Demishan Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 I'm aromantic and I've never been in love. I don't know if this is part of aromanticism or because I'm too young...so I thought I'd get more of an opinion. Do you think someone who doesn't 'do' relationships, only interested in physical intimacy and will at most have a queerplatonic relationship can experience love? Link to post Share on other sites
Almagest Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Aromantic just means lack of romantic attraction. It has nothing to do with love or the ability to love. You don't need to be attracted to someone to love them. Link to post Share on other sites
TheKindredSoul Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Aromantic just means lack of romantic attraction. It has nothing to do with love or the ability to love. You don't need to be attracted to someone to love them. What this person said. I am an aromantic myself by the way. Link to post Share on other sites
Janus the Fox Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Love is probably more than a mental state than attractions. Love comes in many forms. Link to post Share on other sites
Shortass Lady Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 I was wondering this too. I think the question should be - can aromantics be IN love? Love comes in many forms. I have no doubt that aromantics can love their friends, family, hobbies, pets, places etc etc the same as other people, but, and please any aromantics correct me if I'm wrong, but being IN LOVE with someone means that you are experiencing (very strong) romantic attraction towards them? Link to post Share on other sites
Almagest Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 I was wondering this too. I think the question should be - can aromantics be IN love? Love comes in many forms. I have no doubt that aromantics can love their friends, family, hobbies, pets, places etc etc the same as other people, but, and please any aromantics correct me if I'm wrong, but being IN LOVE with someone means that you are experiencing (very strong) romantic attraction towards them? I wouldn't know--I've never been in love. But I think that stems from my psychopathy rather than my aromanticism. I've always defined "in love" as being hopelessly head over heels for someone. I don't think attraction is necessary for that to happen. But again, I wouldn't really know. Link to post Share on other sites
Pawn Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 All this raises another question: What is love? (No pun intended) Really, considering sexuality is also a form of love, as it involves a certain passion towards something/someone, we can't really say that romanticism gets all of it. And that is, of course, without mentioning aesthetic love... But I think we may just stick to the first two. Maybe I'd rather do another topic, since this is a little off-topic... But there's few to be discussed on the matter, I think. As for your question, yes! aromantics can experience love, that be romantic or sexual, or whatsoever. Nothing keeps them from it, after all. Link to post Share on other sites
runester Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 I am in agreement with the idea that an aromantic will not experience being 'in' love; meaning having a deep emotional/romantic tie to another person. However, I do feel 'love' for my platonic friends. It is the clear-headed, enjoyable feeling of caring deeply for another human being, while being devoid of 'romance'. I believe that is my answer to 'what love is'. Link to post Share on other sites
Kotoko Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 There has already been a lot of debate about aromantics and being able to form romantic relationships. There are some who say it's very possible. For me, I can't quite wrap my head around it, being quite aromantic and totally uninterested in romantic relationships. There is also a lot of questions about what the difference between "strong platonic love" and "romantic love" - where is the line drawn? I have a feeling that it's different for everybody and that it's not so much of a "line" but more of a "gradient", as with a lot of things. Confusing, right? xD However, as the others have said already, it doesn't mean aromantics don't love completely. There are many forms of love. I love my family and friends very much in a way any other person might. It's just that I will not love anyone romantically. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest member25959 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 It depends on what you define as love. I mean, you could say that I ''love'' white chocolate, or that I ''love'' my family. Link to post Share on other sites
alto Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 I am in agreement with the idea that an aromantic will not experience being 'in' love; meaning having a deep emotional/romantic tie to another person. Aromantics will never experience a romantic tie to another person; i'm pretty sure they can experience a deep emotional tie though. Otherwise, how could Queerplatonic relationships happen? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 I am emotionally attached to my family and to a lesser extent to my friends. I am, for lack of a better word, passionate about music, art, language, and knowlege. I admire and respect certain people who are neither friend nor family l (some celebrities and others people I've met but do not know well) very much. Edit: I am unsure of how you define love, I have never had any kind of romantic attraction and only one squish that I can think of. Link to post Share on other sites
eamonn Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Okay, so this has cropped up before, and it basically comes down to what is meant by "romantic attraction" and what is "love". Firstly, let's tackle love. Obviously, it's used to mean many kinds of love - love for one's family, love for chocolate, love of football, and romantic love - the love of "falling in love". Romantic attraction is described as the desire to be in a romantic relationship with someone, which is super vague. Personally, I have always consider romantic attraction to refer to love (of the falling-in kind), and thus aromantics for me are those who can't experience this kind of love. I have no idea what romantic attraction can mean if not love (even if that love is yet young). Of course, this makes me a little confused, given that you call yourself aromantic and yet ask whether or not aromantics can fall in love. How do you define aromantic, and love? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Personally, I have always consider romantic attraction to refer to love (of the falling-in kind), and thus aromantics for me are those who can't experience this kind of love. I have no idea what romantic attraction can mean if not love (even if that love is yet young). Of course, this makes me a little confused, given that you call yourself aromantic and yet ask whether or not aromantics can fall in love. How do you define aromantic, and love? Seconded. Link to post Share on other sites
Vampyremage Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Personally, I have always consider romantic attraction to refer to love (of the falling-in kind), and thus aromantics for me are those who can't experience this kind of love. I have no idea what romantic attraction can mean if not love (even if that love is yet young). Of course, this makes me a little confused, given that you call yourself aromantic and yet ask whether or not aromantics can fall in love. How do you define aromantic, and love? Seconded. Thirded. Link to post Share on other sites
runester Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 I am in agreement with the idea that an aromantic will not experience being 'in' love; meaning having a deep emotional/romantic tie to another person. Aromantics will never experience a romantic tie to another person; i'm pretty sure they can experience a deep emotional tie though. Otherwise, how could Queerplatonic relationships happen? 'Queerplatonic' is a term I was not familiar with until most recently, through another Q&A topic; sorry, if you are involved in such a relationship. I most certainly would not demean another's emotional status. There are a plethora of various labels, concerning asexuals - and it is sometimes difficult to keep abreast of them all. Also, I am over 60 years of age, and the word 'queer', rather grates on my sensibilities a bit; which is wrong to let happen, I know! Perhaps if I re-word my posting to read: "having a deep romantic tie", leaving out the emotional context, it would be 'a fix'. :) Link to post Share on other sites
CDSM Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 There are more forms of love than romantic love. The word "romance" is also hopelessly vague, so that leads to confusion as well (some people would tell you that romantic relationship involve sex or at least the expectation of eventual sex). I, for one, have hard time distinguishing between different types of love, so I'm a bit clueless in these situations. Link to post Share on other sites
Cakey Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 I couldn't, I just do not experience those lovey-dovey chemicals, that for up to two years, have mis-trained the brain of some of those people I have dated. I know it sounds awfully cynical and uncharitable, but that is my personal experience and applicable to me only. :) Link to post Share on other sites
Dr_Holmes Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Aromantic just means lack of romantic attraction. It has nothing to do with love or the ability to love. You don't need to be attracted to someone to love them. Thankyou for this!! It has totally made me re-evaluate things in my head and generally been a good thought provoker so thankyou :) I would agree with everybody that of course in terms of family and platonic love or love of a thing (like white chocolate ^_^ ) then it seems fairly straight forward that romantic attraction is not involved in that sense. With romantic love though... that's more tricky I myself am aromantic but also completely in love with someone (so I never seem to stop thinking about these questions... :P) and after much internal conflict I consider my girlfriend to be an exception to my aromanticism because i am very romantically attracted to her which for me goes against the premise of aromanticism which is of not experiencing romantic attraction. I'm not entirely sure about the link between love and romantic attraction though, as there are people who are romantically attracted to people but don't necessarily love them/aren't in love with them, but can one be in love with someone without being romantically attracted to them? I don't know... hard to say... Perhaps not necessarily primary but either primary or secondary romantic attraction has to be involved? Je ne sais pas Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.