What is someone who doesn't feel romantic attraction but desires to make out, etc?

[Star Bit]

Factually in no culture is making out platonic. If someone is aro ace (i.e. orientations that translate to non-romantic and non-sexual) shouldn't that translate to only desiring platonic relationships? I guess sensual orientations would work for this needed detail (a third orientation) and still mean the first one is aromantic; desiring sex doesn't make people Gray romantically so it would also apply to other non-platonic things as mentioned, but to me if non-platonic things are desired to last it's a relationship.

[ItWasNiceKnowingYou]

I don't know what the purpose of this is,but I'd just consider them to be cupioromantics....aros or gray-aros who desire a romantic relationship or romance.

It's all about personal definition. An aro ace doesn't like kissing then so be it. If they do *shrugs* no big deal. Orientations are about attraction,not action anyways.

[Anime Pancake]

Romantic orientation and physical desire is separate.

One aromantic person may dislike hugs, another may like hugs.

Romantic person may like cuddling, another romantic person may not feel cuddling is necessary.

You cant say "if a person likes kissing does that make them aromantic, romantic, or sexual" An aromantic, romantic or sexual may want to kiss. Some sexual people may not be really into kissing and so on.

[Guest]

people can kiss or even have sex with strangers or friends without it meaning anything ..it's just pleasurable physical actions. It doesn't need a label lol what's the big deal??

[mikeman7918]

I haven't really thought about this much because I have no desire to ever kiss, hug, hold hands with, or cuddle with anyone which makes it not my problem, it's an interesting question though. That was actually the deciding factor for me when I was questioning weather I should identify as aromatic, if I did want to kiss, hug, hold hands, and cuddle then I would consider myself romantic because as Star Bit already said that stuff would make my relationships more then just platonic. The main reason I use the label "aromantic" is to get the point across that I don't want any of that standard romance stuff. That's just me though, if someone wants to kiss people yet feels that the label "aromantic" describes them then I have nothing against that.

[Guest]

I don't understand why people think that a kiss or even sex has to make a relationship "more than platonic" ..it's the feelings/intentions behind the actions and what the two people want to do about those feelings/intentions that determine the "relationship", not the actions themselves. Two friends kissing because kissing feels good is literally just two friends kissing. Two friends who have fallen in love with each other and are kissing because they want to take their relationship "further" is a completely different thing.

Two friends playing tennis doesn't "change their friendship" ..why should playing with each other's genitals or Iips be any different if it's just a fun activity they both enjoy but that's literally all it is, fun?

[Star Bit]

Orientations are about attraction,not action anyways.

No, you don't need sexual attraction to have a sexual relationship, nor platonic attraction for a platonic relationship. If you have unreciprocated sexual or romantic attraction toward a friend it's still a platonic relationship.

@PanFicto

Because they're doing things that are more than platonic. I looked it up, and FWBs cannot be committed; if they are then they're considered normal relationships. Someone being your friend is irreverent; that's where the terms boyfriend and girlfriend come from; they are your friend. What exactly would be "further" than what they already have? FWB: friends who have sex, Relationship (for most ppl): friends who have sex (btw I'm not the only one; many sexual people ask this too) People already call FWBs other things; casual relationships or uncommitted relationships. Most people use casual relationship and FWB synonymously. They're not just pleasurable physical actions when you intend the relationship to be permanent. Someone also wanting uncommitted relationships doesn't change the fact that they want romantic relationships i.e. are romantic.

@mikeman

Wanting an atypical relationship doesn't automatically mean someone is aromantic. Gray-romantic could be used to portray that though.

[RK800]

LABELSSSSSSSSSSSSS.

[ItWasNiceKnowingYou]

It's all about personal definition. An aro ace doesn't like kissing then so be it. If they do *shrugs* no big deal. Orientations are about attraction,not action anyways.

No, you don't need sexual attraction to have a sexual relationship, nor platonic attraction for a platonic relationship.

I understand that. My "orientation is about attraction not action" statement is referring to your original poll idea & topic question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're basically asking if someone can be/have the orientation options you gave & still like a particular activity like kissing. I'm saying yes they can. Their orientation is based on their attraction,but what they physically do or enjoy or don't do/enjoy is a personal preference. Not always orientation based.

[Star Bit]

I agree sensual desires don't always match up with romantic desires, but it still makes your orientation. If a straight women desires to make out with other women then they can still identify as straight, though the word bisensual would really be more accurate. But if they were to desire a lasting relationship with this trait then it's a relationship. If a romantic doesn't have sensual desires that'd be under Gray-romantic because romance is such a wide thing and it's typically a given. The same goes for the reverse; if someone does not feel romantically but has non-platonic sensual desires then it's a relationship; it's factually a FWB, but FWBs are relationships, just uncommitted, and if they're committed then they're a normal committed relationship.

[Guest]

If a romantic doesn't have sensual desires that'd be under Gray-romantic because romance is such a wide thing that it's typically a given.

No. There's nothing gray about that, that's still 100% full romantic.

(By that logic, btw, romantic asexuals don't exist. Romantic people are at most gray-ace, because it's typically a given that people want to have sex with those they have romantic feelings for. Should be obvious how thin the ice is for that claim!)

The same goes for the reverse, if someone does not feel romantically but has non-platonic sensual desires then it's a relationship; it's factually a FWB, but FWBs are relationships, just uncommitted, and if they're committed then they're a normal committed relationship.

That still doesn't make it a romantic relationship in any way, and won't work as a criterion to turn aros into gray-ros, let alone into romantics.

Also, not all FWBs are neccessarily uncommitted, neither are all committed relationships neccessarily romantic (even though I have to grant that commitment does runs a heavy risk to romanticize a 'ship that had been free from romance until that point.) You can certainly have a committed platonic freindship with someone (kids these days call that "BFFs", unless I'm much mistaken. :p )

The only thing that makes or breaks romance is having romantic feelings. Presence or absence of any amount of heavy sensual interaction, as well as presence or absence of desire for such interaction, is completely irrelevant.

[Star Bit]

I like the way someone else phrased it.

"Romance doesn't have to be defined by any set of preconceived ideas"

It needing romantic attraction is a preconceived idea. Look into the history of the word romantic.

@Mysticus

No, again, i researched it, and every person factually said FWBs cannot be committed and would then be normal relationships. And i agree, commitment has nothing to do with what relationship type it is either. Neither do the people being friends. Like i said, making out and whatnot is factually not platonic so wtf is their relationship then?

[ItWasNiceKnowingYou]

I feel like this question & entire topic is being over-complicated

I agree sensual desires don't always match up with romantic desires, but it still makes your orientation. If a straight women desires to make out with other women then they can still identify as straight, though the word bisensual would really be more accurate. But if they were to desire a lasting relationship with this trait then it's a relationship. If a romantic doesn't have sensual desires that'd be under Gray-romantic because romance is such a wide thing and it's typically a given. The same goes for the reverse; if someone does not feel romantically but has non-platonic sensual desires then it's a relationship; it's factually a FWB, but FWBs are relationships, just uncommitted, and if they're committed then they're a normal committed relationship.

I think this is getting into a definition debate issue. Whether you think so or agree to disagree with me, desire & attraction are two different things. Two: Why the heck are you talking about relationships when your question is based on orientation & personal preferences. It doesn't matter what someone likes to do with whatever gender, if the attraction to them isn't involved than how is their orientation affected?

[Guest]

I didn't say anything about "attraction".

But if you think romantic relationship can exist without romantic emotions, then no. Firm no. This is special snowflake bullshit, fullstop, end of story, case closed. If you think this way, then what you call "romance" simply does not exist - there is no such thing as a "romantic relationship".

[Star Bit]

Whether you think so or agree to disagree with me, desire & attraction are two different things.

It doesn't matter what someone likes to do with whatever gender, if the attraction to them isn't involved than how is their orientation affected?

Yes, desire and attraction are two different things but having either makes an orientation.

No, sexuals are still sexual because they DESIRE sex, not just because they may or may not feel sexual attraction (which half of sexuals don't). Sexual attraction does't make a sexual relationship, being sexually active does. Attraction isn't the only factory in orientation.

@Mysticus

Again, i strongly implore you to look into the history of the word romantic. (vid link and link) And there was history of it prior to its current use too.

[ItWasNiceKnowingYou]

Soooo in your opinion attraction & desire are both involved in making someone's orientation and not just attraction itself?

Then we can agree to disagree at this point.

[Guest]

@Mysticus

Again, i strongly implore you to look into the history of the word romantic. (link) And there was history of it prior to its current use.

I know that video and think it's spot on, mostly. Doesn't change one bit of what I said, and I don't see why you think it's relevant in supporting your view over mine.

Soooo in your opinion attraction & desire are both involved in making someone's orientation and not just attraction itself?

Then we can agree to disagree at this point.

I definitely go one step further - only desire is what's relevant for orientation. Attraction has nothing to do with it.

[Star Bit]

Soooo in your opinion attraction & desire are both involved in making someone's orientation and not just attraction itself?

Then we can agree to disagree at this point.

I definitely go one step further - only desire is what's relevant for orientation. Attraction has nothing to do with it.

I second this.

(there's also this vid link on the history of romanticism)

[Bezzy-Loo]

There's a degree to which I sometimes feel I want things simply because it's what I'm supposed to want. The idea of it has been made so wonderful and idealized that, why wouldn't someone want it? But then actually doing it...? Eh.

[Guest]

(there's also this vid link on the history of romanticism)

Doesn't seem to say anything new to me either. Yes, "romantic love" was invented in the Middle Ages (it simply didn't exist as a major notion before that), and didn't get pouplar outside the circles of nobility until around the 18.-19. century, and became intertwined with the idea of marriage only very recently.

How does that in any way contradict what I said? It just means people didn't have romantic relationships for most of humanity's existence. So?

[Guest]

@PanFicto

Because they're doing things that are more than platonic. I looked it up, and FWBs cannot be committed; if they are then they're considered normal relationships.

Considered relationships by tumblr teens who pay too much attention to other people's business, Star Bit!

Someone being your friend is irreverent; that's where the terms boyfriend and girlfriend come from; they are your friend. What exactly would be "further" than what they already have? FWB: friends who have sex, Relationship (for most ppl): friends who have sex (btw I'm not the only one; many sexual people ask this too) People already call FWBs other things; casual relationships or uncommitted relationships. Most people use casual relationship and FWB synonymously. They're not just pleasurable physical actions when you intend the relationship to be permanent. Someone also wanting uncommitted relationships doesn't change the fact that they want romantic relationships i.e. are romantic.

I've BEEN committed FWB and I've had romantic relationships, they are COMPLETELY different things (and almost anyone who has experienced both will tell you the same thing - as you well know.)

Friends with benefits is literally two friends who decide to enjoy some forms of intimacy together while outside of a romantic relationship with anyone, and in my case we decided if we're doing things like that with each other we'll keep it between the two of us until one of us meets someone we consider a romantic interest then we'll stop. It didn't change our friendship in any way though, we were still literally JUST friends, but for a time we had intimacy exclusively between the two of us. We weren't in a relationship or anything even remotely of the sort and just because "some people on the internet would say otherwise" that doesn't make them correct! What gives anyone the right to say "kissing isn't platonic so friends can't kiss! If you kiss that person you're in a romantic relationship with them!" ..that's just silly. It also doesn't make you right just because you read some peoples opinions on this somewhere online and decided they're right. They're NOT right and they aren't allowed to go and make decisions like that for other people: "Oh they're friends who kiss, and they only kiss each other? they're in a romantic relationship!" that's ridiculous. It's up to the people themselves to decide whether they're friends or in a relationship, it's no one else's business.

There were no feelings involved in my FWB situation, it was just some kink and intimacy when we felt like it and we had fun with that, in the same way we'd have fun playing tennis together if we were into that. it was literally *no* different than any other activity with each other emotion-wise, but if he had been doing that with four different women he wouldn't have had time to meet my intimate needs (and same if I'd been with multiple guys) and we were both people who could only desire sensual intimacy with one person at a time regardless, so yeah.. the commitment just came naturally. There are all sorts of reasons FWBs choose to be monogamous though. As I know others here have explained to you before! preventing the risk of giving each other STI's is just one of many reasons FWBs might choose to be monogamous but still, it's just friends, it's NOT a relationship.

A romantic relationship is utterly different. For me, I'm monogamous with my partner because I literally WANT to give every inch of myself to him exclusively as that feels so good (for us both). Monogamy is not just a practical thing, like "oh let's only have sex with other, okay?" it's this achingly deep desire to *belong* to each other, totally and completely, as a result of the love we both feel for each other. Sure he's my best friend, but that doesn't make us "friends with benefits" (and doesn't make committed FWB the same as what we have) because we are in *romantic love* and we both actively made the decision to be in a romantic relationship together. We do all the things friends to do together (we watch shows together, drink together, send each other dorky videos, all sorts of silly things) but we are *in romantic love* and that makes all the difference. We are in a romantic, intimate, loving, very hormonal (at the moment anyway) relationship, we actively want to *own* each other and be owned by each other (as a result of our love) and physically and emotionally get off on dedicating our sexual and intimate pleasure and our bodies to each other. Whereas "FWB" is NOTHING like that. It's literally just "okay well we get along and I'm bored, you're bored, let's kiss because that's fun. Let's only kiss each other because I don't want anyone else's germs if you're going to be kissing me. Then we'll stop this when one of usmeets someone" ..That's literally all FWB is. Compare that to how romantic relationships are experienced by people in romantic love and you'll see they are *COMPLETELY* different things, with one or two of the same basic actions.

Just to be clear, sex or any form of intimacy also feels utterly different with a friend than with someone you're in romantic love with, for most people. Intimacy with a friend is *just* a fun, enjoyable activity. Sex/Intimacy when you're in love is like fireworks going off in your body, it's mindblowing.. you feel it on multiple levels of your being, not just the physical sensations in your body. Some of the actions might be the same, but they're sex with a friend and sex when in love are *completely* different experiences.

[Guest]

How about we just stop trying to force people to conform with the way "everyone" says romantic/platonic/sexual relationships are SUPPOSED to be? Who cares is people say that committed FWB are factually in a normal relationship not FWB (probably according to a bunch of teenagers who have no idea what they're talking about)? They are idiots and have no right to dictate how others define their own relationships. Who cares if someones behaviour is outside of what our culture tells us are the boundaries of platonic or romantic relationships? The important thing is how they view their own actions, not how others view them. Stop trying to force people into boxes.

[Guest]

I'm so incredibly confused.

They don't feel romantic attraction. End of story. It sounds like you're describing a sexual aromantic... and as I frequently say, I very much understand why an introverted aromantic sexual would want a relationship... that way you have a sexual outlet without having to interact with lots of people. That's basically like a permanent (or at least, long term and stable) fuck buddy relationship.

[Guest]

@ Star Bit

AIso just to be cIear, regarding the term ''romantic'' and the concepts surrounding it, that doesn't change the fact that these feeIings have been feIt by peopIe forever. The term ''romantic'' is appIied to a very specific set of feeIings that ''just friends'' are not experiencing for each other, regardIess of whether or not they're kissing or having sex. The difference between a 'friend' and a 'romantic partner' IS those feeIings (which are now IabeIIed romantic) .. FWB (even if they're committed) are NOT in romantic Iove, they're just friends who are having sex/kissing/whatever. They're not in a reIationship unIess THEY say they are.

To get even more compIicated *gasp* ..Two peopIe who are in romantic Iove might be having committed sex and kissing .. But even they are not in a reIationship unIess they say they are.

A reIationship isn't a set of actions that peopIe outside of that can Iook at and say 'reIationship' ..It's what two peopIe decide between themseIves. Them and them aIone. If someone says ''yeah we are in romantic Iove with each other and we've been having reguIar sex, but neither of us are ready for a reIationship so it's just sex for now, we're pretty much friends in Iove, with committed benefits, not a reIationship though'' ..Then it's NOT a reIationship just because to you, it Iooks Iike one. If it's not a reIationship to them then it's not a reIationship.

My partner and I were sexuaIIy intimate and in Iove before we decided to make the step to 'a reIationship' but untiI we were actuaIIy in a reIationship, the dynamics were different than they are now. Being in a reIationship reaIIy does feeI different, even if the feeIings and actions are the same in many ways as when we weren't in one. There are subtIe differences. We'II happiIy say sappy things to each other for hours now as one exampIe, whereas before we made the step to 'reIationship' we weren't so comfortabIe with that and feIt reaIIy awkward and strange about that sort of thing. So it reaIIy is just what those two peopIe personaIIy feeI comfortabIe with and how they personaIIy are defining the situation between them both.

YOU can't define them for them. YOU can't force them into a box just because ''I read some peopIe saying this onIine''. It's up to the individuaIs to define their personaI situation, not you.

[Star Bit]

(there's also this vid link on the history of romanticism)

Doesn't seem to say anything new to me either. Yes, "romantic love" was invented in the Middle Ages (it simply didn't exist as a major notion before that), and didn't get pouplar outside the circles of nobility until around the 18.-19. century, and became intertwined with the idea of marriage only very recently.

How does that in any way contradict what I said? It just means people didn't have romantic relationships for most of humanity's existence. So?

Because it shows how much of the relationship is a social construct and how romantic feelings being in it is also socially constructed because prior to us people probably didn't know someone could be in such a relationship and not feel romantically. What is and isn't marriage is also just as much as a social construct because it's just a binding contract that doesn't nececerily have to have specific things. People back then didn't think of marrying for other reasons than betrothal (and then later in humanity's time line it was also done for romantic feelings), when in fact you can actually get married to anyone for any reason (e.g. marrying their platonic best friend while having romantic partners).

Considered relationships by tumblr teens who pay too much attention to other people's business, Star Bit!

No, i did not go to tumblr. I looked on the first two pages of google results for the difference between FWB and a relationship. A handful of them consisted of forums and the others were articles. I noticed that a good amount of them were beyond teen years. And yah, there's a difference between committed and casual relationships, i said that. I didn't say they were the same thing, i said they were both types of relationships. According to your "those people were just from the internet" logic it doesn't mean you're correct on the matter either.

[Guest]

My friend, who is an out, gay dude, has been in a non-romantic sexual relationship with a "straight", married dude. They've sero-bonded... they're monogamous so they can have sex without condoms.

They barely talk. They've been doing this for NINE YEARS and my friend doesn't even know the dude's real name.

Long term, sexual, monogamous... still doesn't equal romantic.

[Guest]

Wait wait wait. Romantic works of art... poems, etc, existed long before the middle ages. I agree that there was no connection between marriage and romantic attraction, but I disagree that romantic attraction didn't exist or that people weren't aware of it.

[Star Bit]

Every dictionary defines romantic (relationship wise) as "an expression of love" and nothing more. Even they can't word what it is. With that vague of a definition, if you use the more common strictly non-sexual definition of platonic then the word romantic could be used platonically.

[Guest]

(there's also this vid

on the history of romanticism)

Doesn't seem to say anything new to me either. Yes, "romantic love" was invented in the Middle Ages (it simply didn't exist as a major notion before that), and didn't get pouplar outside the circles of nobility until around the 18.-19. century, and became intertwined with the idea of marriage only very recently.

How does that in any way contradict what I said? It just means people didn't have romantic relationships for most of humanity's existence. So?

Because it shows how much of the relationship is a social construct and how romantic feelings being in it is also socially constructed because prior to us people probably didn't know someone could be in such a relationship and not feel romantically. What is and isn't marriage is also just as much as a social construct; people back then didn't think of marrying their platonic best friend and used marriage for other things.

This is one of my pet peeves, so I apologize in advance.

"Social construct" does not mean "not real" or "intentional" or "can be changed via vote or decision". It simply means it's created by our interactions.

Money is a social construct, right? Nonetheless, you can't just draw a $100 on a one dollar bill and expect people to accept it as a hundo. Saying to the cashier "but this is paper with numbers printed on it... it isn't real, so I printed different numbers on it. Logic dictates you must give me one hundred singles in exchange for this"... that's not gonna work.

Things like moral disgust are social constructs... doesn't make the feeling of disgust that people feel re: incest any less real.

My point. Whether or not relationships are a social construct, or romantic feelings are a construct, doesn't change the realness of the feelings and the rootedness of the concept in society. There is an actual, strong, easily identifiable difference between romantic vs. platonic feelings. Saying it's a social construct is meaningless. That doesn't change the fact that people genuinely do feel it, and will not agree with you that romantic feelings have nothing to do with romantic relationships.

Just like no matter how much logic you use, your $100 bill is still only worth a buck.

[Guest]

Every dictionary defines romantic (relationship wise) as "an expression of love" and nothing more. Even they can't word what it is. With that vague of a definition, if you use the more common strictly non-sexual definition of platonic then the word romantic could be used platonically.

It's like you live in a stick figure world and the rest of us are in the three dimensional one.

Dictionary definitions do not make a complete life picture.