TMIandID Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Ok I am very confused about the a romantic thing. An aromantic is someone who does not want a boyfriend to hold hands cuddle and kiss?? Link to post Share on other sites
(Nightlight) Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 More or less. Like asexual, which is the lack of sexual attraction, aromantic is the lack of romantic attraction. Link to post Share on other sites
nleseul Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 More or less. Though, to be clear, some aromantics (but not all) do enjoy cuddling and kissing, just not with anyone they designate as a "boyfriend" or "girlfriend." Physically-affectionate aromantics are more likely to describe their cuddle/kissing partners as friends, or sometimes as zucchinis. Link to post Share on other sites
cthuvianace Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 I kind of disagree on the definition that've been provided. I think it is very possible for an aromantic person to be in a romantic relationship, and to (eventually) fall in love. For me, aromanticism is just a lack of primary romantic attraction. Yes, many aromantics don't go for romantic relationships, quite understandably, but some do. It takes some work with the romantic partner, but I think it's definitely quite possible for an aromantic in a relationship to end up falling in love with their partner. For me, I've always looked at romantic attraction and love as two different things. Romantic attraction, for me, has been the desire for a romantic relationship, and doesn't have much to do with ability to fall in love. So, long story short, aromantic don't have any real desire for romantic relationships, but I think that if they are, for whatever reason, in one, that aromantics are just as capable of functioning in said relationship and falling in love with their partner as their romantic partner. Link to post Share on other sites
(Nightlight) Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 "An aromantic is a person who experiences little or no romantic attraction to others..." Is the definition used in the aven wiki. http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Aromantic Might be a better reference for the op anyway. Link to post Share on other sites
Oceania Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 I kind of disagree on the definition that've been provided. I think it is very possible for an aromantic person to be in a romantic relationship, and to (eventually) fall in love. For me, aromanticism is just a lack of primary romantic attraction. Yes, many aromantics don't go for romantic relationships, quite understandably, but some do. It takes some work with the romantic partner, but I think it's definitely quite possible for an aromantic in a relationship to end up falling in love with their partner. For me, I've always looked at romantic attraction and love as two different things. Romantic attraction, for me, has been the desire for a romantic relationship, and doesn't have much to do with ability to fall in love. So, long story short, aromantic don't have any real desire for romantic relationships, but I think that if they are, for whatever reason, in one, that aromantics are just as capable of functioning in said relationship and falling in love with their partner as their romantic partner. I think this would better describe demiromantic. Link to post Share on other sites
Member33070 Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Alright...I think we're close to the definition... Like Lennon said, I've always interpreted it as a lack of romantic attraction. So, just like with asexuality, where one can choose to have sex even though one isn't attracted to anyone, one can choose to have a relationship that involves romance even though one isn't romantically attracted to anyone. Asexuality is distinct from libido and people can still have a sex drive without being attracted to anyone (but not all do). Sort of like being hungry and not being attracted to the idea of eating any food presented. There is probably something similar for romantic attraction, perhaps people can have a romantic drive or not. Aromantic folks simply aren't romantically attracted to anyone and the romantic drive could be separate. Demiromanticism implies that the romantic attraction can eventually form after some sort of relationship is built. Link to post Share on other sites
(Nightlight) Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Sort of like being hungry and not being attracted to the idea of eating any food presented. Again! You're wicked good with your analogies. Link to post Share on other sites
Member33070 Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Sort of like being hungry and not being attracted to the idea of eating any food presented. Again! You're wicked good with your analogies. Awww, thanks! They're not always the best but I do appreciate the compliment. *huggles Lennon* Link to post Share on other sites
Data Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 I kind of disagree on the definition that've been provided. I think it is very possible for an aromantic person to be in a romantic relationship, and to (eventually) fall in love. For me, aromanticism is just a lack of primary romantic attraction. Yes, many aromantics don't go for romantic relationships, quite understandably, but some do. It takes some work with the romantic partner, but I think it's definitely quite possible for an aromantic in a relationship to end up falling in love with their partner. For me, I've always looked at romantic attraction and love as two different things. Romantic attraction, for me, has been the desire for a romantic relationship, and doesn't have much to do with ability to fall in love. So, long story short, aromantic don't have any real desire for romantic relationships, but I think that if they are, for whatever reason, in one, that aromantics are just as capable of functioning in said relationship and falling in love with their partner as their romantic partner. I doubt that it could be the case for me, sounds like demiromantism, not aromantism. Link to post Share on other sites
eamonn Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 So, just like with asexuality, where one can choose to have sex even though one isn't attracted to anyone, one can choose to have a relationship that involves romance even though one isn't romantically attracted to anyone. That strikes me as very odd. How can one have "romance" as an aromantic except by faking it? And faking romantic attachment seems, to me, to be an awful thing to do to someone. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 That strikes me as very odd. How can one have "romance" as an aromantic except by faking it? And faking romantic attachment seems, to me, to be an awful thing to do to someone. Generally speaking I would agree with you, but I don't think that's always necessarily true. An aromantic may want a lifelong partner to share a house and spend time with, just like a romantic would. Of course most aromantics wouldn't want such a relationship, but some could (let's say we could describe them as platonically affectionate people). If what two people want is one and the same, relationships can work out even if they are romantic on one end and platonic on the other. At least that's my two cents. Link to post Share on other sites
Member33070 Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 That strikes me as very odd. How can one have "romance" as an aromantic except by faking it? And faking romantic attachment seems, to me, to be an awful thing to do to someone. Generally speaking I would agree with you, but I don't think that's always necessarily true. An aromantic may want a lifelong partner to share a house and spend time with, just like a romantic would. Of course most aromantics wouldn't want such a relationship, but some could (let's say we could describe them as platonically affectionate people). If what two people want is one and the same, relationships can work out even if they are romantic on one end and platonic on the other. At least that's my two cents. I'm not sure on the specifics, but it's probably a lot like asexuals who "compromise" for their partner by having sex even though they aren't sexually attracted to them. I do think there could be a romantic drive and the romantic interactions have the potential to feel nice, just like sexual interactions could with an asexual. Again, another food analogy - food can still taste good even when you aren't attracted to eating it. This is a somewhat more awkward food analogy - it would be like seeing a cake that doesn't look so good to eat, and then discovering that it actually tastes okay. That doesn't mean you would be attracted to it if you had the opportunity to eat it again, you just didn't think it was horrible tasting. It's possible to enjoy something and not want more of it, I guess is what I'm trying to say. It's not an aromantic's fault that they aren't romantically attracted. The interactions might not seem so "genuine" as it would with two romantics in a relationship, but if both partners are willing to compromise and such...it's fine. They wouldn't have to necessarily fake anything. It's just like making compromises in any other relationship, I'd imagine...there's probably loads of romantic sexuals in relationships where one partner is into something (like a fetish, say) and the other isn't, but they compromise. It's not fake - because both have the potential to enjoy it even though they're not into it... But I do see what you mean a bit, yeah. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest member25959 Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 So, just like with asexuality, where one can choose to have sex even though one isn't attracted to anyone, one can choose to have a relationship that involves romance even though one isn't romantically attracted to anyone. That strikes me as very odd. How can one have "romance" as an aromantic except by faking it? And faking romantic attachment seems, to me, to be an awful thing to do to someone. Love is a very confusing thing, that statement is ever so cliché but it has so much truth. Well, as an Aromantic, I've been in what I guess I could consider a 'romantic relationship'. Just that, the line between a strong platonic relationship and an actual romantic relationship is very hazy. Well I guess what I'm trying to say is, 'love' is a very broad term, 'romance' is an even broader topic. Link to post Share on other sites
nleseul Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 So, just like with asexuality, where one can choose to have sex even though one isn't attracted to anyone, one can choose to have a relationship that involves romance even though one isn't romantically attracted to anyone. Yeah, I'm honestly not sure what it would mean to have a romantic relationship without feeling romance. What is it that makes a relationship romantic, other than the experience of romance by the participants? What discourses on aromanticism almost always seem to come down to, in my experience, is that no one really knows what romance even is, or how to define it in a way that's consistent with everyone's ways of experiencing it. Romantics, apparently, "just know" when a relationship is romantic, as opposed to friendly, platonic, or whatever; aromantics are people who don't. I think it's more confusing than useful to try to define aromanticism by parallel to asexuality, since they are kind of different things. Sex is something that can be defined in a reasonably objective way, so even people who don't experience sexual attraction can understand it and know that they don't. Thus, asexuality versus sexuality is a fairly clear binary/spectrum that just about everyone can manage to place themselves on, and we can talk meaningfully about people in the middle of that spectrum, or about the act of sex as distinct from the experience of sexual attraction, and so on. But because romance doesn't have a clear definition that you can explain objectively to someone who doesn't already feel it, it's a lot less possible to conceptualize it as a binary/spectrum, and a lot less possible to isolate the act of romance from the experience of romantic attraction. In other words, asexuality is about placing oneself on one side of a sexual/nonsexual binary. Aromanticism is about entirely deconstructing the concept of a romantic/nonromantic binary. So perfect parallels between the language we use for asexuality and that which we use for aromanticism just may not be possible or desirable. Link to post Share on other sites
Member33070 Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 So, just like with asexuality, where one can choose to have sex even though one isn't attracted to anyone, one can choose to have a relationship that involves romance even though one isn't romantically attracted to anyone. Yeah, I'm honestly not sure what it would mean to have a romantic relationship without feeling romance. What is it that makes a relationship romantic, other than the experience of romance by the participants? What discourses on aromanticism almost always seem to come down to, in my experience, is that no one really knows what romance even is, or how to define it in a way that's consistent with everyone's ways of experiencing it. Romantics, apparently, "just know" when a relationship is romantic, as opposed to friendly, platonic, or whatever; aromantics are people who don't. I think it's more confusing than useful to try to define aromanticism by parallel to asexuality, since they are kind of different things. Sex is something that can be defined in a reasonably objective way, so even people who don't experience sexual attraction can understand it and know that they don't. Thus, asexuality versus sexuality is a fairly clear binary/spectrum that just about everyone can manage to place themselves on, and we can talk meaningfully about people in the middle of that spectrum, or about the act of sex as distinct from the experience of sexual attraction, and so on. But because romance doesn't have a clear definition that you can explain objectively to someone who doesn't already feel it, it's a lot less possible to conceptualize it as a binary/spectrum, and a lot less possible to isolate the act of romance from the experience of romantic attraction. In other words, asexuality is about placing oneself on one side of a sexual/nonsexual binary. Aromanticism is about entirely deconstructing the concept of a romantic/nonromantic binary. So perfect parallels between the language we use for asexuality and that which we use for aromanticism just may not be possible or desirable. Excellent thoughts, and I do understand and agree. Romance seems to really depend on the people involved. And you're right, sexual concepts are much easier to define and conceptualize, it seems. There's even some gray areas in sexuality, though. I was talking to a sexual person recently who was describing how his "levels" of sexual attraction to men and women were different. He was predominately gay, but could feel sexual attraction for women, it was just much less intense. It wasn't any less frequent than his attraction to men, he just didn't desire all of the things he desired with men, to such an extent that he identified as gay. There was so much of a difference between his attraction to men to his attraction to women that the attraction to women was unimportant to him. It was really interesting to hear about. So I think there are different levels of sexual attraction as well, which might start to parallel this romantic binary deconstruction idea you've got going on. I think, possibly, there's a lot more going on in the "romantic" stage of love because people developed different methods to show affection and possibly different ways to encourage/attempt to reach the "end goal" of sex. I understand the two can exist independently of each other, but it just reminds me of mating behavior in animals... :lol: Link to post Share on other sites
eamonn Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 It's all ridiculously messy. Romance and sexuality in conceptualisation, I mean. So, in simple terms, is an aromantic relationship similar to a really close best friend kind of situation? Link to post Share on other sites
nleseul Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 So, in simple terms, is an aromantic relationship similar to a really close best friend kind of situation? Well, I'm not even sure that it makes sense to talk about "an aromantic relationship." That's a description of what the relationship is not, rather than what it is. A non-romantic relationship might be casual, friendly, platonic, queerplatonic, whatever works to describe it. There's so much diversity in what aromantic people want that, and there's nothing that really unites all those various categories other than the absence of romance. And, of course, things are further confused by the fact that even romantic people do often want and have one or more of those types of non-romantic relationships in addition to their romantic ones! But, yes, aromantic people who want close relationships (not all do!) tend to conceptualize the relationships they want as being similar to "best friends" relationships. Though generally with the additional feature of being able to trust their close friends to keep the friendship a top priority long-term and not run off and partner up romantically. Link to post Share on other sites
CopaPianist Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Asexuality is distinct from libido and people can still have a sex drive without being attracted to anyone (but not all do). Sort of like being hungry and not being attracted to the idea of eating any food presented. I love metaphors, and this one takes the cake! No pun inten....yeah ok, it was intentional! ;) Here's your cake Mr. Clever McCleverness. May I borrow this quote for my sig? ^_^ Link to post Share on other sites
thylacine Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Re: Ok I am very confused about the aromantic thing. Well, I just find all this romance-boyfriend-girlfriend stuff very useless and boring. Just can't get into this stuff. Does that help? Link to post Share on other sites
mylittlehazmat Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 I kind of disagree on the definition that've been provided. I think it is very possible for an aromantic person to be in a romantic relationship, and to (eventually) fall in love. For me, aromanticism is just a lack of primary romantic attraction. Yes, many aromantics don't go for romantic relationships, quite understandably, but some do. It takes some work with the romantic partner, but I think it's definitely quite possible for an aromantic in a relationship to end up falling in love with their partner. For me, I've always looked at romantic attraction and love as two different things. Romantic attraction, for me, has been the desire for a romantic relationship, and doesn't have much to do with ability to fall in love. So, long story short, aromantic don't have any real desire for romantic relationships, but I think that if they are, for whatever reason, in one, that aromantics are just as capable of functioning in said relationship and falling in love with their partner as their romantic partner. Would that not be demiromantic? As a demisexual is someone who does not experience primary sexual attraction, would not someone who does not experience primary romantic attraction be not also be demi? Link to post Share on other sites
eamonn Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 What's "primary romantic attraction" referring to? Is it like emotionally fancying someone soon after meeting them? Like most of my males friends, instantly falling in love with any good-looking girl they see... But that's a shallow thing. Link to post Share on other sites
maven Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 What's "primary romantic attraction" referring to? Is it like emotionally fancying someone soon after meeting them? Like most of my males friends, instantly falling in love with any good-looking girl they see... But that's a shallow thing. Yes, it's the idea of being romantically attracted to someone immediately or even soon after meeting them, often due to looks or charisma. I don't know if falling in "love" with any pretty girl walking by counts - you'd have to ask your male friends whether they are thinking about being in a relationship with the girl (romantic attraction) or getting her in their bed (sexual attraction). There has been controversy over what is considered demiromantic before, check threads here and here. The reason the definition cannot simply parallel the definition for demisexual is because most agree that romantic attraction does not occur instantaneously/relatively quickly, and therefore romantics in general do not experience primary romantic attraction. Demiromantic is sometimes used to cover a person who considered themselves aromantic until they met a specific person, who caused them to act romantically towards them. note: this is coming from an aromantic newbie, so if anyone has other definitions, please chime in. Link to post Share on other sites
eamonn Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 I've actually experienced it myself but tried to reason it away because it's fairly senseless; it's developing an emotional attachment to someone far too quickly than one should. I mean seeing a girl and thinking about your married life with her 20 years later; that kind of thing. Probably both sexual and romantic. A friend of mine is still made fun of for liking a girl he saw simply because she was buying fruit. Not that it's impossible to quickly develop a connection with someone, just that sometimes it's not really based on anything; purely superficial in nature. Such is my experience, at least. Link to post Share on other sites
Member33070 Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Asexuality is distinct from libido and people can still have a sex drive without being attracted to anyone (but not all do). Sort of like being hungry and not being attracted to the idea of eating any food presented. I love metaphors, and this one takes the cake! No pun inten....yeah ok, it was intentional! ;) Here's your cake Mr. Clever McCleverness. May I borrow this quote for my sig? ^_^ LOL. *noms cake the pun took* *dances* I GOT MISTAKEN FOR A BOY. Um, yes. Borrow it all you want. That goes for any of my quotes. Credit me if you want. Link to post Share on other sites
nleseul Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 The reason the definition cannot simply parallel the definition for demisexual is because most agree that romantic attraction does not occur instantaneously/relatively quickly, and therefore romantics in general do not experience primary romantic attraction. Demiromantic is sometimes used to cover a person who considered themselves aromantic until they met a specific person, who caused them to act romantically towards them. Yet another way in which the a/romantic spectrum and its associated concepts don't precisely parallel those of the a/sexual spectrum! :D Here's some speculation, though. Suppose we think of primary sexual attraction as meaning that the person wants to have sex with someone, above and beyond their attraction to any specific person. In other words, a sexual person probably has in her head some sense of what a hypothetical sexual partner would be like and what activities sex with that partner would involve. Any time she meets someone new, some part of her evaluation will be how closely the new person approximates the abstract "sexual partner" template. If they come close to matching, sexual attraction happens. From that perspective, one can construct a fairly clear definition of what primary romantic attraction would be that basically parallels the idea of primary sexual attraction. Someone who feels primary romantic attraction has a template in his head of what an imaginary romantic partner would be like, and evaluates people as romantic partners based on that template. A demiromantic, then, could be thought of as someone who knows that they do sometimes develop romantic attraction to particular people, but who doesn't have that template as a persistent background feature of their thoughts, affecting the way they interact with all people. Link to post Share on other sites
eamonn Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 That does have the fit of an explanation but not the weight of truth, as far as can be told. For me, I don't think a "template" serves as the basis of my attraction to others, against which I evaluate them. Certainly I'm attracted to people with certain characteristics, but given the plethora of characteristics the idea of a template becomes useless... Anyway, this is cloud-talk. Too metaphysical and wishy-washy for myself. 'Course, sexual attraction doesn't have to be analogous to romantic attraction... Link to post Share on other sites
CopaPianist Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 I kind of disagree on the definition that've been provided. I think it is very possible for an aromantic person to be in a romantic relationship, and to (eventually) fall in love. For me, aromanticism is just a lack of primary romantic attraction. Yes, many aromantics don't go for romantic relationships, quite understandably, but some do. It takes some work with the romantic partner, but I think it's definitely quite possible for an aromantic in a relationship to end up falling in love with their partner. For me, I've always looked at romantic attraction and love as two different things. Romantic attraction, for me, has been the desire for a romantic relationship, and doesn't have much to do with ability to fall in love. So, long story short, aromantic don't have any real desire for romantic relationships, but I think that if they are, for whatever reason, in one, that aromantics are just as capable of functioning in said relationship and falling in love with their partner as their romantic partner. Would that not be demiromantic? As a demisexual is someone who does not experience primary sexual attraction, would not someone who does not experience primary romantic attraction be not also be demi? Agreed - this makes a lot of sense. Of course the definition of "demiromantic" encompasses those who lack romantic attraction for a significantly longer time than simply first contact, but (agreeing with the above conjecture) the as long as there is no initial romantic attraction (romantic) and as long as romantic attraction is eventually developed (otherwise, aromantic), then it fits the definition of demiromantic. LOL. *noms cake the pun took* *dances* I GOT MISTAKEN FOR A BOY. Um, yes. Borrow it all you want. That goes for any of my quotes. Credit me if you want. tyvm! ...I'll let you think I mistook you for a boy since you're so excited about it, hehe. Really I just used "Mr." as a manner of speech - I gave gender a thought, but decided Mr. just 'sounded' better. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts