Jump to content

Asexual Romance vs. Platonically In Love


AndanteCantabile

Recommended Posts

AndanteCantabile

I'm hoping someone can help me sort out my predicament. I'm an asexual, but I'm not sure about my romantic orientation. I have feelings for someone I know very well who's always helping me through difficult times in my life. I can't figure out whether those feelings could be labeled "romantic" or not. I love that person like no other and I want to spend my life with them, but I would never marry them. I would, however, become their partner, and I would not at all mind living with them, having non-sexual physical contact with them (e.g. hugs, small kisses). Is this romance? I mean, is being "platonically in love" the same as asexual romance? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds at least pretty likely to be romantic.

 

As for "platonically in love"... I find the term "in love" terribly fuzzy to define. But since a lot of people seem to equate it with romance and/or limerence, and the traditional meaning of "platonic" is non-sexual/sexless... I'd say these are close enough.

 

Note, however, that "platonic" rather recently seems to have become to mean "neither sexual nor romantic"... so if you're going with that definition, "platonic romance" would be a contradiction, even though that still was a perfectly fine expression in my younger years (I'm 42 :P ).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the line between the two can be pretty blurry. Well, it is to me anyway. Your predicament sounds a lot like mine. I do call myself homoromantic, but I do not like being particularly affectionate or sensual. I don't care for cuddling, making out, lovey-dovey talk, or marriage, but I do want a partner. I specifically want companionate love, which is the stage of love that comes after passionate love. I think the reason so many people get divorced in certain cultures is because society has taught them to chase the high of passionate love, and have led them to believe there is something inferior or abnormal about companionate love.

 

I would say that companionate love is still romantic in nature, but not in the way that westernized culture usually pushes the concept (mirroring passionate love more closely). I've found the term queerplatonic pretty useful in figuring out where I sit. If queerplatonic could be said to be more than platonic, but less than romantic, then my ideal could probably be described as more than queerplatonic, but not quite what most people think when they think of romantic.

 

That's how I see it and my wants are basically exactly like yours. Absolutely nothing sexual, hugs and (no tongue) kisses, cohabitation but no marriage. I think it's still safe to call this romantic. It's probably a good idea to be upfront about this if you start dating someone, to make sure your view of love and romance is compatible. I wouldn't be compatible with someone whose idea of romance is very conventionally romantic and expressive. They'd probably end up feeling very uncertain and insecure if they based their evidence of how much I loved them on more cliched or passionate gestures of romantic love.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^As stated, "platonically in love = asexual romance" cancels itself out, so no.

I also agree it's likely romantic, but romantic attraction is an emotion, so it can only inadiquately be put into words.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...