What is the point of asexual romance?

[Roy M.]

I don't get it. What makes the relationship romantic if there's nothing sexual to it? Isn't sex ultimately why romantic relationships are a thing, you know, to get to know someone before you open up sexually to them? What makes romance without the sex any different than a close friendship? Why not simply call it friendship then?

Well, as a female whose best friend is a sexual male, I can tell you that he has asked me the same question (I identify as hetero-romantic demi). I said that romance involves the extra bells and whistles that a simple close friendship doesn't have - the hand-holding, the snuggling, a makeout session here and there - not to mention the candy and flowers, etc. When I looked back at him, his jaw was on the floor. He said, 'So, you expect a guy to make all this effort to impress you and at the end of it, there's no payoff for him? Not even a hand job?"

So there you go. For people like us, whether you're Ace or Gray or Demi, romance is about connection and bonding, seeing one another as human beings. For sexuals, it's about objectification and a dishonest means to an end - something annoying that needs to be done as quickly as possibly in order to get laid.

How do the connotations with romance that you mentioned amount to less objectification? Seems like your view of romance, technically speaking, objectifies the other.

[Philip027]

It's really quite simple - some people experience or desire deeper connections than what they have with their friends, and sex is not the only way to get there.

[Lady Girl]

I would say for many people romance precludes sexual relations or leads to them and it is beyond friendship. It is the special state of affairs between the two.

[Kitty Spoon Train]

It's really quite simple - some people experience or desire deeper connections than what they have with their friends, and sex is not the only way to get there.

I actually understand what he's getting at...

I've had both sexual romantic relationships as well as romantic emotional relationships without sex. And I've had super close friendships too (which could probably be described as queerplatonic). I don't think it's really possible to demonstrate a difference between the last two to an outside observer. Well, in my case it's quite easy: because a certain form of intimate touch demonstrates it, but there are people out there for whom it doesn't. On both ends of the spectrum.

Really, I think this argument is just the result of a mismatch between what individual people perceive as romance vs friendship for them, versus what the labels are generally used for, in a more general sociological sense. And asexuals by definition fall into a bit of an outlier area, because for most other people the two go together.

[ithaca]

Being in love with someone is quite different than being friends with them.

[Guest]

With my present boyfriend, what marks him out as my romantic companion rather than a friend is a sense of self-identification with him, a blurring of the lines that mark us out as individuals. We are considered as a unit - a couple - rather than as 'two romantic companions.' Part of my identity is explicitly a reflection of my relationship with him - there's no special word to denote two friends as single unit, as a unified entity.

So, I would posit that the difference between a romantic and friendly relationship is the extent of identity fusion, which is customarily simulated/symbolized by the physical fusion of sexual intercourse, but not necessarily so.

Ughhhhh. *shudders* One of those explanations that brings me back to my inner tally of why I don't want any romance in my life, thank you very much. :lol: I love my partner to bits, but like my identity very much separate and un-melded with hers. ;)

Secondly, how does feeling that type of closeness with them differ in any manner from close friendship? I am starting to get the feeling that most people don't really have close, true friends. I feel a similar attitude to which you alluded toward my best friend. Why is that? It's because he's my best friend. We're supposed to go hand-in-hand in perfect fraternity, or we couldn't call ourselves best friends.

You seem to be similar to me in that regard. I tend to see healthy partnerships as pretty much indistinguishable from (best) friends with benefits, even if the people involved in them call them romantic; if I actually call someone a friend and not just an acquaintance, that does means I love them (no mutual love = we aren't friends), and I don't see an intrinsic difference between friend-love and partner-love. In a healthy 'ship, "partners" is just a label that, while it may have pragmatic meaning, doesn't really differ from "best friends" semantically.

How do the connotations with romance that you mentioned amount to less objectification? Seems like your view of romance, technically speaking, objectifies the other.

To me, romance is all about objectifying and owning another person. Which ties in to me not really seeing romance in a healthy 'ship, while dysfunctional ones are more often chock full of it. (Cas in point - someone I know is happily married for over 20 years, and says he's romantically in love with his wife. I don't believe a word of it... I've seen them together and they seem really nice, fair, considerate, and respectful to each other. I don't see how that's romantic at all, they're definitely best friends with benefits IMO. :P)

Being in love with someone is quite different than being friends with them.

It's such a confusing expression for me. *annoyed Sheldon face* Every time I think I start understanding what "being in love" is to mean, and start relating it to the calm, strong loving feeling I have for my partner, someone else comes along and describes it in horribly romantic terms (which I'm sure I don't feel for R. - I think that would've sunk our ship pretty much to the rock bottom of the sea by now).

[Arcovia]

How do the connotations with romance that you mentioned amount to less objectification? Seems like your view of romance, technically speaking, objectifies the other.

To me, romance is all about objectifying and owning another person. Which ties in to me not really seeing romance in a healthy 'ship, while dysfunctional ones are more often chock full of it. (Cas in point - someone I know is happily married for over 20 years, and says he's romantically in love with his wife. I don't believe a word of it... I've seen them together and they seem really nice, fair, considerate, and respectful to each other. I don't see how that's romantic at all, they're definitely best friends with benefits IMO. :P

It seems like your idea of romance is emotional abuse + limerence, and that any sort of healthy romance is just best friends with a boatload of benefits. A healthy relationship and a romantic relationship aren't mutually exclusive and healthy romance usually includes an element of friendship.

[Wenderbread]

There's way more to a romantic relationship -- yes, even one between two sexual people -- than just sex. That "way more" is what the point of asexual romance is. All that other stuff... just not the sex.

I honestly don't think I could word it any better than this, coming from someone who first went into a relationship thinking I was asexual.

For me, sex isn't the ultimate declaration of love for my partner. It's just something on the side. I don't think there is a way for me to physically express how much I love my partner, but it doesn't get much closer than snuggling up next to each other and gazing into her perfect, beautiful eyes. That its something I absolutely would not do with any of my friends, even the ones I'm close to. I might snuggle with them, and I might look at their eyes. I might even think their eyes are beautiful. I will not, however, become filled with all that silly mushy emotion that I can't quite put in to words.

[Guest]

It seems like your idea of romance is emotional abuse + limerence, and that any sort of healthy romance is just best friends with a boatload of benefits.

Sums it up well, yep. :)

A healthy relationship and a romantic relationship aren't mutually exclusive and healthy romance usually includes an element of friendship.

I just can't relate to that as my experience with romantic feelings is so completely different... unless what R. and I share is "romance" as per other people's definition... but honestly, I bristle at that thought. *shudders* (I do get that people who are in a, by your definition, "healthy romance" may well bristle at my insistance that they're actually "friends with benefits" by my definition... ;))

I really couldn't say it any better than you did above - there's neither abuse nor limerence (nor, to get back to Rivan Vox' definition, a melding of identity) between R. and me, so I just don't see how our 'ship could be considered romantic.

[Michele74]

"What is the point of asexual romance?"

Well, what is the point of sexual romance. To get sex? That's it? Really? You don't get anything from it - but the sex? You don't get the butterflies? You don't think about him/her constantly? That person doesn't light you up when you see them? That person doesn't make your day completely turn around when it has gone bad when he/she walks into the room? You don't feel like you are walking on clouds just knowing that person exists? All you get out of it ... is sex? Maybe that is what it is for some people. But, not all. I think for some reason sexual people feel a deeper connection to the one they are having sex with (sometimes). Well, asexuals can feel that very same deeper connection - but, we don't require the sex to feel it.

As far as differentiating from a regular friendship... I don't get butterflies when I think of my friends - and I don't think about them constantly. My friends don't put me in the clouds either. There are things I would do for my romantic partner that I would never do for my friends - for me : sharing my bed (for sleeping) is one of many things. Holding hands and snuggling are also on that list. And I may even be able to compromise and have sex if it would benefit them.

How do you differentiate between a sexual romantic partner and a friend with benefits? That difference - that's what we get out of the asexual romance.

[Azure.Providence]

I tend to see healthy partnerships as pretty much indistinguishable from (best) friends with benefits, even if the people involved in them call them romantic; if I actually call someone a friend and not just an acquaintance, that does means I love them (no mutual love = we aren't friends), and I don't see an intrinsic difference between friend-love and partner-love.

How do the connotations with romance that you mentioned amount to less objectification? Seems like your view of romance, technically speaking, objectifies the other.

To me, romance is all about objectifying and owning another person. Which ties in to me not really seeing romance in a healthy 'ship, while dysfunctional ones are more often chock full of it. (Cas in point - someone I know is happily married for over 20 years, and says he's romantically in love with his wife. I don't believe a word of it... I've seen them together and they seem really nice, fair, considerate, and respectful to each other. I don't see how that's romantic at all, they're definitely best friends with benefits IMO. :P)

I agree so much with this especially the bolded part. I've always thought I was weird for feeling this way because this is obviously not the way most people seem to think about friendships.

[banana monkey]

ok, so i dont really have an answer to this as it is one of the things that ive been trying to workout to help me understand a situation i have had in the past. However, i will make some comments prehaps using the situation as an example.

The situation is that I have a male friend whom I considered a really close friend. What I have with him was different to what I would have with another person I would consider as friend. (though I dont have many) I dont quite know what this difference was but I shall try to describe it. Mostly, wanting to make him really happy, I used to want to share parts of my life with him that I wouldnt with anyone else ( but found I couldnt) knowing that I would be there for him for a considerable long period of time. (eg. if I was to move away, he would still be really important to me we would still keep in touch and we would probably travel to see each other every 4 - 6 weeks because we missed each other much) However, i didnt consider the relationship romantic (in fact, I turned him down when he asked me for one because although I knew I had a strong conection to him, i didnt think it was that which a girl would feel for her boyfriend) just a really close friendship. Another point here is that I enjoyed the odd occasion of being physically close with him (sort of cuddling but not) but these cuddles didnt seem to relate to any romantic feelings. So i guess the point is that here I describe all the things that have been described above as part of a romantic relationship but still considered this to be only a really close friendship. (though i am currently questioning whether I had romantic feelings with out realising!!)

[DracoBorealis]

Romance and friendship are (to me) totally different things, as are the terms "romantic" and "sexual". I think people confuse the two way too often. Such as, "romantic attraction" is often used invariably with "sexual attraction", even though they --at least to me-- have entirely different meanings.

Just because you share an intimate, loving relationship with someone, does not mean it has to contain sex or desire for it.

As for love, I think it comes in many forms. There is the platonic love you have for friends, the sexual love (the eros I think it is called) and the romantic love, and all the in-betweens.
To me --as an asexual-- romance is a deeper bond than "just" a friendship, it is an attraction to the very essence of that other person. Like, becoming one while at the same time remaining just as we are. I do not buy into that "identity melding" thing --who would want to lose themselves? What I do buy into is one half complementing the other, equally.

But honestly, it matters little what I (or anyone else) says here. This is a matter in which no one is truly right or wrong. It's just how you experience it.

[richvidaurri]

Rome and any Rome-like commentators: Who in the world cares if you understand or not? You see, that's the beauty of this thing... it is nothing, nihilism. There is no "here" here. It is us simply being who we are.

[Nameless123]

Rome and any Rome-like commentators: Who in the world cares if you understand or not? You see, that's the beauty of this thing... it is nothing, nihilism. There is no "here" here. It is us simply being who we are.

As I have seen you do this on several threads now - could you please refrain from telling people that none of the communication we do here in this community matters and that we have nothing in common anyway? People who take part in the discussions in this forum obviously don't feel that way, and if you do - why are you here? If it is to tell us that we shouldn't even try to connect just because you can't connect to anything going on here, I feel sorry for you but I don't need your point of view stuffed down my throat in every thread I come across.

[Roy M.]

Romance and friendship are (to me) totally different things, as are the terms "romantic" and "sexual". I think people confuse the two way too often. Such as, "romantic attraction" is often used invariably with "sexual attraction", even though they --at least to me-- have entirely different meanings.

Just because you share an intimate, loving relationship with someone, does not mean it has to contain sex or desire for it.

As for love, I think it comes in many forms. There is the platonic love you have for friends, the sexual love (the eros I think it is called) and the romantic love, and all the in-betweens.

To me --as an asexual-- romance is a deeper bond than "just" a friendship, it is an attraction to the very essence of that other person. Like, becoming one while at the same time remaining just as we are. I do not buy into that "identity melding" thing --who would want to lose themselves? What I do buy into is one half complementing the other, equally.

But honestly, it matters little what I (or anyone else) says here. This is a matter in which no one is truly right or wrong. It's just how you experience it.

To be frank, this just doesn't seem like a very honest response or just seems kind of lazy at best.

[KTBeth]

I agree that a certain degree of friendship is required in a romantic relationship but you can have a friendship without romance. Is sex automatically synonymous with love? To some people, asexuals included, sex can be an expression of love. However, that's not always the case. If television and movies have taught me anything, it's that sex can exist without a relationship in the form of one night stands or even the classic friends with benefits. If a relationship exists purely for the sake of having sex, then ultimately what is the difference between a long-term relationship and a one night stand? There are ways to get sex without being in a relationship (including prostitution) so then what's the point of all the little bells and whistles that go along with a traditional romance? Sometimes people are just happier around one person than they are around others, and will do things with them that they wouldn't do with other people. Sometimes that means sex, sometimes that means buying them presents or cuddling with them or spending extra time with them.

What about the people who are saving themselves for marriage? Are they completely barred from having a relationship beyond friendship until they get married? And even then, is that relationship, from boyfriend/girlfriend to fiance/fiancee to husband/wife nothing more than friendship until they consummate their marriage?

I can say that I "love" my friends, but I don't consider myself in a romantic relationship with any of them. In the end I don't think it really matters if someone else understands somebody's relationships. Maybe a romantic relationship without sex doesn't make sense to you, but I don't think it's really your place to tell them that it's invalid or nothing more than a really close friendship. A relationship is best defined by the people taking part in the relationship. I personally don't see the point of relationships that are pursued purely for the sake of sex, but how is it my place to question their validity?

[DracoBorealis]

Romance and friendship are (to me) totally different things, as are the terms "romantic" and "sexual". I think people confuse the two way too often. Such as, "romantic attraction" is often used invariably with "sexual attraction", even though they --at least to me-- have entirely different meanings.

Just because you share an intimate, loving relationship with someone, does not mean it has to contain sex or desire for it.

As for love, I think it comes in many forms. There is the platonic love you have for friends, the sexual love (the eros I think it is called) and the romantic love, and all the in-betweens.

To me --as an asexual-- romance is a deeper bond than "just" a friendship, it is an attraction to the very essence of that other person. Like, becoming one while at the same time remaining just as we are. I do not buy into that "identity melding" thing --who would want to lose themselves? What I do buy into is one half complementing the other, equally.

But honestly, it matters little what I (or anyone else) says here. This is a matter in which no one is truly right or wrong. It's just how you experience it.

To be frank, this just doesn't seem like a very honest response or just seems kind of lazy at best.

Well, I do not consider myself neither lazy nor dishonest as they are the two things I detest more than anything, and I am not entirely sure where you are getting at by calling me such. This here is only my opinion. Take that for what you will, I am not very good with words.

[coz118]

a romantic relationship is pretty much the difference between your typical (sexual) relationship and a "friends with benefits" friendship...... and yes it's possible to take that romantic relationship WITHOUT the sex and still have a relationship that differs from the typical relationship you have with your 'close friends'. To me there's a level of trust, vulnerability, and committment that goes well beyond what you find with typical friendships - as well as some exclusivity and priority - which essentially defines the relationship.

[Roy M.]

Romance and friendship are (to me) totally different things, as are the terms "romantic" and "sexual". I think people confuse the two way too often. Such as, "romantic attraction" is often used invariably with "sexual attraction", even though they --at least to me-- have entirely different meanings.

Just because you share an intimate, loving relationship with someone, does not mean it has to contain sex or desire for it.

As for love, I think it comes in many forms. There is the platonic love you have for friends, the sexual love (the eros I think it is called) and the romantic love, and all the in-betweens.

To me --as an asexual-- romance is a deeper bond than "just" a friendship, it is an attraction to the very essence of that other person. Like, becoming one while at the same time remaining just as we are. I do not buy into that "identity melding" thing --who would want to lose themselves? What I do buy into is one half complementing the other, equally.

But honestly, it matters little what I (or anyone else) says here. This is a matter in which no one is truly right or wrong. It's just how you experience it.

To be frank, this just doesn't seem like a very honest response or just seems kind of lazy at best.

Well, I do not consider myself neither lazy nor dishonest as they are the two things I detest more than anything, and I am not entirely sure where you are getting at by calling me such. This here is only my opinion. Take that for what you will, I am not very good with words.

You said that "no one is truly right or wrong." What is that? That's a nothing statement. It doesn't help clear up the difference between friendship and romance or establish if they are actually the same.

[Roy M.]

a romantic relationship is pretty much the difference between your typical (sexual) relationship and a "friends with benefits" friendship...... and yes it's possible to take that romantic relationship WITHOUT the sex and still have a relationship that differs from the typical relationship you have with your 'close friends'. To me there's a level of trust, vulnerability, and committment that goes well beyond what you find with typical friendships - as well as some exclusivity and priority - which essentially defines the relationship.

How about this question that I've raised numerous times:

What about close friendships? How is sexless romance different than that?

[Guest]

You said that "no one is truly right or wrong." What is that? That's a nothing statement. It doesn't help clear up the difference between friendship and romance or establish if they are actually the same.

In a world without objective standards, what you call "nothing statements" are the only statements with truly universal merit.

If you want a categorical universal answer, look elsewhere; you will not find it on this forum... even if someone here had one, it would border on a ToS violation to post it. ;)

What about close friendships? How is sexless romance different than that?

Depends on the definition of romance.

[Roy M.]

Truly, I think it violates basic logic to say something to the effect of: two polar opposite views can be equally correct. Either friends and significant others are essentially the same, or they aren't. They can't be both. You can't have your cake and eat it, so to speak.

[daveb]

People have given you answers. But when they don't tell you what you want to hear you call them dishonest and/or lazy. I think you are being dishonest in your motives for asking these questions. It doesn't look like you are looking for answers. It looks like you are looking for controversy.

[Faust Darkwell]

With my present boyfriend, what marks him out as my romantic companion rather than a friend is a sense of self-identification with him, a blurring of the lines that mark us out as individuals. We are considered as a unit - a couple - rather than as 'two romantic companions.' Part of my identity is explicitly a reflection of my relationship with him - there's no special word to denote two friends as single unit, as a unified entity.

So, I would posit that the difference between a romantic and friendly relationship is the extent of identity fusion, which is customarily simulated/symbolized by the physical fusion of sexual intercourse, but not necessarily so.

I'm sorry, but that just reminded me of an article I read recently...it was about Genesis Breyer P-Orridge, an artist in England.

http://nymag.com/arts/art/profiles/58864/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/nyregion/genesis-breyer-p-orridge-stays-in-on-sundays-and-misses-lady-jaye.html?_r=1&

[KTBeth]

You're asking for a concrete definition of an abstract concept and a highly subjective one at that. Feelings are incredibly difficult to define, and I think we all experience them differently. I put most of my opinions on the matter into my last post, but I really do believe there's a difference. Romance is absolutely going to involve close friendship, but it's beyond that. A couple who has been married or together for years are definitely going to be best friends, but if they're no longer able to have sex do they stop being a couple and slip back into friendship? Is it automatically platonic if they can't have sex anymore? I just don't buy your logic.

[Sally]

Truly, I think it violates basic logic to say something to the effect of: two polar opposite views can be equally correct. Either friends and significant others are essentially the same, or they aren't. They can't be both. You can't have your cake and eat it, so to speak.

Actually, when someone has a relationship, they can have whatever cake they say they have. Because that relationship is between those two people and it's not anyone else's place to tell them they're either "correct" or not correct.

[Guest]

Romance is absolutely going to involve close friendship

You'll find even that to be debatable. To me, those two concept are nearly polar opposites.

Which just puts a +1 to the "It's all subjective" tally. :)

[coz118]

You're asking for a concrete definition of an abstract concept and a highly subjective one at that. Feelings are incredibly difficult to define, and I think we all experience them differently. I put most of my opinions on the matter into my last post, but I really do believe there's a difference. Romance is absolutely going to involve close friendship, but it's beyond that. A couple who has been married or together for years are definitely going to be best friends, but if they're no longer able to have sex do they stop being a couple and slip back into friendship? Is it automatically platonic if they can't have sex anymore? I just don't buy your logic.

to answer your question regarding my last post, this is pretty much it bud.... hope it helps!! there's something BEYOND (aka that being the key word) friendship when it comes to a romantic relationship, but that's really the only 'standard' way you can describe it in my opinion, because everyone's idea of what defines either friendship or romantic relationship differs based on experience and comfort level... if you're asking us to come up with some exact answer for the meaning of life, good luck but it ain't happenin. Unfortunately feelings and people aren't that simple - put them together and you've got a shit-show of a definition

[RainbowEuphoria]

Honestly, I think it is probably because most people don't want to be lonely and live alone. That's why we like to try to find other people to connect with. But it's more than just that. People can have incredibly deep emotional, platonic connections with eachother. Sex is not necessary for everyone's romantic relationships. Asexual does not always mean aromantic, though for some people it might. Relationships can have as many forms as the people whom are involved in them. What might seem like a close friendship to one person might be interpreted as a romantic relationship to someone else. No matter whether it is asexual or sexual- a romantic relationship should be respected.