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

[m4rble]

2 minutes ago, Skullery Maid said:

It's like you guys go out of your way to not just misunderstand, but to completely avoid the actual point entirely. 

 

What the fuck does the existence of poly people have to do with anything? 

 

What the fuck difference does it make if your relationship allows fucking other people? 

 

And most importantly... I've said primary relationship roughly seven thousand times, so pardon me if your complaint that you don't see where I specify primary as a pretty poor attempt at argumentation. 

 

Honestly, this whole discussion has made me hate aven and several people in the thread due to what I can only catagorize as a blatant, intentional effort to ignore the essence of things in lieu of what I can tell you guys think are "gotcha" linguistic games. The impression I'm getting is that a lot of aromantics are simply autistic and can't get past words to see the meaning behind them. 

 

Enjoy living your life with the explicit goal of finding a life partner while telling people you're aromantic. Sounds like a totally worthy endeavor. 

Really? I have no goal of telling people I'm aromantic and I'm certainly not intentionally misunderstanding anything to make that post.Seriously wtf!!?

[Misaki]

Uhm, even though I'm not sure I'm aromantic or what, I'd like to say a few things that I have felt and think (and I hope I can contribute to this thread xD) and it (maybe) is more like a quesiton I have.

I have had a few relationships in the past, which were essencially romantic, but it always felt forced and as year passed I have realized that they mostly were because of what people expected and what others did, because I never sought them on my own. Considering I was young and didn't know anything about relationships and everything related to them, I thought it was normal.

Anyway, I got very tired and felt it draining. I was okay seeing the person once a month or less and never, and treated them as if they were my friends. It was not different from my others friendships at all, and I would get annoyed if people said something about being together (what~?! XD)

All my life I thought that I'd wanted someone to live or not be alone, but nothing else. Very much like having a flatmate, someone to watch tv with and laugh O.o and hopefully not to disturb my daily life lol. I have talked to a lot of people about this issue, and almost everyone have told me that what I wanted was a friiend and not someone to compliment me, not a lover, which I think is true, because none of my life plans have ever needed a person beside me.

Also there is something that struck me really hard. My last boyfriend thought I didn't love him and such because of my behaviour. I like hugs, but not much and I do not like being touched, let alone the rest of the stuff. So yes, again, I was told that it was a friendship ._.

I don't see myself depending on someone else besides myself, and I just don't like the idea of getting older alone, but it seems like I don't really wish to be with someone or need it to fulfill my dreams D:

[m4rble]

@Skullery Maid In all honesty the main disagreement in this thread seems to be between you and Panficto about whether romantic orientation should be defined by relationship needs or romantic feelings. I actually agreed with you that I thought there was little practical difference between someone who wants a relationship and experiences these feelings and someone who wants a relationship and doesn't(or thinks they don't). I never argued that I wanted to be called an aromantic so your response to me makes absolutely no sense. My post was kind of a nitpick I'm sorry if it offended you(I honestly have no idea whether it did or not). It was a genuine nitpick though, I was in no way trying to use to argue anything about the nature of romanticism. 

(I should have deleted the spoiler part)

Spoiler

If you ask me calling people narcissistic with very little justification is worse than being overly picky about wording.

 

[Sally]

1 hour ago, Skullery Maid said:

 

 

Honestly, this whole discussion has made me hate aven and several people in the thread due to what I can only catagorize as a blatant, intentional effort to ignore the essence of things in lieu of what I can tell you guys think are "gotcha" linguistic games.

 

    You are so cute when you're disgusted, Skulls.  

[Guest]

3 hours ago, m4rble said:

@Skullery Maid In all honesty the main disagreement in this thread seems to be between you and Panficto about whether romantic orientation should be defined by relationship needs or romantic feelings. I actually agreed with you that I thought there was little practical difference between someone who wants a relationship and experiences these feelings and someone who wants a relationship and doesn't(or thinks they don't). I never argued that I wanted to be called an aromantic so your response to me makes absolutely no sense. My post was kind of a nitpick I'm sorry if it offended you(I honestly have no idea whether it did or not). It was a genuine nitpick though, I was in no way trying to use to argue anything about the nature of romanticism. 

(I should have deleted the spoiler part)

  Hide contents

If you ask me calling people narcissistic with very little justification is worse than being overly picky about wording.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

 

I think I've been pretty cIear on my stance here and I wasn't disagreeing with SkuIIs. My Iast Iong comment especiaIIy summed up my opinion reaIIy cIearIy regarding the ''seeking a reIationship vs experiencing romantic feeIings vs aromantics wanting a reIationship etc'' thing.

 

I totaIIy agree with SkuIIery that it feeIs Iike some peopIe here are very intentionaIIy trying to misunderstand everything we say and pick it apart to catch us out or something, as though we are making things up or Iying about how we feeI or are just reaIIy confused about romance. It honestIy is reaIIy aggravating which is why I didn't repIy to your Iast response to me. It's just too frustrating feeIing Iike (some) peopIe are intentionaIIy misunderstanding and misreading everything we (actuaI peopIe who experience romantic feeIings) are saying T_T

[Sally]

OMG, Pan, I hope that visual display was an aberration just for the sake of emphasis.   

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Sally said:

OMG, Pan, I hope that visual display was an aberration just for the sake of emphasis.   

 

I was blinking twice with my eyes to see if i was the only one who saw this quite interesting background color of Pan's post

Anyway, interesting discussion guys!

 

*follows with interest*

 

[Hermit Advocate]

Pan, no offence, but your killing my eyes with your word coloration. 

[binary suns]

If it's so important that two people living together in something they call a "relationship" is considered romantic, so be it. But if you're thinking that you somehow would convince me that I'm some kind of normal romantic by saying that... the thing is, I would only cease feeling interested in any relationship, and instead pursue a lifestyle where I am alone in life. The only reason I'm interested in a relationship is because of the theory that I can find one that is platonic. If that isn't possible, I don't want a relationship. And if my belief is a false one, if it's a pipe dream, then I'll just never succeed, and eventually give up. But if it's a mistake, it's my mistake to make. If you can somehow change my mind, I suppose I'd be thankful, but I wouldn't appreciate the notion that you feel responsible for whether or not I believe a false dream, nor do I appreciate the idea that you're rejecting me as a person for thinking something you reject.

 

by no means do I believe that it's inherently romantic for a person to enjoy a QPR or want one, but I do believe that it's much more likely that an aromantic person wants to be without a relationship, and that most people who do want a relationship do have at least part of an interest in romance. The thing is, just because a person isn't a "pure aromantic" definitely doesn't make them a "pure romantic"

 

the labels, Aromantic, Quioriomantic, Greyromantic, Demiromantic, Litheromantic, and Romantic are all abstractions. there are ways they overlap, and ways in which a person in one category seems to fit in another, or people seem not to really fit in any of them, yet rely on them anyway because they are a best fit and these are the most popular labels. MAYBE we should start using some label word for people who want QPR, but honestly I do not see that to be very popular, most aromantic people either are indifferent towards QPR's or prefer to live life on their own. Most people who talk about QPR's are talking about another word for a good friend basically. Because the usage of "Friend" on facebook and etc destroyed the power of the word "friend"

 

 

 

 

17 hours ago, Skullery Maid said:

"gotcha" linguistic games

 

Well I mean, yeah... of course... that's the nature of language. Context can completely destroy meaning in so many ways... it isn't a "gotcha" linguistic game, it's a "gotcha" linguistic nature.

 

it's so very easy for two people to look at the same sentence and interpret it in different way - this entire discussion is all about one of these contextually divergent cases, even. Some people fail to see the romance in any relationship, some people fail to see a relationship any other way than as romantic, and some people have some sense of both. Bottom line, they're all people, and it really can't be proven that any of the perspectives are objectively invalid. 

 

The large gain we have in having any discussion, even this one, is only in increasing our own awareness regarding the topic, and increasing our ability to convey our ideas. And the belief, or maybe the trust, that the discussion is worth having for the others involved.

 

Most discussions like this, people just keep trying harder and harder to prove they are right - so of course it's going to feel like people are refusing to believe you. I'd say even, the success of the discussion is entirely dependent on both sides trying their hardest to hold their ground. And on the off chance that someone's opinion flips, they surely won't admit to it, because we as humans would feel vulnerable if we said that. It's human nature. 

 

 

 

 

PS. if anything, I bet the major reason that there's an issue regarding QPR compared to aromanticism, is because of the lack of strength "grey" has as a label. any definition for "grey" makes it seem like a joke, or unwanted.

 

[Snao Cone]

Would it be better to describe companionable aromantics as people who don't have feelings, but still have needs?

[m4rble]

15 hours ago, ℃å℞t☉☧hℹĿẹ• said:

 

I think I've been pretty cIear on my stance here and I wasn't disagreeing with SkuIIs. My Iast Iong comment especiaIIy summed up my opinion reaIIy cIearIy regarding the ''seeking a reIationship vs experiencing romantic feeIings vs aromantics wanting a reIationship etc'' thing.

 

I totaIIy agree with SkuIIery that it feeIs Iike some peopIe here are very intentionaIIy trying to misunderstand everything we say and pick it apart to catch us out or something, as though we are making things up or Iying about how we feeI or are just reaIIy confused about romance. It honestIy is reaIIy aggravating which is why I didn't repIy to your Iast response to me. It's just too frustrating feeIing Iike (some) peopIe are intentionaIIy misunderstanding and misreading everything we (actuaI peopIe who experience romantic feeIings) are saying T_T

From my perspective it feels like a lot of the posts in this thread are missing the point and instead going on about tangential or irrelevant things. For example, people keep bringing up how people claiming to be aromantic are just romantics who don't like traditionally romantic activities when I see zero examples in this thread of people claiming not liking romantic activities makes someone aromantic. It's possible that people made such arguments elsewhere, but it's also possible that people are simply reading posts from this thread differently than I am. Not everything that's said is inherent in the language, a lot of the understanding comes from shared assumptions about certain things that I don't believe are entirely present in this thread. 

 

What's frustrating for me is that I was essentially told that what I feel romantically was different than other people and then later I was yelled at for claiming to be aromantic(which I never even claimed in the first place) by the very same people who told me my feelings were different than theirs. I'm not trying to be a special snowflake, I'm just trying to follow the rules that ya'll set up.  

 

[binary suns]

54 minutes ago, Snow Cone said:

Would it be better to describe companionable aromantics as people who don't have feelings, but still have needs?

hehe that makes me giggle, I guess so? I am not exactly sure what you mean. 

[Snao Cone]

Companionate folks do not feel strong emotions towards people that warrant dating/relationships as defined in current society, but they still have a functional need for a partnership.

[binary suns]

1 hour ago, Snow Cone said:

Companionate folks do not feel strong emotions towards people that warrant dating/relationships as defined in current society, but they still have a functional need for a partnership.

I guess so. maybe "functional benefits" rather than "functional need", I am not sure how to really answer at this time. is the first part how you think of an aromantic person, and the second part what you consider an exception? I do not know if what you've said is right to describe all people who desire a platonic companion, or if it is right to discuss my feelings regarding the discussion, but on first glance it seems fair. 

 

to be honest, I do have reservations regarding "partnership" also.  if anything, the reason I say it is after I've both seen it as a part of "QPR" and also gotten used to the idea that "partnerships" aren't by default romantic. It's kind of like it was a slippery slope... at first we got introduced to the idea of a platonic cohabited arrangement between aromantics, and compromise between an aromantic and a romantic, then we started getting used to using words that we didn't like because they sounded too romantic but they were really the only words we had available, and now people are telling us that we ARE romantic because of those words. 

[Snao Cone]

No, not functional benefits. Everybody can have functional benefits of a partnership. People who feel lonely because they don't have a partner - people whose lives are missing something from being single - have a need.

[binary suns]

I do not feel lonely because I do not have a partner. I do not feel that I am missing something from my life. I have no need for a partner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

god, I don't really want to talk about MY situation, just, promise me you and skullery aren't making all these ignorant claims about aromantics and qpr's because you're bsaing them off of the exploration shit I've said to you both over the years about what I want. I struggle to use words to talk about my ideas, and the 100% main reason why I keep trying to leave aven is because I'm worried that my shitty attempts to say anything to anyone at all is warping the worldviews of others. 

[Snao Cone]

Teagan, this isn't about you. That's all I'm going to say, because anything else will just get turned against me in this discussion and others.

 

 

[m4rble]

1 hour ago, Snow Cone said:

No, not functional benefits. Everybody can have functional benefits of a partnership. People who feel lonely because they don't have a partner - people whose lives are missing something from being single - have a need.

That makes sense, a goal is not quite the same as a need though. 

[Sally]

I think I  said somewhere (maybe on this thread) that I can't imagine anyone not having emotions.  Similarly, I can't imagine anyone  not having feelings, since to me that's synonymous with emotions.    So Snow saying "Would it be better to describe companionable aromantics as people who don't have feelings, but still have needs?" must not have been serious.   A need in that sense is an emotion/a feeling.   (And no, I don't mean need in the sense of needing air/food/water.)

 

This discussion's terminology is getting too hard to parse.  

 

 

 

[Snao Cone]

I meant don't have romantic feelings but have relationship needs that are associated with romantic feelings - finding the person with whom one can have a deep and committed relationship that guides them through a shared life.

 

By "shared life" I mean partially shared as well as completely shared (if such a thing is possible), so relationships where personal space is also respected are still included in this.

[Chihiro]

I only seek uniformity in defining romantic orientations. So if aromantics are people who develop no romantic feelings and have no need for relationship, then romantic people would be people who experience romantic feelings and have a need to be in relationship. That is going to make people who have now identified as happy-single romantics and looking-for-partner-aromantics somewhere in between the spectrum, a minority (in the absence of any other romantic term to describe them, that would make them an exception to their self identified romantic-orientations).

 

 

[Sally]

1 hour ago, Snow Cone said:

I meant don't have romantic feelings but have relationship needs that are associated with romantic feelings - finding the person with whom one can have a deep and committed relationship that guides them through a shared life.

 

 

 Well, now that you've introduced "romantic", what you've said previously makes definite sense.  Romance (the definition of which no one here seems to agree) need not enter into the feeling/need to have a committed relationship.    

[Nidwin]

looking-for-partner-aromantics

 

Why would an aro look for a partner or any kind of close relationship, outside friends to hang around with?

Relationships tend to be drains, one way or another, and as we don't get anything emotionally out of them there's no reason for us to look for them.

[binary suns]

9 hours ago, Snow Cone said:

I meant don't have romantic feelings but have relationship needs that are associated with romantic feelings - finding the person with whom one can have a deep and committed relationship that guides them through a shared life.

 

By "shared life" I mean partially shared as well as completely shared (if such a thing is possible), so relationships where personal space is also respected are still included in this.

but that's where it doesn't make sense to me - if a person has romantic needs, they are romantic. and if needing shared living is romantic, then kids who haven't grown up are romantic, adults who are in care are romantic, injured people in the hospital are romantic, and people with disabilities are romantic too. how does that make sense? 

 

maybe it's specific things we need to talk about, rather than abstract stuff that's confusing the conversation. do you think that a person who wants cuddles is romantic? is stuff like this what is really the discussion, rather than people who want cohabitation? I just don't think a want or need for cohabitation is strictly romantic. and for me, when I imagine a person who wants a QPR, it's basically a person who wants cohabitation, and realizes that cohabitation is easier with friends than with strangers. that doesn't strike me as romantic in any way. if that is romantic, then friendship is romantic. and I oppose the belief that friendship is romantic, it isn't. maybe to some romantic person, they have romantic feelings for their friends, but I sure as hell don't find friendship romantic. that's a gross notion!\

 

tbh I think it's a little weird that other aromantic people say they need cuddles. for a while I said that too, but when the opportunity to cuddle actually presented itself, and I realized I had no positive feelings for it, only awkwardness, I realized that I was only say I liked cuddles because I was mimicking the others around me, so embarrassing. 

[binary suns]

the other thing I'm wondering about is the word "lonely" do you guys think that anyone who "feels lonely" must be romantic? I don't get that. it seems as if, as soon as a lonely person desires cohabitation, then you say they're romantic, and I think that's silly. loneliness is all about a lack of social contact, and there is a significant difference between general social contact with friends, and social contact with a romantic interest. if there isn't, then why do we even have romance as an orientation to begin with lol. it's so obvious to me when a person feels romantic for other people, because they behave so dramatically different. ok maybe I'm overdramatizing it, I think of two of my friends and how the way I could tell who they were into romantically was no more than just because they paid more attention to the people during times when it didn't make sense to, and there was no other sign. not so obvious. but, I definitely have a long history of calling people's romantic interest before they themselves realize it, just because I'm noticing a change in behavior. 

 

the thing is, that when someone is getting along with a great new friend, it makes sense to me, but when someone is getting along with a romantic interest, I don't understand why there is the chemistry. I'm sorry that I don't have a good way to define that. But I trust my instincts, and my instincts tell me that it's possible for two friends to want to spend time together. 

[Chihiro]

4 hours ago, Nidwin said:

looking-for-partner-aromantics

 

Why would an aro look for a partner or any kind of close relationship, outside friends to hang around with?

Relationships tend to be drains, one way or another, and as we don't get anything emotionally out of them there's no reason for us to look for them.

Well, what if those friends refuse to hang out with you, if you don't enter a relationship with them or because they are too busy with their own partner?

On this site alone, I have been subjected to cold treatments when I didn't reciprocate romantic feelings or when I rejected relationship possibility. So, if society is going to give me this kind of treatment the rest of my life, then f*** it. I am going to be that aromantic who will look for permanent friend and if the T&C of that friendship involved 'commitment and partnership' so be it! 

 

Let me also explain why I need someone for emotional support. (I am curious how other aromantics satisfy their emotional needs.) My emotional need is like this- when my life sucks, I need to rant and want support. (Unlike others, I dont have the need to share everything that goes on in my life or narrate my day-to-day activities. So boring!) Problem is, if I am not close to a friend, and try to share my problem, they go (or act) "TMI... no need to share that stuff".  The subjects of my problems typically involve family problem, finance, work-issues.

EDIT: TBH, a therapist (or are they called psychologist!?!) could also satisfy my emotional need LOL.

 

[Chihiro]

34 minutes ago, Every Red Heart Shines said:

tbh I think it's a little weird that other aromantic people say they need cuddles. for a while I said that too, but when the opportunity to cuddle actually presented itself, and I realized I had no positive feelings for it, only awkwardness, I realized that I was only say I liked cuddles because I was mimicking the others around me, so embarrassing. 

Hahaha. This made me laugh 

I don't understand either if aros say they want cuddles. I am still not sure whats a cuddle and I imagine it to be a long hug. And then I imagine how prolonged body-contact produces sweat and that idea seems repulsive. Anyway, I don't have any physical or sensual cravings even though I have felt good from hugs from certain people and I have few fantasies. 

[Nidwin]

I don't think I've many emotional needs to satisfy, not that I can recall anyway. I although still have social needs, the need to hang around with my fellow humans. And for these social needs friends or folks I now for quite some time I meet in the pub, my usual place, do the trick.

 

In my mid twenties I cohabitated with 2 friends, dropped to one after a Year, for professional and financial reasons for a bit more than two Years. It was not easy and It was actually a relief to be finally able to have my own place.

[Snao Cone]

Teagan, I said relationship needs. Relationships are often associated with romantic feelings, but that's not my fault and doesn't make me a bad person. Fuck. Lock this already.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Every Red Heart Shines said:

but that's where it doesn't make sense to me - if a person has romantic needs, they are romantic. and if needing shared living is romantic, then kids who haven't grown up are romantic, adults who are in care are romantic, injured people in the hospital are romantic, and people with disabilities are romantic too. how does that make sense? 

 

maybe it's specific things we need to talk about, rather than abstract stuff that's confusing the conversation. do you think that a person who wants cuddles is romantic? is stuff like this what is really the discussion, rather than people who want cohabitation? I just don't think a want or need for cohabitation is strictly romantic. and for me, when I imagine a person who wants a QPR, it's basically a person who wants cohabitation, and realizes that cohabitation is easier with friends than with strangers. that doesn't strike me as romantic in any way. if that is romantic, then friendship is romantic. and I oppose the belief that friendship is romantic, it isn't. maybe to some romantic person, they have romantic feelings for their friends, but I sure as hell don't find friendship romantic. that's a gross notion!\

 

tbh I think it's a little weird that other aromantic people say they need cuddles. for a while I said that too, but when the opportunity to cuddle actually presented itself, and I realized I had no positive feelings for it, only awkwardness, I realized that I was only say I liked cuddles because I was mimicking the others around me, so embarrassing. 

 

It seems like you are deliberately misunderstanding and making pointless arguments here. There is a huge difference between two adults choosing to share a life to meet emotional needs that are not being met by living alone, and people being physically unable to live alone due to being unable to support themselves. The first section in the above post is a completely meaningless comparison and devoid of common sense. I have cohabited my entire life, either living with parents or housemates (sometimes friends, but often complete strangers who never never became more than acquaintances), purely for economic reasons. No one with any sense would consider this romantic. It is the reasons for wanting cohabitation, and how the cohabitation works,  which would make it romantic or not.

 

I don't see how being romantic or not is related to wanting cuddles, cuddles are not necessarily romantic. The only person I cuddle with is my mum, it is definitely not romantic.

 

 

1 hour ago, Chihiro said:

Well, what if those friends refuse to hang out with you, if you don't enter a relationship with them or because they are too busy with their own partner?

On this site alone, I have been subjected to cold treatments when I didn't reciprocate romantic feelings or when I rejected relationship possibility. So, if society is going to give me this kind of treatment the rest of my life, then f*** it. I am going to be that aromantic who will look for permanent friend and if the T&C of that friendship involved 'commitment and partnership' so be it! 

 

Let me also explain why I need someone for emotional support. (I am curious how other aromantics satisfy their emotional needs.) My emotional need is like this- when my life sucks, I need to rant and want support. (Unlike others, I dont have the need to share everything that goes on in my life or narrate my day-to-day activities. So boring!) Problem is, if I am not close to a friend, and try to share my problem, they go (or act) "TMI... no need to share that stuff".  The subjects of my problems typically involve family problem, finance, work-issues.

EDIT: TBH, a therapist (or are they called psychologist!?!) could also satisfy my emotional need LOL.

 

 

To be honest I have never really understood why so many aros talk about friends refusing to hang out with them because they have a partner... I mean wow, those must be some really shit friends. I have never experienced, observed, or heard about such a situation happening IRL, outside of the first few weeks of a 'new love' when the partners are obsessed with each other, which they generally quickly get over and settle into a balanced healthy relationship which allows lots of time for friends. Do I just happen to be surrounded by unusually emotionally well balanced people?

 

As for my emotional needs, they are satisfied by occasionally hanging out and having a laugh with a few friends,  and if I am very upset maybe visiting my parents and having a good cry while they fuss over me. I have only been that upset twice, I normally prefer to deal with my emotions alone.