Queerplatonic/ S.O. relationship poll. Aromantics only!

[A-wesomeness]

So guys, I made this poll just out of curiosity really.

I just wanted to see what types of things aromantics liked to do. What type of relationships they enjoyed and such.

I am a questioning aromantic as well, so a comparison between others will also be good. Thanks guys!

^.^

[Sennkestra]

out of curiosity, is this intended specifically for aromantic asexuals, or is it for anyone aromantic?

Also, a quick suggestion: for the non-queerplatonic relationships question, could there be an option for "yes, I would consider it, but haven't had one yet?" it's sort of left out right now.

Although, I like that you have the option of "for a little while" for the "would you like to be romantic" question - it's pretty much what I think about this (and about the whole "would you be like to be sexual" scenario as well: personally, I like who I am now. I wouldn't want to change that. But still, I'm hella curious, so a chance to experience what it's like just for a little while would be nice - I could understand it better, but still retain my own identity.

[A Devil From Heaven]

I thought aromantic meant you weren't interested in romantic relationships?

[A-wesomeness]

I originally created it for asexual, aromantics, but I left it open for both asexuals and sexuals to complete.

I also made the change to the platonic relationship question. Thanks for the advice. ~~

[Almagest]

I thought aromantic meant you weren't interested in romantic relationships?

No worries. It's a common misconception. Aromantic means lack of romantic attraction. Not a lack of interest in romantic relationships.

[A-wesomeness]

I thought aromantic meant you weren't interested in romantic relationships?

An aromantic is someone who experiences no romantic attraction, that's it. Aromantics can desire to be in a romantic relationship, just like asexuals can desire to be in a sexual relationship.

Some aromantics don't want relationships, some do. (:

[MadRat]

Physical activities: holding hands, hugging, cuddling, light kissing, nonsexual touching, sexual touching only if I could keep my clothes on.

And what spooning exactly is?

I don´t know if I could be in a relationship with romantic. Maybe. I don´t have enough experiences with relationships. It depends on a type of romantic. I hope there are some romantics who are not very clingy.

I wouldn´t change into romantic if I could.

[Astryda]

And what spooning exactly is?

Notice the way the spoons are put and how the people and the cats hold one other. Can you see a correlation?

[MadRat]

And what spooning exactly is?

Notice the way the spoons are put and how the people and the cats hold one other. Can you see a correlation?

OK, so spooning is possible too. :)

[A Devil From Heaven]

What then is a queerplatonic relationship? (never heard the word before so I couldn't really answer the question)

I'm pretty much aromantic, or maybe greyromantic is more fitting to me. I do have romantic fantasies ( I might even have had a crush once), but I have no desire to act upon them. If you don't feel those strong romantic feelings, that passion thing or whatever it is, I don't really see the point in a romantic relationship. I do however understand curiosity about it. About two years ago fantasized about trying to date a person I was pretty sure was interested in me. But I didn't act upon it, because I wasn't genuinly interested and if that person was I would just be playing with their feelings and that would make me feel cruel.

[Silvernight]

Holding hands, hugging, nonsexual touching. Not sure if I correctly understand what a queerplatonic relationship is. But if it's a platonic relationship with a strong emotional attachment, then yes.

[Ifer]

Roughhousing and general lack-of-bubble physical contact might be nice.

[The cake is a lie!]

An aromantic is someone who experiences no romantic attraction, that's it. Aromantics can desire to be in a romantic relationship, just like asexuals can desire to be in a sexual relationship. Some aromantics don't want relationships, some do.

What really? Oh man, you've got to be kidding me. That seems really counterintuitive. We're going to need a new term for an asexual who has no romantic aspirations whatsoever. Nilromantic anyone?

[helana12_03]

There are a few light-touching non-romantic things that I'm kind of ok with (rarely). I have had the desire to hug cuddle and spoon (in general, no specific person). I wouldn't mind holding hands, but it's not something I've ever desired to do. However, I don't want to be in a relationship at all, especially not a romantic one. But I would say no to anything that requires commitment, romance or romantic touching (i.e. kissing+).

If I could be romantic I would choose not to be. I love being aromantic. Years ago I became romantic (demi-heteroromantic) for a short period of time (about 1.5 years) and I soon realized that I liked being aromantic a lot better (when I was still demi? romantic). Luckily, I wasn't demi?-heteroromantic for very long. Though I must admit that it was an interesting experience that helped me understand the nature of relationships a lot better. It was also really time consuming, emotionally draining and not my thing so I wouldn't want to be romantic again.

I don't fully understand what a queerplatonic relationship is so I can't answer this question.

[Pizza1]

Well...I didn't know what to put for a lot of it. i don't have a partner..I don't know what queerplatonic means....I am not sure if I would want to be romantic or not...I have troubles relating to people and wanting ot hang out with them a lot. it is easier the longer i have known someone,so ...maybe? If I was attached to them enough, then I would try to work past the aromantic aspect of myself..

I am kind f like a romantic relaltionship COULD be nice, but I don't know if it will ever happen. Mainly the emotional stuff, dunno about the physical : S. If I ever got in a relationship,they would have to prepare for what I call ' being a turtle'. From what I have seen of most people around me, they like being held pretty much way sooner than I think I could do it. And they like being held often...eep. It would have to be a very patient patient person, honreLly thought I was worth the wait ( and it might not even end up working, the waiting. I don't know how I would feel eventually ).

I think maybe living and splitting the billsand sharing with an aromantic or at least someone who would not want too much physical time ( I would say just a good friend, but they would date nd then probably be sort of ' taken ' away from me.) ...well maybe just another aromantic who is creative and we could critque each other's works and help each other and still have our own rooms...and..oh man that sounds so lovely...Maybe I shouldbe looking for another aromantic, or at leadt romantically challenged person...LOL!!! Now ya'll have me fantasizing!!!

But really, If i like somoene enough, I think I would be williing to work with them, as long as they aren't super clingy; that might work best with an asexual, maybe not if they have a high romance , touchy drive.

Edit:

Spooning or cuddling sounds...unappealing to me. maybe sitting next to each other with our knees touching. I am super meh about hand holding as well. I don't want to walk around with their hand all up in my hand getting sweaty.... I have given a guy a very warm hug before, lingering hug. i can kinda handle that, but it isn't for a very large amount of time...and they aren't continuosly in my space... kissing would be an interesting, curious experience so maybe one day I would try it to feel what it is like..but I don't want to touch my lips to somebody else's. .. Sharing any kind of saliva.land the wet sounds of kissing...doesn't sound fun. Also, rubbing or touching each other..yeahhh no...

I love hugging and poking and leaning on my best friend though..so I can do that stuff..If i felt ..a romantic way towards someone I would be more likely to try and see if it is all that bad.

[Guest]

Holding hands, hugging, nonsexual touching. Not sure if I correctly understand what a queerplatonic relationship is. But if it's a platonic relationship with a strong emotional attachment, then yes.

I would love for someone to differentiate that from a platonic romantic relationship.

An aromantic is someone who experiences no romantic attraction, that's it. Aromantics can desire to be in a romantic relationship, just like asexuals can desire to be in a sexual relationship. Some aromantics don't want relationships, some do.

What really? Oh man, you've got to be kidding me. That seems really counterintuitive.

Agreed. Although I'd use a stronger word than "counterintuitive" if I wasn't afraid of getting a warning. Asexuals don't desire sexual relationships... if they did, they wouldn't be asexual. Some asexuals will compromise with a sexual relationship, but that's a notably different thing than seeking one out for personal fulfillment. If you get personal fulfillment from a romantic relationship and you seek them out, you're not aromantic.

[maven]

An aromantic is someone who experiences no romantic attraction, that's it. Aromantics can desire to be in a romantic relationship, just like asexuals can desire to be in a sexual relationship. Some aromantics don't want relationships, some do.

What really? Oh man, you've got to be kidding me. That seems really counterintuitive.

Agreed. Although I'd use a stronger word than "counterintuitive" if I wasn't afraid of getting a warning. Asexuals don't desire sexual relationships... if they did, they wouldn't be asexual. Some asexuals will compromise with a sexual relationship, but that's a notably different thing than seeking one out for personal fulfillment. If you get personal fulfillment from a romantic relationship and you seek them out, you're not aromantic.

There's a difference between being romantic and liking the idea of romance. Just like there's a difference between being an asexual who's exploring/curious about sex and a sexual. There are some aromantics who want a fairytale romance...even though they know they can't feel the same emotions a romantic would.

[Guest]

An aromantic is someone who experiences no romantic attraction, that's it. Aromantics can desire to be in a romantic relationship, just like asexuals can desire to be in a sexual relationship. Some aromantics don't want relationships, some do.

What really? Oh man, you've got to be kidding me. That seems really counterintuitive.

Agreed. Although I'd use a stronger word than "counterintuitive" if I wasn't afraid of getting a warning. Asexuals don't desire sexual relationships... if they did, they wouldn't be asexual. Some asexuals will compromise with a sexual relationship, but that's a notably different thing than seeking one out for personal fulfillment. If you get personal fulfillment from a romantic relationship and you seek them out, you're not aromantic.

There's a difference between being romantic and liking the idea of romance. Just like there's a difference between being an asexual who's exploring/curious about sex and a sexual. There are some aromantics who want a fairytale romance...even though they know they can't feel the same emotions a romantic would.

Of course... I definitely prefer the idea of romance to the actualities of romance. But that's not what was quoted... the quote was "Aromantics can desire to be in a romantic relationship". I'm not saying one isn't aromantic if one likes watching romantic comedies, but can you really say that it makes sense for an aromantic's preferred relationship to be romantic (all other things considered equal)? A really large part of being a romantic is wanting a romantic relationship. Lots of romantics aren't good at relationships, lots of romantics try and try again but never find the right person, and no one has ever managed to achieve a storybook romance because they don't exist. I get real nervous when people's identity is based on the assumption that other people feel something amazing that they don't feel. There is no such thing as a fairytale romance, so sexuals, asexuals, romantics, and aromantics alike are going to be disappointed. Thinking you are aromantic because you haven't been able to attain whatever your brain tells you is a fairytale romance has more to do with immaturity than romanticism. People grow up and they learn that love is a choice and a relationship is a lot like work (in a good way!). (no, seriously, start googling things like "love is a choice" and see just how many romantics believe that... it's a lot).

I feel the need to remark, again, that romantic identities have literally nothing to do with romance. There is no common feeling or act that unites all romantics except the desire for a romantic relationship. Do you know how many romantics say that "in love" is a made up idea? I've been hearing that since the 70's, and I'm sure people have been saying it for hundreds of years before that. So, if someone can want and seek out romantic relationships because that's what they genuinely desire (as opposed to being curious), then I don't see how that person can be considered aromantic, since that's pretty much the only thing that makes romantic people romantic.

[Guest]

Holding hands, hugging, nonsexual touching. Not sure if I correctly understand what a queerplatonic relationship is. But if it's a platonic relationship with a strong emotional attachment, then yes.

I would love for someone to differentiate that from a platonic romantic relationship.

IMO, strong emotional attachment hasn't much to do with romance by itself. It's not romantic without a desperate needyness/emptiness, a feeling of "this is the only one, ever, who can help me, so if I mess this up, I'm DOOMED!", using the other as a tool to sort out my problems instead of taking own responsibility for them, and an insistance on the other to be what I want them to be instead of accepting them how they are. In short, and in my experience, romance means (ab)using people as a means to an end to remedy severe issues of self-worth.

Agreed. Although I'd use a stronger word than "counterintuitive" if I wasn't afraid of getting a warning. Asexuals don't desire sexual relationships... if they did, they wouldn't be asexual. Some asexuals will compromise with a sexual relationship, but that's a notably different thing than seeking one out for personal fulfillment. If you get personal fulfillment from a romantic relationship and you seek them out, you're not aromantic.

[...]

Of course... I definitely prefer the idea of romance to the actualities of romance. But that's not what was quoted... the quote was "Aromantics can desire to be in a romantic relationship". I'm not saying one isn't aromantic if one likes watching romantic comedies, but can you really say that it makes sense for an aromantic's preferred relationship to be romantic (all other things considered equal)? A really large part of being a romantic is wanting a romantic relationship. Lots of romantics aren't good at relationships, lots of romantics try and try again but never find the right person, and no one has ever managed to achieve a storybook romance because they don't exist. I get real nervous when people's identity is based on the assumption that other people feel something amazing that they don't feel. There is no such thing as a fairytale romance, so sexuals, asexuals, romantics, and aromantics alike are going to be disappointed. Thinking you are aromantic because you haven't been able to attain whatever your brain tells you is a fairytale romance has more to do with immaturity than romanticism. People grow up and they learn that love is a choice and a relationship is a lot like work (in a good way!). (no, seriously, start googling things like "love is a choice" and see just how many romantics believe that... it's a lot).

I feel the need to remark, again, that romantic identities have literally nothing to do with romance. There is no common feeling or act that unites all romantics except the desire for a romantic relationship. Do you know how many romantics say that "in love" is a made up idea? I've been hearing that since the 70's, and I'm sure people have been saying it for hundreds of years before that. So, if someone can want and seek out romantic relationships because that's what they genuinely desire (as opposed to being curious), then I don't see how that person can be considered aromantic, since that's pretty much the only thing that makes romantic people romantic.

I guess the question is what exactly "desire" means. There's tremendous pressure in society to have a romantic 'ship, I suppose that many aros could want one just to fit in because everyone tells you "have one! HAVE ONE!! you're incomplete if you don't HAVE! ONE!". Even without any attraction felt, just getting rid of that pressure could easily be seen as personally fulfilling.

Also, I don't want a romantic 'ship. Ever. I'm still romantic - not aro, not grey, full on romantic - because while I am repulsed by it, I most certainly do feel romantic attraction and have to struggle with them, keeping them down, not acting on them (I guess one could call it "romantic celibacy out of ethical conviction"?); thankfully it's no longer as much of a problem as it was before going on meds, which massively reduced the amount of attraction I felt (to the point of me being able to keep a partnership free form romance for four years and running, with the exception of it shortly rearing its ugly head during our one serious crisis last year).

So, I really don't think "wanting" a romantic ship is a good indicator to whether or not someone is romantic or not. I can relate to the confusion regarding that very same discussion re: sexuality¹, but in the fields of romance, the difference between "romantic attraction" and "desire for a romantic 'ship" is crystal clear to me - I most certainly do feel attraction, I most certainly don't want such a 'ship in my life. That makes me (a repulsed and/or "celibate") romantic, even if I "look" like an aro in practice on the behavioral level.

¹ To wit, the one explanation here on AVEN that made me understand what "sexual attraction" means (the "itch and scratch metaphor") basically boils down to "sexual attraction == desire for partnered sex".

[Guest]

It all depends on how you use the word desire and want (which you already said :) ). I use desire rather than want because it's my attempt to clarify and internal desire rather than "wanting" for external reasons, like pressure from family or curiosity. I don't think you and I disagree (we'll see, I guess!), but are just using the terms a little differently. To be more specific, I think that if you desire a romantic relationship because romantic relationships fulfill you in a way that non-romantic relationships cannot, you are romantic. I don't care if you think you don't love as intensely as other people or whatever... everyone is different, everyone expresses love and affection differently, and lots of people are relatively unemotional... that doesn't make them (I'd be one of "them") aromantic.

Not all romantic people feel that clingy needy jealousy thing, though. Lots of people are romantic but have never found "the one". Poly people don't feel clingy or needy or jealous or possessive, but that doesn't make poly people aromantic. I personally have zero sexual jealousy, a moderate level of emotional jealousy, and I have never in my life felt "this is the only one, ever, who can help me, so if I mess this up, I'm DOOMED!". I'm cynical, pessimistic, introverted, and somewhat logical, so thinking that any one person is the end-all, be-all just doesn't jive with my personality. I actually took some flack on AVEN about... maybe 5 months ago... because I said that if my partner and I split up, it will most likely be because I met someone who I fell for who is sexual. I was told that if I loved my partner I would be unable to conceive of such things... my response was: you're confusing personality traits with romantic identities.

[Guest]

It all depends on how you use the word desire and want (which you already said :) ). I use desire rather than want because it's my attempt to clarify and internal desire rather than "wanting" for external reasons, like pressure from family or curiosity. I don't think you and I disagree (we'll see, I guess!), but are just using the terms a little differently. To be more specific, I think that if you desire a romantic relationship because romantic relationships fulfill you in a way that non-romantic relationships cannot, you are romantic. I don't care if you think you don't love as intensely as other people or whatever... everyone is different, everyone expresses love and affection differently, and lots of people are relatively unemotional... that doesn't make them (I'd be one of "them") aromantic.

Ah ok, so you'd say the person from my example who actively and pointedly seeks out a romantic 'ship because they give in to society's pressure would want a rom-ship, but not desire one? With that definition, yep, I agree with you then - it's hard to imagine anyone desiring a rom-ship if they are aro. :)

Not all romantic people feel that clingy needy jealousy thing, though. Lots of people are romantic but have never found "the one". Poly people don't feel clingy or needy or jealous or possessive, but that doesn't make poly people aromantic. I personally have zero sexual jealousy, a moderate level of emotional jealousy, and I have never in my life felt "this is the only one, ever, who can help me, so if I mess this up, I'm DOOMED!". I'm cynical, pessimistic, introverted, and somewhat logical, so thinking that any one person is the end-all, be-all just doesn't jive with my personality.

I like how we're both using subjectivity markers here. :D If people don't experience romance as I do, then more power to them... ;)

I actually took some flack on AVEN about... maybe 5 months ago... because I said that if my partner and I split up, it will most likely be because I met someone who I fell for who is sexual. I was told that if I loved my partner I would be unable to conceive of such things... my response was: you're confusing personality traits with romantic identities.

Certainly no flak coming from my side. I don't understand the desire for sex, but I do understand that if one's needs/desires constantly aren't met, a point can, and often will, be reached where love simply will not be enough to go on with a 'ship, no matter how strong that love is. Love, to me, is a necessary component of a 'ship, but not a sufficient one. There's nothing wrong with that, and I certainly don't see it as a sign of you not "really" loving your partner, or "not loving them enough".

[maven]

It all depends on how you use the word desire and want (which you already said :) ). I use desire rather than want because it's my attempt to clarify and internal desire rather than "wanting" for external reasons, like pressure from family or curiosity. I don't think you and I disagree (we'll see, I guess!), but are just using the terms a little differently. To be more specific, I think that if you desire a romantic relationship because romantic relationships fulfill you in a way that non-romantic relationships cannot, you are romantic. I don't care if you think you don't love as intensely as other people or whatever... everyone is different, everyone expresses love and affection differently, and lots of people are relatively unemotional... that doesn't make them (I'd be one of "them") aromantic.

I would agree with this as well. With the original statement, when they said "desire" I was assuming it wasn't due to feeling romantic attraction but for other reasons. External ones like Mysticus mentioned are a good example, and there is also the idea that being in a romantic relationship makes you normal (which is possibly an external pressure as well, but it's internalized as well). When I said "fairytale romance" I meant it only as an example of people idealizing romance and wanting it because it sounds so nice, rather than because they wanted to be in a romantic relationship with someone else.

[Ase of Spades]

I'm demiromantic with a lovely QP and no romantic interests. Can I vote in the poll? :)

[Notte stellata]

IMO, strong emotional attachment hasn't much to do with romance by itself. It's not romantic without a desperate needyness/emptiness, a feeling of "this is the only one, ever, who can help me, so if I mess this up, I'm DOOMED!", using the other as a tool to sort out my problems instead of taking own responsibility for them, and an insistance on the other to be what I want them to be instead of accepting them how they are. In short, and in my experience, romance means (ab)using people as a means to an end to remedy severe issues of self-worth.

I'm very curious about your "romantic celibacy". ;) I think many people do romance in the needy and possessive way because they don't realize it's unhealthy, and even think this is what "true love" is supposed to be. But if you already realized it's unhealthy and you don't want this kind of romance, it's certainly possible to avoid this pattern when you feel romantic attraction to someone, no? I hope this isn't too personal to ask. :P Anyway, using romantic celibacy to avoid unhealthy romance seems kind of harsh to me...Of course, if it works for you, then great.

I actually took some flack on AVEN about... maybe 5 months ago... because I said that if my partner and I split up, it will most likely be because I met someone who I fell for who is sexual. I was told that if I loved my partner I would be unable to conceive of such things... my response was: you're confusing personality traits with romantic identities.

Certainly no flak coming from my side. I don't understand the desire for sex, but I do understand that if one's needs/desires constantly aren't met, a point can, and often will, be reached where love simply will not be enough to go on with a 'ship, no matter how strong that love is. Love, to me, is a necessary component of a 'ship, but not a sufficient one. There's nothing wrong with that, and I certainly don't see it as a sign of you not "really" loving your partner, or "not loving them enough".

Totally agreed.

[Guest]

I'm very curious about your "romantic celibacy". ;) I think many people do romance in the needy and possessive way because they don't realize it's unhealthy, and even think this is what "true love" is supposed to be. But if you already realized it's unhealthy and you don't want this kind of romance, it's certainly possible to avoid this pattern when you feel romantic attraction to someone, no? I hope this isn't too personal to ask. :P Anyway, using romantic celibacy to avoid unhealthy romance seems kind of harsh to me...Of course, if it works for you, then great.

Mh, no... what I described *is* romance for me. If I strip all the unhealthy aspects away, I don't see much anything left there; and I certainly don't trust myself to go down the road of resisting the pull of the unhealthy stuff while looking for some morsel of a worthwhile aspect that may or may not be hidden in it. I don't think I've ever felt rom attraction that wasn't tinged with either "oh mighty queen, please save me from my pain" or "poor little baby, let me take care of you". Neither is any kind of healthy place to start a 'ship based on equality and respect, IMO.

Basically, I see romance as a high-stakes, low-payout game. I have a lot to lose, but nothing substantial to gain; and I have nothing substantial to offer to a romantic partner except for a lot of unneccessary trouble and heartache. (In contrast, I've found myself to be able to give quite a lot of love, respect, and support in non-romantic contexts - my partner has often told me so, sometimes to my surprise. ) Sticking to a queerplatonic/"semiplatonic" model in which partnership equals intense friendship plus (in my case, non-sexual, or at most one-sided sexual) benefits works fine for me, so I see no need for changing that; being able to chuck out romance once my meds dampened attraction for me was one of the biggest reliefs I had when going on them. Seeing as all romance ever did for me on the positive side can be summed up as "painful lessons I had to learn, but wished I could've learned easier", romantic celibacy really isn't a loss for me - except a loss of unneccessary baggage. ;)

[________]

_

[Notte stellata]

Mh, no... what I described *is* romance for me. If I strip all the unhealthy aspects away, I don't see much anything left there; and I certainly don't trust myself to go down the road of resisting the pull of the unhealthy stuff while looking for some morsel of a worthwhile aspect that may or may not be hidden in it. I don't think I've ever felt rom attraction that wasn't tinged with either "oh mighty queen, please save me from my pain" or "poor little baby, let me take care of you". Neither is any kind of healthy place to start a 'ship based on equality and respect, IMO.

Basically, I see romance as a high-stakes, low-payout game. I have a lot to lose, but nothing substantial to gain; and I have nothing substantial to offer to a romantic partner except for a lot of unneccessary trouble and heartache. (In contrast, I've found myself to be able to give quite a lot of love, respect, and support in non-romantic contexts - my partner has often told me so, sometimes to my surprise. ) Sticking to a queerplatonic/"semiplatonic" model in which partnership equals intense friendship plus (in my case, non-sexual, or at most one-sided sexual) benefits works fine for me, so I see no need for changing that; being able to chuck out romance once my meds dampened attraction for me was one of the biggest reliefs I had when going on them. Seeing as all romance ever did for me on the positive side can be summed up as "painful lessons I had to learn, but wished I could've learned easier", romantic celibacy really isn't a loss for me - except a loss of unneccessary baggage. ;)

Ahh, I see. For me, I may be a little obsessed or infatuated in the initial rom attraction stage, but not to the extent of "oh mighty queen (or king in my case), please save me from my pain" or "poor little baby, let me take care of you". :D I'm a pretty rational romantic, kind of like Skullery Maid. Especially now that I've switched to the poly ideology, I won't see anyone as my only hope in life. And once the initial passion fades away, I guess what's left is pretty similar to what you described as an intense friendship plus the benefits of physical intimacy. :)

[Guest]

Ahh, I see. For me, I may be a little obsessed or infatuated in the initial rom attraction stage, but not to the extent of "oh mighty queen (or king in my case), please save me from my pain" or "poor little baby, let me take care of you". :D I'm a pretty rational romantic, kind of like Skullery Maid. Especially now that I've switched to the poly ideology, I won't see anyone as my only hope in life. And once the initial passion fades away, I guess what's left is pretty similar to what you described as an intense friendship plus the benefits of physical intimacy. :)

Hehe, more power to you then! So from my "irrational romantic" PoV (not snarking - I know I lose touch with rationality if I give in to it :redface: ), you seem not all that far away from romance celibate yourself... :lol:

[Notte stellata]

Ahh, I see. For me, I may be a little obsessed or infatuated in the initial rom attraction stage, but not to the extent of "oh mighty queen (or king in my case), please save me from my pain" or "poor little baby, let me take care of you". :D I'm a pretty rational romantic, kind of like Skullery Maid. Especially now that I've switched to the poly ideology, I won't see anyone as my only hope in life. And once the initial passion fades away, I guess what's left is pretty similar to what you described as an intense friendship plus the benefits of physical intimacy. :)

Hehe, more power to you then! So from my "irrational romantic" PoV (not snarking - I know I lose touch with rationality if I give in to it :redface: ), you seem not all that far away from romance celibate yourself... :lol:

LOL, I guess you can say that (maybe celibate, but not abstaining, if you distinguish the two). I think we start relationships differently, but the final states are pretty much the same. :)

[Guest]

Ahh, I see. For me, I may be a little obsessed or infatuated in the initial rom attraction stage, but not to the extent of "oh mighty queen (or king in my case), please save me from my pain" or "poor little baby, let me take care of you". :D I'm a pretty rational romantic, kind of like Skullery Maid. Especially now that I've switched to the poly ideology, I won't see anyone as my only hope in life. And once the initial passion fades away, I guess what's left is pretty similar to what you described as an intense friendship plus the benefits of physical intimacy. :)

Hehe, more power to you then! So from my "irrational romantic" PoV (not snarking - I know I lose touch with rationality if I give in to it :redface: ), you seem not all that far away from romance celibate yourself... :lol:

It's surprising to see someone with so much insight into themselves.

Here's where my romantic nature is going to call out... I really hope you find someone that sparks romantic love in you but doesn't ignite the negative aspects!! I'm romantically inclined enough to convince myself that it is absolutely possible.