Jump to content

I'm aromantic because...


Snao Cone

Recommended Posts

...I want to stay single for the rest of my life.

...I don't want to see the same person every day.

...I don't want regular kind and thoughtful gestures performed for me.

...I don't want to share a bed.

...I'm not an affectionate person (except to dogs).

...I don't feel intensely about other people very often.

 

And yet, from what I understand from reading the thoughts and experiences of other aromantic people, none of these things are really connected to aromanticism. I only associate them with aromanticism because the opposite is seen as romantic, but an aromantic person may be the complete opposite of me on all of these and yet their aromanticism is considered equally if not more valid than mine. Funny how much variety there can be within one group, just based on the vagueness of the word they want to distance themselves from.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SithAzathoth WinterDragon

That sums me up all of what's at the top. I also love cats :D 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I sometimes question if romanticism is a thing. (quietly and to myself, but I guess I'll let the thoughts out a bit now)

The only thing that seems to define it is the "in love", getting crushes and so on. It seems that this first stage, infatuation, fades to a "deeper love". How much deeper is this love really than for a very good and close friend? I mean, if you were ok with hugging, kissing and holding hands with your close best friend (if you are a sensual/touch-liking person), but never went through the infatuation stage... how is that different than that "deeper love"? How do you point out the difference? Since "romantic" isn't the same as sensual or romantic (as in candlelit dinners this time, not orientation) ... what is the deal with it? Is the romantic orientation only about the crushes? Is it some deeper obsession? :P And if the only difference is the fact that romantics get crushes, or feel slightly more obsessive (I couldn't come up with a better word), why are aromantics pictured out as extremely different? The only differences I've noticed seems to be linked to the person and not the a/romantic orientation.

 

tl;dr ... I guess it's enough to say that romanticism confuse me.

 

I've never been in love and I can't picture me being in love. I don't hate the idea of being with someone, but I certainly don't feel that I need to be. I enjoy having a lot of private space and own time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Galactic Turtle

 

Quote

 

Romance:

[1] a (1) :  a medieval tale based on legend, chivalric love and adventure, or the supernatural (2) :  a prose narrative treating imaginary characters involved in events remote in time or place and usually heroic, adventurous, or mysterious (3) :  a love story especially in the form of a novel

b :  a class of such literature

[2] something (such as an extravagant story or account) that lacks basis in fact

[3] an emotional attraction or aura belonging to an especially heroic era, adventure, or activity

 

 

Quote

Love:

[1] a (1) :  strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties maternal love for a child (2) :  attraction based on sexual desire :  affection and tenderness felt by lovers After all these years, they are still very much in love(3) :  affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests love for his old schoolmates b :  an assurance of affection give her my love

[2] warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion love of the sea

[3] a :  the object of attachment, devotion, or admiration baseball was his first love b (1) :  a beloved person :  darling —often used as a term of endearment (2) British —used as an informal term of address

[4] a :  unselfish loyal and benevolent (see benevolent 1a) concern for the good of another: such as (1) :  the fatherly concern of God for humankind (2) :  brotherly concern for others b :  a person's adoration of God

[5] :  a god (such as Cupid or Eros) or personification of love

[6] an amorous episode

[7] the sexual embrace

[8] a score of zero (as in tennis)

[9] 

  1. capitalized, Christian Science :  god

  1. :  At Love: holding one's opponent scoreless in tennis

  1. :  In Love: inspired by affection

Quote

 

Romanticism:

[1] often capitalized a (1) :  a literary, artistic, and philosophical movement originating in the 18th century, characterized chiefly by a reaction against neoclassicism and an emphasis on the imagination and emotions, and marked especially in English literature by sensibility and the use of autobiographical material, an exaltation of the primitive and the common man, an appreciation of external nature, an interest in the remote, a predilection for melancholy, and the use in poetry of older verse forms (2) :  an aspect of romanticism b :  adherence to a romantic attitude or style

[2] the quality or state of being romantic

Quote

 

Romantic:

[1] consisting of or resembling a romance

[2] having no basis in fact

[3] impractical in conception or plan

[4] a :  marked by the imaginative or emotional appeal of what is heroic, adventurous, remote, mysterious, or idealized b often capitalized :  of, relating to, or having the characteristics of romanticism c :  of or relating to music of the 19th century characterized by an emphasis on subjective emotional qualities and freedom of form; also :  of or relating to a composer of this music

[5] a :  having an inclination for romance :  responsive to the appeal of what is idealized, heroic, or adventurous b :  marked by expressions of love or affection c :  conducive to or suitable for lovemaking

[6] of, relating to, or constituting the part of the hero especially in a light comedy

 

 

*shrugs* 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Galactic Turtle
3 minutes ago, Snao Çoñé said:

So, @Galactic Turtle, is anyone who isn't a score of zero in tennis potentially aromantic? :P

I'm winning six sets to none, game to love. xD But really I think in modern culture love and romance have been a bit conflated. Love and sex are even wrapped up in the same definition albeit in a definition that is very expansive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Messen said:

You know, I sometimes question if romanticism is a thing. (quietly and to myself, but I guess I'll let the thoughts out a bit now)

The only thing that seems to define it is the "in love", getting crushes and so on. It seems that this first stage, infatuation, fades to a "deeper love". How much deeper is this love really than for a very good and close friend? I mean, if you were ok with hugging, kissing and holding hands with your close best friend (if you are a sensual/touch-liking person), but never went through the infatuation stage... how is that different than that "deeper love"? How do you point out the difference? Since "romantic" isn't the same as sensual or romantic (as in candlelit dinners this time, not orientation) ... what is the deal with it? Is the romantic orientation only about the crushes? Is it some deeper obsession? :P And if the only difference is the fact that romantics get crushes, or feel slightly more obsessive (I couldn't come up with a better word), why are aromantics pictured out as extremely different? The only differences I've noticed seems to be linked to the person and not the a/romantic orientation.

 

tl;dr ... I guess it's enough to say that romanticism confuse me.

 

I've never been in love and I can't picture me being in love. I don't hate the idea of being with someone, but I certainly don't feel that I need to be. I enjoy having a lot of private space and own time.

I don't consider myself a romantic because I get obsessive, infatuated or have crushes. I actually don't really do "crushes". I start out as friends and eventually, talking to them and hanging out with them, this develops into feeling differently than "just friends". It's a different set of emotions than I feel for friends. Not entirely, but at least partially. It's intense and doesn't fade with limerence. Limerence is just the silly "newness excitement" stage, which fades. But, the deep, loving romantic emotions stick around. And while I love my friends, family, etc and that love exists for partners as well, there is just something... different about how I feel about the partners. There is a thrill to communication with them that doesn't exist with friends/family. To me, the best partner is a best friend+, all the comfort and ease of a best friend, with the electric thrills of those romantic feelings that, even years down the road, can make my heart "flutter" just from a touch of their hand. 

 

Of course, I also cannot be comfortable kissing/cuddling etc with a friend, it just doesn't happen. Without that different set of emotions, I prefer to not be touched, except for maybe a brief hug from people I am really, really close to. The romantic feelings lead me to desire touch. 

 

And, honestly, I wouldn't consider an aromantic person that doesn't feel the romantic feelings but wants a relationship to be that different from me. I'd be willing to be with someone that never felt that for me, even. So. *shrug* There is an emotional difference, but I don't think it is that big a deal. People feel what they feel and that's OK. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This conversation reminded me of this video.

 

For the most part, I agree with some of it's points.

 

I really hope it adds something to this discussion.

 

https://youtu.be/jltM5qYn25w

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Serran said:

I don't consider myself a romantic because I get obsessive, infatuated or have crushes. I actually don't really do "crushes". I start out as friends and eventually, talking to them and hanging out with them, this develops into feeling differently than "just friends". It's a different set of emotions than I feel for friends. Not entirely, but at least partially. It's intense and doesn't fade with limerence. Limerence is just the silly "newness excitement" stage, which fades. But, the deep, loving romantic emotions stick around. And while I love my friends, family, etc and that love exists for partners as well, there is just something... different about how I feel about the partners. There is a thrill to communication with them that doesn't exist with friends/family. To me, the best partner is a best friend+, all the comfort and ease of a best friend, with the electric thrills of those romantic feelings that, even years down the road, can make my heart "flutter" just from a touch of their hand. 

 

Of course, I also cannot be comfortable kissing/cuddling etc with a friend, it just doesn't happen. Without that different set of emotions, I prefer to not be touched, except for maybe a brief hug from people I am really, really close to. The romantic feelings lead me to desire touch. 

 

And, honestly, I wouldn't consider an aromantic person that doesn't feel the romantic feelings but wants a relationship to be that different from me. I'd be willing to be with someone that never felt that for me, even. So. *shrug* There is an emotional difference, but I don't think it is that big a deal. People feel what they feel and that's OK. 

I guess I just went for the way people usually describe romantic attraction, like they usually mention crushes, butterflies... and then the deeper love-part, that comes after the initial love thing. For many that I've heard talking about it, that butterfly thing isn't really that prevalent at that time anymore, but I guess that differs between individuals and between relationships.

 

Since I have never been in love I can't really compare the friendships I've had to the relationships ... but I'll try anyway because why not. :D 

I did have one very close friend when I was a kid, and I felt way more for her, a deeper emotional attachment, than I did for any of the boyfriends I've had. With the boyfriends I did have a more touch-like relationship, cuddle, holding hands and kisses. For some reason that was okay for me since we labeled it "relationship" (else I generally hate touching). If my childhood friend and I had decided that we were in a relationship, I would probably have been fine with that sort of things with her as well. It is weird when I think about it.

 

Other friends (and those boyfriends) that I've had have not gone that deep on me as that one friend, extremely different feeling, but I suppose this romantic love can still be something extra. (butterflies? :P )

 

 

Totally OT, but when did you change back to this name? :P 

Link to post
Share on other sites
ChillaKilla
13 minutes ago, Serran said:

Last night

What happened to McFace Owly Owl? :o 

 

On topic- I agree it's kind of an ambiguous definition, but at the end of the day if we just don't want to date or marry, do our individual reasons really matter?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Snao Çoñé said:

...I don't want to share a bed.

You don't want to share a bed with me. I toss and turn so much, you'd regret it! :lol: But, honestly, it feels weird to me to share a bed with another person and not knowing what might happen. But, I'm thinking that has less to do with aromanticism and more to do with trust issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, ChillaKilla said:

 

On topic- I agree it's kind of an ambiguous definition, but at the end of the day if we just don't want to date or marry, do our individual reasons really matter?

What about aromantic people who do want to date or marry? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

... my romantic feelings don't last long at all.

...I don't like being controlled in any fashion.

...I don't like anyone trying to change anything about me.

...I value my freedom to do as I please.

...I'm easily annoyed by what I consider nonsense.

 

I enjoy cuddling. I enjoy affection. I enjoy skin to skin contact. I enjoy sex. I can form an emotional bond with some, a very strong friendship. I am capable of love of many different kinds.

 

It's hard finding a lady capable of understanding that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm aromantic because:

I just am

 

Listing reasons why I'm aromantic is kinda like listing reasons why I'm white.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it comes down to the fact that their are multiple interpretations of what makes a relationship "romantic." Is romance something you do or is it something you feel? To many people, it seems to be a bit of both, and the feelings they consider romantic are tied to the desire to do certain things (cuddle, kiss, date, get married, etc.). Since a lot of people naturally associate those feelings and behaviors, the presence of those behaviors is often thought to be an indicator of romantic feelings... and while that's generally an okay rule of thumb, it fails in some cases. For instance, some aromantics can cuddle and kiss without having romantic feelings. On the other hand, some people can have romantic feelings without wanting to do some of the things typically associated with romance.

 

From an outside observer's perspective, the difference between an affectionate nonromantic relationship and an atypical romantic relationship is not always obvious. This causes confusion for some romantics, some of whom claim that aromantics who want deeply emotional relationships are really just romantics looking for "romance-lite." I get why some people think that, but I wonder if they might be projecting their associations between romantic feelings and behaviors on others (who may not have the same associations). Since it seems to be so subjective anyway, I tend to think that what makes a relationship romantic is something that should be left up to the individuals in the relationship.

 

Then again, I might have a bit of an agenda, since I'm a relationship anarchist who likes to see the lines blurred. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

....I like being single and have no desire for a romantic/intense relationship

...I can't relate to being part of a couple

...I need time alone without feeling guilty

...I can't stand the thought of sharing a bed

..I am a Crazy Cat Lady :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because, 

- I don't like nice gestures. Can accept such acts once in a while

- I don't show much affection. Not even to pets.

- I don't get the idea of soulmates

- I don't want to share bed, room, or bathroom

- I don't like being nice

- I don't get the idea of being number one or making someone my number one person

- I don't get the concept of commitment or exclusivity and such. Because I guess I sort of display these things in friendships. (I usually have one friend in my life in any given time period simply because of my introvertedness and lack of energy to have more friends. So my friendships have resembled relationships to outsiders because of my seeming exclusivity, commitment etc)

Link to post
Share on other sites
SamwiseLovesLife
On 08/04/2017 at 3:04 PM, Shieldmaiden WinterDragon said:

That sums me up all of what's at the tops. I also love cats :D 

My ideal relationship is a QPR, living together with endless cats

Link to post
Share on other sites
SamwiseLovesLife
On 08/04/2017 at 7:40 PM, Maristine said:

I'm aromantic because:

I just am

 

Listing reasons why I'm aromantic is kinda like listing reasons why I'm white.

Gaga- "Baby I was born this way"

Link to post
Share on other sites
SamwiseLovesLife
On 08/04/2017 at 7:06 PM, Snao Çoñé said:

What about aromantic people who do want to date or marry? 

I'm still unsure on this. I kind of like the idea of a QPR, maybe marrying eventually for legal reasons?

Link to post
Share on other sites
SamwiseLovesLife
On 08/04/2017 at 7:01 PM, Starscream said:

You don't want to share a bed with me. I toss and turn so much, you'd regret it! :lol: But, honestly, it feels weird to me to share a bed with another person and not knowing what might happen. But, I'm thinking that has less to do with aromanticism and more to do with trust issues.

See I'm grey/aro but I love sharing beds, I just like the company. Saying that, I'm a massive extrovert (like 89% on the myers-briggs E)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because.... Just because..

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
ChillaKilla

...because I don't want to date

...because I don't want to marry

...because limiting myself to one person for the rest of my life sounds like hell

...because I inevitably need my space

Because!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2017 at 9:12 AM, Galactic Turtle said:

 

[2] having no basis in fact

[3] impractical in conception or plan

[5] a :  having an inclination for romance :  responsive to the appeal of what is idealized, heroic, or adventurous b :  marked by expressions of love or affection c :  conducive to or suitable for lovemaking

These definitions remind me of that common excuse people make in movies when they're about to breakup with someone ("I love you but I'm not *in love* with you). I always thought that being "in love" meant that you want to have sex with your significant other and spend all your time with them. Sex was the determining factor in which level of love you were at, coupled with the idealization of the person (this is what my understanding was before knowing I was ace). So... if romance is about idealizing a certain person - being drawn to the version of that person that you've made up in your head, to the point that you always want to be around them and your heart flutters when you think about them, then that would explain why couples start out that way and then slowly fall "out of love" to where they're just going through the motions and don't look at each other with that fond look anymore. They've spent so much time together that the version of each other they each idealized has been shown to be a lie. I always thought it was because marriage forces you to live on top of each other and be in each other's face all day everyday where you have no space and no mystery and no privacy.

 

No idea. Just doing some thinking out loud.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Galactic Turtle
42 minutes ago, Hex Res said:

These definitions remind me of that common excuse people make in movies when they're about to breakup with someone ("I love you but I'm not *in love* with you). I always thought that being "in love" meant that you want to have sex with your significant other and spend all your time with them. Sex was the determining factor in which level of love you were at, coupled with the idealization of the person (this is what my understanding was before knowing I was ace). So... if romance is about idealizing a certain person - being drawn to the version of that person that you've made up in your head, to the point that you always want to be around them and your heart flutters when you think about them, then that would explain why couples start out that way and then slowly fall "out of love" to where they're just going through the motions and don't look at each other with that fond look anymore. They've spent so much time together that the version of each other they each idealized has been shown to be a lie. I always thought it was because marriage forces you to lvie on top of each other and be in each other's face all day everyday where you have no space and no mystery and no privacy.

 

No idea. Just doing some thinking out loud.

These general thoughts mirror mine. XD

 

I value family/home in the instance where family/home means a deep sense of comfort. This could extend to multiple people I meet in life or none at all. I'm lucky to be happy with the family I was born with so feel no urge to really solidify something with others but this is probably primarily because I don't have sexual urges/needs/desires. I think successful marriages are ones in which two people find a sense of family/home in someone rather than a continuous romantic thrill... though because most people have sexual needs that is usually also in the picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Galactic Turtle said:

I think successful marriages are ones in which two people fine a sense of family/home in someone rather than a continuous romantic thrill... though because most people have sexual needs that is usually also in the picture.

You've put into words something I've been trying to say for a long time. Yes I completely agree. When you find your "home" in someone, it's just a given that you'll always be in each other's lives and I imagine it's a very calm and grounded feeling compared to the rush of all that "romance" because maybe in the back of your head you're always wondering if they're out "romancing" somebody else or wondering how long you can both keep it up before you get tired of each other lol. I'm at the point where I'm perfectly content to be by myself. But if I ever did find home with someone else, I imagine a deep sense of calm would come over me. That kind of thing is way more intriguing to me than a crush.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm aromantic because ...

 

...I totally lack any interest in a romantic attachment with another person

...Though I have felt infatuation, it doesn't last very long and settles into friendship, generally

...The idea of being in a relationship other than friendship has very little appeal

...I just can't imagine myself being with someone forever like that - though I do see my friendships that way

 

The rest, like Snao Çoñé's list, most of which I agree with, seems, for me at any rate, to come more from my extreme introvert side than the aromantic side. That's not to say they're incompatible with each other, in fact, I think they're actually so tangled together that they would be hard to separate, but that they would exist side by side, if they weren't so tangled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...