Can aromantics fall in love?

[a.creative]

Hello!

 

So, out of nowhere a question popped up in my head, and I began to wonder: Will I ever fall in love? And if so, how does the other person even know it? How will I even show it?

 

There are many variable, and every aromantic is different. I just want to know what others have experienced and how they go about it.

 

I really want to hear from aromantics that have fallen in love. But others are welcome as I'm open to different point of views.

 

: )

 

[HonoraryJedi]

I... um. I was under the impression that "never falling in love" is in the definition of being aromantic? I don't know what the definition of falling in love is if an aromantic can do it.

 

That said, I would still say I feel love, for friends and such. And I did question my aromanticism once, when I started having more intense feelings for a friend. And I was sat there thinking "These feel like just stronger 'friendship' feelings, am I only considering if it is romantic because of heteronormativity (he's dude, I'm lady. If we have strong feelings, that must be romance right?), or do I have to accept that once you spend enough time thinking of someone that constitutes 'in love'?"

 

Turns out, being in a romantic relationship weirded me out real fast, and I should have stuck to just thinking of this as an intense friendship. I don't know if you consider this within the definition of 'falling in love'. If it does, well there you have it. But my interpretation of the phrase was always that it spoke of romantic love specifically. I am not natively an english speaker, I should point out, but that's my feeling. Just 'love' alone is more broad, once can feel love in all kinds of ways, for family and for friends and so on. But when you add 'falling' that is specifically romantic love. Y'know, the thing that doesn't happen if you're aro?

 

As for you specifically. I don't know if you will fall in love. You might. But if you do, I don't think the label 'aromantic' will be the best fit anymore. We choose our labels ourselves after all, and choosing a label does not mean they will suddenly be enforced upon you like a law of nature.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

No, that literally is the definition of aromantic, not being able to fall in love.

[a.creative]

From my experience, I was in a relationship where I could've been happy in. I might've even called it love. But in the end it didn't work out because the lack of attention I was giving my partner. I didn't care for hugging, holding hands, talking about our feelings, and such. Incidentally, February was around the corner and I didn't realize it until I was given the customary chocolates and flowers. There were days where I wouldn't talk to him and it wasn't on purpose. I just didn't see the need. I thought he'd be fine with it, but we were too different. I didn't think twice whether something was wrong with me or not. Mind you, this was a couple years ago before I knew aromaticism was a thing. The relationship lasted three months. 

 

This helped.

http://wiki.asexuality.org/Aromantic

 

You kind of confused me as you said it weirded you out being in a romantic relationship. But I actually just don't care for it. So I can't say it weirds me out. But thanks. The link above gives the definition of a queerplatonic relationship. Which I think could be nice to have minus the romance.

 

Have a nice day! : ) @HonoraryJedi

[QueerAroAce]

Nope, probably the would they could get close to having this is my bestie/partner and they are my favourite bestie ever. Hmmm maybe they could feel possessive? But yeah romance is a nu nu

[maybeimamazed]

... no.

 

do words mean anything anymore?

[Ace_Of_Space]

I think the idea you are looking for is a "squish", its basically really wanting to be someone's best friend
http://wiki.asexuality.org/Romantic_attraction#Crushes_and_Squishes
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=squish

 

For me it shows through trying to spend an inordinate amount of time around them, and the other person probably isn't going to know it unless you tell them directly because the idea of something between friends and romanticy stuff is not widely known.

[Sally]

3 hours ago, brehasolo said:

... no.

 

do words mean anything anymore?

I don't think so -- at least not on  AVEN.  

[Xstatic]

I mean, I can see someone thinking they were aro and then one day feelings started to develop for a particular person and they find out that they are actually demi.  I've heard that sometimes it takes a demi years to develop romantic feelings in a relationship.  I'm sure that must be terribly confusing the first time that it happens.

[HonoraryJedi]

Yeah, I think the conclusion here is, you can fall in love, but you can't fall in love and be aromantic at the same time. Contradiction in terms x)

[Anthracite_Impreza]

8 hours ago, xstatic ☆ﾟ°˖* ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ said:

I mean, I can see someone thinking they were aro and then one day feelings started to develop

As happened to me, though it was less "started to develop" and more "here's all these weird new feelings, enjoy!". I'm not even demi, but clearly no one ever said "have you considered you might be romantically inclined towards vehicles?" >.<

[Xstatic]

No, I suppose that doesn't come up much.  🤗

[RavenAlyssa]

Hi!

 

Friendly reminder that some people choose to use aromantic as a general term, or the one they're most comfortable with, despite perhaps being what others would call gray or demi. I understand that this can be confusing! Why don't people use the label that's more accurate? Some people prefer to have no labels. You can also compare it to how some people use asexual when they are aroace, instead of specifying that they are both aromantic and asexual. 

 

Yes, technically aromanticism is the inability to experience romantic attraction at all, and going by this definition it would not be possible for an aromantic person to experience romantic attraction. But given the above situation, it is possible for a person who uses the label aromantic to experience romantic attraction. (I would assume that a person who does this would be arospec). 

 

Hopefully that makes sense!

[Sally]

1 hour ago, RavenAlyssa said:

Yes, technically aromanticism is the inability to experience romantic attraction at all, and going by this definition it would not be possible for an aromantic person to experience romantic attraction. But given the above situation, it is possible for a person who uses the label aromantic to experience romantic attraction. (I would assume that a person who does this would be arospec). 

 

Hopefully that makes sense!

No, it really doesn't.   Aromantic isn't a general term; it's a specific term for a feeling (or lack thereof).  If you consider yourself "arospec", you're just a romantic who doesn't always feel romantic about everyone or any situation.  

[Homer]

"Arospec" does not make sense to begin with. "No" is not a spectrum. "Sometimes" is not on the "no spectrum".

[Anthracite_Impreza]

You can always say you are "less romantic than average", people will understand that. Don't take aromantic away from people who are actually aromantic; they don't have enough visibility as it is and saying "aros can be romantic too!" is fucking about with their identity. Aros don't feel romantic love, simple as.

[Homer]

8 minutes ago, CBC said:

What about "probably not"? "Maybe"? Are they on the "no spectrum"?  

Probably not

[Pandark]

Why does everything always have to be romanticized? Sheesh.

 

@a.creative Oh, I see.. you're from California.

[maybeimamazed]

9 hours ago, RavenAlyssa said:

Hi!

 

Friendly reminder that some people choose to use aromantic as a general term, or the one they're most comfortable with, despite perhaps being what others would call gray or demi. I understand that this can be confusing! Why don't people use the label that's more accurate? Some people prefer to have no labels. You can also compare it to how some people use asexual when they are aroace, instead of specifying that they are both aromantic and asexual. 

 

Yes, technically aromanticism is the inability to experience romantic attraction at all, and going by this definition it would not be possible for an aromantic person to experience romantic attraction. But given the above situation, it is possible for a person who uses the label aromantic to experience romantic attraction. (I would assume that a person who does this would be arospec). 

 

Hopefully that makes sense!

No, it does not.

 

It absolutely does not. I might as well start calling myself pansexual even though I'm the exact opposite: aroace. It shows a complete lack of respect towards people who actually fit the definition of the term and harms their acceptance in society. I'm still not comfortable with the idea of identifying as part of the LGBTQ+ community because I'll never experience the same kind of oppression they do.

 

I'll never be okay with this idea that people can claim whichever term they want - no matter how ill fitted - just because they feel comfortable. If that makes me a bitch, so be it.

[ProfByleth]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here...

 

I wonder if anyone has any experience of a relationship which is not romantic or sexual but which is very close and with a deep sense of love for each other?  Is there another kind of relationship that neither the words 'romantic' or 'friendship' really describes?

 

For example (and this may not be an example of what I mean, but see what you think) - I had a very close relationship/friendship/something with someone (and is the closest I've ever been to being in a couple).  We lived together at university and spent a massive amount of time together.  We were very different people with very different tastes, and we would have probably killed each other if we'd tried being a full-on couple; but there's no question in my mind that we loved each other on some fairly significant level.  We later went travelling together for a few months.  We slept in the same bed (no sex or touching beyond the occasional hug).  People we met assumed we were a couple and we didn't bother to correct them.  She had a boyfriend the entire time (though I didn't know him and never quite knew what he made of it all!  I suspect he thought I was gay).

 

Now I type this out, I'm realising this might have been really unusual...  What was it?

[xToasty]

18 hours ago, ProfByleth said:

I wonder if anyone has any experience of a relationship which is not romantic or sexual but which is very close and with a deep sense of love for each other?  Is there another kind of relationship that neither the words 'romantic' or 'friendship' really describes?

Maybe you're thinking of alterous attraction, or queerplatonic?

[ProfByleth]

4 hours ago, AweSim said:

Maybe you're thinking of alterous attraction, or queerplatonic?

Ah, yes!  Funnily enough, I stumbled across queerplatonic shortly after that post.  I'm new to the community so I'm still learning all the terms.  There seems to be a word for everything! 🙂

 

So the question is, can two people in a queerplatonic relationship love each other?  I'm sure there are examples of where they can.  Or is there a difference between loving someone and being 'in love' with someone?  I've always struggled a bit with understanding the difference, but maybe that's my aro side? 😉

[xToasty]

10 hours ago, ProfByleth said:

Ah, yes!  Funnily enough, I stumbled across queerplatonic shortly after that post.  I'm new to the community so I'm still learning all the terms.  There seems to be a word for everything! 🙂

Haha, yeah, I'm quite new too, and I swear there is a word for everything XD. It would take a lifetime to learn and understand them all in my opinion.

 

10 hours ago, ProfByleth said:

So the question is, can two people in a queerplatonic relationship love each other?  I'm sure there are examples of where they can.  Or is there a difference between loving someone and being 'in love' with someone?  I've always struggled a bit with understanding the difference, but maybe that's my aro side? 😉

As an aro myself, I have a bit of trouble too XD. There is a difference between loving someone and being 'in love'. When you love someone, it can be completely platonic, and you just really care for them, or want to support them and stuff like that. I think being 'in love' is more of when you are romantically attracted to a person (though I can't really say, I'm aro too). I'm pretty sure people in a queerplatonic relationship would love each other, but just not romantically. From what I can tell, it's really an extremely close friendship that may seem romantic according to social norms about romance. I'm no expert, but I think that's the general idea.

 

You can maybe ask around a bit if your still confused, a lot of people on this site are very helpful in these sorts of things. :))

[Xstatic]

Learning about QPR is actually how I found an understanding of my relationship.  Being that I'm with an ace/aro I wasn't exactly sure why he was with me after we figured out that he was aro.  But the feelings described in a QPR would make sense as to why he's with me, and the feelings he does have for me.  More than friends, but not in love with me.  He does love me though.  It's terribly hard to explain, but when you're actually in the situation you're like oh, I get it now.

[neverlove]

1 hour ago, xstatic ☆ﾟ°˖* ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ said:

Learning about QPR is actually how I found an understanding of my relationship.  Being that I'm with an ace/aro I wasn't exactly sure why he was with me after we figured out that he was aro.  But the feelings described in a QPR would make sense as to why he's with me, and the feelings he does have for me.  More than friends, but not in love with me.  He does love me though.  It's terribly hard to explain, but when you're actually in the situation you're like oh, I get it now.

So true! 😊 Some things, you just know it when you feel it.

[RavenAlyssa]

I see that I may be wrong about my understanding of the aromantic community (which for a time I considered myself a part of). I'm sorry if I offended anyone or insinuated anything. I just have a question then: If grey-ace and demisexual folx are considered a part of the asexual community (even included in the flag!), why aren't demiromantic folx also considered a part of the aromantic community?

Also, if a person chooses to identify as asexual because that is the label they feel most comfortable with, when another person might label them as demisexual or lithosexual or something, we would respect the label this person would choose to identify themselves with, right? Like, who am I to tell you what your label is? That's not my place, especially as everyone has different journeys and different reasons they might be more or less comfortable with a specific label. Another example is people choosing to use the label queer rather than a more specific one. My question is, why would this not extend to the label aromantic?

Please don't attack me, I genuinely just want to understand.

[anisotrophic]

On 9/1/2019 at 11:52 AM, xstatic ☆ﾟ°˖* ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ said:

Being that I'm with an ace/aro I wasn't exactly sure why he was with me after we figured out that he was aro.  But the feelings described in a QPR would make sense as to why he's with me, and the feelings he does have for me.  More than friends, but not in love with me.

tbh, stepping away from the AVEN stuff about "demiromantic" and "qpr" I'd characterize this as the affectionate love / storgic / philia / companionate love that kicks in after the initial passion subsides: in general this is what people who study love conclude, that over time love becomes more like the love between family and close friends. (The words I've used refer to several models -- color wheel, triangular theory, limerance.)
 

With that interpretation, an aro might not experience "falling in love" (limerance) but can build, over time, the same long term affectionate love that romantic partners build -- and which looks much like familial love and deep friendship.

[AceMissBehaving]

6 hours ago, RavenAlyssa said:

Also, if a person chooses to identify as asexual because that is the label they feel most comfortable with, when another person might label them as demisexual or lithosexual or something, we would respect the label this person would choose to identify themselves with, right? Like, who am I to tell you what your label is? That's not my place, especially as everyone has different journeys and different reasons they might be more or less comfortable with a specific label. Another example is people choosing to use the label queer rather than a more specific one. My question is, why would this not extend to the label aromantic?

Please don't attack me, I genuinely just want to understand.

While I do believe we are all part of the same community, I personally am upset when people who are say demisexual refer to themselves asexual. It robs asexual people of a practical label to use to navigate relationships, and the ability to simply say “I’m asexual” and have that be understood without having to forever go into the minutia of how little the want to have sex. Words are only useful if they convey an understood meaning, and people who have another label that describes them using one that another group needs is to me problematic and unfair.

[Guest]

 

@RavenAlyssa There is a difference between being part of a community and actually co-opting a label which has a definition that doesn't fit you. A person can be demi-romantic and part of the aro community, but they are not actually aromantic. Just as how the sexual partners of asexual people can be considered part of the asexual community while definitely not being asexual.

 

I don't think demisexual or lithosexual people should call themselves asexual, because they aren't, and while I respect a persons right to call themselves whatever the hell they want, that doesn't mean I'm ok with it. Words have meanings, and "asexual" does not mean "I experience sexual attractions sometimes under certain circumstances". Using a term to mean something different to it's actual definition dilutes and confuses the understanding of the word, and is unfair to those of us who actually are asexual, and to anyone who actually wants to gain a real understanding of asexuality and then has to trawl through all the confusion to do so.

[RavenAlyssa]

4 hours ago, AceMissBehaving said:

While I do believe we are all part of the same community, I personally am upset when people who are say demisexual refer to themselves asexual. It robs asexual people of a practical label to use to navigate relationships, and the ability to simply say “I’m asexual” and have that be understood without having to forever go into the minutia of how little the want to have sex. Words are only useful if they convey an understood meaning, and people who have another label that describes them using one that another group needs is to me problematic and unfair.

 

1 hour ago, theV0ID said:

 

@RavenAlyssa There is a difference between being part of a community and actually co-opting a label which has a definition that doesn't fit you. A person can be demi-romantic and part of the aro community, but they are not actually aromantic. Just as how the sexual partners of asexual people can be considered part of the asexual community while definitely not being asexual.

 

I don't think demisexual or lithosexual people should call themselves asexual, because they aren't, and while I respect a persons right to call themselves whatever the hell they want, that doesn't mean I'm ok with it. Words have meanings, and "asexual" does not mean "I experience sexual attractions sometimes under certain circumstances". Using a term to mean something different to it's actual definition dilutes and confuses the understanding of the word, and is unfair to those of us who actually are asexual, and to anyone who actually wants to gain a real understanding of asexuality and then has to trawl through all the confusion to do so.

This makes sense, thank you.

 

Sometimes I wonder about labels. Don't get me wrong, I completely 100% understand the need for labels and agree with the use of them etc. ...In reality, no two people are the same when it comes to sexuality and sexual and/or romantic preferences. Everyone falls in a slightly different place on the spectrum, with different combinations of preferences and feelings. Most fit more into certain (socially, human-constructed) labels than others. In nature, everyone just is.

 

But I also know that, especially in the world we're in right now, labels can be really really important. It helps to know who you are and come to understand yourself better; it gives you community and support from people with similar experiences; it helps create a concrete thing to advocate for in the face of discrimination. I just sometimes wonder how things might be in an ideal world, perhaps a world without labels. (More likely... a world without humans heh.) 

 

But thank you for your answers, I understand the issue better now. I know people in my personal life who would disagree, but I see that the issue is nuanced and has many sides and perspectives, and I appreciate hearing your voices and your feelings so I can learn more.