Romantics that do not desire significant others

[nothinbuttrouble]

Are you a romantic?

But don't desire a significant other?

Elaborate!

 

I've started this thread to see if there are any others here like me, as I believe I fall under this category.

 

Panromantic because: BIG YES to hugging, kissing, cuddling, romantic gestures (like sending flowers and dancing the waltz, lol) and experiencing

squishes (warm and fuzzies over the person, want to see them all the time, think that they are beautiful, etc.)

 

BUT NO! to exclusives, calling each other anything other than "friend," living together unless it is a roommate type situation (no sharing beds, have

our own rooms.) etc

 

AND I never feel jealousy/possessiveness. I've always been happy to see someone I like get enjoyment wherever they can (which I have interpreted

to mean I'm SUPER ROMANTIC.)

 

Anybody here similar?

 

(Also, if you think I'm wrong about my romantic orientation, go on and give me heads up. I'm doing the best I can here!)

 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, nothinbuttrouble said:

 

 

Panromantic because: BIG YES to hugging, kissing, cuddling, romantic gestures (like sending flowers and dancing the waltz, lol) and experiencing

squishes (warm and fuzzies over the person, want to see them all the time, think that they are beautiful, etc.)

 

BUT NO! to exclusives, calling each other anything other than "friend," living together unless it is a roommate type situation (no sharing beds, have

our own rooms.) etc

 

AND I never feel jealousy/possessiveness. I've always been happy to see someone I like get enjoyment wherever they can (which I have interpreted

to mean I'm SUPER ROMANTIC.)

 

 

So, you're panromantic and into non-traditional relationships with polyamory ? (correct me if I am wrong, just what it sounds like from the post)

[nothinbuttrouble]

Just now, Serran said:

So, you're panromantic and into non-traditional relationships with polyamory ? (correct me if I am wrong, just what it sounds like from the post)

I actually don't know much about polyamory, but I'm about to look it up and read in detail.

I've always just thought of it as being really cuddly, sappy and adoring of my friends!

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, nothinbuttrouble said:

I actually don't know much about polyamory, but I'm about to look it up and read in detail.

I've always just thought of it as being really cuddly, sappy and adoring of my friends!

Well, there are two things that came to mind when I read your post

 

Polyamory non-traditional

 

and relationship anarchy

 

Basically, poly people often experience happiness seeing their partners happy with other people, so are OK if the same intimacy they share with their partner is shared with other people. And a non-traditional relationship means you wouldn't have to follow "norms", like sharing a bed, etc (like, Tim Burton and his long-term partner didn't even share an apartment, they had neighboring apartments so they could have their own spaces but be near each other if they wanted time together and their kids could easily see both parents). 

 

Relationship anarchy is basically putting no rules on relationships - friendship, romantic, etc doesn't matter. All those traditional rules go out the window. 

[nothinbuttrouble]

45 minutes ago, Serran said:

Basically, poly people often experience happiness seeing their partners happy with other people, so are OK if the same intimacy they share with their partner is shared with other people. And a non-traditional relationship means you wouldn't have to follow "norms", like sharing a bed, etc (like, Tim Burton and his long-term partner didn't even share an apartment, they had neighboring apartments so they could have their own spaces but be near each other if they wanted time together and their kids could easily see both parents). 

 

Relationship anarchy is basically putting no rules on relationships - friendship, romantic, etc doesn't matter. All those traditional rules go out the window. 

Yes to all.

 

Though, after having just read about polyamory and thinking about it some, I realized I would probably have only one "best friend" this

way myself if this happened. Though I wouldn't want to make any promises- at the very least in order to just keep them from becoming

possessive of me.

 

It seems to be about having space and freedom in my relationships all together than the desire to have multiple relationships. In

fact, I don't desire multiple relationships at all. I need very little love, I guess. The idea of maintaining multiple relationships myself horrifies

me. But I also know how sometimes I get attached to people. REALLY attached- but not in a possessive, jealous way. In an adoring, I

love seeing you happy and enjoy your company way.

 

I suppose I want to make sure people don't rely on me for everything, as I think this will just result in frustration and resentment on both

of our parts.

 

[Guest]

Yeah, not all people who practice poly actually have multiple partners themselves. But, if they ever want to, it's an option and their partners are free to. 

[Arctangent]

4 hours ago, Serran said:

Well, there are two things that came to mind when I read your post

 

Polyamory non-traditional

 

and relationship anarchy

 

Basically, poly people often experience happiness seeing their partners happy with other people, so are OK if the same intimacy they share with their partner is shared with other people. And a non-traditional relationship means you wouldn't have to follow "norms", like sharing a bed, etc (like, Tim Burton and his long-term partner didn't even share an apartment, they had neighboring apartments so they could have their own spaces but be near each other if they wanted time together and their kids could easily see both parents). 

 

Relationship anarchy is basically putting no rules on relationships - friendship, romantic, etc doesn't matter. All those traditional rules go out the window. 

As a poly/RA person, I second everything Serran said. Great post.

 

There's also a form of polyamory called "solo poly" that you might want to look into. "Solo" refers to a relationship style in which people choose not to engage in significant life enmeshment with their partners. What exactly that means can vary among solo people, but for a lot of them, being solo means not to moving in with their partners or sharing finances. It doesn't mean their relationships are any less deep or intimate or committed - it's just a different way of doing relationships that some people feel works better for their lifestyle.

[nothinbuttrouble]

As usual, I think I've just been confused and am actually aro. I've been thinking about it for more than a week now

and have realized that I've based the idea that I'm a romantic on old, probably outdated behaviors from when I was still

experimenting in my youth. Looking closely at how I've behaved in recent years reveals very little (if not zero) behaviors

common in dating in any of my relationships.

 

Though it is true that I'm affectionate towards the few people who are very close to me, inspecting it coldly

it would be quite a stretch to call it romantic. I think it may be a symptom of being aromantic that I

interpret the friendships I have as being romantic relationships- because there is no relationship to

me that is greater than friendship.

 

I realized that I hadn't 'passionately' kissed someone in at least 3 years. May actually have been longer than that- I

guess that could be a testament to being aro, too- as I have paid it so little mind that I can't even remember the

last time I did it and it hasn't bothered me enough to take note of it's absence.

 

So, the day before yesterday, I tested it. I made out with a girl I think is cute. It is horrible to admit it, but despite

the novelty of the experience I did find it tedious, uncomfortable and robotic. I think I made her happy, though,

as I was totally focused on her experience considering I felt like I was going through the motions like I

was tuning a guitar. I was also very careful to be emotionally supportive to her, to make sure the experience

made her feel good about herself.

 

I think I WANTED to be a romantic. I'm not sure why, other than maybe I just don't want to be cut off from

everything others consider human. And it also looks like everyone else is having so much fun with it!

I want fun!!

 

I also really don't want to be a 'cold' person. I feel like I'm already too cold, but can't help it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[everywhere and nowhere]

I don't really distinguish between "romantic" and "platonic" - I don't really understand why there should supposedly be such a difference between both, I believe each interpersonal relationship is unique. So yes, I greatly support the idea of relationship anarchy.

But personally... being 100% single all my life is not the ideal for me (though I deffinitely don't feel any huge internal pressure to be in a relationship), but for example I don't think I would like to live together with my girlfriend if I had one. I just need my own space, sometimes I need to be alone... a lot of old habits, I guess, from very early time when I was a child healthy enough to do everything by myself, but deefinitely not healthy enough to run and climb trees and so on... and already at the age of seven I was content just sitting alone in my room, reading a book.

 

Just today my Ukrainian teacher (whom I "really really like", I could call it a squish) said that if she lived close, she could visit me every day and just talk, watch movies together and so on... Unfortunately, she lives on the other end of Warsaw (the metro ride alone takes about 40 minutes on this distance), only visits me once a week for a lesson and sometimes we go out together (for example recently we went to the Museum of Asia and the Pacific together, to exhibitions about Japanese gardens and about musical instruments from all over Asia and Oceania).

This is what would be the ideal for me...