Romantic Orientation vs. Romantic Expression

[Galactic Turtle]

Hellos humans.

 

I feel like I'm spamming this place with new threads recently. Apologies! But I'm just really trying to wrap my head around certain things. And recently I've been thinking...

 

In the gender part of this forum I see a lot of talk about "gender expression" and how that is different from "gender identity." I wonder if the difference in these concepts might also be applicable to romanticism. "Romance" and "romantic attraction" are such vague and culturally objective terms to the extent that even in every discussion I see on it, there's never one consensus on what "QPR" or "squish" actually entails. 

 

Recently I did see a conversation elsewhere online where someone asked what being aromantic meant to them. Many responses were like the following:

 

"The idea of cuddling/holding hands is a foreign concept to me."

"Getting annoyed when (my partner) texted me."

"Candlelit dinners, flowers, romantic movies... are stupid to me."

"The constant texting, the need to constantly be together, always being touched... all made me very uncomfortable."

 

Basically a noticeable amount of people were talking about their dislike or disinterest in stereotypically romantic things. This made me think of the concept of gender expression because many times I will see someone say "I'm a girl who is in no way girly, I roll with the boys, I wear their clothes, my hair is cut short but I'm a girl. It's just that my gender expression happens to be very stereotypically masculine." I think there might be similarities between this and romance because what everyone seems to think of as romance seems to stem heavily from the stereotypes and expectations we see on TV and with the abundance of straight couples around us who are all about public displays of affection. It seems like lots of aromantic people have been drawn to certain people around them but once the relationship starts they realize it's not their cup of tea. In hindsight they look at it as a squish they had instead of a crush due to how immediately they were turned off by these things.

 

When contemplating my own romantic orientation, my mind also went to stereotypical "romantic expressions." As a very touch averse person, I even asked once if it's possible to be both touch averse and romantic or if a side by side romantic relationship is possible or preferred by people without touch. All responses said no probably because touch, in some manifestation, is such a basic and nearly universal form of romantic (and even general platonic) expression that without it, it seems extremely unlikely if not impossible. That was until someone linked to a TV show about a touch averse girl in a mental hospital who ended up dating this boy who agreed to never touch her. They walked around holding opposite ends of a piece of fabric. Cute, I suppose. But considering the setting and considering I'm pretty sure one or both of those characters ended up being evil... not the best representation. But it also goes to speak to how bizarre the general audience must've viewed this five minute long on-screen romance. 

 

Basically, I am of the opinion that romantic love and inclinations and attractions might take a wide range of forms, that everyone's love language can be diverse and unique. My question is if we're defining aromanticism by weighing them against romantic stereotypes (that would be desired at the onset of romantic attraction) or if we're weighing it against the inherent desire or inherent attraction to any number of people to define their bond as a "partnering type of relationship for one's own emotional fulfillment." Call that whatever you want. Call it your wife, your boyfriend, your zucchini, your cherished person who is neither your friend nor your relative. Or does it get to a point where someone's love language or expression strays so far from the norm that it's just not practical to group everything together?

 

Or am I overthinking things as per usual?

 

@__@ 

 

[Dean.]

There are some good points in there, and I think it is possible to have romantic attraction without touch, it is obviously very hard and would limit what you could all do on the romantic side, but it is still possible in my opinion.

[Galactic Turtle]

Just now, Dean. said:

would limit what you could all do on the romantic side

That's the thing though. The "things you can do on the romantic side" is usually talking about stereotypical expressions of romance I mentioned before. But depending on what a person's love language is, stereotypical expressions of romance might have little to nothing to do with how they express romance.

[Cnyb]

Great questions.  I'm still saying WTFRomantic?

[Galactic Turtle]

22 minutes ago, Cnyb said:

Great questions.  I'm still saying WTFRomantic?

All the questions but never any solid answers. XD 

[Diamond Ace of Hearts]

So, I've been coming at this same question from the other side because I view myself as very romantic, but I'm also very solitary and don't like the idea of being in a relationship and like you GT I'm not into touch. (I'm not as touch-averse as you are but still)

 

I think the problem, as ever, is one of language. "Romantic" is not one word, there are two words which are both spelled and pronounced the same, romantic and romantic. The meanings of each word are very similar and most people would use them interchangeably and for most interactions that's fine. There's a similar problem with "more" and "more", also two identical words with similar meanings which can be used interchangeably. Look at the opposites though. Less and fewer have different meanings (although fewer people these days seem to know that).

 

That example of mine is a slightly silly way of looking at it but basically what I think is that there's romantic as opposed to unromantic and then there's romantic as opposed to aromantic and even within each of those there can be differences between the feeling and the action; the identity and the expression. The effects of TV and other fictions on our perceptions of real life serve to complicate things also. And then there's the fact that humans are kind of weird and irrational in general. And another factor is the desire vs attraction thing. We're used to that with sex but with romance I feel like it doesn't get examined as much. Put all that together and it all becomes very complicated to figure out what you feel and why.

[Galactic Turtle]

17 minutes ago, Diamond Ace of Hearts said:

So, I've been coming at this same question from the other side because I view myself as very romantic, but I'm also very solitary and don't like the idea of being in a relationship and like you GT I'm not into touch. (I'm not as touch-averse as you are but still)

 

I think the problem, as ever, is one of language. "Romantic" is not one word, there are two words which are both spelled and pronounced the same, romantic and romantic. The meanings of each word are very similar and most people would use them interchangeably and for most interactions that's fine. There's a similar problem with more and more, also two identical words with similar meanings which can be used interchangeably. Look at the opposites though. Less and fewer have different meanings (although fewer people these days seem to know that).

 

That example of mine is a slightly silly way of looking at it but basically what I think is that there's romantic as opposed to unromantic and then there's romantic as opposed to aromantic and even within each of those there can be differences between the feeling and the action; the identity and the expression. The effects of TV and other fictions on our perceptions of real life serve to complicate things also. And then there's the fact that humans are kind of weird and irrational in general. And another factor is the desire vs attraction thing. We're used to that with sex but with romance I feel like it doesn't get examined as much. Put all that together and it all becomes very complicated to figure out what you feel and why.

I'm very confused by this. @__@ 

[Baam]

I don't think you're overthinking things, I've had similar thoughts. Just because a couple isn't very expressive in their romantic attraction for one-another, doesn't mean it's not a romantic relationship.

 

A possible model you could use is first of all that everyone is capable of love. I think everyone can agree on that (exempting Voldemort from 'everyone'). But there's multiple ways of expressing your love for someone. And how you express your love depends on the type of relationship you have/want with a person. For example, you wouldn't express your love romantically nor sexually with a family member - that would just be wrong (to use an extreme example). A sexual aromantic person could express their love for a partner sexually and platonically. The vast majority of people express their love sexually, romantically, and platonically, which is why most people don't think of romantic and sexual orientations as different.

 

The point of thinking of it like this is that you don't have to think in terms of attraction nor desire which are both a bit hard to define. But then you can't really objectively define what it means to be in love with someone either. It's clearly not a great model, I just personally think about it in this way because it's easier for me as an aromantic sexual person to describe what sort of relationship I would be looking for in a partner. It also kind of removes the need to classify a relationship as either romantic or QP, as I find the difference between the two often poorly defined. Often it's both involving people wanting a partner in life, but just expressing their love in different ways. You don't have to say, 'I'm in a QP relationship,' or, 'I'm in a romantic relationship,' you can just say, 'I'm in a relationship.' And then it doesn't matter when people mix up not liking stereotypical romantic activities as a lack of romantic attraction or desire with being aromantic.

 

I mean, this is really not a good model to use, it's just something to think about. But I absolutely agree that romantic attraction should not be mixed up with romantic stereotypes as you call them. And I also see this a lot.

[Galactic Turtle]

45 minutes ago, Baam said:

The point of thinking of it like this is that you don't have to think in terms of attraction nor desire which are both a bit hard to define. But then you can't really objectively define what it means to be in love with someone either. It's clearly not a great model, I just personally think about it in this way because it's easier for me as an aromantic sexual person to describe what sort of relationship I would be looking for in a partner. It also kind of removes the need to classify a relationship as either romantic or QP, as I find the difference between the two often poorly defined. Often it's both involving people wanting a partner in life, but just expressing their love in different ways. You don't have to say, 'I'm in a QP relationship,' or, 'I'm in a romantic relationship,' you can just say, 'I'm in a relationship.' And then it doesn't matter when people mix up not liking stereotypical romantic activities as a lack of romantic attraction or desire with being aromantic.

I suppose that might sort of be my point? When I first heard the term "aromantic" and its common definition, I thought of people who are not interested in being in a relationship with "in a relationship" being "close person who is neither a friend (or something similar like... a teacher or mentor) nor a relative." While I haven't really spoken to many aromantic sexual people, the ones I have usually say they love connecting with people sexually but don't have the desire to turn that into a relationship. They're just friends or sex friends or friends with benefits... but still friends. They're still in that category. There's no desire or drive to call that bond something else just to make it distinct. 

 

In general I lean towards calling myself aromantic because I don't desire to be in a relationship and don't share the experience of crushing on people through adolescence. However, there was one person that I was drawn to in a way that was unlike how I am drawn to my friends or relatives. It wasn't connected to any feelings of sensuality or stereotypical romance but still calling it a squish seems pretty pointless? I was interested in this person to some extent (I call it my sort of crush). I thought about what my response would be if they asked me out properly. I weighed their background against what would be acceptable to my family. That's not something I do to such an extent with friends. But because of the way this person approached me I was immediately repelled. The way we express interest or affection for people we view as unlike friends or relatives was too drastically different. For this reason we weren't compatible even if there was mutual curiosity. My friends are unnerved by the lack of passion or pining or excitement in my experience... as would be stereotypical for having a crush. I think it was a pretty practical assessment of a potential partner but that's just the type of person I am.

 

I keep thinking about this situation when discussing romantic orientations as it's the only thing I have to go off of. Because my feelings didn't line up with stereotypical forms of romance, people call me aromantic. But I believe it's more like how I'm inclined to love once faced with a person of interest is not a way that is accepted by I'd assume 99.5% of the population. In other words, I can love but it's not in the way most people want to be loved and because I have no qualms about not being in a relationship and feel it's natural for one to remain single their entire life, I tend to be grouped in with aromantic people. Still there are many others I encounter in my line of work (which includes lots of long hours, constantly traveling, and never being able to settle down enough to buy actual furniture) who have had crushes, who have dated in the past, but for whom being in a relationship just isn't a priority and never will be. This is a stark difference for those who agonize and stress over someday finding "the one" to be their perfect QPP.

 

So... yeah. That's where my thoughts are. I guess I'm still wondering if it's the lack of innate desire to form a partnership that makes someone aromantic or the lack of ability to feel for someone close to them in a way that is unlike how they would feel towards even their best of friends or relatives.

 

But in my case, what about that 0.05% of people who might experience those attractions the same way I do? Maybe that's what "finding the right person" means even if I'm not actually looking.

[Diamond Ace of Hearts]

18 minutes ago, Galactic Turtle said:

I'm very confused by this. @__@ 

yeah, it's a bit of a mess.

 

One thing that set me thinking about this is a conversation I had with a friend at work. My friend was talking about how he wanted to be in a relationship ASAP. He told me about how he'd signed up for Tinder and how he wanted to get married and have kids. All that stuff a lot of people seem to have on their "life plan".

 

So, he's clearly not aromantic, right? But at no point does he say anything about who he would want a relationship with - what kind of person they'd be - or what the relationship would be like. Now that may be just that he doesn't like to talk about that stuff or he straight up doesn't know but it struck me as very clinical, not at all emotional. Not romantic.

 

I, on the other hand, was telling him how I've given up on finding a relationship (I didn't bring up being ace, but that's pretty much why) but by this point he knew that I was experiencing romantic feelings for one of our co-workers. I don't think he could reconcile those two facts about me.

 

Now comes some speculation; I think if I was in a relationship I'd want to be pretty expressive of my romantic side, whereas I can't imagine my friend being that way. How I would express those feelings probably depends on the other person in the relationship but I do have a secret appreciation of that "stereotypically romantic" stuff, I just don't think I'd be very good at it nor that I'd enjoy being on the receiving end of it.

 

So, lay out that comparison in a different way and you get this:

 

"Romance"......./.....Dan............Dan's friend

Desire?............./......no..............apparently

Attraction?......./......yes.............possibly

Expressive?....../.....possibly.....seems not

Stereotypical?../...maybe.........probably not

 

From that table you could argue that my friend is aromantic and yet of the two of us he's the only one actively seeking a romantic relationship. You could call either of us unromantic because I don't really see either of us doing some of the stuff you highlighted in the OP under the aegis of romantic expression but that really depends on what a hypothetical partner wants from the relationship. Video gaming could be romantic if both partners are gamers. My point basically is that there probably can't be a strict definition of aromantic with so many different concepts in play so if someone who says all this stuff:

 

2 hours ago, Galactic Turtle said:

"The idea of cuddling/holding hands is a foreign concept to me."

"Getting annoyed when (my partner) texted me."

"Candlelit dinners, flowers, romantic movies... are stupid to me."

"The constant texting, the need to constantly be together, always being touched... all made me very uncomfortable."

thinks that makes them aromantic then that's for them to say. On the other hand, I feel pretty much the same but I still think I'm a "romantic."

 

The only red line is probably that if someone were to be actively seeking a relationship, it would be hard for them to claim to be aromantic but even then there's a case to be made based on different types of love and different concepts of what a relationship is and what its purpose is.

 

Essentially, I think that the answer to this:

 

2 hours ago, Galactic Turtle said:

My question is if we're defining aromanticism by weighing them against romantic stereotypes (that would be desired at the onset of romantic attraction) or if we're weighing it against the inherent desire or inherent attraction to any number of people to define their bond as a "partnering type of relationship for one's own emotional fulfillment."

is this:

 

3 hours ago, Galactic Turtle said:

Basically, I am of the opinion that romantic love and inclinations and attractions might take a wide range of forms, that everyone's love language can be diverse and unique

 

Some people are defining aromanticism one way and some are defining it the other and in my view neither is more correct. I know self-identification can be controversial with some on this site and to an extent I agree when it comes to asexuality. But with aromanticism it is necessarily different because while anyone can easily define what sex is, I don't think there will ever be a universal objective definition of romance or love.

 

...and you thought you were over-thinking it.

[Baam]

36 minutes ago, Galactic Turtle said:

I suppose that might sort of be my point? When I first heard the term "aromantic" and its common definition, I thought of people who are not interested in being in a relationship with "in a relationship" being "close person who is neither a friend (or something similar like... a teacher or mentor) nor a relative." While I haven't really spoken to many aromantic sexual people, the ones I have usually say they love connecting with people sexually but don't have the desire to turn that into a relationship. They're just friends or sex friends or friends with benefits... but still friends. They're still in that category. There's no desire or drive to call that bond something else just to make it distinct. 

I would be different than those you've talked to then, I would not be interested in having a relationship with someone solely for the purpose of having sexual relations with them. I truly can love someone, I just wouldn't be capable of communicating that romantically. I can't really explain it.

Quote

In general I lean towards calling myself aromantic because I don't desire to be in a relationship and don't share the experience of crushing on people through adolescence. However, there was one person that I was drawn to in a way that was unlike how I am drawn to my friends or relatives. It wasn't connected to any feelings of sensuality or stereotypical romance but still calling it a squish seems pretty pointless? I was interested in this person to some extent (I call it my sort of crush). I thought about what my response would be if they asked me out properly. I weighed their background against what would be acceptable to my family. That's not something I do to such an extent with friends. But because of the way this person approached me I was immediately repelled. The way we express interest or affection for people we view as unlike friends or relatives was too drastically different. For this reason we weren't compatible even if there was mutual curiosity. My friends are unnerved by the lack of passion or pining or excitement in my experience... as would be stereotypical for having a crush. I think it was a pretty practical assessment of a potential partner but that's just the type of person I am.

Yeah, to me this sounds like the sort of thing an aromantic person would experience. I feel like me being sexual just twists it a bit such that I could put up with being in a romantic relationship as long as they're not overly expressive of their romantic attraction/desire. But a large indication I think is the lack of crushes in both of our cases. I mean, every romantic person I've talked to irl have been amazed that I've never experienced a crush before. They almost didn't believe me. And in our discussions our experiences didn't match up at all, which confirmed my thoughts of being aromantic a lot. I haven't had the experience of such a connection you're talking about in the quote above, though, so that's very interesting to read about. I can see how differentiating between a crush and a squish could be kind of useless for you (and me). I mean, it's just being interested in someone as a potential partner in any regard, right? Regardless of the classification of the potential relationship.

 

Quote

I keep thinking about this situation when discussing romantic orientations as it's the only thing I have to go off of. Because my feelings didn't line up with stereotypical forms of romance, people call me aromantic. But I believe it's more like how I'm inclined to love once faced with a person of interest is not a way that is accepted by I'd assume 99.5% of the population. In other words, I can love but it's not in the way most people want to be loved and because I have no qualms about not being in a relationship and feel it's natural for one to remain single their entire life, I tend to be grouped in with aromantic people. Still there are many others I encounter in my line of work (which includes lots of long hours, constantly traveling, and never being able to settle down enough to buy actual furniture) who have had crushes, who have dated in the past, but for whom being in a relationship just isn't a priority and never will be. This is a stark difference for those who agonize and stress over someday finding "the one" to be their perfect QPP.

Yeah I totally see your point about your feelings not lining up with the stereotypes. Does that necessarily mean you're not romantic? Or that you just experience it in a totally different way? Is that enough to make you not-romantic? I guess it's really up for you and whether it's useful for you or not to use that label for yourself. I do see people who spend their days always obsessing over romance, and some who seem to rarely consider it unless they encounter someone who interests them. I'm not sure if that makes one more or less romantic than the other. But what you said about people stressing and agonizing over finding 'the one^TM' to be their QPP, do you think there really is much of a difference between them and those looking for the same thing 'romantically'? If we want to define a romantic orientation based on who you want to spend your life with, which is a much broader definition, then they're exactly the same. And it doesn't matter how you express your love for your life partner.
 

Quote

So... yeah. That's where my thoughts are. I guess I'm still wondering if it's the lack of innate desire to form a partnership that makes someone aromantic or the lack of ability to feel for someone close to them in a way that is unlike how they would feel towards even their best of friends or relatives.

 

But in my case, what about that 0.05% of people who might experience those attractions the same way I do? Maybe that's what "finding the right person" means even if I'm not actually looking.

The way you seem to be describing it here rejects sexual component to a partnership. Because I think (my feelings are still kind of confusing), that I do have an innate desire to form a partnership, but it just seems not to be a romantic desire in nature. Now you have me questioning my aromanticism again!  I know this is going to seem crude, but biologically speaking the original point to having a relationship was to keep the human race going. So surely it's possible for the desire for a partnership to be sexual in nature without it merely being a solely sexual relationship and nothing else. I'm sorry, this is a WEIRD point, and I'm almost sure it's making no sense. It's 6:45am here, I have not slept, and I cannot get my thoughts out straight. I'm going to come back to this tomorrow and try to answer this properly. I'll just finish for now by saying that I don't really think that the desire for a partnership has to solely rely on your romantic orientation or desires. Or perhaps I'm wrong and I'm better just lumping my sexual and romantic orientation together as 'gay', and giving up on the split-attraction model altogether. I mean, it would certainly make things simpler, and just because I'm not a very romantic person, maybe that doesn't mean I can't have a romantic relationship. Maybe we're better off thinking of romantic as being a trait rather than an orientation.

 

[Galactic Turtle]

3 hours ago, Diamond Ace of Hearts said:

From that table you could argue that my friend is aromantic and yet of the two of us he's the only one actively seeking a romantic relationship. You could call either of us unromantic because I don't really see either of us doing some of the stuff you highlighted in the OP under the aegis of romantic expression but that really depends on what a hypothetical partner wants from the relationship. Video gaming could be romantic if both partners are gamers. My point basically is that there probably can't be a strict definition of aromantic with so many different concepts in play so if someone who says all this stuff:

 

6 hours ago, Galactic Turtle said:

"The idea of cuddling/holding hands is a foreign concept to me."

"Getting annoyed when (my partner) texted me."

"Candlelit dinners, flowers, romantic movies... are stupid to me."

"The constant texting, the need to constantly be together, always being touched... all made me very uncomfortable."

thinks that makes them aromantic then that's for them to say. On the other hand, I feel pretty much the same but I still think I'm a "romantic."

But I think the thing that links both you and your friend is that you would want a life partner if not for the complications asexuality has placed upon you and he wants a life partner even if he doesn't know what type of person he's looking for. In both cases there is that innate desire for planned and decided upon life partnership distinct from how someone would look at their friend and think, "wow, I hope we're friends forever." Granted, because aromanticism is defined as "lack of romantic attraction," many people describe themselves wanting a life partner of some variety, just one in which the activities they do together aren't stereotypically romantic. I'd equate this somewhat to people who call themselves asexual because they "don't experience sexual attraction," they just love having sex with people because it feels good. Comments like that have been debated over since AVEN was first created while similar comments about romanticism people just kind go with and has created pretty much the entire QPR/squish culture.

 

3 hours ago, Diamond Ace of Hearts said:

Some people are defining aromanticism one way and some are defining it the other and in my view neither is more correct. I know self-identification can be controversial with some on this site and to an extent I agree when it comes to asexuality. But with aromanticism it is necessarily different because while anyone can easily define what sex is, I don't think there will ever be a universal objective definition of romance or love.

True. I really do think the premise set at the introduction of the split attraction model really did doom romanticism to be quite vague. The thing with relying fully on self-identification thus giving way to an array of definitions and experiences is that, broadly speaking, it seems to diminish the initial point for certain terms to exist in the first place.

 

2 hours ago, Baam said:

I would be different than those you've talked to then, I would not be interested in having a relationship with someone solely for the purpose of having sexual relations with them. I truly can love someone, I just wouldn't be capable of communicating that romantically. I can't really explain it.

Like I kind of said for @Diamond Ace of Hearts's point, I think it might have to do with the desire or inclination for an agreed upon, mutual, hoped to be for life partnership. That could be based on sexual chemistry, social standing chemistry, romantic chemistry, videogaming chemistry, or whatever it is that brought people together in a manner in which life partnership is considered for one's own emotional satisfaction. For monogamous people this is where I think the exclusivity factor would arise as something of importance regardless of how much you kiss, hold hands, or shower each other with roses.

 

2 hours ago, Baam said:

I haven't had the experience of such a connection you're talking about in the quote above, though, so that's very interesting to read about. I can see how differentiating between a crush and a squish could be kind of useless for you (and me). I mean, it's just being interested in someone as a potential partner in any regard, right? Regardless of the classification of the potential relationship.

That's what I was thinking: the general interest for someone to be a potential partner. While the person I had that experience with was generally attractive, the thing that lead to those thoughts was they were:

 

1. Neat appearance.

2. Well spoken.

3. Well mannered.

4. Always punctual.

5. Technically handy.

6. Physically capable.

7. African American.

8. Male.

 

All things that screamed "parental approval." These are the things I was taught to look for before bringing a man to meet my father which is probably why I found myself hyperaware of such qualities. Where it failed was:

 

1. Not college educated.

2. Questionable family status.

3. Questionable social circle.

4. No solid career aspirations.

5. Got way too excited about my virginity.

6. Too willing to physically overpower me.

7. Too unsure of what he wanted from me.

8. Intimidated by my aspirations.

 

Because of this, any purposeful pursuit on my end was off the table. It wouldn't work. This dude wouldn't fit in with my family which is the only point of forming such a partnership in my opinion. He also took rejection quite poorly. Dodged a bullet there. Of course people find it odd when they ask what "my type" is and my response is "someone my parents will like who won't beat me for being frigid." Partnerships of that nature always seemed to be more of a family thing than an individual thing. I don't inherently associate such partnerships with happiness or completion, more of as a thing of duty paired with physical violation which is why as a kid I cried just thinking about it, that once puberty kicked in I'd become a slave to nature. This particular dude I just happened to stumble upon who also happened to be interested in me. What an odd coincidence. I still think he's attractive even though this all happened five years ago. At the same time I still can't stand the idea of him touching me or the image of how he looked at me.