Jump to content


Photo

Can an aromantic asexual fall in love?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
77 replies to this topic

#1 Capricious

Capricious

    Member

  • AVEN Members
  • 31 posts
  • Location:Nightmares and Dreamscapes
  • A/Sexuality:Pan/Demisexual Pan/Demiaffectionate/romantic

Posted 11 October 2008 - 07:40 PM

Because it just occurred to me, and I have absolutely no idea. I mean, I personally think nothing is impossible. But I also see no reason why someone can't fall in love, even if they're aromantic. Do you, personally, think it's possible? Or does being aromantic mean it'd be a no-no/can't happen sort of thing in your mind?

I read a lot. And basically all the things I read have the same views on love. But what I keep thinking of is that it's all sexually oriented or something, or at the very least, romantically. So if you don't feel things even romantically, usually, do you still think it's possible?

This is just tooooo confusing. ><; Any input?
The city is built
To music, therefore never built at all,
And therefore built forever.

~Alfred Lord Tennyson

#2 Shockwave

Shockwave

    AVENineffable

  • AVEN Members
  • 8,844 posts
  • Location:Portland, Oregon.
  • A/Sexuality:Metro-asexual.

Posted 11 October 2008 - 07:45 PM

I suppose that depends on what being "in love" means. Some people say it means having sexual feelings for someone. Others say it means having romantic feelings for someone. And still others think it means having a deep and abiding affection for someone that isn't necessarily sexual or romantic. If you use the third meaning then I would say yes, an aromantic person can fall in love.

Ha-ha! You're cute when you pretend you can think.

 

Formerly known as Hound, Xenius13, etc.

PDX Aces, the meetup site for Portland asexuals

Amoebaville - the original crappy asexual webcomic


#3 Capricious

Capricious

    Member

  • AVEN Members
  • 31 posts
  • Location:Nightmares and Dreamscapes
  • A/Sexuality:Pan/Demisexual Pan/Demiaffectionate/romantic

Posted 11 October 2008 - 07:59 PM

... *Blinks* I never thought of it that way. Interesting....
The city is built
To music, therefore never built at all,
And therefore built forever.

~Alfred Lord Tennyson

#4 happylife

happylife

    Too Asexy for this Site

  • Members
  • 609 posts

Posted 12 October 2008 - 12:15 AM

Q: Can an aromantic asexual fall in love?
A: Yes, I think aromantic asexuals can fall in love. Maybe in their own way??

[edited]

#5 Jibun

Jibun

    Aeros Incarnate

  • AVEN Members
  • 2,290 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • A/Sexuality:Grey-Aromantic Asexual

Posted 12 October 2008 - 06:28 AM

It's kinda possible, but it really depends on how you define "to fall in love."

#6 Cirdan

Cirdan

    Asexy A-postle

  • AVEN Members
  • 587 posts
  • Location:Scotland
  • A/Sexuality:Hetero-romantic asexual

Posted 12 October 2008 - 07:47 AM

Well I'd say that an aromantic is someone who doesn't desire romantic feelings or a romantic relationship (and some people I know say that you have to be in a romantic relationship to be in love, else it's just a crush). Given that I don't think someone who was completely aromantic could be fall in love.
But this is the real world, and I think it's perfectly possible for someone who considers themselves aromantic to fall in love with the right person - whether they still consider themselves aromantic after that is up to them.
Remember there's always other forms of love, people can love their friends and family which is completely unrelated to whether they want to love someone romantically.

#7 tourmaline20

tourmaline20

    Amoeba Colony

  • AVEN Members
  • 160 posts
  • Location:Buckinghamshire/Coventry
  • A/Sexuality:Heteromantic Asexual

Posted 12 October 2008 - 09:57 AM

I think it's possible. The article in the Guardian was about an aromantic asexual who fell in love with another asexual, completely unexpectedly. They're now married. ^_^
"I don't know why we are here, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

Posted Image

#8 bl1

bl1

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 12 October 2008 - 01:12 PM

I am 39 yo, been in relationships, in other words been there and done that. I will never in my life forget the one thing that Doctor Phil said, and that is "Opions are like Asses - Everyone's got one". This statement brings humour into my life and i will go as far as to say that it gives me strength, especially in light of all the BS that is spread by so called normal people. Is it normal to be like a sheep and do the same as everyone else does just to keep everyone else happy despite yourself ??? I'm not into shakespeare for a second but sumone tell me and please enlighten me, did romeo have sex with juliet before falling romantically inlove with her ? Or do the majority of people fall in love after having sex ?
I've yearned all my life to have a relationship with someone and yet society dictates to me that it cant happen unless i have sex with that person, but that does'nt stop my desire to be in a relationship with a loving and caring person. I'm not a religious person either, but that doesn't stop me from believing in God. Does God have sex ???

#9 Guest_disjointed_*

Guest_disjointed_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 October 2008 - 02:37 PM

Can an aromantic asexual fall in love?

Unless there is a law against it I bloody hope so

I have so much to give and just because I won't be offering sex on the menu doesn't mean I don't have other dishes to offer

#10 Starscream

Starscream

    Permanent AVEN Resident

  • AVEN Members
  • 13,189 posts
  • Location:Nevada, USA

Posted 12 October 2008 - 06:43 PM

I can only speak for myself. As an aromantic asexual who's never been in love, I don't know what it's like to fall in love with someone. I don't know what it feels like or what the meaning of it is, but anything is possible. I'm sure it won't happen to me though.

I get the sense that falling in love is a deep emotional feeling that is hard to explain. Maybe it's just me being difficult.
Posted Image

My little room ...oh the joy of computers!...And, so fourth.
Before| After

Posted Image Posted Image
I will rule the universe, even if I am the only one left in the universe.
I'm an equal opportunity destroyer! Posted Image

#11 Beardless

Beardless

    AVENator

  • AVEN Members
  • 3,543 posts
  • Location:York (never going back!)
  • A/Sexuality:Pan-demi-romantic-a-sexual-piratical-thing.

Posted 12 October 2008 - 07:39 PM

There's a subtle difference between being "in love" and "loving" someone. I'm not sure what it is, but I love my dad, but I'm not in love with my dad. I might say I was in love with the being I refer to as Cap'n, but I also love others who I am not related to. I think "in love" is crush + love. If you don't get crushes, you won't be "in love", but you can still love others more than you love yourself.
The pirate knows purple - Prefers Pie

If we're so desperate to hide our genitalia, why do we want everyone we meet to know what we have?

#12 GingerAce

GingerAce

    Amoeba

  • AVEN Members
  • 54 posts

Posted 12 October 2008 - 08:03 PM

I'm aromantic. I love people, but I've never been in love with anyone. I don't know if I will fall in love in the future, but I haven't anytime in my first nineteen years of life.

#13 Starlit Eagle

Starlit Eagle

    Amoeba

  • AVEN Members
  • 58 posts
  • Location:cloud cuckoo land

Posted 12 October 2008 - 08:11 PM

I'm aromantic and I love people as close friends, but I cant see myself ever loving someone closely as a boy/girl friend or falling in love. I dont know about other aromantics, but for me it's very much a case of you dont know what your missing you dont miss it

jo-jo

#14 LL Cool R

LL Cool R

    Asexy

  • AVEN Members
  • 480 posts
  • A/Sexuality:hetero-asexual

Posted 12 October 2008 - 10:31 PM

Love has different meanings. Aromantics can love people but not in a romantic sense (where romantic doesn't mean things like candlelight dinners but rather the attachment to a significant other), if they do, they are no longer aromantics. But hey, people can change!

#15 Euonym

Euonym

    Asexy Samurai

  • AVEN Members
  • 900 posts
  • Location:New York City
  • A/Sexuality:Heteroromantic Asexual

Posted 13 October 2008 - 06:49 PM

I, myself, have had a long crush on Henry Fielding*, and am also an aromantic asexual, but that is because I have a soul.

When I use aromantic, though, I mean that I can not experience any romantic attraction, so the idea was somewhat confusing to me. If Shockwave is correct however, there are some people who I have been very close friends with, and I suppose that means I have been in love with them, though, if it does not offend him, I would rather not use that label.

-Psmith

* 18th century English writer who wrote Tom Jones. You should all read him. He's very good.

#16 Dexlar

Dexlar

    Mitosis to the Max

  • AVEN Members
  • 392 posts
  • Location:Skynet
  • A/Sexuality:Asexual

Posted 16 October 2008 - 07:30 PM

It really all depends on each person's opinion of love. I'm AA and I would say that I am in love. My special person means the world to me, and I want to take care of her and spend all of my time with her though the only intimate thing I ever feel like doing is hugging and even that is at a low.

#17 Szacsoka

Szacsoka

    Mega Mitosis

  • Members
  • 253 posts
  • Location:Hungary, Budapest
  • A/Sexuality:romantic, asexual

Posted 16 October 2008 - 10:04 PM

http://www.asexualit...view=getnewpost
Sorry for my english :)

#18 genwiz314

genwiz314

    The Atrix Has You

  • Members
  • 1,274 posts
  • Location:Mattoon, IL and the Demon Realm
  • A/Sexuality:Bi-romantic asexual...I knowz it

Posted 17 October 2008 - 07:22 AM

I'm not into shakespeare for a second but sumone tell me and please enlighten me, did romeo have sex with juliet before falling romantically inlove with her ? Or do the majority of people fall in love after having sex ?


If I remember my Shakespeare right, I do beleive it was more of a "love at first sight" thing, they just ended up having sex. It seems to me that the story sort of encourages that "if you love me you'll have sex with me" mantra.

Does God have sex ???

I like this point. It kinda strikes me as funny that many of the sexuals I discuss asexuality with can't seem to wrap their heads around not having it and not wanting to have it because of the lack of sexual attraction. And yet the higher power they look to is in the same boat as me...what do I have to be omnipotent to be able to live without sex?
~AVEN's resident Demon Slayer and International Man of Mystery~
Darkness Cares!!
Author high on happiness and chocolate.
Cake can cure anything!
I'm having an anti-self moment.
"Yay craziness!"-Baldur and Me (I should get credit, too, cuz I've believed for so long)
"Death to societal stereotypes!"-Baldur
"Beware the Cheesophiliac!"
"Beware the Herring!"
"Beware the Mackrel!"
"Write about what you know."-Mark Twain
"And what you don't know, learn."-Me

"Be the kind of woman who, when her feet hit the floor in the morning, the Devil says 'Oh crap, she's awake.'"

#19 true_love

true_love

    Amoeba

  • Members
  • 51 posts
  • A/Sexuality:Straight Sexual Woman

Posted 17 October 2008 - 12:32 PM

I suppose that depends on what being "in love" means. Some people say it means having sexual feelings for someone. Others say it means having romantic feelings for someone. And still others think it means having a deep and abiding affection for someone that isn't necessarily sexual or romantic. If you use the third meaning then I would say yes, an aromantic person can fall in love.


Hmmm.... I'm sorry if this sounds argumentative, but I have a deep and abiding affection for:
My stepdaughter
My grandmother
A number of platonic friends
My dog
My mouse
My rabbits

... and I am NOT in love with any of the above. I really struggle to see how anyone could accept that definition of being in love...

#20 Mr. Ten Below

Mr. Ten Below

    Mitosis to the Max

  • AVEN Members
  • 364 posts
  • Gender:Genderfree!
  • Location:San Diego
  • A/Sexuality:Queer and asexual

Posted 17 October 2008 - 11:00 PM

I'm an aromantic asexual and I consider myself to be in love. Like pretty much everybody else said, it depends on your definition of in love. I think it also depends on your definition of romance. I've decided to escape the whole construction of romance and call myself aromantic, but I still use the words "in love" because it's the closest approximation to what I feel. Working on finding a new word or phrase for it.

#21 Guest_Anirt_*

Guest_Anirt_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 October 2008 - 01:06 AM

the whole thing about being A-romantic is not being interested in romantic feelings. now that to me defines love. so I don't really think a person who is truly aromantic can fall in love. :blink:

#22 reptilelover

reptilelover

    Asexy A-postle

  • AVEN Members
  • 595 posts
  • A/Sexuality:asexual

Posted 18 October 2008 - 09:14 AM

the whole thing about being A-romantic is not being interested in romantic feelings. now that to me defines love. so I don't really think a person who is truly aromantic can fall in love. :blink:


You know, that’s the same line of argument sexuals use – the whole thing about being asexual is not having sexual attraction feelings. Now that to me defines love. So I don't really think a person who is truly asexual can fall in love.

(from the position of rude, inconsiderate aromantic asexual, who thinks anybody who doesn’t express a certain feeling in their way is incapable of feeling a certain feeling at all. Not my own thoughts): I’d like to challenge the claim that people who experience romantic attraction can even experience what “love” means – how can you experience love if your mind is clouded by the influence of “love” chemicals (what sexual and romantic attraction amounts to). That’s not love by any means – the proof is that so many relationships that are based on such “love” feelings last very briefly. So yea! Of course! Romantic people do not, and can not feel what love is and cannot fall in love! Oh yeah one more thing: if they, by any chance do experience true love, then they really are aromantic… <_<

To Seabhac: I use the term “life companion” as the aromantic’s equivalent of “romantic partner”. The “in love” I personally don’t think needs a new term, but if you find one that fits better share please!

#23 ghosts

ghosts

    AVENineffable

  • AVEN Members
  • 8,656 posts
  • A/Sexuality:Hm...

Posted 18 October 2008 - 12:35 PM

I think it *does* depend on a person's concept of what being "in love" is; and also, definitions of "romantic feelings" & the term "aromantic." I've heard so many different ideas of what being in love is like...

#24 Shockwave

Shockwave

    AVENineffable

  • AVEN Members
  • 8,844 posts
  • Location:Portland, Oregon.
  • A/Sexuality:Metro-asexual.

Posted 18 October 2008 - 06:45 PM

I suppose that depends on what being "in love" means. Some people say it means having sexual feelings for someone. Others say it means having romantic feelings for someone. And still others think it means having a deep and abiding affection for someone that isn't necessarily sexual or romantic. If you use the third meaning then I would say yes, an aromantic person can fall in love.


Hmmm.... I'm sorry if this sounds argumentative, but I have a deep and abiding affection for:
My stepdaughter
My grandmother
A number of platonic friends
My dog
My mouse
My rabbits

... and I am NOT in love with any of the above. I really struggle to see how anyone could accept that definition of being in love...


the whole thing about being A-romantic is not being interested in romantic feelings. now that to me defines love. so I don't really think a person who is truly aromantic can fall in love. :blink:

The problem I have with those two views is that romantic feelings are really just a temporary hormonal imbalance, and I cringe at the idea of something so transitory and fickle being called (or even being associated with) love. Love is not some goofy little flutter in your stomach, it is so much more than that.

Ha-ha! You're cute when you pretend you can think.

 

Formerly known as Hound, Xenius13, etc.

PDX Aces, the meetup site for Portland asexuals

Amoebaville - the original crappy asexual webcomic


#25 Mr. Ten Below

Mr. Ten Below

    Mitosis to the Max

  • AVEN Members
  • 364 posts
  • Gender:Genderfree!
  • Location:San Diego
  • A/Sexuality:Queer and asexual

Posted 18 October 2008 - 10:35 PM

To Seabhac: I use the term “life companion” as the aromantic’s equivalent of “romantic partner”. The “in love” I personally don’t think needs a new term, but if you find one that fits better share please!


I don't like the romantic connotation of "in love," that's all. Usually I say I love someone and that works for most situations. I've found, though, that there really is something different about the times I will say I'm in love, and it's not really captured by the phrase. Once I get a clearer idea of what that difference is, I hope to have a clearer idea of what words might fit.

#26 Raisin

Raisin

    A-gent

  • Members
  • 1,516 posts
  • Location:Aventon
  • A/Sexuality:Asexy

Posted 20 October 2008 - 12:05 AM

I can only speak for myself. As an aromantic asexual who's never been in love, I don't know what it's like to fall in love with someone. I don't know what it feels like or what the meaning of it is, but anything is possible. I'm sure it won't happen to me though.

THIS. I have no idea what "being in love" means and, judging from the replies to this post, no one else does, either. I identify as aromantic because I just don't have any desire to develop a relationship with another person that is deeper than a close friendship. Could that change? Certainly. Do I think it will change any time soon? No. I just don't have the desire to settle down with a "life companion" or "significant other" and ride off into the epic sunset of love. It's frustrating, sometimes, to think that I'm incapable of feeling "love" for another person. Sometimes I even question whether I "love" my family and close friends. I'm obviously not "in love" with them, but then what does "love" mean? I assume it's something deeper than tolerance, which is what I feel most of the time. And I'm guessing it's even deeper than a mild affection, which I am sometimes able to conjure. Anyway, my point is that, as an aromantic, my personal answer to this question would be: No, aromantic asexuals do not fall in love. Results may vary.

/misanthrope
How glorious it is -- and also how painful -- to be an exception.
-Alfred De Musset

#27 reptilelover

reptilelover

    Asexy A-postle

  • AVEN Members
  • 595 posts
  • A/Sexuality:asexual

Posted 20 October 2008 - 05:43 AM

I can only speak for myself. As an aromantic asexual who's never been in love, I don't know what it's like to fall in love with someone. I don't know what it feels like or what the meaning of it is, but anything is possible. I'm sure it won't happen to me though.

THIS. I have no idea what "being in love" means and, judging from the replies to this post, no one else does, either. I identify as aromantic because I just don't have any desire to develop a relationship with another person that is deeper than a close friendship. Could that change? Certainly. Do I think it will change any time soon? No. I just don't have the desire to settle down with a "life companion" or "significant other" and ride off into the epic sunset of love. It's frustrating, sometimes, to think that I'm incapable of feeling "love" for another person. Sometimes I even question whether I "love" my family and close friends. I'm obviously not "in love" with them, but then what does "love" mean? I assume it's something deeper than tolerance, which is what I feel most of the time. And I'm guessing it's even deeper than a mild affection, which I am sometimes able to conjure. Anyway, my point is that, as an aromantic, my personal answer to this question would be: No, aromantic asexuals do not fall in love. Results may vary.

/misanthrope


Actually, a lot of romantics truly have the same problem you do (judging by the way they act). That you cannot fall “in love”, do not feel what love means etc. hasn’t got anything to do with romantic attraction (or lack of one). Just like needing sex to be happy in a relationship has nothing to do with sexual attraction – those are personal characteristics/traits of the particular person in question not the entire group of people in general.

Anyways, “close friendship” I consider a synonym for “life companion”. I just dislike the use of term friend because it doesn’t stress the level/deepness of the interaction. *Shrug* For you, it may as well just be friendship. Then again, it is so for many romantics (asexual or not) too. Sometimes people even do not like their romantic partner but just use them to get what they want! Different people – different definitions for a particular label.

As for “riding off into the epic sunset of love” thing – you really shouldn’t apply definitions found in romantic novels in real life as they are science fiction mostly. And, considering they are written with “chemicals flooding the brain” in mind, should be read, as far as I am concerned, mostly as insights into states of mind under influence of mind altering substances 8) (in other words, in the same rang the descriptions of experiences people who smoke pot write are), not as standard for love, what love feels like, what love is etc.

#28 Capricious

Capricious

    Member

  • AVEN Members
  • 31 posts
  • Location:Nightmares and Dreamscapes
  • A/Sexuality:Pan/Demisexual Pan/Demiaffectionate/romantic

Posted 20 October 2008 - 10:53 AM

...I think I should've just kept my mouth shut on this topic. *Sweatdrop* Some people seem rather upset..... ^^;

XD I definitely think the whole "riding off into the epic sunset of love" is a completely ridiculous concept, so don't worry, I don't believe it. I mentioned the books because they're the ones that made me think. (No, if you're curious, I do NOT read romance novels. Blegh.)

Uhm, wow. This has been... interesting. O_o; Really interesting.
The city is built
To music, therefore never built at all,
And therefore built forever.

~Alfred Lord Tennyson

#29 reptilelover

reptilelover

    Asexy A-postle

  • AVEN Members
  • 595 posts
  • A/Sexuality:asexual

Posted 20 October 2008 - 11:24 AM

...I think I should've just kept my mouth shut on this topic. *Sweatdrop* Some people seem rather upset..... ^^;

XD I definitely think the whole "riding off into the epic sunset of love" is a completely ridiculous concept, so don't worry, I don't believe it. I mentioned the books because they're the ones that made me think. (No, if you're curious, I do NOT read romance novels. Blegh.)

Uhm, wow. This has been... interesting. O_o; Really interesting.


Don’t worry, I am not upset – that’s just my style of debating things in general. :P

Someone had to point out that “romantic attraction” =/= love, and that even (imagine that :rolleyes: ) people who experience romantic attraction may not experience love. *Shrug*

#30 Raisin

Raisin

    A-gent

  • Members
  • 1,516 posts
  • Location:Aventon
  • A/Sexuality:Asexy

Posted 20 October 2008 - 02:14 PM

As for “riding off into the epic sunset of love” thing – you really shouldn’t apply definitions found in romantic novels in real life as they are science fiction mostly. And, considering they are written with “chemicals flooding the brain” in mind, should be read, as far as I am concerned, mostly as insights into states of mind under influence of mind altering substances 8) (in other words, in the same rang the descriptions of experiences people who smoke pot write are), not as standard for love, what love feels like, what love is etc.

I guess I just resort to the "romance novel" or "Disney movie" description of love because that's all I've seen, since neither I nor any of my close friends have ever really experienced romantic love. I try to remind myself that what we see in the media is not an accurate portrayal of love, but sometimes I just need some idea of what love might be like to other people, and if there are so many sources that depict romance in that way, surely it's got to have at least some relation to the real world. Maybe not. I'm just helplessly confused by anything romance- or sex-related. :wacko:
How glorious it is -- and also how painful -- to be an exception.
-Alfred De Musset




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users