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

[m4rble]

I don't reject the idea of romance. Sure, many cultural conceptions of romance pretty much seem like shallow shit to me, but the parts of it that I like, I love. I love the idea of finding true love, if I were given the choice between love and money I would choose love every time. I don't really resonate with the word, "aromantic," but a lot of self-proclaimed romantics on this website seem to describe romantic attraction in a way that I don't relate to and quite frankly don't even really understand. I don't(so far anyway, because no one can predict the future) feel the passion or limerence of romantic attraction. My crushes(or what I perceived to be crushes) just came from either admiration for someone's mind or wanting to be close friends with someone. It's a cool, practical way of thinking rather than a passionate one. I don't believe this makes me incapable of forming committed bonds with people. To me, the difference between me and a regular romantic(if such a thing even exists) is practically irrelevant but it seems like it might matter to some people who want emotional reciprocity during the initial, passionate phases of a relationship. The real incompatibility doesn't come from whether or not I feel some mysterious emotion called, "romantic attraction" but from my discomfort about certain forms of touch that even many asexuals still desire. Knowing people do seem to experience romantic attraction differently than me does make a lot of behaviors(both fictional and irl) make a lot more sense now though. 

[fiѕh]

I'm just going to start this by saying that I don't wanna invalidate anyone or say any labels are somehow not legit. It's more of a thinking process than a real opinion.

Tbh I can't tell yet if I think "aromantic" is a thing as an orientation or the 23476234728746827th label popping up on the internet. I understood it as a "it's just not a feeling I'd have towards another person" rather than "I don't have the needs or the feelings to begin with", quite like asexuality. But it might be that's the version I adopted because it made most sense to me. It all seems reeeeally unclear because I haven't come across any 2 people that explained it the same way. 

So... the original post seems like a lot of practical reasons to me. As in, that's the way the term should be used to avoid making all our lives unnecessarily annoying and hard. I mean I do agree with all of it at this point but an orientation doesn't exist to serve a purpose, does it? It kind of just starts existing when a lot of people feel the same way. It's not like anyone invented it. Aromantics who do feel the need to find a partner gotta be making the whole thing messy when it comes to the big, bad, stupid and unaccepting outside world but does that mean they are not entitled to use the label? I kinda don't see how not having romantic feelings for others clashes with needing a relationship the way OP described it. 

On a semi-unrelated note, reading about these issues makes me so glad that I can say "I relate to things aromantics say" without bothering with the labels and go on with my life.

[binary suns]

@Snow Cone actually, tbh, part of the reason that I share my identity as companionate rather than aromantic or greysexual or anything, is because of how you and others feel a little put-off by the idea that aromanticism might not imply singlehood. I don't really like that either. 

[Guest]

The only difference I see between the vast majority of aromantics and romantics is limerence. I mean, what do you all think romantic relationships are like after the limerence wears off??? They're exactly like all these "aromantic relationships." But being inclined toward a romantic relationship minus the limerence doesn't suddenly make you aromantic.

[binary suns]

(this post is an inquisitve one asking for advice on understanding)

 

to be honest, I struggle to understand what is "Different" about romance exactly. I know from personal experience, that I can experience romantic attraction, and can tell the difference between liking someone romantically and liking someone as a friend, but I don't have the words to explain why it's different to be honest. when it comes to things like limerance and crushing, I know for sure that I don't really understand what exactly those things are. 

l don't know. I can't empathetically understand romantic things I mean. people say it is different from other things, for example romantic limerance for a crush compared to getting excited over friends saying "omg we're best friends already this is so great" only to a few months later lose that excitement and drift apart or even break up dramatically. Why is that, which I've often seen going on between friends regardless of gender same or different, two or a group, how is that different from the similar story about romantic limerance? 

 

lol, I've even observed it happening with employee-employer relationships. someone hires someone knew, and they are both really excited about how much this is going to be a great match in the work environment. then a month later, the two people secretly hate each other and tension about job security started to arise. 

 

to me, it just seems really arbitrary why some things are "romantic" but similar things are "platonic"

[Guest]

I personally think a lot more people have a lot more romantic feelings than they like to admit. I think romantic feelings for friends is common... and I think I'm one of those people who doesn't do romantic feelings in friendships, which leaves a lot of people really hurt. But it's like... you're my friend, not my girlfriend, I don't owe you the same duties I owe someone I'm dating. And in the end, that's really the big difference. Romantic relationships involve duties that you don't mind performing because of the depth of your feeling for them and/or because of the reciprocal nature of duties. If you're interested in a relationship that involves selfless duties, then you want a romantic relationship IMO. I don't think there is a difference between platonic attraction and romantic attraction... attraction is attraction.

Hey, @Snow Cone, do you feel platonic attraction to me? Because, no offense, I don't feel attraction to you.

But like, clearly I care about, love, want to help, and want the best for my friends. Absolutely! Not every damn thing we do and feel, not every motivation we have, can be called some version of "attraction." The VAST majority of crap we do, want, seek out, buy, play with... the people we talk to, the jobs we apply to, the bosses we like, the pets we love to care for... none of that crap is attraction.

We're more complicated than a complete reductionist view that all motivations, wants, and needs stem from attraction. And in any case if that were true, it makes attraction meaningless anyway.

[Moonchaser]

I hope this isn't taken as flak, but are you confusing the sub-orientation of romantic/aromantic with something that is a matter of choice? Because that's what I get out of the OP. I am a romantic asexual, BUT I have never imagined that that means I should need or not need a relationship, only that I'm attracted to some others in that way. The attraction isn't something I can choose. Whether to have a relationship - that's always a choice. Did I miss something?

I think an aromantic can have any kind of relationship they choose with another who wants the same, and so can a romantic choose or not choose to have a relationship. One is attraction (not a choice), the other is a choice.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Moonchaser said:

I hope this isn't taken as flak, but are you confusing the sub-orientation of romantic/aromantic with something that is a matter of choice? Because that's what I get out of the OP. I am a romantic asexual, BUT I have never imagined that that means I should need or not need a relationship, only that I'm attracted to some others in that way. The attraction isn't something I can choose. Whether to have a relationship - that's always a choice. Did I miss something?

I think an aromantic can have any kind of relationship they choose with another who wants the same, and so can a romantic choose or not choose to have a relationship. One is attraction (not a choice), the other is a choice.

It's somewhat more complicated than that. I know for me, at least, what I'm saying is that most of these people are experiencing romantic feelings (I refuse to call it romantic attraction because that's just so... conceptual... that it's beyond sensible). They're just not calling it romantic because they don't want traditional romance. But if you want your best friend in the world to live with you, split bills, and not enter another primary relationship, that's romantic. What possible feelings are missing there, exactly? Miss them when they're gone, think about them for no reason, want to share one's life together, like the more than anyone else, and expect some sort of commitment and exclusivity...

So, yeah... what about that isn't romantic, exactly?

[Moonchaser]

3 minutes ago, Skullery Maid said:

It's somewhat more complicated than that. I know for me, at least, what I'm saying is that most of these people are experiencing romantic feelings (I refuse to call it romantic attraction because that's just so... conceptual... that it's beyond sensible). They're just not calling it romantic because they don't want traditional romance. But if you want your best friend in the world to live with you, split bills, and not enter another primary relationship, that's romantic. What possible feelings are missing there, exactly? Miss them when they're gone, think about them for no reason, want to share one's life together, like the more than anyone else, and expect some sort of commitment and exclusivity...

So, yeah... what about that isn't romantic, exactly?

I might not be able to answer that. I have to think about it.

[Snao Cone]

46 minutes ago, Skullery Maid said:

 

Hey, @Snow Cone, do you feel platonic attraction to me? Because, no offense, I don't feel attraction to you.

 

*sniff* You...you don't?

Nah, platonic "attraction" is a weird concept to me too. I feel a platonic connection, sure. I may be drawn to someone and intrigued by them, but it's not like attraction in any sexual/romantic sense. I don't feel lured in by people I think I'd make good friends with.

I agree with as well that "romantic attraction" isn't a very good term. Romantic feelings can be an immediate fascination, or they can be built up as a partnership founded upon mutual interests and needs becomes a stronger foundation of a person's day to day well-being. Friends can mean a lot to us as well, of course, but when that friendship becomes both intimate and an established arrangement, it is straddling a very blurry line.

[Snao Cone]

One of my best friends lived with his childhood bestie well into their 30s. They went back and forth with other partners or roommates (or their moms) over the years, but they eventually decided it was inevitable they would be the best living partners for each other while they were both single. If they both remained single and willing to continue living together (his bestie became engaged to a country girl who introduced him to gun collection and things got veeeery uncomfortable) that would be a QPR for me. They don't have anyone else and they're happy together. They brought each other to weddings as dates, because they had been included in family gatherings since before they were even dating girls.

But if that friend of mine met someone else, especially a woman, with whom he established a symbiotic living situation where they were essentially significant others - cuddling on the couch watching sports; bringing each other to family dinners, friends' birthdays, or work parties - they might as well be a couple. (This friend of mine is sexual and painfully romantic, so that wouldn't happen, but if it did...) I specify that this is with a woman because this friend is very hetero. For someone who isn't so obviously assumed to be hetero/homo, it could work for any gender of friend.

[Guest]

I still say...

King of Queens is the only show that I know of that represents a true QPR. They're both straight and they both date, but they've failed to find long term relationships, and were roommates for so long they end up buying a house together. They were never trying to be together... it just happened that way because they sucked at getting girlfriends and lived together harmoniously anyway. No jealousy, no commitment, no exclusivity... just long term roommates.

[binary suns]

re: choosing relationships. goddamnit this annoys me so much. the concept that somebody who chooses to be in some kind of realtionship, necessarly must have an orientation that aligns with that choice! like seriously. as a human I enjoy the power I have to make a choice for whatever insane reason my mind comes up with. or even to make choices that have no reason whatsoever, or blatantly stick it to reason! 

imagine some Straight dude who for some reason decides he wants to marry another dude and behave monogamously with that person, however they (privately!) choose to be intimate in their relationship, sexual, romantic, or otherwise. Why does this have anything at all to do with orientation? 

When I imagine orientation, I imagine a person who is self-identifying their emotional experience. something that they find themselves in, outside of their control. someone who feels things for other humans, and needs a way to talk about that on some level, even (or especially) if they're a person who hates talking about or expressing their feelings. that is what orientation is. 

the choice to be in a relationship or not, pursue a relationship or not, engage in activities with other humans or not. all of this is an action we are capable of choosing whether or not to do. 

and if we are to believe that orientation is not a choice, it's very clear to me that a person can, for any reason they see fit, make a choice ignoring their orientation if they so goddamn please. 

 

 

ps. apologies for the rant 

[Snao Cone]

I don't know if I can agree with that, because I've never seen the show and I hate Kevin James.

[binary suns]

3 minutes ago, Skullery Maid said:

I still say...

King of Queens is the only show that I know of that represents a true QPR. They're both straight and they both date, but they've failed to find long term relationships, and were roommates for so long they end up buying a house together. They were never trying to be together... it just happened that way because they sucked at getting girlfriends and lived together harmoniously anyway. No jealousy, no commitment, no exclusivity... just long term roommates.

why can't a person see that, say, wow, that seems nice. I wish I lived that story? 

 

or is living vicariously, and subsequently, feeling voyeuristic jealous or interest in trying to repeat the situation of others, somehow automatically romantic :lol: 

 

sorry that I'm being anti-facetious xD you know me, taking everything seriously  I'm such a party pooper. 

[Snao Cone]

1 minute ago, Every Red Heart Shines said:

re: choosing relationships. goddamnit this annoys me so much. the concept that somebody who chooses to be in some kind of realtionship, necessarly must have an orientation that aligns with that choice! like seriously. as a human I enjoy the power I have to make a choice for whatever insane reason my mind comes up with. or even to make choices that have no reason whatsoever, or blatantly stick it to reason! 

imagine some Straight dude who for some reason decides he wants to marry another dude and behave monogamously with that person, however they (privately!) choose to be intimate in their relationship, sexual, romantic, or otherwise. Why does this have anything at all to do with orientation? 

When I imagine orientation, I imagine a person who is self-identifying their emotional experience. something that they find themselves in, outside of their control. someone who feels things for other humans, and needs a way to talk about that on some level, even (or especially) if they're a person who hates talking about or expressing their feelings. that is what orientation is. 

the choice to be in a relationship or not, pursue a relationship or not, engage in activities with other humans or not. all of this is an action we are capable of choosing whether or not to do. 

and if we are to believe that orientation is not a choice, it's very clear to me that a person can, for any reason they see fit, make a choice ignoring their orientation if they so goddamn please. 

 

 

ps. apologies for the rant 

Okay, I agree with most of us. And in such a case, aromantic people can be in relationships. It's just that they made a choice in spite of their aromantic disposition. They should acknowledge that this is an exception.

There are people who are one sexual orientation and decide to commit to a relationship in the other direction - but such people would not say that it's a norma/typical/common arrangement for their orientation. To say that companionate relationships that are, from the outside, identical to romantic relationships are a normal desire for aromantic people to have is making that kind of statement, which is at best misleading and generally false.

[binary suns]

I don't believe that anyone should do anything. like, I gotta be blunt here, sorry, but don't expect other people to go out of their way to make your life easier. 

 

naturally, do however, feel free to voice your objection, hehe! after all, it's your objection which led to my advocacy of the word companionate :D just watch, in 10 years companionate will be popular around the world!

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Every Red Heart Shines said:

I don't believe that anyone should do anything. like, I gotta be blunt here, sorry, but don't expect other people to go out of their way to make your life easier. 

 

naturally, do however, feel free to voice your objection, hehe! after all, it's your objection which led to my advocacy of the word companionate :D just watch, in 10 years companionate will be popular around the world!

Just because person X does Y doesn't mean that X=Y, Teagz.

[Snao Cone]

Nobody has to go out of their way to do anything here, and that includes me not going out of my way to include companionate relationships when I explain to people in everyday irl conversation what "aromantic" means. I will say that my aromanticism is why I always plan on staying single. My singleness and aromanticism are linked, and I am under no obligation to add a disclaimer for all the people who want to be called aromantic despite looking for a committed relationship.

 

[binary suns]

2 minutes ago, Snow Cone said:

to say that companionate relationships that are, from the outside, identical to romantic relationships are a normal desire for aromantic people to have is making that kind of statement, which is at best misleading and generally false.

oh, in other news, I actually... I find this comment to be kind of weird. from my perspective, everything in culture regarding relationships is misleading. if anything I feel that it should be normal that human relationships are considered developed out of practicality. and mature people do realize things along the line of, "love yourself before you can love another" and similar concepts, leading to the conclusion that a healthy relationship with another human is entirely dependent upon personal maturity. but, because of how much romantic people love to ship and squee over romantic fantasies in film or fiction form, everyone first learns that relationships are dependant on attraction and need for each other, and believe that relationships will fix them rather than agravate any personal kinds they need to work out, and become relationship junkies and yada yada I'm being ignorant I know but it's for the sake of example, not meant as a statement of absolution. 

in summary, if anything, I feel that every relationships is by default aromantic, and it's actually odd that some relationships are romantic. Just because it's common that more dedicated and more intimate relationships tend to also be romantic, doesn't mean that all relationships are romantic, just like it doesn't mean that all relationships are dedicated and intimate. they're two different things that tend to converge, but since when does a statistical trend in various dictate the reality of all things in those categories?

 

 

god, even my TL:DR's are wordy. 

[binary suns]

6 minutes ago, Skullery Maid said:

Just because person X does Y doesn't mean that X=Y, Teagz.

I have an unhealthy habit of nitpicking, yes. agreed. trust me, it's harsher in my head for me than it comes out in words for you xD

[binary suns]

also, if person x doing y doesn't mean that x = y, then snow being aromantic and wanting to be single doesn't mean that aromanticism = desire for singletudity :P 

[Guest]

Just now, Every Red Heart Shines said:

I have an unhealthy habit of nitpicking, yes. agreed. 

My point is, if I put on a monkey suit and call myself a monkey, biologists don't suddenly have to start teaching that pizza is part of monkeys' diets, nor do they have to start teaching that monkeys have suddenly learned speech just because I can talk.

To say that just because someone wrongly labels themselves, suddenly everything that person does is now part of their poorly-chosen label is insane. Absolutely insane. Snow is right... I've known lesbians who have married men, but that doesn't mean that when I call myself a lesbian everyone should assume I'm going to marry a man. Abberations... going against one's orientation... is fine, but it's sure as fuck doesn't become part of the definition for that orientation. I've sucked a lot of cock in my life and I call myself gay, but I'm not running around suggesting that people are being homophobic when they use the word lesbian to mean "girl on girl sexytimes".

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Every Red Heart Shines said:

also, if person x doing y doesn't mean that x = y, then snow being aromantic and wanting to be single doesn't mean that aromanticism = desire for singletudity :P 

Right. It doesn't. At all. Snow's desire cannot change aromanticism, because it's a stand alone thing that isn't swayed by individual variations. It just so happens in this case that snow is identifying accurately.

[binary suns]

but wait, I don't understand how aromantic relationships is becoming a part of the definition and expectations of what it means for every aromantic person? 

 

it's like, imagine a horse. now imagine a white horse. it's very likely the two horse you imagined were different colors right? but they are both horses. so how does some aromantic people being single and some aromantic people stumbling into a QPR and some other aromantic people Wanting a QPR, dictate what all aromantic people are?

maybe you are the brown horse, and because a lot of horses are white or because the white horses get all the fame, when a person imagines a horse now they imagine the horse as white and you feel left out because you used to be the color of horse people imagined but now you're forgotten. I know that feels shitty! but it doesn't make the white horses to blame. it's not the individuals or the attributes about them that have changed your popularity from the standard model to the forgotten model. but what tropes exist and how they exist doesn't change who you are and doesn't blemish who you are. there is no reason to let the oppinions of others, or the assumptions other people make, dictate what you imagine about yourself! (naturally it's fine to get mad or frustrated or anything over changes that you don't like! but don't let yourself forget that you know full well who you are, and it don't matter what nobody thinks about that!)

[Guest]

Just now, Every Red Heart Shines said:

but wait, I don't understand how aromantic relationships is becoming a part of the definition and expectations of what it means for every aromantic person? 

 

it's like, imagine a horse. now imagine a white horse. it's very likely the two horse you imagined were different colors right? but they are both horses. so how does some aromantic people being single and some aromantic people stumbling into a QPR and some other aromantic people Wanting a QPR, dictate what all aromantic people are?

maybe you are the brown horse, and because a lot of horses are white or because the white horses get all the fame, when a person imagines a horse now they imagine the horse as white and you feel left out because you used to be the color of horse people imagined but now you're forgotten. I know that feels shitty! but it doesn't make the white horses to blame. it's not the individuals or the attributes about them that have changed your popularity from the standard model to the forgotten model. but what tropes exist and how they exist doesn't change who you are and doesn't blemish who you are. there is no reason to let the oppinions of others, or the assumptions other people make, dictate what you imagine about yourself! (naturally it's fine to get mad or frustrated or anything over changes that you don't like! but don't let yourself forget that you know full well who you are, and it don't matter what nobody thinks about that!)

Or maybe one's an eagle and one's a riding lawnmower.

Teagz. We know variations exist. Some variations remain within the boundaries of the thing, and some variations don't. We're saying that some of these variations remove the person from aromanticism. If you're a horse, your color won't make you more or less a horse, but if you're a horse with wings, you're probably not actually a horse at all. Being ridiculously stubborn and making everyone say "and sometimes wings" when describing horses just because you don't feel like calling yourself an eagle is ridiculously narcissistic.

[binary suns]

so then, what is being discussed, what is being objected to, is rather, 

it's being proposed that a person actively looking for a committed and intimate relationship falls under the romantic attraction? that a wanting for partnership is one way in which romantic attraction exists. 

to be honest, this is something I myself asked at one point in the past. 

I am not sure what I believe regarding this, or how to express my thoughts... 

 

 

[binary suns]

I'm... I'm going to share my personal experience, I guess, my personal expectations regarding "wanting a QPR"

 

the thing is... I see my guy friend from college, who wants to come to philly and room with me. and I wish he were a girl instead. even if he were the exact same person, if he were a girl, it would change my reservations from being uncomfortable about this, to being comfortable with it. 

and I recognize that this reservation I have, is all about, it's about same-sex housing. I feel more comfortable with a female roomate than a male one, and knowing that he is straight, it feels a little bit awkward that he is making efforts to come near me. Not because I think he is attracted to me, I think he isn't. it just feels weird. 

 

but the thing is, when I imagine what would realistically happen for me to be in a platonic partnership, I imagine it starts like this story. a friend of mine wants to move to my area, or vice-versa, and it sounds like a good idea to try being roommates, as friends. and we do. and since we're good friends, at the start of it we'll do a lot together, eat together, hang out together, yada yada. and maybe over time we will drift apart, and move out, and hopefully that wouldn't mark the awkward end of a good friendship. but realistically, we'll only live as roomates for a few years, and even if it lasted long-term they'd move on to a romantic relationship, or we'd just naturally feel a little off about being together so long, and then go about our own ways. it would, in all appearances to other people, be two friends who live together for a long time, and to both of us, that'd be exactly what it was. 

 

but for me, I would want that friendship not to get awkward and not for us to go our separate ways. maybe not with them, it's immaterial to me which of my good friends I'll inevitably encounter in my life, spend the most time as a part of my life. But, if our friends has the right level of comfort in our cohabitation, I might say to them, I would enjoy it if we could be friends and roomates like this in the long run. even if they would prefer to also have a romantic or sexual partner, and we just live as an extended family. 

 

on some level, I would expect in such a close friendship a level of "exclusivity" but not like... not like omg what you're friends with someone else ew.. it's more like, well, for me, personally, because of my social anxiety, a complex scenario with many "partners" (or more appropriately, companions) would be very confusing for me to navigate. if it naturally would evolve, that's a different thing, but I would need there to be something about our friendship that is individual relative to their other current relationships. maybe we spend nights just the two of us, or maybe there's things that we talk about that we don't feel comfortable talking with others about. but this isn't all that weird for friendships - and it's not about specifics either - I think of my mom's friendships when I 'm saying this, she has some friends and with those friends, she talks to a certain personal detail with them that she doesn't talk about with my father - just because it's a different person and a different comfort areas and a different relationship. it's not because she's "closer" to those friends than she is to my father - it's just that there's something about her friendships that doesn't compare to her other relationships.

 

everything I've talked about so far... in my observation, none of it is specifically "romantic", all of it is qualities of individual relationships that pop up in some but not all relationships, whether the relationship is between family members, friends, roommates, or partners. the closest thing to partnership that it has, is the establishment of "committing" to maintaining the friendship and growing the bond long-term. 

and, I actively want NOT to be involved with the dating scene, and while occasionally it occurs to me that I could ask a friend if they want to try for such a thing, out of the blue. it just feels.. weird to me, and awkward. not that it's unimaginable to happen, but it would introduce a certain feeling of forcing, and even a hint of romance, that would make me uncomfortable, and would automatically introduce a risk of failure, so I expect that every time it occurs as possible I'll just not do it anyway because I don't feel like it's worth asking in that context. 

 

 

and let me also be straight with you - the reason for why I imagine such a companionship developing in my life and hope for it to happen, is not because I feel a need for this companionship on an emotional level, nor feel wanting for it intrinsically or even think it sounds "better" than living on my own. if I live my whole life, alone, with friendships that come and go over the course of a few years at maximum... I would be just as happy. it would be irritating to deal with the unreliability of those friendships changing all the time, sure. but that wouldn't make me feel, at a loss, or unsatisfied, or incomplete, that would just make me feel sad and confused because when friendships are suddenly changing I feel sad and confused. even if the sudden change is for the best! so I just live with that confusion and know that given time I'll figure out what's happening and it'll be ok. but I'm digressing...

the reason for why I want a companionship in my life is because, when I look at a lot of things about living alone that are true just by nature of living on my own - if I buy lettuce, some of it goes bad before I eat it. same with milk, and fruits, and most veggies. Single apartments may be cheaper than double apartments - but most apartments that are double or more, is more cost-efficient for the number of expected residents than the singles are. going out to eat alone is awkward for a number of reasons, or various activites, tho not as much or as consistently. maintaining social events in our culture, too, is more awkward for a single person (who isn't looking for dates) just becuase either someone (or all three) feel third-wheel, or because pairing up with one person who is in a partnership raises questions and jealousy. All of these things, are just intrinsic things that occur naturally in our culture, just because the normal situation people are in revolves around being partnered, in a family, or seeking partnership. and they all feel kind of like a "single tax".

and all these things, they can be avoided sure, and I'll happily take the efforts to figure out life on my own, in the end figure one problem out is no different than figuring another problem out. 

but it's just - really when I look at it - while I'll willinging "pay the tax" and navigate life by myself, I can't deny the objective observation that it'd be both simpler and with more options, to find optimizations and efficiency in life if I have someone living life with me. 

It's all about following the "rules" and "tools" that are laid out for me. 

 

 

and the thing is - a romantic person would hear me say this and feel insulted that I'm not respecting them or something. I don't really know exactly, I don't understand, but for most romantic people, hearing me talk about optimizing money and yada yada would ruin their mood and make them feel distant from me emotionally, and they'd dislike that. and on the reverse side, most romantic people would expect certain things from a partnership that I don't expect from a companionship - they'd expect gift-giving maybe, or daily kissing or physical intimacy and touches I find weird, or they'd expect that I'm defending them or supporting them blindly rather than voicing my own oppinion even if it disagrees. 

and sure these things aren't true of every romantic person or relationship, and aren't untrue of every aromatic or friendship, there are certainly parallels in many ways, or at least lower-levels of the same thing. but what I am trying to say here is that, the expected "value" of a romantic relationship inevitably has things that I would not enjoy, that would make me feel uncomfortable, and that I would want to not have in my companionship, and the expect "value" of what I think of or other aromantic people think of when imagining a QPR or companionship is different in ways from a romantic relationship that would inevitably make romantic people feel like they aren't loved or are disconnected from their partner. sure there are cross-orientation pairings that do work, or ways of communicating or establishing a relationship that make it work, but it's inherently harder, and more unlikely, to last. 

 

 

and the thing is - an aromantic person shouldn't have to go to this level of detail to "prove" to other people that what they say is aromantic, is, in fact, aromantic. it isn't right. I'm exposing my personal thoughts and emotions, and making myself vulnerable, by doing this. it is unequal. Even if my exception is so weird that you doubt me - I should not be forced to explain myself for you to allow me to exist with my companion unbridled by your judgements as a romantic normative person. 

 

 

maybe it is true that for an aromantic single, it's weird that there are a lot of aromantic people who are in a QPR or want one. But inevitably, it's very awkward for people in a QPR or who want one to be treated as a romantic person - because they are not. they know they are not. and they don't need you to tell them that they are romantic, because they are not. 

it's less obvious to the outside observe WHY an aromantic experience isn't romantic, because they look at it through a red lense and see red paper. but for the aromantic person who is living their aromantic life - it is very obvious that romantic people are unlike them in a way that makes them uncomfortable and feel alien. there is not one specific thing really that is true of every aromantic, just like there is not a one specific thing about ever romantic person either. but there are enough things that are different, that leads the aromantic person to say, "I am aromantic". 

[m4rble]

5 hours ago, Skullery Maid said:

The only difference I see between the vast majority of aromantics and romantics is limerence. I mean, what do you all think romantic relationships are like after the limerence wears off??? They're exactly like all these "aromantic relationships." But being inclined toward a romantic relationship minus the limerence doesn't suddenly make you aromantic.

These two sentences appear to conflict with each other, do they not? I suppose an inclination is not a hard and fast rule though. 

[m4rble]

4 hours ago, Skullery Maid said:

It's somewhat more complicated than that. I know for me, at least, what I'm saying is that most of these people are experiencing romantic feelings (I refuse to call it romantic attraction because that's just so... conceptual... that it's beyond sensible). They're just not calling it romantic because they don't want traditional romance. But if you want your best friend in the world to live with you, split bills, and not enter another primary relationship, that's romantic. What possible feelings are missing there, exactly? Miss them when they're gone, think about them for no reason, want to share one's life together, like the more than anyone else, and expect some sort of commitment and exclusivity...

So, yeah... what about that isn't romantic, exactly?

In some cases sure, they aren't considering it romantic because they don't like the idea of traditional romance. Other times it seems people are trying to define romantic feelings in a way that makes them isolated from everything else in the universe so they believe simply wanting a relationship wouldn't cut it. I'm not so sure about the strict exclusivity part but I do desire a relationship in theory. 

4 hours ago, Skullery Maid said:

I personally think a lot more people have a lot more romantic feelings than they like to admit. I think romantic feelings for friends is common... and I think I'm one of those people who doesn't do romantic feelings in friendships, which leaves a lot of people really hurt. But it's like... you're my friend, not my girlfriend, I don't owe you the same duties I owe someone I'm dating. And in the end, that's really the big difference. Romantic relationships involve duties that you don't mind performing because of the depth of your feeling for them and/or because of the reciprocal nature of duties. If you're interested in a relationship that involves selfless duties, then you want a romantic relationship IMO. I don't think there is a difference between platonic attraction and romantic attraction... attraction is attraction.

Hey, @Snow Cone, do you feel platonic attraction to me? Because, no offense, I don't feel attraction to you.

But like, clearly I care about, love, want to help, and want the best for my friends. Absolutely! Not every damn thing we do and feel, not every motivation we have, can be called some version of "attraction." The VAST majority of crap we do, want, seek out, buy, play with... the people we talk to, the jobs we apply to, the bosses we like, the pets we love to care for... none of that crap is attraction.

We're more complicated than a complete reductionist view that all motivations, wants, and needs stem from attraction. And in any case if that were true, it makes attraction meaningless anyway.

This post just made the concept of "attraction" seem confusing and pointless.