first came here I thought I was a romantic asexual, but upon reading further almost everything I considered romantic attraction could be better described as sensual, platonic, or emotional attraction and now I am left scratching my head wondering if romantic attraction is something more than a mere concept and if I experience it or not.

This is very true for me as well. I came to AVEN because I felt I wanted to start dating but was trying to get a feel for how best to go about that as an asexual. Then after seeing all of the details about the different types of attraction it made me realize I really do not know if I even feel romantic attraction.

For me my extremely physically affectionate nature made me just assume I was romantic but I have never felt a difference in my desire to hug/kiss/cuddle someone and I do this alot with my friends/family.

[Miav-desu]

True, there is a difference between romantic sensual attraction and actual romantic attraction; the two can be seperate. But the two are normally together and why people on here put them together. But i still agree that the difference should be known. I think the only thing that separates platonic sensual attraction and romantic sensual attraction is chaste kissing vs extencive kissing/making out. So yah, people can have the urge to make out and not have romantic attraction. There's also sexual sensual attraction; physical contact with the intent of sexual arousal, which is possible for an asexual to have as a kink because it is not sex.

I think kissing types are also daring to be used as an exemple because kissing can means so many things to various people.

for me its more easy to go by what type of intentions or what people feel when they kiss, insteed of the kiss itself. I do that now when Im working on an analyse of a serie where there are alot of kissing invold and I have to figure out if they are platonic,romantic, sexual or something ells?

for me personal I can do those non-sexual lip kissing even if im not a huge fan I have done them somethimes and it can feel nice, but its not something I get very exited about or at least not as exited as its expected I of me, I get bored pretty fast :lol: .

[banana monkey]

sorry, just trying to understand myself better here. If I am sensually attracted to someone (unsure if this was romantic also) but then as a biproduct of the sensual activity experience slight arousal does that mean I am sexually sensually attracted or not? my reason for initiating the sensual contact was not because i desired the arousal, the arousal happens as a result, not to say i dont find it slightly pleasurable but after a few mins it goes. I would not say it was full sexual attraction as I have no desire to change the sensual contact with said person to anything sexual. (would rather continue cuddling until arousal passes)

[Guest]

Eh, I kinda disagree but don't have the time or mental capacity to dig into it right now. But basically romantic attraction doesn't exist separately from sensual/ sexual/ emotional attachment... it's made up of those. Sure, you can be missing an element and still have romantic attraction, it isn't a distinct experience. I feel like AVEN sometimes identifies ingredients and then proclaims that the finished product doesn't exist.

This is pretty much how some of these conversations sound to me:

Q: Is this chocolate cake?

A: No, it's eggs, chocolate, oil, and flour

Q: So what is chocolate cake?

A: Chocolate cake.

Q: But isn't it made up of those other things?

A: NO EGGS ARE NOT THE SAME THING AS CAKE

Q: ummm... :/

[Miav-desu]

Eh, I kinda disagree but don't have the time or mental capacity to dig into it right now. But basically romantic attraction doesn't exist separately from sensual/ sexual/ emotional attachment... it's made up of those. Sure, you can be missing an element and still have romantic attraction, it isn't a distinct experience. I feel like AVEN sometimes identifies ingredients and then proclaims that the finished product doesn't exist.

This is pretty much how some of these conversations sound to me:

Q: Is this chocolate cake?

A: No, it's eggs, chocolate, oil, and flour

Q: So what is chocolate cake?

A: Chocolate cake.

Q: But isn't it made up of those other things?

A: NO EGGS ARE NOT THE SAME THING AS CAKE

Q: ummm... :/

I dont understand this at all?

are you saying you dont belive aromantism exist? or sensual or sexual aromantics exist?

[Star Bit]

sorry, just trying to understand myself better here. If I am sensually attracted to someone (unsure if this was romantic also) but then as a biproduct of the sensual activity experience slight arousal does that mean I am sexually sensually attracted or not? my reason for initiating the sensual contact was not because i desired the arousal, the arousal happens as a result, not to say i dont find it slightly pleasurable but after a few mins it goes. I would not say it was full sexual attraction as I have no desire to change the sensual contact with said person to anything sexual. (would rather continue cuddling until arousal passes)

As i said, it's sexually sensual when you WANT it done for the sexual arousal.

[Lost247365]

Eh, I kinda disagree but don't have the time or mental capacity to dig into it right now. But basically romantic attraction doesn't exist separately from sensual/ sexual/ emotional attachment... it's made up of those. Sure, you can be missing an element and still have romantic attraction, it isn't a distinct experience. I feel like AVEN sometimes identifies ingredients and then proclaims that the finished product doesn't exist.

This is pretty much how some of these conversations sound to me:

Q: Is this chocolate cake?

A: No, it's eggs, chocolate, oil, and flour

Q: So what is chocolate cake?

A: Chocolate cake.

Q: But isn't it made up of those other things?

A: NO EGGS ARE NOT THE SAME THING AS CAKE

Q: ummm... :/

Now THIS I agree with.

Making romantic attraction out to be unique and different from sensual/romantic/plantonic attraction makes romance sound meaningless to me. Those things, combined, are what I always thought of when I thought of romance. But separate them and romance makes no sense to me. How can you have a romantic relationship without an emotional or platonic attraction in particular?

Not surprisingly, many of the sources I have seen that treat romance as something unique from the other attraction never explain what romantic attraction is. They usually say that it is hard to put into words, but of course it is hard to put into words when you have removed all of its defining characteristics.

And I like the cake reference. A cake usually requires salt or sugar, but you can still make one without those things. Just like you can have sugar free cake you can have a non-sensual romantic.

[Laurens]

Perhaps romantic attraction is not a separate emotion, but a subjective way of being through which other emotions and attractions can be perceived. Like for some people emotional and sensual attraction means being in romantic love, while for other people it can mean best friends. And for either connection it can be different. Like person A can feel emotional and sensual around person B and experience it romance but also be emotional and sensual around person C and experience it as friendship.

While I was figuring out my romantic orientation, romance described as an emotion did not make sense to me. Like you feel romantic attraction while you feel "a fuzzy feeling". Okay I did feel that around my rabbit but I'm sure I was not in love with my pet. But I never experience with someone or ever do want to declare ourselves romantic partners, to be "a couple" (whatever that means) or be a "girlfriend" and call somone "my girlfriend / boyfriend" or be perceived as "dating" and I feel uncomfortable when other people are romantically interested in me, even when I really like the person and would like to have a close bond with them.

Some people I love to hug and other persons I don't. They are all friends. And the ones I want to hug are not even necessarily better friends.

That's my perspective, being an aromantic asexual relationship anarchist.

[Miav-desu]

Eh,

Now THIS I agree with.

Making romantic attraction out to be unique and different from sensual/romantic/plantonic attraction makes romance sound meaningless to me. Those things, combined, are what I always thought of when I thought of romance. But separate them and romance makes no sense to me. How can you have a romantic relationship without an emotional or platonic attraction in particular?

Not surprisingly, many of the sources I have seen that treat romance as something unique from the other attraction never explain what romantic attraction is. They usually say that it is hard to put into words, but of course it is hard to put into words when you have removed all of its defining characteristics.

And I like the cake reference. A cake usually requires salt or sugar, but you can still make one without those things. Just like you can have sugar free cake you can have a non-sensual romantic.

The reason it's so difficult to explain is because its a feeling and feelings are really difficult to explain.

I have words of feelings in my language that does not exist in English and explaining them can be really difficult, and the people have to have a lot of examples before they understand the meaning, and even so sometimes they are still confused.

--

Maybe it makes more sense if you think romance as an extra thing to add, or a thing you can leave out. like salt or wiped cream on the top.

you can experience few or alot of attractions toward a person but it does not nessesarry mean its romantic or not.

maybe you fall in love with someone and want to be in a romantic relationship with that person, and you 2 should be together and primary for each other. yet you dont feel a paticular desire to have sex with them, or you dont think they are that good looking but you dont care too much about that as long as you are two happy together.

you may also feel the whole package of sensual, sexual, platonic, aestic, attraction and then finish it of with romance. it would be pretty stereotypical movie-scenes romance you see everywhere.

and then you may as well experience those things without the romance invold.

maybe you only experience a few attractions, like you want to have sex with a person, or you really want to be able to give someone a hug, but you dont feel the need to be in a relationship just because you think the person over there seams hot or hugable to you.

Or I may you have all those attractions at once like your best friend is both extremly goodlooking, very hugable, very hot, but they are your best friend and you dont feel like being in a romantic relationship with them, just being like you are now, best friends is good enough for you, you dont feel the need to take this any future calling yourself a "couple" or be known like that by famely and friends. If you had romantic feelings you would be sad to know your friend did not want this to get any future, you wouldn't be complitely satified with how things where, even if you eventually would accept it. but if you both dont feel romantic about it then this would be fine.

Now some people say the last example does not exist because friendship are only non-sexual non-sensual et.c. but some people DO have those type of friendship no matter if they are alloromantic or aromantic.

the problem is often in our culture we learn that you can't have those very close friendships or friendship that mix too many attractions without it being romantic. thats way people use expressions such as "they are too close to be just friends" and such.

I think the thing that make romance different from non romance is that romance feel like a goal to be with another person, and you dont get 100% satified if the person you have an romantic interest for dont feel the same way even if everything you do is what you want to do (live together, be sensual, be really close platonically) it just never feels "good enough".

For non romantic attraction getting into a romantic relationship would just feel unnessesarry or unconfortable. you dont understand why you need to do that in order to "upgrade" your relationship.

[Star Bit]

While I was figuring out my romantic orientation, romance described as an emotion did not make sense to me. Like you feel romantic attraction while you feel "a fuzzy feeling". Okay I did feel that around my rabbit but I'm sure I was not in love with my pet. But I never experience with someone or ever do want to declare ourselves romantic partners, to be "a couple" (whatever that means) or be a "girlfriend" and call somone "my girlfriend / boyfriend" or be perceived as "dating" and I feel uncomfortable when other people are romantically interested in me, even when I really like the person and would like to have a close bond with them.

Some people I love to hug and other persons I don't. They are all friends. And the ones I want to hug are not even necessarily better friends.

That's why i said the "fuzzy feeling" explanation is inadequate, but it's the closest we can come to describing an emotion. It's normal to feel uncomfortable when recieving unreciprocated feelings. Even if you have a squish it's still not the same as a crush.

And of course you only have the urge to hug certain friends, that's how sensual attraction is; it's selective. That's why sensual attraction and sensual desire are different (i.e. "i want a hug" vs "i want to hug that person").

[Ix Phoen]

For me, though, the desire to hug or kiss someone is a result of relational closeness, sensual attraction, and trust. So I find it hard to separate it out from "romantic" entirely. I know some people just enjoy the sensation like a nice, relaxing massage (or something?). But ... my mind boggles at the thought of feeling that way myself.

I have one friend I hang out with all the time, and we get along great. I don't want to snuggle with her at all, nor live together, or even spend most of my time with her, even though I trust her very much. So I am not romantically attracted to her.

​Another local friend with whom I spend the same amount of time, and whose company I equally enjoy, is someone I'd snuggle with, live with, and spend most of my time with.

I have no idea why I react differently when they're both wonderful people. It's definitely not sexual at all, because eww. But there it is. So, for me that difference is "romantic" .... until I come up with a better word for it.

So, I'm going on to think about this "intensely and in written form" because here's a chance to really dig into the details and try to frame them more clearly.

Possible attractions: sensual, sexual, aesthetic, platonic, intellectual, spiritual ... Oh, there are ingredients I can work with here!

Sexual
So, for me sexual attraction only happens in extremely unusual situations with super-rare men I am already romantically attracted to, and who I would trust enough to cuddle. That makes me hetero-demisexual. (I think.)

That's the easiest element for me to define, because once I get into the idea of "romantic attraction" I've been totally confused how to communicate my experience in a way that others will understand.

Sensual-platonic? Romance? Huh?

I am platonic in all other attractions and feel the same quality of attraction (i.e. similar levels depending on the person) regardless of gender, sex, or orientation, which is why I tend to think that "romantic" might not apply in the eyes of anyone outside the asexual community. It's the general public that I want to communicate with, because I'm likely to encounter a lot more people who don't get these terms than do.

However, here I would probably identify as panromantic.

I can be instantly attracted to anyone based on intellect, personality, or "that feeling I know them already" which I call spiritual, because I don't know how to classify it tangibly.

However, "romantic" doesn't mean exclusive or confining to me. I want my friends to have many other friends. I just want to be an essential part of their lives. -- in comparison -- When it comes to sex that is no longer the case. Exclusive and confining, that's me. I don't think I'll ever feel safe enough to react that way outside a stable, committed, long-term relationship. I probably was always demisexual, but my experiences pushed me a lot further in that direction.

Cultural habits that could be construed as "romantic"

I like social hugging with people who feel safe in social situations, and I grew up in a culture that included a brief cheek kiss as part of the routine greeting process, so I'm not too concerned about brief casual touch, and feel "more introduced" to people when there is some form of touch included.

This can't possibly be included in "romantic" (right?) because it's just soooo general.... Nearly anyone except people who scare or offend me is free to interact with me this way.

Comfort zone and expectations:

However, the moment physical contact (or being in small confined spaces) lasts longer than those few seconds of appreciation, I'm way out of my comfort zone unless I'm with a "soul-mate" or a highly trusted individual.

To me, sensual attraction is based solely on mutual trust and appreciation. Without this already woven and tested in the relationship, "sensual" touch like snuggles and kisses simply won't happen. And, while I'm rather ambivalent about kissing women, I wouldn't mind so long as it wasn't sexual or intensely emotional.

Rare is the individual that I will entrust with touching my body, even knowing they'll never interact with me in a sexual way. But, they do exist and I love curling up with them for hours at a time when we have the chance.

Aesthetic attraction:

A bisexual friend of mine with high libido finally helped me understand what has always confused me about others' sexual reactions to "attractive people". And I have to say it must be really frustrating to have that sort of distraction as a routine part of one's life. How annoying to have complete strangers walk past and have your body actually react to them.

She's figured out how to just enjoy it and move on, but I don't think I'd enjoy that at all. Until we talked about it in detail, I've always been skeptical, thinking people were just talking in fables due to social and religious programming.

Apparently it is not normal to think of beautiful people as fascinating works of human art. Who knew? I've really, really, REALLY wanted to photograph or draw some people on first sight, and I do stare at them a lot because of it ... but that's it. Hehe.

My body reacts much more intensely to fuzzy bunnies, because I just wanna snuggle 'em. Daaaw! *squeals* So ... not romantic at all, apparently.

[Lost247365]

The reason it's so difficult to explain is because its a feeling and feelings are really difficult to explain.

I have words of feelings in my language that does not exist in English and explaining them can be really difficult, and the people have to have a lot of examples before they understand the meaning, and even so sometimes they are still confused.

--

Maybe it makes more sense if you think romance as an extra thing to add, or a thing you can leave out. like salt or wiped cream on the top.

you can experience few or alot of attractions toward a person but it does not nessesarry mean its romantic or not.

maybe you fall in love with someone and want to be in a romantic relationship with that person, and you 2 should be together and primary for each other. yet you dont feel a paticular desire to have sex with them, or you dont think they are that good looking but you dont care too much about that as long as you are two happy together.

you may also feel the whole package of sensual, sexual, platonic, aestic, attraction and then finish it of with romance. it would be pretty stereotypical movie-scenes romance you see everywhere.

and then you may as well experience those things without the romance invold.

maybe you only experience a few attractions, like you want to have sex with a person, or you really want to be able to give someone a hug, but you dont feel the need to be in a relationship just because you think the person over there seams hot or hugable to you.

Or I may you have all those attractions at once like your best friend is both extremly goodlooking, very hugable, very hot, but they are your best friend and you dont feel like being in a romantic relationship with them, just being like you are now, best friends is good enough for you, you dont feel the need to take this any future calling yourself a "couple" or be known like that by famely and friends. If you had romantic feelings you would be sad to know your friend did not want this to get any future, you wouldn't be complitely satified with how things where, even if you eventually would accept it. but if you both dont feel romantic about it then this would be fine.

Now some people say the last example does not exist because friendship are only non-sexual non-sensual et.c. but some people DO have those type of friendship no matter if they are alloromantic or aromantic.

the problem is often in our culture we learn that you can't have those very close friendships or friendship that mix too many attractions without it being romantic. thats way people use expressions such as "they are too close to be just friends" and such.

I think the thing that make romance different from non romance is that romance feel like a goal to be with another person, and you dont get 100% satified if the person you have an romantic interest for dont feel the same way even if everything you do is what you want to do (live together, be sensual, be really close platonically) it just never feels "good enough".

For non romantic attraction getting into a romantic relationship would just feel unnessesarry or unconfortable. you dont understand why you need to do that in order to "upgrade" your relationship.

I get that it is hard to describe a feeling but more than that, the problem with trying to describe this to me, is that if romantic attraction is something different from either emotional attraction (what I thought romance meant before coming to aven) or a combination of attractions like Skullerymaid is suggesting, then I have never experienced the attraction and I am completely 100% aromantic in addition to being asexual. Trying to describe it to me would be like trying to describe the difference between aquamarine and sky blue to a person who has been blind since birth.

For instance, going by your example, what you describe sounds like a combination of emotional/platonic attraction to me. It was what I originally thought romance was supposed to be. Wanting to share something deeper and more intimate than just a friendship. That deeper and more intimate part being a relationship where you bond on an emotional level. Sensuality/sexuality/aesthetics attractions/desires being just addons. But if wanting to bond with someone on an emotional level is not romance (or even a part of it), then what is romance and what is its purpose?

Is it simply wanting to to make an ass out of one self with PDAs and other fluff? Is that it? I know that sounds like I am being sarcastic but I am just frustrated with this concept and am being completely serious. Is it simply infatuation?

Everything I thought romance was for, creating strong emotional bonds between mates so that they want to remain together and look after one another while possibly raising a family, can be accomplished without it. The whole thing seems to be unnecessary complexity. And, hypothetically speaking, what would a person be like who is devoid of sexual, sensual, emotional, and platonic attraction be like? All they have is romantic and aesthetic attraction. How does one have a romance without emotional and platonic attraction? They don't want to kiss, they don't want to hug, they don't care about the other's feelings, and they could careless if they are friends or not...how is that romance in any way?

Hell, lets take aesthetic attraction out as well. How is it possible to distill romantic attraction from the other attraction. Every other attraction I can imagine a person who lacks the other attraction, but imagining someone who only experiences romantic attraction seems impossible. Aesthetic attraction would cause a person to look at others for their good looks. Sexual attraction only would be Quagmire from Family guy. Platonic attraction is a person who enjoys hanging out with friends. Emotional attraction would be someone looking to bondi someone on an emotional level. Sensual attraction only would be someone who loves to give hugs, kisses, and to caress others.

So Romantic attraction only would be...?

And if romance is just a goal to be with someone, where does that leave the queerplatonic relationships that people discuss on here? Isn't that pretty much the definition of a queer platonic relationship?

This whole thing reminds me of when I was trying to figure out if I was asexual or not, and with that I at least had an idea what sexual attraction was and it still took me weeks of thought to figure out. This time, however, I don't even know what people mean if they are not talking about emotional connections.

Like my namesake, I am totally lost.

[Tarfeather]

I get that it is hard to describe a feeling but more than that, the problem with trying to describe this to me, is that if romantic attraction is something different from either emotional attraction (what I thought romance meant before coming to aven) or a combination of attractions like Skullerymaid is suggesting, then I have never experienced the attraction and I am completely 100% aromantic in addition to being asexual.

Don't worry, me too. I've often said that by various strange views floating around these forums, I'd be an aromantic. Which, doesn't make a whole lot of sense since I've had crushes and all, but whatever. I don't really care about the word "romantic" anymore.

[Autumn Season]

The confusing thing about romance is that many people experience and interpret it differently. When some of my friends describe their romantic feelings, I can't hep but notice that what they call romantic feelings, is something I would call something completely different if I was the one to experience it.

I'll jump in and try to describe my experiences. I indeed don't need an emotional connection to feel attracted to another person. In this way I am not at all a demi. But an emotional connection and an attraction can trigger other attractions. So everything is interconnected.

When people pass me by on the street, I can immediately feel attracted to them aesthetically or sensually.

After talking a couple of sentences with the other, I can immediately develop a squish, a crush or realize that they would be a great friend.

When the very first attraction arises and it didn't yet have the chance to trigger the other attractions (for example romantic attr. triggering sensual attr.), I can more or less experience just one attraction at a time. For this reason, while I know it can be confusing and unnecessary, isolating and describing the different attractions (ingredients in a cake) makes a lot of sense to me.

My attractions are like this: They jump in my face and it's difficult to ignore or mistake them for something different. Romantic attraction is not something I could mistake for an emotional connection (though of course I can have and want to have both at once). But since everyone feels differently, I'm sure it's possible to slowly develop romantic feelings and then it's hard to say which feeling leaded to which and where the border is or if there is one at all.

I don't know if my romantic attraction has any purpose. (I believe that things can happen for no reason at all and still be significant.) I like to distinguish between the attraction, drive and love.

Attraction is the thing that jumps in my face, turns my head and alters my behavior. It weakens my boundaries, so that I don't mind doing things with and for the other, which I would usually not be comfortable with. For example I might neither trust my crush nor (originally) feel sensual attraction for them and still I don't mind touching (with/by) them at all. Of course the trust and other attractions are likely to follow the romantic attraction if it lasts for a considerable amount of time. I am also very likely to crave their company even if it only hurts me. The attraction makes me rather fearless and curious. It's also very exciting and rewarding. I feel like I'm floating on cloud seven in the daytime and in the night I cry because life is not worth living without them. (It's a feeling, nothing rational. At the same time I understand that the other is not really anywhere close to the meaning of my life, haha.) So yeah, emotional.

Romantic drive is the thing that makes me search for a romantic partner and want a relationship even though I'm not attracted to anyone at the moment. So, my mom recently called me weird when I told her this, but the people I have a crush on are not necessarily the ones I want to be in a relationship with. Sometimes I even tried to get into relationships with others who seemed far more compatible with me than my crushes. ^^° Excitement is great and all, but it's not something to rely on. I can also have romantic feelings for people I don't have a crush on. It's usually a very weak but pleasant feeling and similar to friendship. I think those emotions come from my drive projecting on others, if that makes sense. Uhm... I don't know if I'm capable of slowly becoming enamored with someone simply by spending time with them. Of course I can learn to love someone for the wonderful person that they are or for all of the past events we shared together. But that would not be romantic love (by my definition). They would have to show me a side to them I didn't know before. For example maybe I used to think that they don't like others touching them, but then I find out that they like cuddling if it's with me. That might make me fall a little. xD Wow, I'm rambling so much.

And then there's romantic love. I like to think of this as the ultimate romantic experience. ^^ (In my case) The love starts out as a mere attraction, then other emotions keep adding up until I can't imagine ever NOT loving this person. This love also includes platonic love, so that even if the relationship couldn't last, my feelings would.

----------------------------------------------------

I pretty much already wrote it above, but here is again my experience of romantic and sensual attraction:

They can be connected but don't have to be. Especially sensual attraction usually exists independently from all other attractions. However romantic attraction rarely exists in a vacuum. It wakes up countless emotions, including sensuality.

[Miav-desu]

So Romantic attraction only would be...?

And if romance is just a goal to be with someone, where does that leave the queerplatonic relationships that people discuss on here? Isn't that pretty much the definition of a queer platonic relationship?

This whole thing reminds me of when I was trying to figure out if I was asexual or not, and with that I at least had an idea what sexual attraction was and it still took me weeks of thought to figure out. This time, however, I don't even know what people mean if they are not talking about emotional connections.

Like my namesake, I am totally lost.

Personally I don't know, if romance IRL is ever standing alone, that's why I thought it would make more sense to see it as something you can add or leave out rather than something in its own box.

I do not say it´s not possible but I just haven't heard anyone yet saying they experienced romance attraction without any other attractions at all so I can't really tell much about whenever it's possible or not and what it feels like. So far I have only heard stories of people who had experience romantic attraction but without some attractions, example if you don't experience sexual or sensual attraction ever, it's likely you may not experience those either even if you fall in love.

that is not saying romance is the same as the other attraction, as mention its more like something you can add. Like I had a close friendship once that was both sensual and sexual and later on the friend started to get romantic feelings for me which they did not have in the beginning when we were still both sexual, sensual and rather good friends.

-

if I were to try and explain romance alone as a feeling, I would say romance is the drug in your brain that makes you obsession over another person.

Have you ever tried being sober while your best friend is either drunk or has smoked weed, then you will notice their behaviour changes and their emotion change, and they generally become less logical and more emotional whenever its bad or good. if you do something that makes them sad they may get Extremely sad, or if they are happy they get extremely happy around you and think you are the most wonderfull person ever.

So romance is a bit like the drunk friends who think you are the best person ever when they drink, or the person being addicted to chocolate but instead of them craving for a piece of chocolate and getting negative feelings when they can't have it, the addiction is on the other person instead. It is something that comes and eventually goes away so a romantic attraction alone would seams to be a very boring "thinking a lot about a certain person they hardly know" but if they were to actually get in a relationship that would last they also had to have at least some platonic feelings that they could stand each other.

Sure friend base people can also be obsessed with someone else. like you can be obsessive as a fan, admire another person a lot or wanting to be there best friend. it can feel somehow similar to this thing above, I think the difference is the mention described above people want 1, that the feeling is returned and very exclusively to only be around them or a few people you both had agreed on. said in another way they want to have some type of ownership feeling that the other person does not just like them a lot, you are actually nr 1 in there life and nr 1 priority, where in general people of non-romantic interest do want to play an important role but tend to care less on being the centrum of focus all the time. Example; "I love to know I am my best friends best friends and I would feel hurt if out of sudden our friendship ment nothing or he would spend less time with me , but I understand why he would choose his parents and his friend he had known for 25 years over me to be more importantant since he only knew me for a few years."

I find that most romantic people are okay with there partner thinking there kids are the most important part in there lifes, but if it comes to others non-relative people, like friends exemple than many people are NOT okay with that.

[Star Bit]

@Karenee

Correct; as i said, chaste kissing can be platonic.

And apparently aesthetic attraction is rare for sexual people but common for asexuals.

[Miav-desu]

@Karenee

And apparently aesthetic attraction is rare for sexual people but common for asexuals.

I think it's common for artist people, at least I often get the desire to draw those people.

but.. offtopic

[BR2925 (Sunfish)]

True. I think people confuse that with romantic attraction because it works like this with sexual attraction.

Correct me if I'm wrong from the following:

Sensual is romantic activity. (Kissing, hugging ect.)

But from what I understand and from what I've found, there isn't a sexual version of that word, it's just called 'sexual'. (Or at least from what I've found.)

Sexual can mean the attraction you feel or the activity.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

[Miav-desu]

True. I think people confuse that with romantic attraction because it works like this with sexual attraction.

Correct me if I'm wrong from the following:

Sensual is romantic activity. (Kissing, hugging ect.)

But from what I understand and from what I've found, there isn't a sexual version of that word, it's just called 'sexual'. (Or at least from what I've found.)

Sexual can mean the attraction you feel or the activity.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't think sensual is the same as romantic but I do think there is a cultural norm for what type of things we normally code as being romantic or unromantic. (example we think chocolate and roses are more romantic than pancakes and sunflowers)

the sensual aspect is often in place here, but it can still play out in various roles. Example in some countries/context handholding can be seen as purely platonic and sensual where in others it seen as romantic-sensual.

these pictures are also good for illustrating platonic bonds showed in a sensual way that aren't so typical anymore.

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2012/07/29/bosom-buddies-a-photo-history-of-male-affection/

--

I do think kissing indeed can be sexual. like I consider making out to be pretty sexual. hugging would be a bit harder to make sexual, you would probably have to put your hands where they don't belong to make a hug sexual.

[Star Bit]

But that's how you feel about making out. Making out can also not be sexual/be strictly romanticly sensual.

(those photos are so cute, i couldn't help but smile as i looked through them)

[Asvel]

Going to leave these here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerence, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_%28love%29#Major_theories

I don't know about sensual attraction, because I don't feel that either. Do carry on.

[JessieJay13]

True. I think people confuse that with romantic attraction because it works like this with sexual attraction.

Correct me if I'm wrong from the following:

Sensual is romantic activity. (Kissing, hugging ect.)

But from what I understand and from what I've found, there isn't a sexual version of that word, it's just called 'sexual'. (Or at least from what I've found.)

Sexual can mean the attraction you feel or the activity.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

Sensual attraction can be romantic, or it can be sexual, or it can be completely separate from either. In my case, I feel sensual attraction very strongly with or without any sort of emotional bond or trust, completely free of both sexual and romantic attraction. I'm not interested in sex in the least and I've already determined that I have no interest in romantic relationships either. And yet there are still people that I am extremely sensually attracted to, people that I really want to hug or cuddle with or touch or hold hands with and occasionally even kiss (lightly). I held a lot of guilt/shame/whatever for a long time about wanting to do those things because all of them are so strongly romantically coded by the society that I live in that the people I wanted to touch likely wouldn't have understood that I didn't mean it romantically. I just wanted to hug them. Literally nothing else.

So being able to distinguish between sensual-romantic, sensual-sexual, and strictly sensual attraction is a very big and important thing for me.

As for romantic attraction, I'm liking the cake and cake-ingredients analogy with the other sorts of attraction. You can have all the various ingredients in the same place at the same time and it doesn't always result in a cake, or in the same kind of cake. Oftentimes you can use those same ingredients to make cookies instead or some other type of confectionery -- analogous to queerplatonic relationships or friendships that include sensual/sexual components. It only turns into a cake if you mix and bake it a certain way, if that makes any sense at all.