love without attraction

[Sarah-Sylvia]

The definition of attraction is meant to be broader. I dont see the point of disagreeing. The subjective part is what we all strive to try to explain and understand, the terms are just there to help. Attraction can fit, and does. Maybe there's a reason you're looking for it not to fit, maybe some aversion to something?
 

6 minutes ago, lonely wolf said:

it might be more helpful to me if u quoted me directly instead of paraphrasing cuz im tryna explain why i dont agree with the definitions out there and my best efforts to do that are all up there

Sorry, I don't quite understand. you'd like me to quote and talk about something you said more specifically?

[Sarah-Sylvia]

Sometimes broader terms help because there's nothing better. I'll give you an example in my case.
 

I consider myself demi-sexual. But I may not even experience sexual attraction by your terms, because even after I'd get close to someone, I'm not attracted to them sexually, and the desire for sexuality comes from me loving them and wanting to share in affection and pleasure. I see it more as deriving from my sensuality than there being an attraction for sex.

I don't mind the term demi-sexual, because it's broader and makes it easier to communicate with people about how I am. If a more specific term would come along, I could use it, but I'd still consider myself demi-sexual.

[lonely wolf]

ur more sure of things than me. you say things are "meant to be" you say things like "when by definition it would be." im not so sure of things as u are. im the type to question what is presented to see if i agree or not. i dont just take things as they are. youre asking me if im looking for it not to fit. i dont think i am as i just want to find something that does fit. but i admit the possibility. but i ask you, are you defensive of the definitions because you agree with them and are satisfied you've found a label you like?

 

the oint of disagreeing is that i dont think the broad definition is very helpful for people like me. these definitions have been narrowing and they have helped ppl feel like they have an orientation that in the past they wouldnt have. it's not to long ago there was just gay and straight widely acknowledged. then a little later asexual. now there are lots of different labels. and ppl find them helpful. i think after looking at all the ones i did that there needs to be more focusing breaking what falls under attraction into smaller definitions and also by considering love without attraction

 

and to explain what u didnt understand. i'd like you to quote my words as they are instead of saying what you think i meant because each time you do that i really dont agree and then you base what u say off of your interpretation of what i said instead of what i actually said

[lonely wolf]

8 minutes ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

Sometimes broader terms help because there's nothing better. I'll give you an example in my case.
 

I consider myself demi-sexual. But I may not even experience sexual attraction by your terms, because even after I'd get close to someone, I'm not attracted to them sexually, and the desire for sexuality comes from me loving them and wanting to share in affection and pleasure. I see it more as deriving from my sensuality than there being an attraction for sex.

I don't mind the term demi-sexual, because it's broader and makes it easier to communicate with people about how I am. If a more specific term would come along, I could use it, but I'd still consider myself demi-sexual.

i dont think broader terms are as helpful as you seem to suggest. imagine just going back to saying you were queer or either just gay straight or bi? would that be good enough for you?

[lonely wolf]

to me imprecise terms make things easier to communicate only in as much as theyre easily grasped because of their ubiquity, but then there's all this inaccuracy you gotta explain and misinformation you have to clear up. it would be better if a more precise term was there to reference and look up

[lonely wolf]

imo

[Sarah-Sylvia]

1 minute ago, lonely wolf said:

ur more sure of things than me. you say things are "meant to be" you say things like "when by definition it would be." im not so sure of things as u are. im the type to question what is presented to see if i agree or not. i dont just take things as they are. youre asking me if im looking for it not to fit. i dont think i am as i just want to find something that does fit. but i admit the possibility. but i ask you, are you defensive of the definitions because you agree with them and are satisfied you've found a label you like?

 

the oint of disagreeing is that i dont think the broad definition is very helpful for people like me. these definitions have been narrowing and they have helped ppl feel like they have an orientation that in the past they wouldnt have. it's not to long ago there was just gay and straight widely acknowledged. then a little later asexual. now there are lots of different labels. and ppl find them helpful. i think after looking at all the ones i did that there needs to be more focusing breaking what falls under attraction into smaller definitions and also by considering love without attraction

 

and to explain what u didnt understand. i'd like you to quote my words as they are instead of saying what you think i meant because each time you do that i really dont agree and then you base what u say off of your interpretation of what i said instead of what i actually said

Oh I question a lot too. But some things have been established solidly enough that I stick with what they mean until I see a reason not to. You go with the stable ground when you can, else it'll all be up in the air and no one could have a meaningful conversation.

 

I actually think that my sexuality goes beyond any label. I'm just using the best one I found to be able to easily bring it up. I can't always explain in full detail every single time, it takes too long Plus there's even more to my orientation, lots of nuances. I just say I'm bi-sexual for ease. It's actually a lot more complicated.

 

Broad definitions are useful because they're a base. There's never a way to have micro-labels for everything, it would take too long. Broad terms help as well for people who dont know all the micro-definitions. But you're certainly free to explore and even make some yourself. If it helps you feel better, that's good. In my case I don't need labels to know myself and accept myself for how I am. I've definitely seen it help in a lot of cases though, and I certainly appreciate being able to say that I'm demi-sexual

I don't quite understand what you mean about the quotes, since everyone is always basing themselves on interpretations all the time, but I'll try to quote you more to answer, ok?

[Sarah-Sylvia]

6 minutes ago, lonely wolf said:

i dont think broader terms are as helpful as you seem to suggest. imagine just going back to saying you were queer or either just gay straight or bi? would that be good enough for you?

I think that's perfectly fine. I actually had a conversation the other day with someone who didn't know how to categorize themselves, and everyone agreed that using 'queer' was the most appropriate, since there wasn't anything else. It's just a fact that broad terms will be useful, especially in general public. I would say I'm queer before some other things. I may even use it instead of saying I'm transgender in certain cases, because I'm not 'out' yet.

[lonely wolf]

well for me i came here hoping to understand myself better and i dont like how imprecise the terms are because i dont like giving misinformation about myself so rn if ppl ask me what i am i honestly cant answer and thats not good either

[Sarah-Sylvia]

7 minutes ago, lonely wolf said:

well for me i came here hoping to understand myself better and i dont like how imprecise the terms are because i dont like giving misinformation about myself so rn if ppl ask me what i am i honestly cant answer and thats not good either

It's all part of the process. Many people didn't have the terms we did before now. As you come to understand yourself better, there might be some distinctions that you as well as others find worthwhile in how you describe it. Even me, like I mentioned in terms of my demi-sexuality, I could use a distinction between types of attractions. primary and secondary attraction is pretty good, but maybe there could be more.

Alternatively, you can find a broad term that fits

[Sarah-Sylvia]

When it comes to orientation, there aren't even terms to say someone who's bi-sexual with a male or female preference. No one's bothered making some, but personally I wouldn't mind them, if it caught on. (in my case though I have different types of attractions for each, too)

Also, some people are the opposite to you, they feel there are way too many precise terms. It's going to end up making way too many, hard  to keep up with. Maybe they'd rather that people use general terms and then just be more specific when they talk with someone about it.

[lonely wolf]

keep in mind there is much research suggesting that ppl think and process things through language. so if language is constrained, in some ways thought could be constrained

[lonely wolf]

the innate templates human's have for language acquisition are the same ones form the basis for how everything is learned and processed

[lonely wolf]

*neural templates

[Sarah-Sylvia]

3 minutes ago, lonely wolf said:

keep in mind there is much research suggesting that ppl think and process things through language. so if language is constrained, in some ways thought could be constrained

How do you think language developed? It's a process. And it continues.

It's not constrained language. Language is vast and is used to try to explain something. A word can be limiting just like it can be freeing. It's how you use it that counts.
Ideally, you use words to try to paint a picture of what something is, not need a perfect word to represent something perfectly. Life would be impossible to describe without the flexibility of how you use the words. You can always find ways to delineate something, but it doesn't mean going against a broad term that includes it, like attraction, it just means you get to be more specific after

[lonely wolf]

more words is better up to a point and i think we've a long way to go until we hit that :3

[lonely wolf]

but ofc i agree that the flexibility of language use and interpretation with our current lexicon is great too but that doesnt preclude the benefit of adding more words

[Sarah-Sylvia]

8 minutes ago, lonely wolf said:

but ofc i agree that the flexibility of language use and interpretation with our current lexicon is great too but that doesnt preclude the benefit of adding more words

I definitely welcome more words if they describe something more specific that people can identify.

It's too bad no one else chimed in to the conversation yet, but oh well. One question I had was about sensuality in your case. Being physically affectionate doesnt mean romance, so it's not about that, I'm just curious how you feel about hugs, cuddling, and then caresses, and kisses. And also what kinds of acts of affection you like in relationships.

[Rynn]

@lonely wolf Maybe you skip the infatuation phase of a relationship and head straight into the love phase? 

[Nancat]

I know what you mean. I am 55 years old and have been married twice.  I definitely fall in love, but have no desire for sex and never achieved orgasm. No one understands how I can be in love with someone but not be sexually attracted to them. I started seeing therapists (including sex therapists) in college. I’ve decided I am doomed to spend the rest of my life alone. 

[Sarah-Sylvia]

3 minutes ago, Nancat said:

I know what you mean. I am 55 years old and have been married twice.  I definitely fall in love, but have no desire for sex and never achieved orgasm. No one understands how I can be in love with someone but not be sexually attracted to them. I started seeing therapists (including sex therapists) in college. I’ve decided I am doomed to spend the rest of my life alone. 

Hi Nancat. Welcome to AVEN 🍰
Actually sexual attraction and romantic attraction are treated differently here, and there are a lot of asexuals who are able to have relationships, either with other asexuals or those who are less sexual. And I'm guessing you've been with sexual people, though even there it can be possible if they know and are willing to work around it. Anyway, you don't have to give up on love

In this case the poster meant not just sexual attraction, but it's still tricky to talk about or find the right relationships in quite a bit of cases.

[Nancat]

Thank you Sarah, I was just reading more posts. I guess I have a lot to learn!

[DoubleATripleA]

On 12/18/2019 at 7:56 PM, lonely wolf said:

I don't think I've ever been attracted to someone sexually, romantically, aesthetically, platonically, or otherwise. I don't form crushes or squishes. I don't enjoy or understand shipping. I don't watch porn or fantasize about sexual or romantic things. I'm indifferent to or put-off by many aspects of romance and many romantic aspects of things.

 

I am able, however, to fall in love. Once I've formed an emotional bond with someone, I can fall in love. This seems to line-up in some ways with the definition of demiromantic, but romanticism, no matter the type, seems to preclude being like me, as its description always seems to involve some sort of attraction and I don't believe I can feel attraction—primary, secondary, or otherwise.

 

I form emotional bonds. I can be affectionate in different ways and in different circumstances (though I can be uncomfortable with affection—especially IRL). I feel a lot of care and love for many people, and when I'm in a close relationship with someone, those feelings are increased. I want my close relationships to feel special and be exclusive. I sometimes hope that they can last forever (though I'm not sure if this is because I want to avoid the pain of losing them, because I feel it would be the best thing for all involved, neither, or both). I feel vulnerable in these types of relationships and yet comfortable with sharing intimate details about myself and deep thoughts and feelings. But preceding and along with this—this cluster of things that I label love—there is no attraction.

 

What makes me engage in close, loving relationships (though I don't seem to seek them out, but rather am just open to the possibility of friendships naturally evolving into loving relationships) is never some kind of pull towards that person (or some kind of explicit attraction), but instead the warm feelings I have while with them and because I enjoy being with them, being able to make them happy, and being there for them when they are upset or distressed. But these feelings are stronger than those I get with friendships. I consider these feelings part of a particular and special kind of love I feel.

 

All the relationships I've been in that adhered to the ideals of romance (because of the influence of my partners and my submissive acquiescence) and which weren't natural evolutions of friendships, I disengaged emotionally from. I felt pushed into them. And I never sought them out. I was very uncomfortable in them.

 

But I don't think the loving relationships I enjoy are queerplatonic, as those are described as being non-exclusive. And platonic love in general—or the love between friends—doesn't seem to describe how I feel in the kinds loving relationships I've been discussing. And then, as I said above, any type of romanticism including quoiromanticism (and its subsets, like quasiromanticism, or its related terms such as idemromanticism or grey-romanticism), always seem to involve some sort of attraction, which I don't feel.

 

So, as well as I can understand, I don't like engaging in sexual or romantic relationships, but I do like engaging in special loving ones—and ones distinct from the categories into which fall the other kinds of loving relationships I enjoy, such as friendship and kinship. I just don't know how to interpret and understand my feelings about this much beyond what I've outlined here. And I feel the need to find an identity to help me (and anyone I engage with in a loving relationship) understand me more, as well as to present my a/romantic orientation in a way that is able to be grasped more readily.

Falling in love is having romantic attraction I'm pretty sure, not every alloromantic wants to be in relationships either.

[Star Bit]

On 12/18/2019 at 2:21 PM, lonely wolf said:

How do you define attraction?

Romantic attraction is an emotion; so it doesn't translate well into words, but it can be inadequately put as soft/warm/fuzzy feelings with some degree of fixation (at least in comparison to one's normality with others). This is the base requirement, but some people also have a physical reaction to the feeling and others don’t (i.e. butterflies in their stomach, heart rate increase, blushing, etc. [though those can also be symptoms of platonic nervousness]). Others may react mentally with a dreamy mindset, anxious euphoria, infatuation, romantic fantasies, etc. And others may feel it light enough (compared to the norm) that there is no clear line between crushes and wanting emotional closeness (though normally accompanied by sexual desires). For me it's explicit when I ask myself if I'm willing to (french) kiss them/consent to other activities I'm not interested in.

•  

[PoeciMeta]

As an aro, I can't really know, but I see attraction as being drawn to something. Like gravitational attraction. 

I agree that there can be love without attraction. I have a friend, I like them, being around them, joking with them etc (alright, that's not really love but it's emotional affection, so it counts more or less), but I'm not platonically attracted to them. I don't want to get closer to them, I'm satisfied with our current level of closeness. But I still like them, they're my friend. 

As long as you've known someone for long enough and have become close to them, there can be a strong emotional bond, which some may call love, without a trace of attraction. 

[Lily Mercy]

lone wolf thank you for your story. it sounds remarkably close to my own. also thank you for alterous it seems o fit how i feel

[Lonely_Lamb]

Hi lonely wolf!

have you ever considered trying to figure out why you are this way, instead of needing a label for it? There is a ton of published information and Backed-up research on psychological topics that all of these patterns you’ve described on this site could match up with. Are you willing to try talk therapy at all or psychotherapy? I would look into those as well as hypnotherapy just to see what options are available to you if you did decide to dig deeper about this. It just sounds like there are underlying reasons (possibly that stem from childhood; you do not necessarily have to have a ‘bad’ or negative childhood) it could be a billion different factors... I wish you the best of luck in this journey of understanding yourself better and I truly hope that you’re open enough to know that I didn’t mean any harm or to offend here when offering up my opinions on such topics! 

[Rynn]

I don't think a lack of attraction is an indication for psychological or developmental problems, and I don't think it is something that necessarily needs to be cured. I hope you find the words to express how you feel, lonely wolf.