A/romanticism and the idea of "the one" (rant)

[Guest]

@Anthracite_Impreza... Texting a lot and smiling doesn't seem like much... smiling just because you see their name, blushing, that stuff would be more romantic. 

@SpeedinThroughSpace... There's an age difference here, though. When I was a teenager and in college, my friendships were much different, much closer. That changes as you age for almost everyone, I think. 

[SpeedinThroughSpace]

1 hour ago, Snow Cone said:

The degree a person goes to can make me uncomfortable regardless of the level of feelings they have for me, but it's definitely going to feel weirder from people who feel romantically. Their hope for reciprocation - or worse, some return on investment by winning me over - is loaded with higher expectations. If someone who's in love with me says they are only doing a rather large favour or gesture for me out of friendship, it's entirely reasonable for me to still be more uncomfortable with it than I would be if a friend or family member did it.

Granted, I can be a very difficult person to do nice things for, which isn't aromanticism itself, but happens to fit in well with my lack of need for a partner or companion.

So it's the expectations attached to everything, not the gestures themselves that turn you off? That would be something I relate to. The same gestures I appreciate and am used to from friends would be uncomfortable from someone who holds an (unrequited) romantic interest in me, too. It would just serve to underline this gap of one-sided interest and remind me that this other person wants something I can't give them... Which would make me feel bad about hurting their feelings, among other things.

Maybe it's not only aromantism, but also a lone wolf type of personality, this not wanting people to get too close? Are they related, you think?

 

1 hour ago, Hadley167 said:

I think it varies between different people. I've occasionally had friends who expected those kinds of gestures from me, but IMO, they're still far from romantic in nature. The bigger surprise was realizing that I was actually expecting romantic gestures from friends...and then becoming really upset when they didn't deliver, or when I was cast aside for "real" romantic relationships. It's actually what led me to asexuality. I always seemed to place friends (the really close ones anyway) on this slightly higher than "just friends" tier. Anyone looking at it from outside would certainly not say it's romantic, but it's not just friends either.

And from all this I've learned two things:

1. I will always be disappointed because friends are going to fail to deliver these things I'm expecting.

2. Most people aren't actually expecting this kind of dynamic in a friendship. This has been really important for me to learn and understand, because it's taught me that I need to look to romantic relationships to find what I'm looking for, and I need to figure out how to make that stuff work. Most friends will always fall short of meeting my needs in this realm simply because that's not how most people operate.

So really, I seem to occupy this weird space between friendship and romance, but I understand that in order to get what I need, I have to push myself up into romance. 

I might be somewhat like you there... I want more closeness in my friendships than is considered normal (and people who want the same depth of friendship as I do have proven hard to find, but they do exist), but I don't really want a romantic relationship. In between sounds right, sort of.

[SpeedinThroughSpace]

@Skullery Maid, I'm 26. Not exactly a teenager anymore. ;-) The friendship I mentioned has survived our finishing school, going off to each study individually apart from each other, and working very different jobs by now. Maybe we're doing good. Perhaps it's a challenge? :-)

I think all relationships change with age. PEOPLE change with age. You have different needs in different phases of your life. Someone who has a lot of casual relationships in college might seek long-term commitment in their thirties. You're not the same person now you were ten years ago. Nobody is. Life's a journey. It would be boring and pointless if it didn't change you.

[Guest]

Wasn't the whole point of what I said that people change with age? I'm just confused about why I was just educated on something I've already said. 

Anyway, if you and your friend refuse to date or engage in any other romantic or primary relationship, if you would feel betrayed if he got married and had kids with some girl, if you intend to eventually live together, buy property, or otherwise live your lives exclusively together, I call that romantic. That's the thing with brothers and bro-like friends... they don't begrudge their bros a romantic partner, immediate family, etc. We should be happy for our friends when they enter these relationships... we should want to help them meet people, etc. If you feel committed, monogamous, entitled to position of primacy, I call that romantic. That's not necessary for the definition of romantic, but it is sufficient. IMO. 

[Sage Raven Domino]

20 minutes ago, Skullery Maid said:

If you feel committed, monogamous, entitled to position of primacy, I call that romantic. That's not necessary for the definition of romantic, but it is sufficient. IMO. 

Where do you draw the line between polyamorous love and friendship then?

[Sage Raven Domino]

I'd rather introduce a whole new dimension - split love into commitment and initial infatuation.

Infatuation with someone with desire to commit to them -> romantic attraction

Infatuation with someone with no desire to commit to them -> (a particular case of) lithromantic attraction

(Irrational) desire to commit to someone* without being infatuated with them -> companionate / quasiplatonic / queerplatonic attraction

Anyone who doesn't experience any of the above (i.e. is never infatuated and never desires a committal relationship) -> totally aromantic.

* I can feel the difference between it and 'physical' infatuation because I get those painful lith infatuations all the time, exclusively with girls, which fortunately last for about a week each , and they noticeably throw my hormonal balance off. Whereas when I painfully (with tons of far-fetched fantasies) wanted to change my life by moving to a male friend's country/town to hang out more with him and drink more from the well of his wisdom, I surely wasn't feeling that hormonal chemistry.

Edit: actually, even this classification is too simplified, as I've lumped intimacy with commitment.

There's a well-known triangular theory of love that splits love into 3 components: passion, intimacy and commitment. People 1) can be capable or not of being passionate for someone (other than themself), 2) capable or not of craving intimacy with someone, 3) capable or not of desiring irrationally to commit to someone. So there are 8 possible romantic orientations depending on how the person answers these 3 questions. Three 'no' answers are a sign of 'total' aromanticism.

A relationship that is intimate and committal but not passionate is a QPR. Yes, I believe that an initially romantic marriage between romantic people can eventually degenerate into a QPR.

Sorry for my love for conceptual symmetry 

[SpeedinThroughSpace]

5 hours ago, Skullery Maid said:

Wasn't the whole point of what I said that people change with age? I'm just confused about why I was just educated on something I've already said. 

Anyway, if you and your friend refuse to date or engage in any other romantic or primary relationship, if you would feel betrayed if he got married and had kids with some girl, if you intend to eventually live together, buy property, or otherwise live your lives exclusively together, I call that romantic. That's the thing with brothers and bro-like friends... they don't begrudge their bros a romantic partner, immediate family, etc. We should be happy for our friends when they enter these relationships... we should want to help them meet people, etc. If you feel committed, monogamous, entitled to position of primacy, I call that romantic. That's not necessary for the definition of romantic, but it is sufficient. IMO. 

I thought you were educating me; I was merely trying to make the point that I'm well aware of what you said. We don't seem to understand each other well... I'm sorry, no offence was meant. Peace?

Also, this is the most comprehensive explanation of romance vs friendship I ever came across. Thank you. :-)

[in.visible]

On 22/11/2016 at 3:48 PM, SkyWorld said:

 

The thing is for me is that I wouldn't exactly say that I don't want a relationship. The best way for me to describe it is that I don't care for a relationship. I don't look for someone and I'm not hoping that it would happen, however I am open to the possibility and I might be willing to give it a shot if it ever came up.

For me personally, this is the best post, it's exactly how I feel.

Like, a committed relationship would be nice, but probably not the romantic kind, if that makes any sense. Maybe I'm also only "searching" (quotation marks because I'm not actively searching) for a close friendship/QPR, Idk. I kinda gave up trying to find a label and fit to it. 

[SkyWorld]

1 hour ago, mania said:

... a close friendship/QPR, Idk. I kinda gave up trying to find a label and fit to it. 

I call it a companionship. I personally think it describes it best.

[Atilan]

On 22/11/2016 at 3:48 PM, SkyWorld said:

The thing is for me is that I wouldn't exactly say that I don't want a relationship. The best way for me to describe it is that I don't care for a relationship. I don't look for someone and I'm not hoping that it would happen, however I am open to the possibility and I might be willing to give it a shot if it ever came up.

that's how I thought until recently when actually I don't ever want a relationship, it's not something for me, but I always felt pressured by everyone around me to pretend to be open to the idea. And I'm so good at pretending i even convinced myself, undoing that damage is taking time ...

[Guest]

On 11/24/2016 at 8:56 PM, DiamondAce said:

Where do you draw the line between polyamorous love and friendship then?

This question is why I put in my post that commitment and possessiveness is sufficient, BUT NOT NECESSARY, for romantic affection.

[binary suns]

why are we trying to force emotionally-based concepts that are inherently subjective into our individual needs and self-understandings?

 

for one person a life relationship that is committed is inherently romantic

for another person, they commit to every relationship to that level, work peers, family, friend. 

for a third they're in a relationship that for all activities to an outsider appears romantic. and yet if life randomly changed for some reason and that relationship ended, they'd continue on merrily on their own, missing their good friend so so dearly.

 

 

 

On the one hand I agree that there is a level of conflict when considering aromantic partnering compared to aromantic people who find the idea of partnership unappealing. But I've seen enough close bonds not only in film and fiction media but also in real life, where two people are attached at the hip, so close they are basically partners, commited. Yet they are definitely not romantic, I don't feel comfortable sharing any of the examples from real-life, tho, I apologize. 

When it settles out, yes, it is the case that "aromantic" does not mean "uninterested in partnering up", as awkward as that makes it for us as a community, there are aromantic people who don't like the idea of a partner in any way, and aromantic people who do find partnership to be desired.  and many preferences in between or otherwise. 

 

[binary suns]

3 hours ago, Skullery Maid said:

This question is why I put in my post that commitment and possessiveness is sufficient, BUT NOT NECESSARY, for romantic affection.

then a parent is romantic with their children, and an owner romantic with their pets? sorry to make this parallel, but no, commitment and possessiveness towards other beings is not 100% congruent with a minimal checklist of romantic. 

 

for sure there are comparisons between a romantic relationship and other commited relationships, but when is a thing that is called a name 100% in every way exclusively described by a checklist of qualities?

 

it is a venn diagram. there are relationships that are committed, and there are relationships that are romantic. sometimes they overlap. and sometimes they don't.

 

 

[Snao Cone]

45 minutes ago, Every Red Heart Shines said:

 

When it settles out, yes, it is the case that "aromantic" does not mean "uninterested in partnering up", as awkward as that makes it for us as a community, there are aromantic people who don't like the idea of a partner in any way, and aromantic people who do find partnership to be desired.  and many preferences in between or otherwise. 

 

Should we consider aromantic people as JUST AS LIKELY to desire a committed partnership as romantic people? Or do you think it's only, like, what, 90% as likely? Maybe 95% if they're young and haven't been jaded yet?

Do you think that a personal disposition against feelings of non-familial love has absolutely zero zilch nada to do with a personal disposition to remain without a partner?

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, Every Red Heart Shines said:

then a parent is romantic with their children, and an owner romantic with their pets? sorry to make this parallel, but no, commitment and possessiveness towards other beings is not 100% congruent with a minimal checklist of romantic. 

 

for sure there are comparisons between a romantic relationship and other commited relationships, but when is a thing that is called a name 100% in every way exclusively described by a checklist of qualities?

 

it is a venn diagram. there are relationships that are committed, and there are relationships that are romantic. sometimes they overlap. and sometimes they don't.

I disagree. And I think your counterexamples of pets and children are poor and not at all analogous because I can't fathom what commitment could possibly mean in those contexts. My mom doesn't feel jealous of my romantic relationships and doesn't think I should refrain from them because I have a mom. And while my dog is my possession (very literally and legally), I don't want someone to steal my dog, but I really don't mind when she plays with other people. I prefer it, actually... makes it easier on me when people find it super fun to throw her ball a trillion times.

[binary suns]

38 minutes ago, Snow Cone said:

Should we consider aromantic people as JUST AS LIKELY to desire a committed partnership as romantic people? Or do you think it's only, like, what, 90% as likely? Maybe 95% if they're young and haven't been jaded yet?

Do you think that a personal disposition against feelings of non-familial love has absolutely zero zilch nada to do with a personal disposition to remain without a partner?

honestly it's not so much a dichotomy. There are 5 common expressions I guys, 5 tropes lol. 

the "singles" who are people who say they want to live life on their own, who dislike the idea of partnering up. Often they talk about being happy with the friendships/family/pets they have, that those bonds are enough, or talk about "I know I'm gonna be a cat lady when I get older lol"

the "besties" who, when they talk about a "QPR" or similar discussions, it's clear they mean a friendship, a next-level friendship if you will, something like JD and Turk. they might talk about housing scenarios with their close friends even, but if they do it isn't a "partnership" they're describing so much as just cohabitation with great buddies. like JD and Turk did xD 

the "open to it" type, people who talk about how happy they are on their own but usually say something along the line of "maybe the idea of a partnership might be nice, but I'm happy as I am now so I'll probably just keep being single" 

the "in a partnership now" type who don't usually make a strong oppinion about what they "want" but instead talk postively about their platonic partner, and might defend its aromantic nature if they felt it was being dismissed as romantic.

and lastly, the "companionate" type, who either openly want a QPP or who talk about aromantic partnership with an expectation on some level that it'll happen for them.

 

I would say that the "besties" are most common, followed closely by the "singles" and the "open to it" types, and then the "in a partnership now" type and "companionate" type are the least common of the five tropes 

note that overlap between the tropes is also common, so while I list out these tropes for the sake of examplifying the variance, in what I am commenting on observing, it is not so clearly seperated out into tropes, the lines between the tropes are often crossed... I guess, I am more so commenting on the "trope of a post" rather than the "trope of the person"

[binary suns]

34 minutes ago, Skullery Maid said:

I disagree. And I think your counterexamples of pets and children are poor and not at all analogous because I can't fathom what commitment could possibly mean in those contexts. My mom doesn't feel jealous of my romantic relationships and doesn't think I should refrain from them because I have a mom. And while my dog is my possession (very literally and legally), I don't want someone to steal my dog, but I really don't mind when she plays with other people. I prefer it, actually... makes it easier on me when people find it super fun to throw her ball a trillion times.

but, how does disagreeing make your personal experience with romance and commitment and relationships to be true of all people? 

 

 

[Homer]

The more I read, the less I understand... I'm soooo close to giving up on understanding this romance thing at all and for good 

[binary suns]

It's a strong western habit to discard the validity of emotion for the sake of reason and "understanding" 

[Snao Cone]

1 hour ago, Every Red Heart Shines said:

honestly it's not so much a dichotomy. There are 5 common expressions I guys, 5 tropes lol. 

the "singles" who are people who say they want to live life on their own, who dislike the idea of partnering up. Often they talk about being happy with the friendships/family/pets they have, that those bonds are enough, or talk about "I know I'm gonna be a cat lady when I get older lol"

the "besties" who, when they talk about a "QPR" or similar discussions, it's clear they mean a friendship, a next-level friendship if you will, something like JD and Turk. they might talk about housing scenarios with their close friends even, but if they do it isn't a "partnership" they're describing so much as just cohabitation with great buddies. like JD and Turk did xD 

the "open to it" type, people who talk about how happy they are on their own but usually say something along the line of "maybe the idea of a partnership might be nice, but I'm happy as I am now so I'll probably just keep being single" 

the "in a partnership now" type who don't usually make a strong oppinion about what they "want" but instead talk postively about their platonic partner, and might defend its aromantic nature if they felt it was being dismissed as romantic.

and lastly, the "companionate" type, who either openly want a QPP or who talk about aromantic partnership with an expectation on some level that it'll happen for them.

 

I would say that the "besties" are most common, followed closely by the "singles" and the "open to it" types, and then the "in a partnership now" type and "companionate" type are the least common of the five tropes 

note that overlap between the tropes is also common, so while I list out these tropes for the sake of examplifying the variance, in what I am commenting on observing, it is not so clearly seperated out into tropes, the lines between the tropes are often crossed... I guess, I am more so commenting on the "trope of a post" rather than the "trope of the person"

Do you think these are all equally aromantic? Do you think the "singles" are justified in talking about their aromanticism without mentioning the other types? Do you think that the others, especially "companionate" people, are justified in talking about their aromanticism without mentioning that most aromantic people are "singles" or "besties"? I think that the "companionate" group is growing tremendously and will likely overtake "singles" if it gets people out of having to buy anniversary gifts for their partner. That is all it comes down to, after all.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Every Red Heart Shines said:

but, how does disagreeing make your personal experience with romance and commitment and relationships to be true of all people? 

Right back atcha. You think you're right, I think I'm right. I don't understand why people start with the "you don't know the truth of all people!" crap. Of course not, but we all have opinions and that one is mine.

That said, what does personal experience have to do with anything? My point is that parents and pets aren't associated with commitment in any way, which makes them horrible analogies. It'd be one thing if you pointed out a relationship that fit the bill, commitment-wise, that was clearly not romantic, fine, but that's not what you did. You pulled up two very specific relational types that have nothing to do with commitment at all.

[Chihiro]

The more I read this thread, the more I am confused 

I am inherently aromantic, never had the need for relationships in the past, not even when I found perfect matches (not even when I fell in love). I relied on friendships for fun activities and emotional support. But as I get older, I am finding it hard to make/keep friendships IRL. I realized that all of my friendships in adult life was possible because my friends were in LDR and I would loose them once they close their distance.

So what I seek in life is friendship(s). In an ideal world, I wouldn't care with how many people I become friends with, neither would I care for exclusivity. I would be fine if I loose friends as long as I can make new friends quickly. (I am pretty much describing my childhood friendships LOL). But in the present world, friendship is expensive. So I wouldn't mind if I can have a lasting friendship with only one person, and if it became exclusive. Since friendship is expensive, it is probably better if a close friendship is exclusive. And I totally wouldn't mind sharing my life and doing everything together with a close friend like a partner (have totally done that with friends in past). Now it is starting to sound like I want a relationship when its not. Does that still make me aromantic? Or since friendship is also a type of relationship, does that make me a romantic? 

If anyone were to ask me, I would tell them I am on aromantic spectrum. Unless being aromantic means not needing any kind of relationships including family relationships and friendships.

[binary suns]

from what I see, the thing that is most common, is they feel disconnected from romance in some way, whatever that means for the individual I mean.  the whole get-a-crush, get-excited-over-dating kind of "romance", and even the "two parts to a whole" thing, those are all aspects of romance that might vary due to culture but are still fundamental in a way.  

and honestly, I'd say there's a considerable more number of "single" aromantics than "companionate" types. I guess it depends on how we consider the people on the fence. perhaps we're both being too pessimistic about it xD 

[Dodecahedron314]

 

1 hour ago, Snow Cone said:

Do you think these are all equally aromantic? Do you think the "singles" are justified in talking about their aromanticism without mentioning the other types? Do you think that the others, especially "companionate" people, are justified in talking about their aromanticism without mentioning that most aromantic people are "singles" or "besties"? I think that the "companionate" group is growing tremendously and will likely overtake "singles" if it gets people out of having to buy anniversary gifts for their partner. That is all it comes down to, after all.

I've mostly been staying out of this discussion for my own sanity, but I think @Every Red Heart Shines hit the nail on the head here--there are different ways to be aromantic, and the existence of any one of them doesn't automatically preclude the existence of any of the others, or make any of the others "more" or "less" aro. No one person's experience of aromanticism is the One Privileged Archetypical Aro Experience To Which All Others Must Be Compared, but anyone has the right to share their experience for what it is and how it affects their life--they don't, however, have the right to say that their experience is the only valid one within the aromantic identity. It's not a matter of "getting out of buying anniversary gifts for one's partner" (and that's certainly NOT just "all it comes down to"), it's a matter of there being multiple different types of significant relationships in existence, not all of which would entail something of that sort because that's just not how the people in said relationship feel about each other. 

[binary suns]

27 minutes ago, Skullery Maid said:

My point is that parents and pets aren't associated with commitment in any way, which makes them horrible analogies. 

wait what? how are parents NOT commited? family is one of the few things I rely on in the long-run when it comes to relationships. they will always be willing to help my out if I'm in trouble. is there something about "commitment" that I don't get lol? 

[binary suns]

oh! with what @Dodecahedron314 said I thought of another thing to say - that, if anything, the problem is not that the aromantic people are too diverse, but rather, that because of aromanticism being a minority, the diversity is more obvious - because everyone has grown up knowing about the romantic "story", we just group all the romantic diversity as "romantic" and don't even notice how very different romantic people can be from eachother.

[Snao Cone]

5 minutes ago, Dodecahedron314 said:

 

I've mostly been staying out of this discussion for my own sanity, but I think @Every Red Heart Shines hit the nail on the head here--there are different ways to be aromantic, and the existence of any one of them doesn't automatically preclude the existence of any of the others, or make any of the others "more" or "less" aro. No one person's experience of aromanticism is the One Privileged Archetypical Aro Experience To Which All Others Must Be Compared, but anyone has the right to share their experience for what it is and how it affects their life--they don't, however, have the right to say that their experience is the only valid one within the aromantic identity. It's not a matter of "getting out of buying anniversary gifts for one's partner" (and that's certainly NOT just "all it comes down to"), it's a matter of there being multiple different types of significant relationships in existence, not all of which would entail something of that sort because that's just not how the people in said relationship feel about each other. 

There are many types of significant relationships with varying degrees of affection, absolutely. There are also variations on living arrangements and visibility. If someone who doesn't like romance lives with, shows affection to, and brings their partner to family and/or social and/or work functions or whatever, then that person is strictly "companionate" according to the official aromatic dogma, apparently, which means they must be just as aromantic as me - just as much about an emotional disposition against love-based coupling as me. Do you think aromanticism has A SINGLE THING to do with singleness? Do you think that all people who identify as aromantic go equally against the romantic norms? Do you think there is any way in which a companionate aro can at all speak for me on this matter? What really makes aromanticism here? What really makes it worth me even thinking that singleness is okay? How could I possibly feel at all justified in putting my foot down on my lack of emotional need to couple up with someone if aromanticism does not in any way speak to that disposition?

For me my lack of need for a relationship is incredibly important to my identity. Incredibly. Important. To. Me.

[Snao Cone]

Basically, in order to keep the aromantic disposition in context, if I'm ever asked about companionate relationships, I will say they are not based on love. Because that is what is necessary to keep a good enough distance between them and regular relationships to make it at all understood why my aromantic disposition leaves me happily single.

[binary suns]

tbh I don't understand the association of love with romance? 

That being said, my relationships would certainly not be based off of love tho  it's all about trust and compatibility for me I guess. TBH, as much as I consider myself companionate, I actualyl just have no idea whatsoever what a relationship WOULD be like for me. 

[Guest]

On 11/25/2016 at 6:13 AM, DiamondAce said:

There's a well-known triangular theory of love that splits love into 3 components: passion, intimacy and commitment. People 1) can be capable or not of being passionate for someone (other than themself), 2) capable or not of craving intimacy with someone, 3) capable or not of desiring irrationally to commit to someone. So there are 8 possible romantic orientations depending on how the person answers these 3 questions. Three 'no' answers are a sign of 'total' aromanticism.

Yes! Few months ago I was figuring out what it is I'd wanted. 

For me what I seek in a partner is exactly the same as in what I would with a friend (Intimacy).

But then again, I also would rather want that really good friend with commitment to each other. (Commitment). 

Which makes it companionate love. Which to me seems like the definition what a QPR(QPP) is here in this community. 

I still feel that this is on the aro side of the spectrum because it just lacks Passion. 

I don't feel that my relationship needs the Passion side of it. Thus having no desire for it. Making me tell people if they ask, are you aro... yes I am. But I do seek someone to spend my life with together. And if later on in the relationship. Passion comes looking around the corner between us? I wouldn't mind. It would be a bonus so to say. Inherently, I'm not looking for it.

I think when people talk about love (media/movies/in general), they mean the Passionate one. But there are so many types of it. 

---

How does aven feel about romantics and aromantics on compatibility versus chemistry? 

I don't even have the slightest clue about what chemistry is. I never notice it. Maybe oblivious to it because of being on the autistic spectrum. But I think I'm on the compatibility side of it. And I'm not all too bothered if there's no chemistry. Because I seek a committed best friend rather than being blinded by intense feelings. 

Yes that might be dull and boring... But I feel this also kind of falls into the companionate side of things...

---

All in all. I'm done with labels. Labels just never can cover a single case completely. Everyone is slightly different. But I don't deny, that labels DO have the effect of somewhere you can belong to instead. Rather than describe you perfectly. 

Hence, I feel the most closely related to being aromantic instead if I had to really choose a label that fits me most