A-romantic

[A-wesomeness]

Kay, I know there are what hundreds of these things already, but I wanted to post this to mainly get answers for myself, and see what others think and start up a discussion about the definition of a-romantic.

I thought I was a bi-romantic for a while, but starting to think I could possibly be a-romantic.

Mainly I want a really close platonic relationship with preferably a guy, but with hugs and cuddles too. But the thing for me would be I wouldn't mind if the relationship changed into a formal one. (Boyfriend/Girlfriend, whatnot) because to me, there wouldn't be a change in the relationship we share. I would say the title changes, because I kind of want an intellectual relationship with someone over a romantic one. Basically I want a really close best friend that I can talk about anything with, who also gives good hugs! :P

Is this the definition of an a-romantic, or, basically, what do you think??

What is your definition of a-romantic?

[wallflowerblooming]

I consider myself aromantic, and a part of that (for me) is NOT wanting the cuddles and hugs. I mean, I love my friends--and I have friends with whom I can talk about everything, and I do enjoy the occasional hug or platonic smooch on the cheek, but why I identify as an aromantic asexual is that I don't want a "significant other," smoochy, hugsy, or otherwise. It makes me feel sick and horrible when I've got that kind of bond with just one other person. I don't like feeling like I "belong" to any one person; I like feeling communal, lolz. :lol:

And while I like to look at other people cuddle and be smooshy at each other (D'awwwwww), I don't want that for myself. I get that kind of warmth and happiness by seeing people I love in that warmth and happiness. So that's how I identify as aromantic. From my point of view (and far be it from me or anyone else to tell you how to identify), what you described is definitely more romantic than I'd like for myself. But that's just my opinion.

[Cakey]

There have been quite a few posts where I have recognised a lot of the feelings, attitudes and experiences... I don't mind hugs, but I do mind people not being able to think straight, because of those silly little love chemicals..Oops :) I see it as a more practical and realistic approach to relationships\co-habitation.

[Faelights]

Someone who's highly romantic here...

The way I define being romantic is this innate desire I have towards certain people to share with them absolutely everything in my life and all of my emotions and feelings even all the bad parts and stuff, and return, I want them to trust me enough that they can feel safe enough to reciprocate the same way. Basically, becoming completely and utterly vulnerable to one another. Ideally, what would happen is that we care so much about one another that, even though we hold the other party's greatest weaknesses within our hands, we would never wield these vulnerabilities against each other and would instead protect and support them, all the while cherishing the thought and never taking it for granted that the other person could trust us to this extent.

We would try to meet the needs of one another as much as possible, and since I do have a need for physical intimacy, I would want hugs and cuddles and kisses. So for me, wanting to be able to just come in physical contact with someone might be a sign that I have some romantic feelings towards them. (This may sound counter-intuitive, but I find holding hands with someone much more intimate than hugging.) However, I don't think it's a requirement for romantic relationships to have physical intimacy; it's just a pretty big plus for me considering I sometimes have bouts of depressive mood associated with lack of physical intimacy.

I can't control when I feel this romantic desire (i.e. there are sometimes I just meet someone, and I'll automatically want to share stuff with them and want them to share stuff with me), though of course I can control whether or not I act on it. I can decide how I want to interact with someone I'm romantically attracted to, just as someone who's sexually attracted to someone can decide how they want to interact with that individual (and it's not always hit on them in hopes of getting sex :P).

So I suppose I would define "aromantic" as... disinterested in sharing absolutely everything with any particular individual. Or that's the distinction I make in my mind, anyway. Keep in mind that this doesn't mean that I think aromantic people don't ever want to share their feelings and their lives, or can't trust, or stuff like that, just that I think an aromantic wouldn't want to share to the same significant extent as what I'm proposing with specific, particular individuals. They might still share themselves across many people to a lesser extent.

[Serrin]

Someone who's highly romantic here...

The way I define being romantic is this innate desire I have towards certain people to share with them absolutely everything in my life and all of my emotions and feelings even all the bad parts and stuff, and return, I want them to trust me enough that they can feel safe enough to reciprocate the same way. Basically, becoming completely and utterly vulnerable to one another. Ideally, what would happen is that we care so much about one another that, even though we hold the other party's greatest weaknesses within our hands, we would never wield these vulnerabilities against each other and would instead protect and support them, all the while cherishing the thought and never taking it for granted that the other person could trust us to this extent.

We would try to meet the needs of one another as much as possible, and since I do have a need for physical intimacy, I would want hugs and cuddles and kisses. So for me, wanting to be able to just come in physical contact with someone might be a sign that I have some romantic feelings towards them. (This may sound counter-intuitive), I find holding hands with someone much more intimate than hugging.) However, I don't think it's a requirement for romantic relationships to have physical intimacy; it's just a pretty big plus for me considering I sometimes have bouts of depressive mood associated with lack of physical intimacy.

I can't control when I feel this romantic desire (i.e. there are sometimes I just meet someone, and I'll automatically want to share stuff with them and want them to share stuff with me), though of course I can control whether or not I act on it. I can decide how I want to interact with someone I'm romantically attracted to, just as someone who's sexually attracted to someone can decide how they want to interact with that individual (and it's not always hit on them in hopes of getting sex :P).

So I suppose I would define "aromantic" as... disinterested in sharing absolutely everything with any particular individual. Or that's the distinction I make in my mind, anyway. Keep in mind that this doesn't mean that I think aromantic people don't ever want to share their feelings and their lives, or can't trust, or stuff like that, just that I think an aromantic wouldn't want to share to the same significant extent as what I'm proposing with specific, particular individuals. They might still share themselves across many people to a lesser extent.

I think your definition of aromanticism works well for me, at least. Your definition for romanticism also cleared a little up for me, thanks.

At first I thought it wouldn't work because I feel how you explained, sharing everything and letting them know your vulnerabilities etc, with my best friend, but then I thought that why I think fits him better is " brother of no relation" rather than "bestfriend" :P

[Cakey]

So I suppose I would define "aromantic" as... disinterested in sharing absolutely everything with any particular individual. Or that's the distinction I make in my mind, anyway. Keep in mind that this doesn't mean that I think aromantic people don't ever want to share their feelings and their lives, or can't trust, or stuff like that, just that I think an aromantic wouldn't want to share to the same significant extent as what I'm proposing with specific, particular individuals. They might still share themselves across many people to a lesser extent.

You are certainly right my dear, I will never share my house with anyone, unless they have a property that they can go back to. It is too easy in the UK, when someone has lived with you for a certain amount of time, to make a claim on your property, when you break up.

When you get married, well, then it becomes even more unfair. Someone I know, she split up from her partner, so purchased her own house for herself and her three young children. Eventually, she met another guy and they got married, he was so lazy, in fact, her ex-partner had to do all the DIY work on the house. ( he also paid for part of the mortgage)

Well, after a few years of her new husband being a confirmed couch potato, they got a divorced, he subsequently made a claim on the house and eventually received thousands. What is particularly irksome, is because of his low wage, he had not even made much of a monetary contribution, which she could prove and he also lived a lot more cheaply than if he had had to rent a place. He should have been a man and moved on, not taking food out of young children's mouths !!!

As you can see....I am certainly aromantic till I die :)

[A-wesomeness]

Someone who's highly romantic here...

The way I define being romantic is this innate desire I have towards certain people to share with them absolutely everything in my life and all of my emotions and feelings even all the bad parts and stuff, and return, I want them to trust me enough that they can feel safe enough to reciprocate the same way. Basically, becoming completely and utterly vulnerable to one another. Ideally, what would happen is that we care so much about one another that, even though we hold the other party's greatest weaknesses within our hands, we would never wield these vulnerabilities against each other and would instead protect and support them, all the while cherishing the thought and never taking it for granted that the other person could trust us to this extent.

We would try to meet the needs of one another as much as possible, and since I do have a need for physical intimacy, I would want hugs and cuddles and kisses. So for me, wanting to be able to just come in physical contact with someone might be a sign that I have some romantic feelings towards them. (This may sound counter-intuitive, but I find holding hands with someone much more intimate than hugging.) However, I don't think it's a requirement for romantic relationships to have physical intimacy; it's just a pretty big plus for me considering I sometimes have bouts of depressive mood associated with lack of physical intimacy.

So I suppose I would define "aromantic" as... disinterested in sharing absolutely everything with any particular individual. Or that's the distinction I make in my mind, anyway. Keep in mind that this doesn't mean that I think aromantic people don't ever want to share their feelings and their lives, or can't trust, or stuff like that, just that I think an aromantic wouldn't want to share to the same significant extent as what I'm proposing with specific, particular individuals. They might still share themselves across many people to a lesser extent.

From what you've said here, it sounds more like my definition of aromantic wasn't quite correct. I viewed as someone who doesn't have romantic love as such, but wants platonic friendship instead. I know they want friendships, but just kind of not in the way I was thinking. :P

I think because everyone's definition is different, it can be harder to understand what is unique to someone and what is general.

Thanks guys!

[Felix_Yo_228]

EX

[Nymzie]

So I suppose I would define "aromantic" as... disinterested in sharing absolutely everything with any particular individual. Or that's the distinction I make in my mind, anyway. Keep in mind that this doesn't mean that I think aromantic people don't ever want to share their feelings and their lives, or can't trust, or stuff like that, just that I think an aromantic wouldn't want to share to the same significant extent as what I'm proposing with specific, particular individuals. They might still share themselves across many people to a lesser extent.

Mind and feeling-wise I share absolutely everything with pretty much everyone. You could be a stranger on the street and I'll tell you the exact same things I tell my best friend. The only time I hold back is at work because a lot of things are not work-appropriate haha.

Physically though I don't want to share anything. My life is mine and no one else gets any say.

I guess those are things that make me aromantic. I've always just thought I'm aromantic because I don't want to pursue anyone. I'm 100% indifferent to romantic relationships.

[Cakey]

From what you've said here, it sounds more like my definition of aromantic wasn't quite correct. I viewed as someone who doesn't have romantic love as such, but wants platonic friendship instead. I know they want friendships, but just kind of not in the way I was thinking. :P

I think because everyone's definition is different, it can be harder to understand what is unique to someone and what is general.

Thanks guys!

I think basically, we do not have those chemicals zooming around our brains, making us do illogical things. So we think more realistically, but we all have our own sense of realism. :)

[Samael]

I feel the definition of aromanticism is the lack of romantic attraction. How this manifests may differ though, because people have different ideas on what exactly is romantic attraction. The line between platonic affection and romantic attraction may be blurred.

I see myself clearly as aromantic though, because I've never been interested in emotional or physical shows of affection. I just don't experience the kind of emotions that would tell me to feel tingly for someone. If I was interested in being seen as normal, I would probably worry if it was due to some psychological impairment or other disorder, but luckily I don't :D

[Uhh]

Sometimes I feel like I could be romantic, but never for long. When it comes to relationships I'm not really looking for one and I'm perfectly happy to spend the rest of my life by myself. In the only relationship I was in it all just felt so clingy. I hated having to talk to someone every day and worry about if they were mad at me for something I did or didn't do. I liked having the company of that person, but not all the time. I like having my own space and my own things and getting to do things on my own time. I feel like the idea of a relationship sounds nice, but when it comes down to it I just can't do it.

[5_♦♣]

Just as Asexuality is the absence of sexual attraction, aromanticism is the absence of romantic attraction.