My Aromantic Struggle

[Member131995]

I know a lot of people have been making posts about whether they are aromantic or not and I didn't want to make another. But I've been reading these posts and also the older posts with all the info about aromanticism. However, I'm still supremely confused about what it means. 

 

Admittedly, I identify as one but I always thought it was because I'm not romantic and don't care for romantic gestures and small talk and cuddling and texts every morning and other such stuff.

 

However, based on what I've read, aromanticism is the lack of desire for a romantic relationship. But the part where I'm stumped is what exactly is a romantic relationship? 

 

To be clear, I want a relationship, but I don't consider it for the purpose of emotional fulfillment. I would consider it for the purpose of a companion, someone to do things with, raise kids with but definitely not for sex. Also, I don't feel excited by someone to cuddle or spoon with so much as I'd want someone to do things with. I don't want a partner who texts me every hour or morning, I don't care for sexy texts or good morning texts. I don't appreciate being checked on every hour or spending every second with my partner. My idea of an ideal relationship is that we're two mature adults who share a deep emotional connection and our lives and our children but we're also independent and don't cling to each other and there is trust. I'm not the mom and I'm not here to be mothered. 

 

Perhaps there is a resource I've missed or perhaps I'm missing the point but I just need some clarification. If I identify as aromantic, does this mean I don't want a relationship? I do want a relationship but I don't want there to be a romantic component. I mean, can you still love your partner and consider it aromantic? Thank you, I'm very confused.

[Falafelphy]

I've also wondered this. Maybe it's like sexual attraction in that you don't know what it is unless you experience it and I can't tell because I don't experience it, but it's very confusing. I strongly desire close friendships, where I get to spend lots of quality time with those close friends, whether in groups or individually, but that's really all I want. It's to the point when sometimes I get a little jealous of friends in relationships because I want to spend time with them too (which I admit probably isn't the best thing to be feeling). So yeah, I really don't have an answer for you other than that I feel the same.

[Just Somebody]

A romantic relationship is a social contract, an human construction, it's just a title,  if you're allo-romantic or gray-romantic,  you would enjoy to have a emotional bond and name it an romantic relationship instead of any other name for bonds... why would you wanna do that ? Well the reason doesn't matter really. 

 

 

Easy as pie... that being said so , aromantics never wish to call their emotional bonds romantic relationships.

 

 

 

Actually, how you feel about romance and what you do in your social interactions doesn't matter for this subject. 

[Chocolatastic AroAce]

I guess part of it could be what is considered 'romantic'. Based on things like tv and other media my understanding of romance are things like candle lit dinners, kissing, holding hands and 'bedroom activities'.   I can't say I have any desire for those kinds of things, but I do desire friendship. However this becomes tricky because  someone else could have a different interpretation of what a romantic relationship entails. So I suppose like you even though I have identified as Aro/Ace I'm a little unsure as well.

[Galactic Turtle]

What is considered to be a romantic gesture or action depends entirely on the cultural context. What is romantic in South America in the 1600's is different from what is romantic in East Asia in 2018. Romance in any given area now probably looks a lot different than romance in the exact same place 100 years ago. Not caring for romantic gestures in your particular culture I think definitely could impact your ability to obtain and maintain a romantic relationship but, in my opinion, has little if anything at all to do with aromanticism.

 

Of course definitions are highly debated around here but... here's how I lay it out:

 

Asexuality is about a lack of sexual attraction. This results in a lack of desire to have sex.

Aromanticism is about a lack of romantic attraction. This results in a lack of desire to have a romantic partner(s). 

 

If people think asexuality is highly varied, aromanticism is even more so (in practice) if only because romance in and of itself is an abstract concept. The split attraction model already raises one unpopular question: can you have romance without sex? Even such a suggestion that it could blows peoples minds. Diving into everyone's individual partner preferences you can bring up all the other things that within a given culture might be considered to be mandatory for a successful romantic relationship. Can you have romance without kissing? Holding hands? Dates? Cohabitation? Touching? At the end of the day I think it's important to acknowledge that everyone has different preferences when it comes to their desired partner and really the only thing that makes a romantic relationship romantic is if the people involved in it say it is. 

 

One of the best distinctions between romance and friendship I've read went something like... friendship is two people standing side by side facing the same direction. The focus is on what they have in common in front of them whether that be hobbies, ambitions, or philosophy. Romance is two people facing each other. The focus is on what they might be able to build and invest in together whether that be a home, a family, or simply their relationship with each other. The external plays less of a factor, it's more about what is between them.

 

Personally I call myself aromantic because I've never had a crush and am not interested in having a partner. 

[Anthracite_Impreza]

I have always gone by what seems to me to be the defining factor in romance: an initial stage of limerence. I feel and do many "romantic" actions (kisses, cuddles etc.), but I've never been in that state, and I don't seem to get the "intensity" that accompanies romantic relations. So, aro.

[Member131995]

8 hours ago, Just Somebody said:

Easy as pie... that being said so , aromantics never wish to call their emotional bonds romantic relationships.

Okay, so am I correct in understanding that if I'm in a relationship basically all that makes me aromantic is if I don't call my emotional bond a romantic relationship? Is it just in the terminology/labeling? I suppose this is where I'm confused. If this is true, this actually makes a lot of sense.

[Member131995]

4 hours ago, Galactic Turtle said:

Personally I call myself aromantic because I've never had a crush and am not interested in having a partner. 

I've never had a crush either. I'm not interested in having a partner except I do want children but I'm afraid to try raising them alone because of what my family would think. However, I'm not interesting in having a partner in general. I have had squishes before and I'd be interested in a QPR, but does this mean I could still be aromantic? I'm starting to understand now that my romantic inclinations (candlelight dinners, flowers, cuddling, etc) don't necessarily have any bearing on whether I'm aromantic or not. So this is starting to feel a bit clearer now.

 

2 hours ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

I have always gone by what seems to me to be the defining factor in romance: an initial stage of limerence. I feel and do many "romantic" actions (kisses, cuddles etc.), but I've never been in that state, and I don't seem to get the "intensity" that accompanies romantic relations. So, aro.

I think I'm starting to understand better. As @Just Somebody said, how a person feels and does in their social interactions isn't part of whether they're aromantic or not, so I'm starting to understand, you can feel and do "romantic" things and still be aro, since it's more of a state and less of a set of actions or feelings. I guess this is where I was confused and it actually makes me feel better. I feel more confident considering myself aro now that I understand it better. I guess I was afraid that if I did like some "romantic" things that I couldn't call myself aro.

 

Thanks everyone for helping me out. If I got anything confused, feel free to straighten me out, which I'm sure you will in your gentle and loving way. I'm learning so much and finding so much validation, it's amazing.

[Chocolatastic AroAce]

Thank you for bringing this thread up @Nancy Esther it gives me some things to think about. It also cleared up some of my own confusion a bit. I believe my lack of desire to have any thing more then a close friend puts me in Aromatic territory. Warm fuzzys all around. 

[Member131995]

2 hours ago, Ameline257 said:

Thank you for bringing this thread up @Nancy Esther it gives me some things to think about. It also cleared up some of my own confusion a bit. I believe my lack of desire to have any thing more then a close friend puts me in Aromatic territory. Warm fuzzys all around. 

Of course! I've been digging a lot and just couldn't seem to figure things out. I would say my attraction to others is entirely platonic, like I do want relationships with an emotional connection but I would never want a relationship where I say "this is my boy/girl friend" or in one where I get married. It would be my best or close friend. And I have no desire to be exclusive necessarily, hence the desire for complete plantonicity (maybe that's not a word).

[Anthracite_Impreza]

6 hours ago, Nancy Esther said:

plantonicity

Plant on a city? Plant in a city?

[Member131995]

4 hours ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

Plant on a city? Plant in a city?

Wow, my fat fingers. I meant platonicity. Is that a word?

[Anthracite_Impreza]

4 minutes ago, Nancy Esther said:

Wow, my fat fingers. I meant platonicity. Is that a word?

It is now

[Just Somebody]

On 8/4/2018 at 11:50 PM, Nancy Esther said:

Okay, so am I correct in understanding that if I'm in a relationship basically all that makes me aromantic is if I don't call my emotional bond a romantic relationship? Is it just in the terminology/labeling? I suppose this is where I'm confused. If this is true, this actually makes a lot of sense.

Wow, yup. 

[AllTalk]

On 8/4/2018 at 6:41 PM, Galactic Turtle said:

One of the best distinctions between romance and friendship I've read went something like... friendship is two people standing side by side facing the same direction. The focus is on what they have in common in front of them whether that be hobbies, ambitions, or philosophy. Romance is two people facing each other. The focus is on what they might be able to build and invest in together whether that be a home, a family, or simply their relationship with each other. The external plays less of a factor, it's more about what is between them.

I really REALLY like this description. That's perfect for what I understand a romantic relationship to be. That togetherness ... not just physically being together, but the building of things that couldn't exist but through the togetherness of the relationship. 

 

And that is precisely the thing I find terrifying and abhorent. Haha. Making friends is great, I'm cool with that, have amazing friends that I love. But the idea of a romantic relationship, that vague construct, is something I have never wanted, have never sought out, and whenever I get the whiff that something is turning toward romance, I can't help but just run away from it! Cut it off, cold turkey, no dice, not having it! 

 

It's nothing to do with romantic gestures, holding hands, cuddling, red hearts and chocolate. I like surprises, gestures from people I care about that show they care about me. I love giving thoughtful gifts or doing caring things for the friends I love. So the ACTS are fine. It's the "pairing" or "couple-ness", the combining of me with someone else into one unit ... that's a HARD NO!!