What is Romantic Attraction?

[Man of the Stoa]

This question seems to have come up without any good answer. I've tried to puzzle together a good explanation of what it is, but to no avail. So, I thought I'd make a dedicated thread to figuring that out.

 

So, what does romantic attraction have that is distinct from platonic attraction? I came to a vague, working definition is this thread. We discussed various intimate actions, but the problem is that actions are a bad litmus test for attractions (as asexuals who have sex to make partners happy or to satisfy curiosity can attest). At any rate, these actions can be done in either a romantic or platonic context, so even then there's not much in the actions in-and-of themselves.

 

The working definition I came up with was that romantic attraction has an immediate desire for intimate acts, often rooted in physical appearance. For instance, while I've cuddled with friends and teammates before, but would never want to cuddle with someone I didn't know, no matter how cool they seemed or how much I'd want to develop a friendship with them. This definition has holes in it, though. A real life conversation with a friend about how her romantic interest in her boyfriend arose from platonic feelings (i.e. she had romantic attraction, but not immediate desire for intimacy) sort of blew a whole in this definition, though. Then, someone posting about anxieties over their romantic orientation made me think I should seek a better definition. If we're going to use a label, we should at least be able to define what that label is, no?

 

So, could romantic asexuals describe their romantic feelings? How are they distinct from platonic feelings? Perhaps we can finally get an explanation for what romantic attraction is.

[Pramana]

My stock answer regarding questions about the nature of romantic attraction is to quote this journal article:
Helen E. Fisher, “Lust, Attraction, and Attachment in Mammalian Reproduction,” Human Nature 9, no. 1 (1998).

"1. the loved person takes on “special meaning.” As one of Tennov's informants phrased it, “My whole world had been transformed. It had a new center, and that center was Marilyn” (Tennov 1979:18). This phenomenon is coupled with the inability to feel romantic passion for more than one person at a time;
2. intrusive thinking about the loved person;
3. crystallization, or the tendency to focus on the loved person's positive qualities and overlook or falsely appraise his/her negative traits;
4. labile psychophysiological responses to the loved person, including exhilaration, euphoria, buoyance, spiritual feelings, feelings of fusion with the loved person, increased energy, sleeplessness, loss of appetite, shyness, awkwardness, trembling, pallor, flushing, stammering, aching of the “heart,” inappropriate laughing, gazing, prolonged eye contact, butterflies in the stomach, sweaty palms, weak knees, dilated pupils, dizziness, a pounding heart, accelerated breathing, uncertainty, anxiety, panic, and/or fear in the presence of the loved person;
5. a longing for emotional reciprocity coupled with the desire to achieve emotional union with the loved person;
6. emotional dependency on the relationship with the loved person, including feelings of hope, apprehension, possessiveness, preoccupation with the beloved, hypersensitivity to cues given by the beloved, inability to concentrate on matters unrelated to the beloved, jealousy, emotional vulnerability, fear of rejection by the beloved, fantasies about the loved person, separation anxiety, and swings in mood associated with the fluctuating state of the relationship, as well as feelings of despair, lack of optimism, listlessness, brooding, and loss of hope during a temporary setback in the
relationship or after rejection by the loved person;
7. a powerful sense of empathy toward the loved person, including a feeling of responsibility for the beloved and a willingness to sacrifice for the loved person;
8. a reordering of daily priorities to be available to the loved person coupled with the impulse to make a certain impression on the loved person, including changing one's clothing, mannerisms, habits, or values;
9. an intensification of passionate feelings caused by adversity in the relationship;
10. a sexual desire for the target of infatuation coupled with the desire for sexual exclusivity;
11. the precedence of the craving for emotional union over the desire for sexual union with the beloved;
12. the feeling that one's romantic passion is involuntary and uncontrollable."

[letusdeleteouraccounts]

Romantic attraction is a feeling that makes you desire to date a specific person. Platonic attraction is a feeling that urges you to become emotionally close to a specific person. Basically love vs. interest and both can happen at the same time. The desire for intimate acts to a specific person is actually sensual attraction

[Man of the Stoa]

I'm not sure any of those points are really satisfying at finding the distinction between romantic and platonic attraction, though. I'm looking for the necessary and sufficient conditions, while all these seem vague and applicable to most strong relationships, whether romantic or platonic

11 hours ago, Pramana said:

"1. the loved person takes on “special meaning.” As one of Tennov's informants phrased it, “My whole world had been transformed. It had a new center, and that center was Marilyn” (Tennov 1979:18). This phenomenon is coupled with the inability to feel romantic passion for more than one person at a time;

This is just too vague. Romantic attraction has a special component. While I'm sure it does, I'm more interested in what that component is. This seems to then suggest extreme loyalty (center of your world, one person at a time), but platonic attraction can feature extreme loyalty as well. For an impactful historical example, think of the Diadochi following Alexander the Great, from whom we draw the word companion. Surely he was the center of their world, without a romantic component to all their relationships

11 hours ago, Pramana said:

2. intrusive thinking about the loved person

Intrusive thoughts happen with platonic relationships as well, no? There are many times where I'll think of friends (or family, or coworkers...) out of the blue, even if I'm trying to focus on something else.

11 hours ago, Pramana said:

3. crystallization, or the tendency to focus on the loved person's positive qualities and overlook or falsely appraise his/her negative traits;

This is just a human quality in general, isn't it? It extends to platonic relationships, and far beyond. I can think of political partisans who will focus on their party's positive qualities and ignore their negatives, but this isn't romantic attraction.

11 hours ago, Pramana said:

4. labile psychophysiological responses to the loved person, including exhilaration, euphoria, buoyance, spiritual feelings, feelings of fusion with the loved person, increased energy, sleeplessness, loss of appetite, shyness, awkwardness, trembling, pallor, flushing, stammering, aching of the “heart,” inappropriate laughing, gazing, prolonged eye contact, butterflies in the stomach, sweaty palms, weak knees, dilated pupils, dizziness, a pounding heart, accelerated breathing, uncertainty, anxiety, panic, and/or fear in the presence of the loved person;

Likewise, I feel like most of these are just responses to anyone you care about. Romantic, platonic, family, coworkers; anyone who you enjoy being around with produce the positive ones, and anyone whose opinion you value will produce the negative ones.

11 hours ago, Pramana said:

5. a longing for emotional reciprocity coupled with the desire to achieve emotional union with the loved person;

This might be a distinction. While emotional reciprocity is certainly common to platonic relationships, I'm not sure "emotional unity" is. But then, I'm not sure what exactly is meant by it.

11 hours ago, Pramana said:

6. emotional dependency on the relationship with the loved person, including feelings of hope, apprehension, possessiveness, preoccupation with the beloved, hypersensitivity to cues given by the beloved, inability to concentrate on matters unrelated to the beloved, jealousy, emotional vulnerability, fear of rejection by the beloved, fantasies about the loved person, separation anxiety, and swings in mood associated with the fluctuating state of the relationship, as well as feelings of despair, lack of optimism, listlessness, brooding, and loss of hope during a temporary setback in the relationship or after rejection by the loved person

This sounds like codependency more than romance. Which, while it can occur in romantic relationships, doesn't need to. And it can also occur in platonic relationships. It seems neither exclusive to romantic relationships, nor necessary for them.

11 hours ago, Pramana said:

7. a powerful sense of empathy toward the loved person, including a feeling of responsibility for the beloved and a willingness to sacrifice for the loved person

Again, deep loyalty can be a feature in any relationship. See point 1. Or think of the platonic instances where someone will sacrifice even their life for a friend.

11 hours ago, Pramana said:

8. a reordering of daily priorities to be available to the loved person coupled with the impulse to make a certain impression on the loved person, including changing one's clothing, mannerisms, habits, or values

Again, this can occur in platonic relationships as well. Think of kids hanging around a bad influence because he's cool. The concern of this as an influence is precisely because of changes to clothes, mannerisms, habits, and values. Think also of teammates or bandmates, where daily life is shifted to make time for them, and where the influence is again present, but usually hoped for in a more positive sense.

I can also think of romantic relationships where daily schedules don't shift, to the point of causing distress. One partner being too dedicated to their job at the expense of their family is common enough that it's become a trope in sitcom.

11 hours ago, Pramana said:

9. an intensification of passionate feelings caused by adversity in the relationship

This one I'm just not sure what is meant. If it's intense feelings from experiencing adversity together, I'd again just suggest it's a feature of human behavior. Adversity brings people together, sometimes making life-long relationships as a result. The traumas of war are an example, and the idea that "he today who sheds his blood with me shall be my brother" is seen across cultures fairly commonly.

If it means that fighting between the two creates (positive) intense feelings... does it? I know about make-up sex and all that, but generally that's after resolution of the fighting, not from the fighting itself, as it's been explained to me.
 

11 hours ago, Pramana said:

10. a sexual desire for the target of infatuation couple with the desire for sexual exclusivity

Plenty of asexuals experience romantic attraction, which would mean romantic attraction is distinct from sexual desire

11 hours ago, Pramana said:

11. the precedence of the craving for emotional union over the desire for sexual union with the beloved

See the above point

 

11 hours ago, Pramana said:

12. the feeling that one's romantic passion is involuntary and uncontrollable

Isn't that the case with emotions in general? Isn't, say, feeling anger at traffic involuntary and uncontrollable? I mean, you can decide to act on that anger or not, just like you can decide to act on romantic passion or not, but the feeling itself isn't really under your control. All this point really says is that romantic attraction is an emotion, which seems fairly obvious and doesn't really help describe what it is or how it's distinct from platonic attraction.

 

10 hours ago, Star Lion said:

Romantic attraction is a feeling that makes you desire to date a specific person. Platonic attraction is a feeling that urges you to become emotionally close to a specific person. Basically love vs. interest and both can happen at the same time. The desire for intimate acts to a specific person is actually sensual attraction

There might be something behind this. What is "dating" really, though? How is dinner and a movie with a date different from dinner and movie with a friend?

 

 

None of these points seem exclusive to romance, they just describe strong relationships in general. When people describe sexual attraction, they describe what seems like a fully separate emotional and physical response, so that even though I don't experience it, I get that there's something distinct going on. Whenever romance is described, though, it seems like the same description for a close friendship.

 

What I'm hoping to find is what the quality is that makes a relationship romantic. That is, what separates it from a strong platonic bond. I think the best way to go about this isn't to describe the features of a romantic relationship, because almost all will overlap with a strong platonic relationship. Rather, it would be better to try and find what romantic relationships have that platonic relationships don't, and thus see the distinction.

 

That's why I lead with my (failed) working definition, which I though gave a feature of romantic attraction not present in platonic attraction. Are there features exclusive to romantic attraction anyone can think of? If not, perhaps through a discussion of the feelings we'll be able to find some insights.

[banana monkey]

21 hours ago, Star Lion said:

Romantic attraction is a feeling that makes you desire to date a specific person. Platonic attraction is a feeling that urges you to become emotionally close to a specific person. 

Dont you want to become emotionally close to those you want to date? prehaps i'm not understanding. 

[letusdeleteouraccounts]

34 minutes ago, banana monkey said:

Dont you want to become emotionally close to those you want to date? prehaps i'm not understanding. 

Sort of but it’s not exactly the point of romantic attraction. Romantic attraction is about falling in love and wanting to please the person because that’s what pleases you. Platonic attraction is about wanting to get to know the person for who they are, learn about them, and just have them as another person in your life. Romantic attraction, I would say, often includes platonic attraction. Here’s an experience I had of platonic attraction. There was one guy I saw and I didn’t know why, but I had an urge to just walk up to him and strike a conversation. Complete stranger out of everyone in the crowd that I specifically wanted to learn about and be able to talk to every now and then. I didn’t want to date him, I didn’t have any “butterfly” feelings, I just wanted to know who he was and his personality for no particular reason

[letusdeleteouraccounts]

11 hours ago, Man of the Stoa said:

There might be something behind this. What is "dating" really, though? How is dinner and a movie with a date different from dinner and movie with a friend?

Dating isn’t about traditional treating, dating is about experiencing each other and expressing your love to each other. It’s just often expressed through things like dinner and movie. The difference between the couple and friends is that the movie and dinner for friends is purely about having fun

[Pramana]

15 hours ago, Man of the Stoa said:

What I'm hoping to find is what the quality is that makes a relationship romantic. That is, what separates it from a strong platonic bond. I think the best way to go about this isn't to describe the features of a romantic relationship, because almost all will overlap with a strong platonic relationship. Rather, it would be better to try and find what romantic relationships have that platonic relationships don't, and thus see the distinction.

 

That's why I lead with my (failed) working definition, which I though gave a feature of romantic attraction not present in platonic attraction. Are there features exclusive to romantic attraction anyone can think of? If not, perhaps through a discussion of the feelings we'll be able to find some insights.

The crucial point to remember is that romantic attraction, companionate attachment, sexual attraction, and sexual desire are all distinct psychological states. As psychological states, they come with distinct phenomenologies that people might describe with various feelings or clusters of feelings. This is what the list I quoted above is trying to capture. Now you're right that certain of those indicia might be present in a platonic friendship, but when taken together (or in substantive subsets) they represent a different internal experience. I think you're making a category error when looking for a set of necessary and sufficient conditions, and by approaching the list as though you can assess each individual point in isolation from the rest.

I'd suggest this methodological flaw is evident in your working definition: "romantic attraction has an immediate desire for intimate acts, often rooted in physical appearance." If you're looking for necessary and sufficient conditions, I doubt that will work, as you'll probably find both romantic partnerships absent this desire and friendships containing this desire. It also sounds closer to a definition of sexual attraction than romantic attraction, since on average sexual attraction is more closely associated with physical appearances while romantic attraction is more closely associated with emotional connections.

[Man of the Stoa]

14 hours ago, Pramana said:

As psychological states, they come with distinct phenomenologies that people might describe with various feelings or clusters of feelings. This is what the list I quoted above is trying to capture. Now you're right that certain of those indicia might be present in a platonic friendship, but when taken together (or in substantive subsets) they represent a different internal experience.

You are perhaps right about my methodology, and certainly right that my definition is deeply flawed, but I really think that list isn't describing a different internal experience. It just seems like a sufficiently close friendship.

 

Take any celebrated example of close friendship in fiction. Frodo and Sam, for instance. Aside from the sex stuff, they hit all those points. And whenever I ask about asexual romance, whatever is described just seems to be a close friendship, with nothing indicating any different experience.

 

What about the internal experience is different?

[Pramana]

3 hours ago, Man of the Stoa said:

You are perhaps right about my methodology, and certainly right that my definition is deeply flawed, but I really think that list isn't describing a different internal experience. It just seems like a sufficiently close friendship.

 

Take any celebrated example of close friendship in fiction. Frodo and Sam, for instance. Aside from the sex stuff, they hit all those points. And whenever I ask about asexual romance, whatever is described just seems to be a close friendship, with nothing indicating any different experience.

 

What about the internal experience is different?

Unfortunately, I think this might be a 'you'll know it when you've felt it, and if you have to ask, then you probably haven't felt it' situation. Sexual attraction might actually be a little easier to define because there's a connection to sexual activities, and people at least have a a rough idea of what sexual activities are. With romantic attraction you're left saying the connection is to romantic activities, but what differentiates say a romantic dinner date from going to a restaurant with a friend, and it seems the answer is just the experience of romantic attraction.

There are a couple of ways to go with this. The article that I quoted is largely devoted to explaining how these psychological states are connected to separate hormonal and neurotransmitter systems, with different groups of hormones responsible for each. So there's a neuropsychology explanation for how romantic attraction and companionate attachment differ. It might also be worth revisiting the list that I quoted from the article, approaching it holistically to consider the experience represented by having most or all of those indicia felt intensely and concentrated on a single person.

[Tunes]

On 11/17/2018 at 11:06 PM, Man of the Stoa said:

None of these points seem exclusive to romance, they just describe strong relationships in general. When people describe sexual attraction, they describe what seems like a fully separate emotional and physical response, so that even though I don't experience it, I get that there's something distinct going on. Whenever romance is described, though, it seems like the same description for a close friendship.

That's because the important part is essentially the same. The intimacy, at its core, is the same. The difference is the type of love, or, more accurately, the specific way that you experience/interpret the intimacy. 

 

On 11/17/2018 at 11:06 PM, Man of the Stoa said:

What I'm hoping to find is what the quality is that makes a relationship romantic. That is, what separates it from a strong platonic bond.

An aromantic will never understand that quality. It's an experience in itself. It's not that anything important is missing, but... Ok, an analogy. Say your friend wants to share with you the joy of skydiving. But you are afraid of heights and even more afraid of falling. Even if you went skydiving, you would never understand the specific experience that your friend had, because you would not enjoy it. It could be described as a feeling of adrenaline, having the air rush past your face, a feeling of excitement and joy. But I described riding a bike when I was young with the same adjectives. It's still not the same experience. My partner can understand the feeling of finally completing a major part project she's been working on for months. And I can understand the feeling of finally completing a major translation that I have been working on for months. And while the core emotions might be the same, the form that the overall experience takes inherently includes the process that it took to get you there - which her process with her artwork and my process with my translation will be fundamentally different in a way that we will never be able to truly understand, because I would not get that sense of fulfillment from art and she would not get it from translation. Romantic love isn't just intimate, it's an experience. It's a way of interpreting/experiencing intimacy. The person/people that you feel romantic attraction toward stand out from platonic friends in a distinct way that has nothing to do with your level of intimacy. It's a way of experiencing how you feel about a person. It's like a lens that rests over intimacy, tinting it a certain color. 

 

On 11/17/2018 at 11:06 PM, Man of the Stoa said:

Rather, it would be better to try and find what romantic relationships have that platonic relationships don't, and thus see the distinction.

The relationships themselves? Nothing. I am in a relationship with an aromantic, for example. And sometimes we clash over this difference - I really want to get married and she doesn't, for example. But not all romantics want something as formal as marriage either. I want to call our relationship "dating", but she feels uncomfortable with that because it feels misleading for her based on how she views our relationship. And it drives me absolutely up the freaking wall when she states that I am just as important as her brother and she doesn't understand why I can be called a "life partner" and her brother can't, even though we will both be in her life until she dies. Whereas my romantic feelings for her set her apart from other people in my mind, she views everyone platonically, and thus does not view me inherently differently (there are varying degrees of intimacy, of course, just not an inherent difference in the way she experiences that intimacy).

 

More often, we overlap. For example, she views cuddling to be a platonic thing (like a dogpile with friends, for example), while I would be very uncomfortable being physically intimate like that with platonic friends, no matter how close we were emotionally. She views a peck on the lips as a sign of general affection (like parents do when they give their kids a peck on the lips). I am highly disturbed when I see a parent kiss their kids on the lips, because any kiss on the lips (peck or otherwise) strikes me as romantic. But then again, the same can be said regarding sexual and asexual - my partner doesn't like kissing with tongue because it breaks outside of what she sees as platonic and thus what she is comfortable with, but she doesn't view it as inherently sexual. I view kissing with tongue to be a distinctly sexual thing. So we are both uncomfortable with it for different reasons (we discovered that one when she was trying to do something romantic for me because she knows that's how I interpret our intimacy, so she decided to try to kiss with tongue and actually felt rejected when I backed away - we had a long talk about it afterwards. XD). So there isn't anything about the relationship that will objectively point in one direction or another - it's just about how you interpret the intimacy that you feel. 

 

On 11/18/2018 at 3:16 PM, Pramana said:

The crucial point to remember is that romantic attraction, companionate attachment, sexual attraction, and sexual desire are all distinct psychological states. As psychological states, they come with distinct phenomenologies that people might describe with various feelings or clusters of feelings.

This. Romantic love is an experience. An overall way of experiencing a set of feelings/circumstances. It isn't any one thing you can pinpoint because it's an overall psychological state. There isn't anything "missing" from platonic relationships and platonic relationships are not inherently more shallow or lacking in any way. Often people will limit how emotionally intimate they will become with their friends because society acts like there is a clear limit making friendships the step that comes before romantic relationships, but this is a social construct, not a natural one. Really, they are just different because they involve different psychological states and thus different ways of experiencing something.

 

On 11/18/2018 at 3:16 PM, Pramana said:

"romantic attraction has an immediate desire for intimate acts, often rooted in physical appearance."

Yes, this feels distinctly insulting to me, in fact. I mean, I'm not blaming or pointing fingers - I understand that you didn't intend it that way, so no hard feelings or anything. But I have had many romantic attractions in my life and not a single one of them had anything to do with physical appearance at all and none of them gave me a desire for immediate intimacy either. In fact, my platonic attractions (still not based in physical appearance) felt more rushed in terms of how quickly I wanted intimacy than my romantic ones by a long shot (granted, the type of intimacy that I wanted for my platonic relationships was more easily attainable as well, but I wanted to skip the "casual chitchat/getting to know each other" phase and get right down to the "hanging out and sharing the most important aspects of ourselves" unrealistically quickly, whereas if I had a crush on someone, I felt better taking my time). Your definition here just sounds very shallow.

 

On 11/19/2018 at 5:45 AM, Man of the Stoa said:

What about the internal experience is different?

It's how you interpret the intimacy and how you view the other person involved. It's a psychological state, and unless you have already felt it, there is absolutely no way for another person to describe it to you. I hesitate to say, perhaps it's a more intense desire for intimacy? I mean, if I had to put words to my own interpretation of it, that's probably what I'd say, but as far as I can see from my partner and the descriptions other aro people on this site have given, I don't think that's at all accurate. It's a context that I crave, not an action, not intimacy in general, but since I want to say "a certain type of intimacy", but can't even make sense of what that phrase would mean, I think it's more of a specific context for the intimacy to take place in. A romantic context.

 

As best as I can accurately describe it, I want actions that increase/feed this romantic feeling, in much the same way that a sexual wants actions that will increase/feed their sexual feeling. The only difference is that sexual attraction often includes a desire to follow through on a specific action (sex) that cannot be applied to any other context, whereas romantic actions can be made non-romantic by changing the context/perspective. 

 

On 11/19/2018 at 10:04 AM, Pramana said:

Unfortunately, I think this might be a 'you'll know it when you've felt it, and if you have to ask, then you probably haven't felt it' situation. Sexual attraction might actually be a little easier to define because there's a connection to sexual activities, and people at least have a a rough idea of what sexual activities are. With romantic attraction you're left saying the connection is to romantic activities, but what differentiates say a romantic dinner date from going to a restaurant with a friend, and it seems the answer is just the experience of romantic attraction.

This exactly.

[artzcat]

.

[Tunes]

12 hours ago, artzcat said:

Even the titles boy/girlfriend, wife/husband, SO, partner, sound exclusive. 

I definitely agree with the exclusivity bit, at least from my personal experience. My partner definitely feels a close bond and a large amount of strong intimacy. But the concept of exclusivity is something she has never understood and I could never explain. On the other hand, plenty of romantics are down for relationships that are not exclusive, and although I don’t know one way or another, I imagine quasiplatonic relationships between two aromantics could also be considered exclusive. So I wouldn’t say it’s anything definitive, but there may be some association between those concepts, as far as my own experiences go. 

 

12 hours ago, artzcat said:

Is it possible that both are romantic but one is just cheesier/follows traditional romance standards and therefore seems more romantic? 

I would certainly say this is the case, because context could make either one of these platonic or romantic. I don’t think this makes it a scale or an overlap though. I would really describe romanticism as a film placed over the scene. It’s the same as it would be if it were platonic, except a certain mindset makes you view the situation differently. Even beyond just overlap, I have had times that I have gone on a romantic date out to eat with a partner and it has felt romantic, then turned around, went to the same place with a friend, and it didn’t feel romantic. It’s entirely a mental perspective, regardless of your cultural associations with romance. Sometimes cultural norms will encourage you to want certain actions (like going to candle-lit dinners and such), because it’s the cultural way of *expressing* this attraction, but the romantic attraction itself doesn’t entail any specific action. 

 

12 hours ago, artzcat said:

On the other hand, if I were to ever end up in a relationship, I can’t deny I’d give them special privileges like cuddling and small kisses and I’d have a certain amount of expectation for mutual reciprocation of affection. Does that qualify as romantic attraction, even minor romantic attraction?

Not necessarily. My partner views me like her brother in the sense that she doesn’t feel a difference in the type of love from one to the next. But she does acknowledge the uniqueness of each individual relationship that she has, and gets along with people in different ways, and she does act in ways with me that she wouldn’t necessarily act with others. But I view this as related to a different form of love, and she sees it more as a different type of interaction. For her, it has more to do with the fact that doing that sort of thing doesn’t make her feel uncomfortable, in the same way that I might feel comfortable talking about certain topics with one friend and not another, or I might feel familiar enough to grab something out of the bathroom cabinet while one person (that I’m very familiar with - my sister for example) is using the shower but not while another person (a close friend who would be weirded out by such a breach of privacy) is doing so. It’s a difference only in the dynamics of how we, as two different people, interact together. While I feel an innate difference in how I view her, in a way that feels more connected to the form my love takes and is similar to how I felt about certain other people (crushes - although not as strongly or intimately). 

 

12 hours ago, artzcat said:

 I can definitely relate to Tunes’ partner who mentioned she sees him

Her.  I’m a ‘her’. 

 

 

[artzcat]

.

[Tunes]

4 hours ago, artzcat said:

Oh Im very sorry about that! I should not have assumed. My apologies. 

Eh, assumptions can’t be helped sometimes. I’m not offended or anything. It’s fine.  

 

4 hours ago, artzcat said:

I see that I actually do not know anything about romance or platonic stuff or the differences or similarities to make any comments, so I will fade into the background now. Disregard my previous commentary please. My apologies there. 

I don’t think it works like that. I mean, we’re all just guessing based on what we have experienced or perceived. There’s no need to apologize for adding your views into the mix. All any of us really want is to understand the topic.  If you have no more to add, that’s fine, but you don’t need to take back what you have already said. I appreciate your input. 

[AspieAlly613]

Here's the definition I've been using:

 

I start with the useless, tautalogical claim that romantic attraction is a desire to enter into a romantic partnership.

 

Then I distinguish romantic partnership from friendship by noting that romantic partners share their lives to an extent (evidenced by many people referring to their spouses as their "other halves" and many married couples sharing finances) while platonic friends do not.

 

Putting those definitions together, I define romantic attraction as a desire to share one's life with someone else in particular.

[Man of the Stoa]

And yet QPRs share their lives. I know a few siblings living together too. I wouldn't call these romantic.

 

On the flipside, crushes are romantic, but I assume don't desire sharing a life together.

 

Talking with sexuals in the real world, they seemed to agree that romance is rooted in mystery, while friendship is rooted in familiarity. (Well, they really all said romance is just friendship with sex, but after peeling that back they came to the mystery thing.) That is, we're drawn to make friendships with people that have things in common with us, or have qualities we'd like to imagine having in ourselves even if we don't.

 

Romance is drawn to people's mysterious qualities that we don't understand. Hence ''opposites attract'' and ''my other half'' and ''she completes me'' being expressions; the romantic partner has qualities not only lacking, but mysterious to the other partner. That's also why romance gets stale and more platonic over time, they said; we get more familiar with the partner, and so some of the mystery is lost.

 

Thoughts? I will say, though I've befriended people with qualities I don't understand, it's never been because of them, but usually by bonding over some commonality. I assumed that was just normal socializing, though, and not a platonic v. romantic thing.

[Tunes]

3 hours ago, Man of the Stoa said:

And yet QPRs share their lives. I know a few siblings living together too. I wouldn't call these romantic.

This.

 

3 hours ago, Man of the Stoa said:

On the flipside, crushes are romantic, but I assume don't desire sharing a life together.

XD Maybe sometime, but certainly not right away, and it's not really something generally on my mind when I get a crush, no. 

 

3 hours ago, Man of the Stoa said:

Romance is drawn to people's mysterious qualities that we don't understand. Hence ''opposites attract'' and ''my other half'' and ''she completes me'' being expressions; the romantic partner has qualities not only lacking, but mysterious to the other partner. That's also why romance gets stale and more platonic over time, they said; we get more familiar with the partner, and so some of the mystery is lost.

I'd say infatuation is lost over time, not romantic attraction. Also, I do know people who date others who are similar - in fact, if people are too different, those differences often make romantic relationships fail. Mystery breeds intrigue, not romance. You could just as well be drawn to a person platonically over the same mysterious qualities. 

 

3 hours ago, Man of the Stoa said:

I assumed that was just normal socializing, though, and not a platonic v. romantic thing.

I would agree with that assumption.

 

 

 

An interesting thing to note, though; I don't know how accurate it is, but it seems to match my experience anyway: When I tell sexuals that I would be perfectly content going through life never having had sex, they don't seem to relate to that experience. And although we can't use any specific actions (like dating) to single out romantic attraction, I can say that I would feel extremely incomplete if I went my entire life without having a romantic relationship of some kind - or at least that I interpret as romantic (and this response is half trained - it took me quite a while to accept that my aro partner could view the interactions differently (platonically) without taking anything away from my (romantic) experience of the interactions). So although we still have the problem of being unable to define exactly what separates a romantic relationship from a platonic one (I believe that this is because it's a mindset, not an action), there might still be a connection that can be made here.

[DogObsessedLi]

Only speaking personally from a demiromantic perspective, my rare romantic attractions are of a higher intensity than my aesthetic attractions or admirations etc. It's very hard to put into words. Both I want to spend time with them, be important to them, all the stuff that's probably been said before. I'm probably not a physical person with friends (though some are of course), but in romantic attraction I do want to somehow show it physically, this might just be more intense for a physical person I guess. I also can't stop thinking about them, like in an out of control lack of rationality way, which might be in platonic attraction also but it's the intensity of the heart fluttery feelings that I struggle to put into words. I often find the descriptions of "desire to do this action " very inadequate also. I'm aware this might not be useful either due to my lack of words for it! I have a massive crush at the moment and I find I want to <awkwardly waves hands around as if that'll explain it> to show them that I love them!!!!!!!! I tend not to want to do this awkward wordless thing to friends. And this probably makes no sense as I <awkwardly wave my hands around even more> 😅

[DogObsessedLi]

On 11/18/2018 at 4:44 PM, Star Lion said:

Romantic attraction is about falling in love and wanting to please the person because that’s what pleases you. Platonic attraction is about wanting to get to know the person for who they are, learn about them, and just have them as another person in your life. Romantic attraction, I would say, often includes platonic attraction. 

This is probably one of the better descriptions of what I'm trying to put into words. I want to please them for the sake of pleasing them to the extent that it runs on emotions and not rationality, whereas my friends I am interested in them as people and want to be there for them rationally. Yeah, this is another awkward wave arms in the air snatching for words isn't it!!! But yeah, still the best worded description I've seen 😁

[DogObsessedLi]

Though there can be wanting to be there for them rationally in a romantic relationship also of course!!!

[Tunes]

On 12/1/2018 at 8:19 PM, LizLianne said:

I find I want to <awkwardly waves hands around as if that'll explain it> to show them that I love them!!!!!!!!

Exactly! XD 

 

On 12/1/2018 at 8:30 PM, LizLianne said:

This is probably one of the better descriptions of what I'm trying to put into words. I want to please them for the sake of pleasing them to the extent that it runs on emotions and not rationality, whereas my friends I am interested in them as people and want to be there for them rationally

I don’t think I’d say this is the core difference that sets them apart or anything, but it does seem to be a common... symptom/consequence (for lack of a better word, as my vocabulary seems to have deserted me atm...). Again, I’d say it’s niether a necessary nor sufficient condition for romantic attraction, but it does seem to be something that tends to come along with romantic attraction - though it’s much stronger during the infatuation stage. 

[DogObsessedLi]

@Tunes yeah, this just shows how hard it is to put into words. Being demiromantic I have experience of both, and I still find it difficult to explain!!!

[Three]

I agree with a lot of these definitions but I think its important to remember that romantic attraction can be looked at as if it is a scale -- that being said, maybe it's a scale of desire to be intimate with people? 

 

On 12/1/2018 at 9:30 PM, LizLianne said:

Romantic attraction is about falling in love and wanting to please the person because that’s what pleases you. Platonic attraction is about wanting to get to know the person for who they are, learn about them, and just have them as another person in your life. Romantic attraction, I would say, often includes platonic attraction. 

Yeah! I think this is super accurate -- romantic attraction I think is based off of or begins with platonic attraction. And demi-romantics spend more time in the platonic attraction part till they get to know the person well enough

[Just Somebody]

Romantic attraction is when someone or something catches your attention for whatever reasons and you desire to get close to them and form a bond and call it only a romantic relationship (which is nothing more than an socio-cultural-historic contract... anyway what differentiates them from other bonds is just the name )

 

 

 

 

 

[Man of the Stoa]

16 minutes ago, Just Somebody said:

Romantic attraction is when someone or something catches your attention for whatever reasons and you desire to get close to them and form a bond and call it only a romantic relationship (which is nothing more than an socio-cultural-historic contract... anyway what differentiates them from other bonds is just the name )

without feeling romantic attraction, I feel like that's putting the carriage in front of the horse. Surely you don't have romantic attraction if you want to form a contract with someone, rather you want to form a contract with someone if you have romantic attraction to them. That is, the feelings are what constitute the attraction, not the outcome. It's not romantic attraction because they want to call the relationship a romantic one; they want to call it a romantic relationship because the romantic attraction.

 

And if these folks are all saying they have a distinct feeling from other forms of love, I'm inclined to believe the difference is more than just the name. I'm with you in that it's a bit frustrating that none of them can articulate what that diatinction is, but I don't think that means it should just be dismissed as nothing more just a different name

[Just Somebody]

21 minutes ago, Man of the Stoa said:

without feeling romantic attraction, I feel like that's putting the carriage in front of the horse. Surely you don't have romantic attraction if you want to form a contract with someone, rather you want to form a contract with someone if you have romantic attraction to them. That is, the feelings are what constitute the attraction, not the outcome. It's not romantic attraction because they want to call the relationship a romantic one; they want to call it a romantic relationship because the romantic attraction.

 

And if these folks are all saying they have a distinct feeling from other forms of love, I'm inclined to believe the difference is more than just the name. I'm with you in that it's a bit frustrating that none of them can articulate what that diatinction is, but I don't think that means it should just be dismissed as nothing more just a different name

I'll  explain with other terms.... 

 

 

 

What I'm trying to say is that there's no check lists to distinguish romantic relationships from friendships from queer/quasi-platonic relationships from  colorful friendships or other types of emotional bonds,  you can be as intimate and as free to do whatever you want as long as it's mutually consented in any of those. 

 

 

The only things that truly distinguish between all these emotional bonds at least in the historical moment we are living is the wording , how you wanna call that bond,  what social impact you  want to cause with this emotional bond you have ? How you want people to perceive it if you want people to perceive it at all?

 

For example, there's romantic relationships in which people have far less intimacy (think of one where's all parties involveds are alright without candle lit dinners or sharing stuff, or touching like kissing, etc) when compared  to some friendships (think of one where all parties are alright to have more intimate touching like kissing, share everything, etc) out there. 

 

 

I just mentioned the contract thing bc in cultures from societies far away from us in space-time, romantic relationships were built as contracts, and usually involved deals that would prize at least one of the parties involved.... having an romantic relationship for emotional attachment is  pretty modern concept in human history.

 

 

If someone or something for whatever reasons caught your attention and made you want to get close to them AND CALL THAT SPECIFICALLY  A ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP more than any other title, then that's a crush/romantic attraction.  

[Man of the Stoa]

So the only distinction between a romantic and a platonic relationship is whether you call it romantic or platonic? That would imply there isn't a distinction in the background feelings going on. I confess, I sort of suspect this is true, but romantics claim to feel a distinction, so I'll take their word for it.

 

Another question for the romantics: What is ''cool''? When describing the various definitions given here to sexual friends in the real world, they seemed to agree that, saying, wanting to please another without any deeper motivation, or deeply wanting to that person to like you, were things felt platonically toward people who are cool. Often you don't even need to really know them, either, they just walk into the room, or say a few words, and you feel they're cool and want them to like you back. Where does this factor in to your framework? How is this different from romantic attraction?

[Tunes]

1 hour ago, Man of the Stoa said:

That would imply there isn't a distinction in the background feelings going on.

There is a distinction of feelings, but it's like when you get into the details of what counts as sexual - you run into the same problem. For example, is kissing sexual in nature? Romantic? Platonic? There are a lot of families where parents will give their kids a peck on the lips to show affection - platonic affection. While I'm ok with a peck on the forehead or something, a kiss on the lips - regardless of what kind of kiss - feels romantic at minimum. So seeing this kind of interaction from family members disturbs me. Meanwhile, many people will sit there and stick their tongues in each others mouth and call it romantic. But to me, that kind of kissing makes me feel very similar to how I would feel if someone tried to do something sexual with me. I interpret that kind of interaction as too intrusive, too intimate, like a sexual thing, so it triggers the same feelings that sexual interactions trigger. I know some people who agree with me on both of these points and a lot more people who don't. So does the fact that it's a varying opinion whether that kind of kissing counts as sexual mean that there is no emotional difference between romanticism and sexuality? I'd argue that it's actually that emotional difference that IS what sexuality/romanticism is at it's core - and it's just about whether or not you like things that trigger that sort of emotional response.

 

The problem is that we don't have one stable thing to point at and say "THIS is a clear-cut example", like we do with (a)sexuality. If you feel sexual attraction, it means you want to do sexual things. And we can always point to the specific act of having sex as a clear-cut example. It's not all-inclusive - there can be someone who is sexual but doesn't like intercourse specifically, but still likes other sexual activities. But for most people, saying "wanting to have sex" is a sufficient phrase to get the point across. But with (a)romanticism, we don't have an easy example like this. Romantic attraction is still an interest in doing romantic things (just like sexual attraction is an interest in doing sexual things), but we don't have a clear-cut example of something that a large enough majority of people can relate to. No examples have proven effective, especially when we start getting into cultural differences regarding how romantic attraction is expressed. That doesn't mean that there is not a difference. It just means that the emotions are linked to different types of interactions for different people. 

 

Hearing people say that they can't think of anything that they view as romantic, to me, sounds like someone saying that they can't figure out where they draw the line between sexual and sensual - I mean, "if someone grabs my boob, is that sexual or is it just sensual? What about if they grab my butt? Is that sexual? Or if they touch my genitals? Idk - I can't imagine what sexual interaction feels like; there must not be a real difference." This sounds ridiculous. I mean, sure - the lines can get blurry, especially when you take context into account - if someone I don't know well grabs my boob, I would take it sexually, but I don't take it that way when my partner does it - then it feels romantic to me. However if she were to touch my pubic area, I'd feel bothered, as that would still strike me as sexual. Even the previously-mentioned kissing still feels sexual to me. I can't explain why, and not all people agree with my interpretation. But I can't imagine not having an interpretation at all. I generally assume that when people say that they don't know what romantic interactions are, they just don't know where to draw the line - it's a technical question. That's why I try to phrase it more along the lines of "it's the interactions that are not distinctly platonic". Because I define "platonic" as any interactions that are not romantic, so I suppose it makes sense on some level that romantic interactions would be things that are not platonic. *shrug* That description seems to work well when defining sexual/sensual interactions - if the touch is not sexual, then it's sensual! What is sexual touch? Well, it's any touch that is not sensual. It's touch that inspires sexual feelings. But how do you define sexual feelings to someone who does not feel sexual attraction? It's not that they can't differentiate; just that they don't know where to draw the line, they lack understanding of the terms, not the concepts. And in this case, we have the handy-dandy example of having sex. We are missing this example with romantic/platonic interaction. 

 

1 hour ago, Man of the Stoa said:

Another question for the romantics: What is ''cool''? When describing the various definitions given here to sexual friends in the real world, they seemed to agree that, saying, wanting to please another without any deeper motivation, or deeply wanting to that person to like you, were things felt platonically toward people who are cool. Often you don't even need to really know them, either, they just walk into the room, or say a few words, and you feel they're cool and want them to like you back. Where does this factor in to your framework? How is this different from romantic attraction?

Um, this has nothing to do with romantic attraction. At all. XD This is just whether you like a person on first glance. If I had to try to describe it's usefulness from an evolutionary/psychological standpoint, I guess I'd say that all humans like getting approval from their peers. If there is someone you like or admire for whatever reason, you will want their approval even more, probably in part because you have already given them a high amount of approval yourself and so being approved back feels that much more satisfying. But I don't feel that it can be necessarily summed up this way, because making people happy doesn't always result in getting approval, but just because it's not a conscious motivation doesn't mean that it's unconnected, I suppose. But it's just a general thing - if you like someone, you want that someone to be happy. You don't have to have romantic feelings for someone in order to like them as a person or to admire some quality that they happen to possess. This is a basic platonic attraction. If you've never come across a person that you admire, I think that's very disappointing, but it has nothing at all to do with being aromantic. I might equate it with a squish if it's significant enough. But it's perfectly possible to decide that you like someone and that you want to make that someone happy without wanting to do romantic things with them. You can just be friends and still want to make one another happy. It's completely unconnected. 

 

In fact, I'd say there are a few people here on AVEN that I feel that way about - that I think are "cool". I've seen them post in a lot of places and I almost always like what they have to say, like the insight that they bring to things, view them as being very intelligent. So when I make a post somewhere and one of those people likes said post, I get really really excited - because someone that I admire for being intelligent and having good insight/opinions agrees with the opinion that I just stated. So it makes me feel proud. They reacted positively to something that I did and they have traits that I admire. Does this mean I want to have romantic interactions with them? Heck no. I don't even feel the need to get to know them personally or become friends with them. In fact, I've never even felt the need to express this admiration to them. But I still think they are really cool people. 

[Man of the Stoa]

On ‎12‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 3:07 PM, Tunes said:

The problem is that we don't have one stable thing to point at and say "THIS is a clear-cut example", like we do with (a)sexuality. If you feel sexual attraction, it means you want to do sexual things. And we can always point to the specific act of having sex as a clear-cut example. It's not all-inclusive - there can be someone who is sexual but doesn't like intercourse specifically, but still likes other sexual activities. But for most people, saying "wanting to have sex" is a sufficient phrase to get the point across. But with (a)romanticism, we don't have an easy example like this. Romantic attraction is still an interest in doing romantic things (just like sexual attraction is an interest in doing sexual things), but we don't have a clear-cut example of something that a large enough majority of people can relate to. No examples have proven effective, especially when we start getting into cultural differences regarding how romantic attraction is expressed. That doesn't mean that there is not a difference. It just means that the emotions are linked to different types of interactions for different people. 

 

Hearing people say that they can't think of anything that they view as romantic, to me, sounds like someone saying that they can't figure out where they draw the line between sexual and sensual - I mean, "if someone grabs my boob, is that sexual or is it just sensual? What about if they grab my butt? Is that sexual? Or if they touch my genitals? Idk - I can't imagine what sexual interaction feels like; there must not be a real difference." This sounds ridiculous. I mean, sure - the lines can get blurry, especially when you take context into account - if someone I don't know well grabs my boob, I would take it sexually, but I don't take it that way when my partner does it - then it feels romantic to me. However if she were to touch my pubic area, I'd feel bothered, as that would still strike me as sexual. Even the previously-mentioned kissing still feels sexual to me. I can't explain why, and not all people agree with my interpretation. But I can't imagine not having an interpretation at all. I generally assume that when people say that they don't know what romantic interactions are, they just don't know where to draw the line - it's a technical question. That's why I try to phrase it more along the lines of "it's the interactions that are not distinctly platonic". Because I define "platonic" as any interactions that are not romantic, so I suppose it makes sense on some level that romantic interactions would be things that are not platonic. *shrug* That description seems to work well when defining sexual/sensual interactions - if the touch is not sexual, then it's sensual! What is sexual touch? Well, it's any touch that is not sensual. It's touch that inspires sexual feelings. But how do you define sexual feelings to someone who does not feel sexual attraction? It's not that they can't differentiate; just that they don't know where to draw the line, they lack understanding of the terms, not the concepts. And in this case, we have the handy-dandy example of having sex. We are missing this example with romantic/platonic interaction. 

This is a good point. I'm a fairly sensual person. I like cuddling with my friends, or giving/receiving backrubs, or things along those lines. And since there's a pretty clear line between what is and isn't sexual, such that none of my friends have ever mistaken my action for sexual ones.

 

Then people here describe romantic attraction, either in action or in feeling, and it's pretty consistently something I've done or felt toward my friends. They say things like it's wanting that other person to be happy, or it's having intrusive thoughts about them, and I have a hard time imagining what friendship means to these people if doesn't include those things. So I guess maybe I am just looking for a line.

 

So where would you draw that line? I know you just said there's no good objective benchmark, but I'm asking subjectively, where would you, personally, call it, assuming that's a question that can be answered? Like, if I'm cuddling with someone, and they start trying to take off my clothes, or trying to touch my genitals, I'm going to be uncomfortable because I'm going to realize they're viewing things in a sexual context. So, say you're out getting a cup of coffee with a friend in what you think in a platonic context. What would they have to make you think, "Uh oh, this person I have platonic feelings for has romantic feelings toward me," and if that question isn't answerable because the feelings are too subjective, then how do you ever determine if someone else has romantic feelings for you at all?