Is romantic attraction necessary to be in love?

[lunarmorgan]

Is being romantically attracted to someone a prerequisite to being in love with someone? I was talking to my father about our experiences with social anxiety -- totally unrelated, but please bare with me -- and he mentioned starting to want to find a significant other in his mid 20s. My parents have been married for a long time, and I don't really know if they can say they're still romantically attracted to each other, but they definitely do love each other.

Like, I'm imagining old couples who have been married for decades. Is this more of a companionate love that started as romantic, or is there a separate part of romantic love that I don't understand? 

 

And then, of course, I started wondering if romantic attraction is even necessary for the state of "being in love" to occur. 

There was one hetero couple I met in which the guy had been friendzoned for years, but after becoming roommates and living together they eventually just began to call it a relationship. Eventually their relationship became a legitimate romantic relationship, but the woman told me she had never actually felt attracted to him -- until one day, when she realized she was in love. 
This is definitely just one data point to me, but I'm curious to people's takes on this idea.

 

I know aromantics + "in love" is a frequent question that has infinite answers. Despite all the threads I read in the romantic orientation section of this forum, I feel like I still don't have all the answers, like something is missing from the picture (which may just be me not understanding the whole romantic love thing lol) of the aspects of romantic relationships.

[Starlit Sky]

21 minutes ago, lunarmorgan said:

but the woman told me she had never actually felt attracted to him -- until one day, when she realized she was in love. 

That kind of attraction is going to be the "physical attraction" that has tons upon tons of asexuals stumped

 

All attractions, at least to some extent, are tricky. But being romantically attracted to someone means that you have some sort of desire to be romantically involved with a person, in some way or another, so I really don't think it would be possible to be in love with an individual but not romantically attracted to them.

[Philip027]

Thing is, there is an unspoken difference between loving someone and "being in love" with them, and the latter carries a heavy romantic connotation that the former doesn't necessarily.

 

When you say you love your friend, that's often understood perfectly as the sort of "aromantic" love most people probably mean it to be (some might refer to it as a "bromance" if it's between two guys).  When you say you're "in love" with your friend though, you would be hard pressed to find anyone that doesn't think you're talking about actual romantic feelings.

[Lord Jade Cross]

On 10/12/2018 at 7:00 PM, Starlit Sky said:

 ...

...

 

[TheAP]

It depends on how you define "in love". Some aromantics are able to have obsessive crush-like feelings and have exclusive relationships (QPRs). I don't really know what makes something romantic, either, though.

[Starlit Sky]

Squishes and QPRs, though--I don't know if I would call that being in love (though I'm open to talking about it and hearing others' views)? I've felt very, very, very intense squish feelings, but it was totally different to what it's like when you're in love.

[AndrewT]

1 hour ago, lunarmorgan said:

Is being romantically attracted to someone a prerequisite to being in love with someone? 

No, at least not for me; although, I've only ever loved one person 

[Tunes]

The phrase "in love" inherently includes the idea of romantic attraction, yes. But romantic attraction is something that is much smaller and more subtle than how society thinks of it. Most of what we attribute to being "in love" can also apply to deep platonic relationships as well. But the phrase does carry a connotation of romantic attraction along with it. So I would say, don't use the term if you don't mean it romantically, but this doesn't mean that most of the feeling that people attribute to being "in love" is unattainable without romantic attraction.

 

The most passionate part of a romantic relationship is not actually romantic love - maybe a side effect of it? I'm unsure to what degree this can affect aromantics and squishes. But that passion is infatuation, not romantic attraction. And it fades away somewhere in the first 2-4 years. After that, romantic love is only different in the specific form that it takes and the specific needs that the relationship is supposed to fill. The love itself can be experienced either romantically or platonically, and the line between the two is actually very small. Society paints the line as being bigger because romantic love is viewed (incorrectly) as being a stronger love than platonic love. But it's not stronger - the difference is just about what you want out of the relationship and how you express the love that you feel. This also applies to how passionate a love is - no matter whether the love is platonic or romantic, the passion behind it is a separate category in itself (and not the same thing as the strength of love, either; the feeling of love, whether platonic or romantic, could be extremely strong but take a more passive, and thus less passionate, form).

 

These older couples that you mention probably are still romantically attracted to one another, but they have started to see how the lines blur together. The passion has lessened, leaving behind only the strength of the love itself. I don't believe romantic attraction has left; I think it's more that the only part that's left that makes it distinctly "romantic" is a perspective that is kind of taken for granted. Because the real difference is actually very small and based only in perspective, the similarities stand out much more. Not to say all people keep their romantic attraction - I have no idea. But the amount that we can observe from outside their head isn't enough to say that it has changed either. So I generally just assume that, like other orientations, it doesn't change that easily. I think if they were going to become aromantic, it would have happened before they got to that age. 

[Fluffy Femme Guy]

7 hours ago, Starlit Sky said:

Squishes and QPRs, though--I don't know if I would call that being in love (though I'm open to talking about it and hearing others' views)? I've felt very, very, very intense squish feelings, but it was totally different to what it's like when you're in love.

Platonicly in love?

[Salmiakki]

9 hours ago, TheAppallingPhantom said:

Some aromantics are able to have obsessive crush-like feelings 

That makes no sense

[Anthracite_Impreza]

2 hours ago, Salmiakki said:

That makes no sense

People think I have a crush on Sebastian Stan because I go all fangirly over him. I don't, I have a massive, overexcitable squish. So yeah, we can get all obsessive and crush-like, just without the romantic undertones.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Anthraxite_Vampreza said:

, I have a massive, overexcitable squish.

 

You made Sebby all shy and happy  

[TheAP]

6 hours ago, Salmiakki said:

That makes no sense

Yeah, it does. You can obsess over someone without wanting to be in a romantic relationship with them.

 

@Starlit Sky IDK. I don't really know what it means to be "in love", or what romance even is.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

3 hours ago, FictoCannibal. said:

 

You made Sebby all shy and happy  

He's the most adorkable human on the planet ❤️

No Seb, it's "meem"

[AspieAlly613]

I use the terms interchangeably, but I may be wrong to do so.

[Salmiakki]

20 hours ago, TheAppallingPhantom said:

You can obsess over someone without wanting to be in a romantic relationship with them.

I know, I do that. All my crushes are like that. I have romantic feelings for them but don't want a relationship with them. I don't call them squishes because there's obvious romantic attraction. But it doesn't change the fact that I don't want to date them. 

[Tunes]

22 hours ago, Salmiakki said:

I know, I do that. All my crushes are like that. I have romantic feelings for them but don't want a relationship with them. I don't call them squishes because there's obvious romantic attraction. But it doesn't change the fact that I don't want to date them. 

Yeah, but romantic attraction means that you are attracted to them in a romantic sense, and this generally leads to romantic desire - which would be the desire to act on that attraction. Not always, obviously - just like sexuals don't always want to act on their sexual attraction, this is a severe generalization, but helps make the situation simpler for the purpose of determining if a person is aromantic or not, just like the generalization helps identify asexuals. A squish would be having those same feelings that you get when you get a crush, except you are not even subconsciously attracted to the idea of having any kind of romantic interactions with said person. You still get the excitement, the obsession, the faster heartbeat - the other feelings associated with a crush. But instead of feeling romantically, you feel platonically. Also, I don't think squishes are limited to aromantics. Romantics are more likely to blend them in with crushes, though, because it's similar enough in a practical sense. 

[lunarmorgan]

On 10/12/2018 at 10:26 PM, Tunes said:

The most passionate part of a romantic relationship is not actually romantic love - maybe a side effect of it? I'm unsure to what degree this can affect aromantics and squishes. But that passion is infatuation, not romantic attraction. And it fades away somewhere in the first 2-4 years. After that, romantic love is only different in the specific form that it takes and the specific needs that the relationship is supposed to fill. The love itself can be experienced either romantically or platonically, and the line between the two is actually very small. Society paints the line as being bigger because romantic love is viewed (incorrectly) as being a stronger love than platonic love. But it's not stronger - the difference is just about what you want out of the relationship and how you express the love that you feel. This also applies to how passionate a love is - no matter whether the love is platonic or romantic, the passion behind it is a separate category in itself (and not the same thing as the strength of love, either; the feeling of love, whether platonic or romantic, could be extremely strong but take a more passive, and thus less passionate, form).

This makes a lot of sense to me. 

 

Also, I've deduced whenever I'm hit with platonic infatuation that happens to include any aspect other than mental that I tend to panic and immediately associate the feeling with romantic. This is a bit of a problem, since squishes, personally, are synonymous with muses. As a visual artist, that inevitably means the physical and sensual attraction (it's not sexual) gets combined with my infatuation and the western world's culturally acceptable method of viewing/interacting with the bare human body (romantic/sexual relationships). And then I panic because wait-a-minute-this-seems-kinda-romantic-IDENTITY-CRISIS-*@#$%!

 

But, uh, I've finally figured that out! ^-^'

 

Edit: The physical/sensual attraction might just be a personal thing. I'm extremely tactile and visual yet usually touch-repulsed when it comes to other humans. 

[BeakLove]

I think love eventually takes on many of the characteristics people associate with romantic attraction. The confusion you feel is because - despite the best efforts of many people -no one has really defined romantic attraction in a clear-cut way. 

[lunarmorgan]

On 10/30/2018 at 5:56 PM, BeakLove said:

The confusion you feel is because - despite the best efforts of many people -no one has really defined romantic attraction in a clear-cut way. 

Agreed.

 

I've found that my various relationships with individuals, although they do not feel romantic to me, are often perceived as romantic by others (even those that know I'm aromantic). And then I doubt myself because I don't even know how to discern exactly what makes my relationships and squishes not romantic in a way that other people understand. 
 

Humans are weird. 

[BeakLove]

On 11/1/2018 at 5:45 AM, lunarmorgan said:

Agreed.

 

I've found that my various relationships with individuals, although they do not feel romantic to me, are often perceived as romantic by others (even those that know I'm aromantic). And then I doubt myself because I don't even know how to discern exactly what makes my relationships and squishes not romantic in a way that other people understand. 
 

Humans are weird. 

Hi lunar.

 

Humans certainly are weird and everyone's experiences are going to be different. I suspect if you asked everyone on the planet - regardless of their declared orientation - what their notion of "romance" is you're going to get different answers. One could say (as suggested in a post above): "the desire to be and/or participating in a romantic relationship" but a definition should not include itself! 

 

It's clear for most people that "romantic" versus "non-romantic" means (in the ideal case, at least): an emotionally close, committed relationship with a sexual partner. Even here on AVEN, many asexuals suggest that it's physical attraction (willingness to participate in cuddling, etc.) that largely delineates their romantic partner from everyone else. It's valid, therefore, to wonder whether or not "romantic" is just a wrapper around "sexual/physical" given that they correlate so strongly with each other.

 

But plenty of people with normal sexual disposition would suggest that "romance" is not so base - that is about "something more". After all, we don't claim to have had romantic relationships with every sexual partner. They would concur with the suggestion often made here that it is "the something" which elevates their relationship to a qualitatively different status to their others. Perhaps they are right. Perhaps "romance" is something independent from sexual, but it just so happens to correlate with it because most of us tend to only form close, long-lasting, committed relationships with sexual/romantic partners. So, whatever "romance" is attempting to characterise has no real chance to develop in other relationships.

 

Which I suppose leads to the problem of what you call a relationship which does develop that character but isn't sexual or declared as "romantic", which I'm guessing is your situation (and many others here of course). I think it helps to concretely spell out the difference between a friendship and a relationship. For me, a relationship that lacks exclusivity, isn't formally declared, and does not have long-term commitment is best characterised by friendship, regardless of how attached or close the participants claim to be. You don't need to be particularly emotionally invested to declare a relationship - a commitment to sexual exclusivity and copious amounts of lust is usually enough, particularly when younger. But if romance isn't merely that, if it truly does characterise the "something more" that a relationship with someone genuinely special has, then (a) it's something that can happen in the context of any kind of relationship, but (b) it makes sense that it would typically drive people to want formalise it, lock it down, and secure it. 

 

And I guess returning to the topic, this is pretty much a conflation of "love" with "romance".

[binary suns]

I'd say that romance is implied when talking about being in love with someone

[BeakLove]

It is. And it's the only workable definition of "romance" I can think of that is separate to merely an emotional attachment or sexual attraction. But "being in love" (as opposed to "loving someone") carries a sexual connotation which plenty would deny is the major component of romance (or even an essential part of it). And even if we suggest romance is the obsessive desire to be with someone - the limerence (with or without sexual attraction) - still others would say that similar can occur in non-romantic contexts, supposed squishes or perhaps even deeply committed friendships (if this is even meaningful to say). But this leaves romance without a definition...

 

And without a definition we're somewhat doomed to go in circles asking the same questions! 

[lunarmorgan]

On 11/3/2018 at 12:16 PM, BeakLove said:

And without a definition we're somewhat doomed to go in circles asking the same questions! 

Basically all my posts here fall under this phrase, I do believe...

 

I think I've got a definition in my head, then someone tells me something/I read something that makes me doubt it for a split second, and next thing I know I've lost the definition. And then I come here searching for answers again!