A/romanticism and the idea of "the one" (rant)

[Snao Cone]

I am going to admit upfront that I'm annoyed by an overuse of "aromantic" to refer to anybody who doesn't feel whimsical about a prince(ss) charming, or who doesn't like the current standard rites of dating. I get that many people who are drawn the idea of having an ideal partner do not feel lovey-dovey romantic, or don't relate to dating/relationship story lines in popular culture. But I assert that there is still a major difference between being aromantic and being not one for romance.

The process of searching for somebody who is an ideal match for mutual support in life as a means of filling various needs is the process of looking for a relationship. In most ways it doesn't matter if you want a fairy tale wedding and many-a baby at the end of it; if you're looking to find the best person to complement you, you're looking for a partner just like romantic people. If you have found the best person to complement you and they are now a necessary attachment to your life in many spheres, then you're in a great relationship just like romantic people. If you say that person is first and foremost your best friend, that doesn't make it a QPR. Many, many romantic people will say the same thing about their partner. It can be indistinguishable - and what, then, is the point of even using any different words?

I know I'm going to get a lot of flack for posting this, as I'm sure many people who aren't fans of whimsical romance or picturesque gender roles have come across the word "aromantic" and thought that their souls were saved. But to me, if aromantics are portrayed as just as likely to desire committed partnerships as romantic people, then there is no purpose for an aromantic orientation. When I learned that word, it gave me a way of explaining to people why I am not at all interested in seeking a partner. It's a very simple way of stating that my happy singleness is just a part of who I am. It's my response to when people suggest that I'm just yet to find "the one" and I never will if I don't put myself out there. A fundamental part of being aromantic is having no need for "the one". If an aromantic person is looking for the perfect companion who, for all practical purposes, serves a spousal role, then that aromantic person is looking for a relationship just like almost everyone else.

When I tell people I'm aromantic, I want them to understand that as the reason I don't want to find a partner. I want it to be understood that it means there is something fundamental about me that doesn't require a partner. If it doesn't serve that purpose then people will just brush it off as another excuse I'm giving for a social defect, since they will know so many other people who are aromantic but still found somebody. Words will be meaningless, and any progress in accepting singleness as a valid desired state of being will be erased.

[Éadweard]

I think romance is stupid. And I have no need to have a partner and plan to remain single. I, however, shy away from the word aromantic because when I read people posting about it I sometimes think no one understands what it means. 

[SkyWorld]

I agree. I used to identify as aromantic, but now I just choose not to identify with anything. I'm not too sure what my romantic orientation is, but I'm not in a rush.

For me, I think some romance is just too over the top and cheesy, but some I feel like is really sweet and genuine. It's a pick and choose kind of thing, and aren't a lot of people like that? Some people desire one kind of romantic relationship while another may desire something else because the former might not be their cup of tea. Some kind of romance I am not a fan of, and some I'm just very meh about.

I don't really like using the term queerplatonic relationship because I feel like some people wouldn't understand what I am talking about, thus I prefer to use the word "companionship" because I feel like that word best describes the kind of relationship that I would prefer with someone. It's also a word that many people already are familiar with and know the meaning of. 

The thing is for me is that I wouldn't exactly say that I don't want a relationship. The best way for me to describe it is that I don't care for a relationship. I don't look for someone and I'm not hoping that it would happen, however I am open to the possibility and I might be willing to give it a shot if it ever came up.

[Guest]

My thoughts exactly. I have pretty much removed myself from the aromantic groups I was in because of frustration over people talking about how they "hate flowers and dating and hand holding and all that lovey-dovey BS" and as such are aromantic... there have been so many occasions when I have just wanted to jump in and say "that's all well and good but has absolutely nothing to do with being aromantic". Not to mention all the 'aromantic' people complaining about how difficult dating is when you are aro 😑 

[Dodecahedron314]

The definition of aromanticism is not feeling romantic attraction. Commitment is not inherently romantic. If you're in a QPR, it's not a matter of your partner being "first and foremost" your best friend, it's them being your best friend to a higher degree of closeness and commitment than what one would normally expect from a best friend but still in a 100% platonic manner, and that's the difference. Where does that contradict the definition of aromanticism? The entire reason that terms like QPR were created is essentially because due to amatonormativity, it's practically impossible to get someone to take your closeness to someone else seriously unless you call it a relationship of some sort--people who are "just friends" don't make plans to live together and share finances and such as far as society is concerned because they're "just friends" and shouldn't be that important to each other, and if one of the people in that setup leaves another, it's "just a fight between friends" and they should just get over it, rather than everyone immediately losing their minds over the end of a significant emotional structure like with a romantic breakup. Even with the "relationship" appellation, it's worth noting that QPRs are very much defined by the people in them, and so there's an extremely high proportion of them that look nothing like romantic relationships in the first place, so lumping them together just doesn't make sense because they're completely different things. An iguana and a raccoon are both four-legged land-dwelling eukaryotes, but that doesn't make a raccoon a reptile or an iguana a mammal. 

 

There are different equally valid ways to live as an aro, just like there are different equally valid ways to live as an ace. Sex-positive, sex-neutral, and sex-repulsed aces are all equally ace, because they all fit the definition of not experiencing sexual attraction. Though the transfer of the analogy isn't perfect, the point still stands that in a similar fashion, aros who want committed nonromantic relationships are just as aro as those who don't, because neither group experiences romantic attraction. 

[SkyWorld]

@Dodecahedron314 How would one define romantic attraction? Preferably in a way that both excludes action that are perceived as romantic and feelings that can be perfectly valid for both a romantic or platonic relationship?

[Dodecahedron314]

Just now, SkyWorld said:

@Dodecahedron314 How would one define romantic attraction? Preferably in a way that both excludes action that are perceived as romantic and feelings that can be perfectly valid for both a romantic or platonic relationship?

I'm not going to lie and say I have an answer for that, because I've never felt it and so can't describe it from personal experience--and from the number of threads I've seen here asking this question, it doesn't appear as though anyone else has come up with a satisfactory answer either. I mean, the tautological answer is just "desire for a romantic relationship with a specific person", but those are notoriously ill-defined as well and also something I have no experience with. Is there anyone hanging around this subforum who's been in both a QPR and a romantic relationship and can explain the difference clearly?

[Sage Raven Domino]

There's a need for a separate sub-label for 'non-committal' people (those who don't desire an intimate relationship of any kind). The 'aromantic' label is still going to stand generally for anyone who doesn't desire 'lovey-dovey' romance, as it's still a trait that is shared by a minority in its own right.

[Snao Cone]

@Dodecahedron314 - I understand the problems of amatonormativity. I'm not saying QPRs don't exist, and there certainly are problems with cultural and legal recognition in some cases.

But: seeking a permanent relationship with a committed partner as a life goal is not all that different from romance. How is the absence of a need for a permanent relationship with a committed partner not part of aromanticism? If that is something a person is actively seeking to fulfill a purpose in their life, it goes beyond the scope of a QPR.

Or does my aromanticism have literally nothing to do with my life circumstances?

[Guest]

I have several questions/ issues.

1.  QPR - Unless I'm missing something, this form of relationship is only relevant to sexuals. An asexual romantic relationship and a QPR are identical, IMO. I think suggesting otherwise must be founded upon ridiculous assumptions of what "romantic" relationships are. The only difference between a QPR and an asexual romantic relationship that I see is the personalities of the people in the relationship... some romantic asexuals will like cultural romance, while some won't... those who don't aren't suddenly in QPRs.

2. Wanting a relationship doesn't make you romantic any more than not wanting a relationship makes you aromantic. IMO it all depends on the actual ability one has to bond with another person. Tons of romantic people don't want relationships for a variety of reasons... they're working on themselves, they've had a bad break up, they feel spiritually compelled toward remaining single, etc. Personally, I never want a relationship, not even when I'm in one, but when I'm single in particular, I don't ever get a "must partner up" drive. I don't miss relationships when I'm not in them. That doesn't mean I'm aromantic up until a new relationship starts, whereupon I suddenly become romantic. That's silly. If I have the capacity to form those types of attachments, I'm romantic. Maybe I'll never use those romantic powers, either because I hate all people or all people hate me, but regardless, I'm romantic if I have the capacity for such an interpersonal bond. If you're in a QPR, you have the capacity for that bond, and IMO that makes you romantic.

3. A totally genuine question that I'm often very curious about... when aromantics suggest that wanting a romantic relationship is what defines romanticism, what do they think this relationship desire is like? What's it supposed to feel like to have some unspecified "romantic attraction"? The concept makes no sense to me, as a romantic.

[Sage Raven Domino]

10 minutes ago, Skullery Maid said:

An asexual romantic relationship and a QPR are identical, IMO.

Thanks for letting me know that I apparently had homoromance with a couple of very best study buddies at university 

[Guest]

You're welcome? Are you trying to suggest that you were in a QPR with all your study buddies???

[Sage Raven Domino]

The problem is that I was (and am) heteroaesthetic AF so I don't buy into the conjecture of my panromanticism.

[Guest]

I'm sure this is shocking, but I wasn't conjecturing about your panromanticism. I was making a statement about forms of relationships.

1. No idea what being heteroaesthetic has to do with anything?

2. If you disagree about QPR vs asexual romantic relationships, why not discuss it, rather than feign personal insult?

3. I repeat... are you attempting to suggest you were in a QPR with all your study buddies? Because if not, your comment is irrelevant.

[Sage Raven Domino]

1. It's statistically improbable that I may ever desire romance with someone whose appearance I don't appreciate, as liking every major trait of the partner is a necessary condition of romance imo.

2. Tbh, I'd dismiss the concept of QPR if there were no people claiming that it's a valid concept. But there are, and I let others think whatever floats their boats, as long as it doesn't limit others' freedom. And I'm not insulted by any means.

3. Yes, though they may be viewed just as friendships. Just in the hindsight, I feel that I was sharing way more of my emotions with them than people usually do with their friends. I'm not sure what that was, I'm just trying to understand the concept of a QPR by looking back at those encounters, as I have no other experiences that would help me internalise the definition.

[Mychemicalqpr]

1 hour ago, Dodecahedron314 said:

I'm not going to lie and say I have an answer for that, because I've never felt it and so can't describe it from personal experience--and from the number of threads I've seen here asking this question, it doesn't appear as though anyone else has come up with a satisfactory answer either. I mean, the tautological answer is just "desire for a romantic relationship with a specific person", but those are notoriously ill-defined as well and also something I have no experience with. Is there anyone hanging around this subforum who's been in both a QPR and a romantic relationship and can explain the difference clearly?

It is kind of tricky, but I have been thinking about this, and I am hanging around here, so I'll give it a try for you.  I can't say for sure though that the way I feel romantic attraction is exactly like the way other romantics do.  

I have noticed that in the discussion of "what is romantic attraction?" some of the things that are said are things I can experience with a QPP: like imagining spending a lifetime with them and missing them a lot. Sometimes, at first, I don't know whether I am platonically or romantically attracted to a person.  I don't know if it's because I see both options as equally possible and equally fulfilling with any given gender or if I might be wtfromantic, but anyway... when I do distinguish attraction as romantic, this is what I notice: 

The realization tends to strike when I am thinking about them at night and have a hard time falling asleep because of it.  This doesn't really happen to me with platonic relationships unless I have a specific reason to be worried about them.  The way I dream about them will also be different.  I have dreams involving my QPP just because it makes sense that she'd be in my dreams sometimes, but with a romantic interest I will have vivid dreams that focus especially on them and leave me with lingering strong emotions.

I have a desire to cuddle with both a QPP or a romantic partner, but with a romantic partner there is something more hyper about the feeling, you know, the "butterfly" or "heart racing" feeling.  It often involves wanting to kiss them, but I understand there are some kiss-averse romantics. This feeling can also result in the urge to dance around and hum like Ariel in The Little Mermaid when she's thinking about Eric.

I also find that, while I would be happy enough with exploring my kinks with a platonic relationship, the desire and the fantasies of doing so are significantly stronger toward a romantic interest.  I don't know though if all kinky romantic people are like this or if there is a non-kinky equivalent to the feeling. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, DiamondAce said:

1. It's statistically improbable that I may ever desire romance with someone whose appearance I don't appreciate, as liking every major trait of the partner is a necessary condition of romance imo.

2. Tbh, I'd dismiss the concept of QPR if there were no people claiming that it's a valid concept. But there are, and I let others think whatever floats their boats, as long as it doesn't limit others' freedom. And I'm not insulted by any means.

3. Yes, though they may be viewed just as friendships. Just in the hindsight, I feel that I was sharing way more of my emotions with them than people usually do with their friends. I'm not sure what that was, I'm just trying to understand the concept of a QPR by looking back at those encounters, as I have no other experiences that would help me internalise the definition.

People have close friends, you know. That's not a thing that needs a new term.

I realize that people use QPR, but I've yet to see it applied in a way that doesn't 1) differentiate between sexual and non-sexual relationships between sexual people, or 2) mimic romantic relationships perfectly between two asexuals.

I posed these things as questions/issues for a reason. I really would like to discuss it, rather than have a bunch of "it's real because people say it is" responses.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, twilightstarr said:

It is kind of tricky, but I have been thinking about this, and I am hanging around here, so I'll give it a try for you.  I can't say for sure though that the way I feel romantic attraction is exactly like the way other romantics do.  

I have noticed that in the discussion of "what is romantic attraction?" some of the things that are said are things I can experience with a QPP: like imagining spending a lifetime with them and missing them a lot. Sometimes, at first, I don't know whether I am platonically or romantically attracted to a person.  I don't know if it's because I see both options as equally possible and equally fulfilling with any given gender or if I might be wtfromantic, but anyway... when I do distinguish attraction as romantic, this is what I notice: 

The realization tends to strike when I am thinking about them at night and have a hard time falling asleep because of it.  This doesn't really happen to me with platonic relationships unless I have a specific reason to be worried about them.  The way I dream about them will also be different.  I have dreams involving my QPP just because it makes sense that she'd be in my dreams sometimes, but with a romantic interest I will have vivid dreams that focus especially on them and leave me with lingering strong emotions.

I have a desire to cuddle with both a QPP or a romantic partner, but with a romantic partner there is something more hyper about the feeling, you know, the "butterfly" or "heart racing" feeling.  It often involves wanting to kiss them, but I understand there are some kiss-averse romantics. This feeling can also result in the urge to dance around and hum like Ariel in The Little Mermaid when she's thinking about Eric.

I also find that, while I would be happy enough with exploring my kinks with a platonic relationship, the desire and the fantasies of doing so are significantly stronger toward a romantic interest.  I don't know though if all kinky romantic people are like this or if there is a non-kinky equivalent to the feeling. 

Ok so I have a question. How does your QPR differ from a friendship? I definitely see how you're differentiating between romantic and platonic feelings, but I am still confused. I experience romantic and platonic love, like most all other people. We basically all do, right, except for the aromantics (who are statistically very rare). Theoretically, we all understand the difference between platonic and romantic feelings, right? So, what makes your QPR different from a friendship? Do you think this is something new, or are we just applying words to things that have already existed? I know a lot of people with lifelong friendships and no one seems to have a hard time understanding that, so I'm curious about the purpose of the QPR title if we're just referring to friends?

[SkyWorld]

39 minutes ago, Skullery Maid said:

2. Wanting a relationship doesn't make you romantic any more than not wanting a relationship makes you aromantic. IMO it all depends on the actual ability one has to bond with another person. Tons of romantic people don't want relationships for a variety of reasons... they're working on themselves, they've had a bad break up, they feel spiritually compelled toward remaining single, etc. Personally, I never want a relationship, not even when I'm in one, but when I'm single in particular, I don't ever get a "must partner up" drive. I don't miss relationships when I'm not in them. That doesn't mean I'm aromantic up until a new relationship starts, whereupon I suddenly become romantic. That's silly. If I have the capacity to form those types of attachments, I'm romantic. Maybe I'll never use those romantic powers, either because I hate all people or all people hate me, but regardless, I'm romantic if I have the capacity for such an interpersonal bond. If you're in a QPR, you have the capacity for that bond, and IMO that makes you romantic.

I agree. Though personally, it's not that I don't want a relationship, I wouldn't mind it, it's just that I don't care for it and I don't really have any reason. Still though, I just often get confused because clearly there is a difference between a romantic and platonic relationship (at least many people can agree with that statement), but I have yet to see how romantic attraction can be defined in a way that does not mention the stereotypical romantic actions and clearly differentiate the feelings between what is romantic or platonic because they often can work as either or.

[Sage Raven Domino]

To make things even more confusing for us @Skullery Maid, a distinction between queerplatonic friendship (QPF) and queerplatonic partnership (QPP) has recently been proposed on Arocalypse by Teagan and quite a few people agree with her.

Fwiw, my bonds I was talking about were definitely closer to QPFs than QPPs if they were any of the two.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, DiamondAce said:

To make things even more confusing for us @Skullery Maid, a distinction between queerplatonic friendship (QPF) and queerplatonic partnership (QPP) has recently been proposed on Arocalypse by Teagan and quite a few people agree with her.

Fwiw, my bonds I was talking about were definitely closer to QPFs than QPPs if they were any of the two.

Oh for crying out loud. Thank you for the heads up! :lol:

Sky... I agree, I don't see any big difference between platonic attraction and romantic attraction, at least not judging by my own experiences. I will get excited about friends in the sense of "oh, I can talk to Schmonathon about that!" or "Drilbert has lots of friends and will be very advantageous to my social status", but I don't experience any kind of non-ego driven excitement for platonic friends. It's far more rational and far less emotional. Sure, missing people, etc, happens, but that's true of anyone we get used to interacting with. You can miss people you don't even like, so I don't know how relevant that even is. Anyway. This is why I keep saying that attraction is attraction... what you want to do with that attraction will depend on a lot of things, but if you're feeling attraction, it's attraction. I personally do not feel attraction toward friends. I don't feel a "platonic attraction". People I'm attracted to may end up my friend if we get along, etc, but I wouldn't go so far as to say there's a different immediate "attraction" that separates them. I am, granted, very emotionally closed off as a person, but I don't really feel independent emotional stirrings for my friends.

EDIT: Damn it, the coding doesn't work anymore! I'm leaving :lol: as :lol: anyway.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

And this is why I say I'm BROmantic, covers everything I need.

[Sage Raven Domino]

One of the big distinctions between romance and a QPR for me is that the former is addictive at least at first, while the latter can be free of addiction at all (whether it's always such is debatable - aros, please feel free to clarify) despite possibly being irrational (rationality is what distinguishes friendship desire from attraction like Skulls said above)

[Mychemicalqpr]

34 minutes ago, Skullery Maid said:

Ok so I have a question. How does your QPR differ from a friendship? I definitely see how you're differentiating between romantic and platonic feelings, but I am still confused. I experience romantic and platonic love, like most all other people. We basically all do, right, except for the aromantics (who are statistically very rare). Theoretically, we all understand the difference between platonic and romantic feelings, right? So, what makes your QPR different from a friendship? Do you think this is something new, or are we just applying words to things that have already existed? I know a lot of people with lifelong friendships and no one seems to have a hard time understanding that, so I'm curious about the purpose of the QPR title if we're just referring to friends?

I do think that the concept of a QPR isn't new, and there just wasn't a specific word for it before. I think the reason people want to have the term is to combat the "just friends" implication that it is less important, that if we were to find romantic connections, then they would automatically become a higher priority. Unfortunately, people tend to assume that.  To me, agreeing to be a QPR is promising it won't be like that.  Also, not all close friendships want to live together, share responsibilities, and possibly raise a kid together.  When we are more independent, I want to have that kind of arrangement with my QPP (though in our case, maybe not exclusively).

[Star Bit]

QPRs existed before; they were called romantic/passionate friendships or Boston marriages, but they're currently called by the same gender terms Bromance and Womance (i wondered if hetromance could be used for the opposing gender version of this, and did find one source stating so, but most didnt). A term for QPRs exists because its not the norm (but its still always been a thing). A QPR is friendship, it's just an abnormally close/important one or has abnormal platonic physical affection like cuddling (well, this would be abnormal for men).

More specifically this fallacy of the one is due to romanticism not nececerily the concept of a relationship (vid link; he has others on the topic too).

[SkyWorld]

Personally, I just always called it companionships. That's not a new term that most people understand.

[Sage Raven Domino]

37 minutes ago, Star Bit said:

(vid link)

This vid alone is capable of shifting people towards the aro and childfree ends of the spectra - I don't want THIS kind of suffering (draining kids and a draining wife with her job problems) 

[Star Bit]

But that's reality he's talking about; if this step out of fantasy makes people less value romantic relationships then so be it; holding them too dearly is just as toxic. Romantic relationships didnt used to be so dire anyways. You cant deal with reality when your head is stuck in fantasy.

[Sally]

2 hours ago, DiamondAce said:

1. It's statistically improbable that I may ever desire romance with someone whose appearance I don't appreciate, as liking every major trait of the partner is a necessary condition of romance imo.

 

No, it isn't.  romance doesn't depend upon absolute congruity.  

[Sage Raven Domino]

6 minutes ago, Sally said:

No, it isn't.  romance doesn't depend upon absolute congruity.  

Let me correct myself: for a couple to stay together, it's necessary to be congruent in matters that can't be changed easily enough; of course, minor differences can be adjusted eventually.