The Aromantic thread

[Crow]

I agree - gestures which are commonly deemed romantic don't have to be romantic if the people involved say they're not (if that makes sense, haha.) I'm thinking of one of the sort-of-dates I went on last summer. It closed with me walking her to the bus stop and hugging her to say goodbye, and once I got back to my house my friends grilled me on what happened. I told them and they were like "You didn't even kiss?!" to which I obviously said no, but then I tried to explain how the hug was different to a normal hug with one of them and they didn't seem to get it. But to me, it was very definitely qualitatively different. There was more physical contact between us than I would normally expect in a hug with a friend, and I felt that there was an air of... not expectation, but perhaps the possibility that another gesture of affection would follow (whereas a hug with a friend just is what it is, a simple hug.)

tl;dr, I think that romantic and platonic hugs are definitely different. XD

[Gho St Ory Qwan]

I agree, affectionate aromantic sounds about right. however while I like your description of romance and affection for myself personally it doesnt seem to ring true.

i mean I am the same with affection. =]

But as for the long term shit, yeah I want that. but it seems more, I dunno, practical? nah just normal to expect. I expect my friendships to be long term also. And I'd love to grow old with a set of friends, even if geographically distant.

I just have had to move a lot as a kid and as a result had trouble feeling I'd stay somewhere long so had trouble making real friendships because I was sure they wouldn't last and by the time I got comfortable enough to think they might we were all going separate ways or starting to. And it's been like that for the last few years constantly.

And I have noticed I've been more into the idea of finding a romantic relationship since I became agnostic. I personally suspect I might be trying to fill a void.

So I doubt I'm even (at least currently) capable of recognising, understanding or being romantic interest in another. =/ And wanting a long term relationship is there regardless of that. I just like the idea of stability it could give. (probably not as much as a religion but I doubt I'll become religious again =[ ).

[Trolley Girl]

I think "affectionate aromantic" is perfectly fine because you're right--being affectionate doesn't always equate to romance. :)

Works for me! After all, "Affectionate" and "Romantic" are two different terms with similar, but not identical definitions. ;)

[Professor T. Pollution]

I see little connection between romance and affection. I mean, I'm affectionate towards my dogs and horses — does that mean I have romantic attraction towards them? No, obviously not. Affection is completely different than romance in my eyes. I'm not even sure how I would concisely define either of them, but they seem qualitatively different to me.

[Gho St Ory Qwan]

I see little connection between romance and affection. I mean, I'm affectionate towards my dogs and horses — does that mean I have romantic attraction towards them? No, obviously not. Affection is completely different than romance in my eyes. I'm not even sure how I would concisely define either of them, but they seem qualitatively different to me.

My pervious thought was it was romantic when with people. :redface:

Then I actually thought about it and got confused. I don't really know what romance is. I can see something and view it as romantic but that doesn't shed any light on its definition tbh.

[Jacqui]

I've never met anyone I'd want to date, really, but I'd be open to dating if the person initiated, and I might go on a second date if they were worth dating. I guess I'm kinda heterocurious, like, I wonder what it'd be like to date and kinda wanna try it to see, but part of me is like, "Oh hale naw."

So right now, I'm just at the point where what happens, happens.

[GirlDreamer]

I went on date years ago, and it was just like going out eating dinner with a friend. I get the occasional squishes, but never want to do anything about it...

[Kearin Dai Peregryth]

Personally, I think that affection is simply a manner of showing love for another person (be it platonic or romantic) with five primary methods of expressing it: words of affirmation, giving of gifts, physical contact, acts of service, and spending quality time with each other.

As for what separates romantic love and platonic love... I would say the biggest difference would be a different social contract (IE: different expectations about how the relationship is supposed to work). Of course, each person would have different expectations, but I think they tend to fall into the same general categories.

For example, romantic and sexual relationships generally expect a large degree of sexual and emotional exclusivity, while friendships are generally non-exclusive and don't have nearly the same kind of intimacy, though this probably varies significantly.

It is probably good for me to note that I am an agender aromantic asexual, so all of this information is compiled by limited second-hand information. As such, disagreement and having other opinions expressed to me is quite eagerly accepted.

[Verp]

I was in a Living Library event recently and, to my delight, I think I caused (possibly a very minor) epiphany in a person about aromanticism. I talked to a lesbian lady who asked me about my asexuality and what concerns I have about our society and, among other things, I mentioned how I was worried about how aromanticism is perceived, especially if you're sexual. I dunno what happened, but she seemed to really ponder about it for a moment and something sort of seemed to click inside her. She then said: "Yeah, you're right. They're seen as some sort of emotionless creeps or sexual predators, aren't they? That seems sort of unfair."

Baby steps, right?

[Allisonius]

I am new around here -waves-

I may be young (18) but I feel it fitting to call myself aromantic due to my general lack of interest in relationships (whether sexual, emotional, romantic, spiritual or what have you). I am very happy and content being single, and have never once felt like I have needed to be with a partner, nor have I ever felt the urge to have one.

I have been on a few dates out of politeness (I would feel bad turning them down) but assured them, during the date, that I didn't see them as any more than a friend and don't think I could (it is odd to me, that people would ask me on a date considering I do not show the slightest interest in them beyond friendship, I guess that comes back to people mistaking affection as flirting).

Unfortunately people tend to associate this with some sort of apathetic emotionless being. Which is pretty darn silly, I feel. I am also a very affectionate person, I love hugging friends/family/pets/people who may be feeling sad, I am usually kind to everyone (I see hate as pointless) and I am an incredibly empathetic person (I always try to help others out with their issues when they come to me).

Nice to meet you all.

[vrazda verlaine]

I'm definitely affectionate. I doubted that I was aromantic for a long time because of this. I was in a relationship once, and I really enjoyed some of the affectionate aspects of it, so I thought this meant I must have enjoyed being in a relationship on some level. Once I realized I wasn't interested in relationships, I was confused about how I wanted affection anyway. Last summer, my friends and I were drunk and on our way home on a train, one girl and I were hugging and I had my head on her shoulder, and I realized that affection with someone who I'm "just friends" with is as satisfying as affection with someone I have a romantic relationship with.

[Tabula Rasa]

For quite a while I vacillated between being romantic and being aromantic, but over time and with more life experiences, I'm discovering that I am indeed aromantic.

:)

[Gho St Ory Qwan]

I'm definitely affectionate. I doubted that I was aromantic for a long time because of this. I was in a relationship once, and I really enjoyed some of the affectionate aspects of it, so I thought this meant I must have enjoyed being in a relationship on some level. Once I realized I wasn't interested in relationships, I was confused about how I wanted affection anyway. Last summer, my friends and I were drunk and on our way home on a train, one girl and I were hugging and I had my head on her shoulder, and I realized that affection with someone who I'm "just friends" with is as satisfying as affection with someone I have a romantic relationship with.

Same. I just can't figure out what's a romantic feeling. I can see when a situations romantic and enjoy it but that could be with anyone. i needn't be attracted to them or romantically into them.

Affection is what I KNOW and therefore its the only thing I can say I have.

It's like I said I was romantic because a romantic relationship almost guarantees an affectionate relationship (not so true I know...). Now I'd say I'm aromantic. =/

[Joe with a moustache]

.

[CreepyCrawler]

I'm only affectionate when the people I'm around are. I kind of...mimic their behaviors. Or at least how I think they want me to act. To make them happy. I think it can get extreme sometimes though...and it's probably not very healthy for the relationship (personally I prefer a little distance).

[Sojourner]

I have no idea what I am romantically, but I saw the thread GreenMouse posted about affection vs. romance and now I'm very curious and confused. I can't see any difference between them. Obviously the words are different--sure, "romance" seems to imply the candlelight and roses sort of nonsense, but that's never been how I've thought of romantic relationships. I thought that a romantic relationship was just a very strong, affectionate connection.

As i would understand it, romance has to do with falling in love, the desire for a long term relationship and having crushes. Whereas, to me, things like hugging and kissing are displays of affection rather than romance.

What, then, is "falling in love"? And I imagine many close (or even not-so-close) friends intend to maintain long-term relationships--does that make it "romantic"?

As to things like hugging and kissing--it seems to me their meaning depends entirely on the person doing them. Some people are extremely fond of them at every opportunity, others (like myself) can't imagine ever wanting to do them.

Affection is completely different than romance in my eyes. I'm not even sure how I would concisely define either of them, but they seem qualitatively different to me.

The only qualitative difference I'm understanding is that the words are different colors (I'm a grapheme-->color synesthete).

The affectionate relationships/attraction some of you have described sound about the way I always imagined romantic relationships/attraction. Is it maybe just that the word "romantic" doesn't work for some people? Wrong color, so to speak (or literally)?

As for what separates romantic love and platonic love... I would say the biggest difference would be a different social contract (IE: different expectations about how the relationship is supposed to work). Of course, each person would have different expectations, but I think they tend to fall into the same general categories.

For example, romantic and sexual relationships generally expect a large degree of sexual and emotional exclusivity, while friendships are generally non-exclusive and don't have nearly the same kind of intimacy, though this probably varies significantly.

Maybe. Exclusivity seems to me like hugging and kissing: it varies depending on the people involved, it doesn't define the relationship.

What other sorts of expectations might be different?

In short, some sort of certain differentiation between the two would be appreciated.

[Old_Bean]

I'd like to expand on something i said earlier.

As i understand it romance is about falling in love. Love, that magical emotion that people feel for each other that would make them turn away from their friends or take beatings for. Or that feeling of euporia that comes from being with a person you love and wanting to spend your entire life with them. When you feel that a life without this person would not be worth living. I have never, ever, understood any of these feelings, but i have seen and heard of people doing things like this.

Whether falling hard or falling softly, to me romance is falling in love.

This amazing, powerful emotion exists and yet i have never felt it and i fear (and sometimes pray) i never will.

[Kearin Dai Peregryth]

As for what separates romantic love and platonic love... I would say the biggest difference would be a different social contract (IE: different expectations about how the relationship is supposed to work). Of course, each person would have different expectations, but I think they tend to fall into the same general categories.

For example, romantic and sexual relationships generally expect a large degree of sexual and emotional exclusivity, while friendships are generally non-exclusive and don't have nearly the same kind of intimacy, though this probably varies significantly.

Maybe. Exclusivity seems to me like hugging and kissing: it varies depending on the people involved, it doesn't define the relationship.

What other sorts of expectations might be different?

In short, some sort of certain differentiation between the two would be appreciated.

The biggest problem is that there ISN'T a hard, widely-agreed upon definition of romance. The best I can figure is, it's a very passionate relationship and set of emotions that is expected to have significantly greater intimacy than a platonic relationship, as well as significantly more energy expended upon it. As neither of us desires a romantic relationship, this desire to separate several types of behavior as "romantic" and "platonic" can seem baffling as those behaviors are either something we don't want, or something that we desire to do with friends.

The best analogy I can think of is that romance is like a fire: it needs a lot of fuel (attention) and certain actions need to be kept exclusively to the fire, or it will rage out of control and destroy itself and/or other relationships.

A friendship, on the other hand, is more akin to earth: solid, enduring, strengthened over a long period of time, and generally welcoming support from other friendships.

[Sojourner]

The best analogy I can think of is that romance is like a fire: it needs a lot of fuel (attention) and certain actions need to be kept exclusively to the fire, or it will rage out of control and destroy itself and/or other relationships.

A friendship, on the other hand, is more akin to earth: solid, enduring, strengthened over a long period of time, and generally welcoming support from other friendships.

That actually does help a lot. The part of my brain that loves having clearly defined terminology still isn't happy, but that does make sense.

[Jacqui]

I keep thinking that this thread is called "The Aromatic Thread" and I was like, OMAI, a thread about onions and celery! I obviously watch way too much Food Network for my own good. XD

[Kearin Dai Peregryth]

The best analogy I can think of is that romance is like a fire: it needs a lot of fuel (attention) and certain actions need to be kept exclusively to the fire, or it will rage out of control and destroy itself and/or other relationships.

A friendship, on the other hand, is more akin to earth: solid, enduring, strengthened over a long period of time, and generally welcoming support from other friendships.

That actually does help a lot. The part of my brain that loves having clearly defined terminology still isn't happy, but that does make sense.

I'm glad I was able to assist you.

Regarding what I said earlier... I don't think a romantic relationship is inherently better or worse than a platonic one (Okay, I do, but I am obviously biased here); they each have different advantages and disadvantages.

[andrea_deer]

I am aromantic. I don't have much trouble with seeing the difference between friendship and romance, perhaps because I'm not an "affectionate aromantic"? I don't really like touches, hugs, romantic gestures and basically being ovelry close to people. For me the difference between friendship and romance (however asexual etc) is that I do friendship, while I have no interest in romance. I admit to being confused earlier in my life though, when I had no idea there is such an option as "asexual" and "aromantic" and I thought everyone had to fall in love and want to have sex with someone. I then figured I probably am in love with my best friend, since she's like the only human being I can really stand to be close with and actually miss when she's not around. And let me tell, this was quite confusing and awkward. Thankfully we've managed to work it out without many embaressing talks ;)

[Old_Bean]

i'm worried that people are confusing aromanticism with misanthropy.

EDIT: Also i love big words :D

[PinkOlorin]

I keep thinking that this thread is called "The Aromatic Thread" and I was like, OMAI, a thread about onions and celery! I obviously watch way too much Food Network for my own good. XD

This sounds like a great t-shirt in the making.

Personally, I like the idea of true love and all that, but I realized something was up when I had to write about my ideal love story (every person has one, according to social psychology theory), and mine involved a long-distance relationship.

[Vampireseal]

I'm aromantic. It shocks people when they learn that I've never even had a crush. In fact, I have never really understood crushes. They just seem like an obsession with a person, and I've never been obsessed with a person. I might be obsessed with a writer, but only because they write books I like-- I'm really more interested in the products that people put out, never with the actual person that much.

I'm not a biography reader. I like history as a subject, but I can't get becoming obsessed with an individual for that person's sake. I suspect this is why I don't have crushes, but I'm not sure.

[CreepyCrawler]

Something I've noticed with fictional media is that the main character always finds love at the end of the story. And then they live happily ever after and never have anything interesting happen to them again.

Boooooring!

As a child I always ended up resenting the role of love in such stories, because it made the main character not cool anymore.

[Verp]

Something I've noticed with fictional media is that the main character always finds love at the end of the story. And then they live happily ever after and never have anything interesting happen to them again.

Boooooring!

As a child I always ended up resenting the role of love in such stories, because it made the main character not cool anymore.

I've also noticed that if the story is continued in some way, it usually involves the already established couple not being together anymore or being separated for whatever reason so they can either get new partners or start their relationship from square one. In other words, romantic relationships only seem meaningful to the creators when they are either in the first few awkward stages or on the verge of destruction.

[Jacqui]

I keep thinking that this thread is called "The Aromatic Thread" and I was like, OMAI, a thread about onions and celery! I obviously watch way too much Food Network for my own good. XD

This sounds like a great t-shirt in the making.

Personally, I like the idea of true love and all that, but I realized something was up when I had to write about my ideal love story (every person has one, according to social psychology theory), and mine involved a long-distance relationship.

AROMANTICS: Not to be confused with smelly vegetables. I like it. I'd put it on a shirt lol.

I honestly don't know what my story would end up being if I could come up with one. Now that I think about it, we'd probably meet for tea and talk about stuff like fluffy cats and roller skating, watch TV shows together, and spend our free time playing board games. That sounds about right.

[Trolley Girl]

i'm worried that people are confusing aromanticism with misanthropy.

EDIT: Also i love big words :D

I can definitely see this as being a very common misconception. It's really silly to assume that two such terms mean the same thing, when you think about it.

I mean, why do you think they have two different terms? Because they have different meanings, and usually people who assume that someone is a misanthrope when they hear of them experiencing zero romantic attraction just don't take the time to think about this commonly oversighted notion.

Aromanticism = the lack of romantic attraction

Misanthropy = the general loathing of humanity

I find this to be very similar to the way that the terms "asexuality" and "celibacy" frequently come up in the same conversations.

[NamTar]

Has anyone else tried something romantic (like holding hands) because they thought they wanted to, but then found out that they really did not like it?

Yep. Pretty much anything like that (which, invariably, was initiated by an ex boyfriend, not by me) just ended up feeling awkward and weird and pointless to me.

I've been in several relationships, but I just don't experience romantic attraction - so it's been a little pointless as you always end up living a lie.

Same. I have not been in a relationship for over a decade because I am happier that way. Boyfriends always want things I can't give. At this point, there is nothing I would want to do with a guy (or a girl) that I wouldn't do with, say, my grandmother. Like maybe a hug or a peck on the cheek, but only because people expect that, not because I enjoy that, either. I don't like physical contact, aside from maybe the odd slap on the shoulder when you're laughing about something or a handshake. I hate kissing, I dislike it more than I dislike sex. I broke up with my last BF because he kept insisting I'd tell him I loved him and I just didn't feel that way, I mean, no more than i loved my other friends, or relatives, or pets. Hell, I probably feel more for my dog, because she doesn't expect anything I don't want to give (she expects to be petted, fed, and walked. I wish human had such easy to understand needs!)

I'm not anti-romantic, but I do get sick to death of how romantically orientated the world seems to be - to the point that I feel I can't even talk about it anywhere

Same here. I don't have a problem with others having romantic tendencies, just when they think I'm a huge freak because I don't.

Personally I don't have anything against romantic relationships themselves... just against how stupid they can make some otherwise very decent people act.

That, too. Reminds me of when my ex (from 10 years ago) contacted me online just to say "hi" and his wife freaked out, saying he "chose her" and I should back off. Back off what? I'm not interested. I hate it when women get all territorial on my ass when I'm not even remotely interested in that way. It sort of goes back to the idea of it being hard to have friends of the opposite sex, people always assume things.