How to define Aromanticism?

[Ess-Kat]

I was looking into Aromanticism a little. I saw a few ways they explained it. Would the definition be:

- little to no romantic attraction to any gender

-having no romantic attraction to any gender

 

Likewise,  I identify as Aromantic (and Asexual) and I know it exist on a spectrum. I like the idea of romance in books and music, and I do want a relationship maybe (but not with a sexual component) but I never really been in one and never felt that pull to anyone. Is it possible to have a relationship and be aro ace? Just a little confused right now.... 

[DatMattser]

Yeah you could be in a relationship and still be aroace. Some aroaces like to be in what's called queer platonic relationships which are like a middle ground between a romantic and platonic relationship.

[BeakLove]

1 hour ago, DatMattser said:

Yeah you could be in a relationship and still be aroace. Some aroaces like to be in what's called queer platonic relationships which are like a middle ground between a romantic and platonic relationship.

I still don't understand what this "middle ground" is meant to be. What quality does a "QPR" not have that stops it being romantic, and equivalently, what quality does it possess that that places it "above" a friendship? 

[Zagadka]

I don't think a QPR exists in the same universe as a remotely romantic relationship does. These things are not similar.

[BeakLove]

Can you explain what the difference is, then? Preferably without using the circular term "romance". 

[Zagadka]

I would be famous in aromantic circles the world wide if I could define romance. It is the most common question people struggle with.

 

There is a line between a platonic friendship and something more, though, that has to deal mostly with attachment (though this gets very fuzzy if you consider poly stuff). I've had platonic best friends I would do anything for, but not been in a relationship with. I don't associate a platonic relationship with romantic feelings. There is a level of sharing a life and love with someone...

 

"Romance" is a loaded term, even in outside ideas. People struggle with how close they can be with a friend all the time.\

 

That isn't a very good reply, I know, but I've never seen someone get close to defining those kinds of terms. I just try to go by what I'm feeling. If I'm feeling I want to be closer to someone, i will try that. Until then, I'm not going to worry about how close I am with people. That's just me, though, I know how it can work its way into your brain.

[Janus the Fox]

I’m AroAce in a relationship, the Aromantisism of my own consists of no attraction and/or desire for romance.  I still receive romantic behaviour from the BF though which is a reasonable compromise and realistic to me.

[fuzzipueo]

9 hours ago, BeakLove said:

Can you explain what the difference is, then? Preferably without using the circular term "romance". 

Think of a buddy movie in which two people have a close, familiar, relationship, but all they are are friends (most buddy-cop movies, for instance), but then that relationship goes one step further when the pair realize that they make each other happy in all the ways that matter most and decide they want to spend their lives together.* They may or may not be affectionate, sharing hugs, etc., yet have other ways they show they care about each other. 

 

*If I were into writing fanfic, Riggs and Murtaugh from the Lethal Weapon movie series would be in such a relationship. Real world would probably be Simon Pegg and Nick Frost (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz).

[BeakLove]

 

17 hours ago, Zagadka said:

I would be famous in aromantic circles the world wide if I could define romance. It is the most common question people struggle with.

It's the question that needs answering before you can have a coherent concept of "aromanticism". How can you suggest you have a lack of something that no one has actually defined?

 

4 hours ago, Zagadka said:

There is a line between a platonic friendship and something more, though, that has to deal mostly with attachment (though this gets very fuzzy if you consider poly stuff). I've had platonic best friends I would do anything for, but not been in a relationship with. I don't associate a platonic relationship with romantic feelings. There is a level of sharing a life and love with someone...

Sure, we call anything that crosses the line a romantic relationship. if you don't have romantic feelings, if you don't share a life and love with someone, it's probably not romantic. If you do, it probably is. It's true that these terms are loaded but generally we all agree on what a romantic relationship involves and what a non-romantic relationship involves. 

 

9 hours ago, fuzzipueo said:

Think of a buddy movie in which two people have a close, familiar, relationship, but all they are are friends (most buddy-cop movies, for instance), but then that relationship goes one step further when the pair realize that they make each other happy in all the ways that matter most and decide they want to spend their lives together.* They may or may not be affectionate, sharing hugs, etc., yet have other ways they show they care about each other. 

Hi @fuzzipueo. I guess what I'm specifically asking is what is the operator, what is the quality, what is the feeling that separates a QPR, functionally, from a friendship? What is it that puts it "beyond" friendship, but not into the realm of a romance? 

 

Quote

*If I were into writing fanfic, Riggs and Murtaugh from the Lethal Weapon movie series would be in such a relationship. Real world would probably be Simon Pegg and Nick Frost (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz).

Nick Frost and Simon Pegg are friends though. They don't live together (or even near each other), they have separate families, and they have separate career paths. What is it that demarcates them as "QPR"? The fact they're good friends? Why can't we just call them "good friends", then?

[BeakLove]

Hi @OptimisticPessimist, if you don't mind me asking, what are examples of some of the things you would do with your Q.P.R. that you would not do with friends? 

[BeakLove]

What stops it being romantic, then?

 

How can anyone tell a "beyond friends" feeling that's romantic from one that's queer-platonic? That's really the crux of my question. How can I tell apart a QPR couple who cuddle and hold hands from a romantic couple who cuddle and hold hands? Is it a commitment thing? Are QPRs basically physically affectionate friends, but there's no partnership expectation; no children, living together? etc. What does the prototypical QPR look like? I'm not doubting your specific relationship just trying to get a handle on what the general flavor of one is. What should come to mind when one says "queerplatonic"? The wiki is spectacularly useless on this question, so I'm asking here. An exposition of someone's personal circumstances not the same thing as a definition, and that tends to be all that you find. 

[kelico]

1 hour ago, BeakLove said:

What stops it being romantic, then?

 

How can anyone tell a "beyond friends" feeling that's romantic from one that's queer-platonic? That's really the crux of my question. How can I tell apart a QPR couple who cuddle and hold hands from a romantic couple who cuddle and hold hands? Is it a commitment thing? Are QPRs basically physically affectionate friends, but there's no partnership expectation; no children, living together? etc. What does the prototypical QPR look like? I'm not doubting your specific relationship just trying to get a handle on what the general flavor of one is. What should come to mind when one says "queerplatonic"? The wiki is spectacularly useless on this question, so I'm asking here. An exposition of someone's personal circumstances not the same thing as a definition, and that tends to be all that you find. 

Here's the thing: All relationships are different. Each person in a QPR or a romantic relationship treat things differently, so yes, to some, actions can seem romantic within a QPR, while those in the relationship don't see them that way. So it IS really hard to describe the difference. Because, what do you know, commitment and exclusivity is also a part of QPR's. It doesn't always deal with physical touch level, either. It's really hard to explain...all I can say is that I just knew. I knew, despite being aro, that I wanted to be in a relationship, and that a QPR felt right.

 

Quote

What should come to mind when one says "queerplatonic"?

Not only friends but also not romantic. A committed relationship based on deep platonic feelings. And as blurry as that is to describe, it's sort of what it is--the blurriness between friendship and romantic partnership.

 

I'm sorry I can't give a really direct answer, but it is what it is. You probably won't find a super specific definition. Is this where you looked?

[BeakLove]

On 12/28/2019 at 3:52 AM, kelico said:

I'm sorry I can't give a really direct answer, but it is what it is. You probably won't find a super specific definition. Is this where you looked?

Thanks for the response. I hope you can see though as someone outside of this it's very hard to grasp it. That's one of the places, yes. 

 

Quote

Here's the thing: All relationships are different. Each person in a QPR or a romantic relationship treat things differently, so yes, to some, actions can seem romantic within a QPR, while those in the relationship don't see them that way. So it IS really hard to describe the difference. Because, what do you know, commitment and exclusivity is also a part of QPR's. It doesn't always deal with physical touch level, either. It's really hard to explain...all I can say is that I just knew. I knew, despite being aro, that I wanted to be in a relationship, and that a QPR felt right.

You're of course correct, everyone's individual relationships are different. No two romances will look exactly alike. But we can still generally point to some factors which characterise a romantic relationship: e.g. a shared life, presenting as a couple, child-rearing, exclusivity, sexual and physical intimacy, prioritising above others, marriage, infatuation, and a shared feeling of union or being soulmates. Friends might have one or two items on the list: perhaps they live together or maybe they have sex now and then, but seldom will you see "friends" who are, say, sexually intimate, consider each other soulmates, and wish to raise kids. At that point, whether they think it or not, they're effectively a romantic couple and will be socially treated as if they are. 

 

So I'm just trying to get the same flavour for a QPR. For example the definition of that wiki says:

 

Quote

 queerplatonic relationships are not based on exclusivity

Which contradicts what you've said above.

 

Quote

Not only friends but also not romantic. A committed relationship based on deep platonic feelings. And as blurry as that is to describe, it's sort of what it is--the blurriness between friendship and romantic partnership.

The definition given on that wiki also seems to contradict the above:

 

Quote

It can be characterized by a strong bond, affect, and emotional commitment not regarded by those involved as something beyond a friendship.

After all, couldn't "deep platonic feelings" also characterise a strong friendship? Again, I'm just trying to get a feel for what QPR "adds" to a friendship, and in a sense what it "removes" from a romance. It can't be sex because romantic attraction defined here is decoupled from any requirement for sexual attraction. So it can only be the romantic feelings, as you've said above. The existence of romantic feelings is what elevates "just friends" into romantic partners. It is the "more than" in "more than friends". 

 

QPR is also being defined as a form of "more than friends" but I've not seen any property it's necessarily adding to friendship. 

[Galactic Turtle]

There are asexual people who seek out sex all the time, aro ace people who are married with kids, and aro people who willingly partake in relationships they consider to be romantic in nature.

 

With this subject specifically, there are people who desire emotional partnerships and call it any number of things (romantic/qpr/etc.) and those who don't. The only concrete difference between a romantic partnership and a QPR is people deciding to call their relationship one of those things. The only difference between aromantic people, gray-aro people, and romantic people is the individual deciding to call themselves one of those things. Sure you can try to make generalizations or even get into specifics about what makes who this specific thing, but there will always be someone who identifies as one of those that does not fit the rest. As a result they could either decide to identify as something else, ignore everyone and continue on their merry way with that ID, or think of all others in that category who did choose to find another thread of commonality outside of self-identification as gatekeepers who make them feel invalidated.

 

Same goes for asexuality because people hate being put into boxes unless they put themselves there on their own. Self-identification is the only acceptable method because this is the most liberal stance one can take and in matters of minority sexualities specifically people are inclined to be as openminded as possible. All the relevant vocabulary to this thread is so flexible in its use because the sentiment behind its use is so individualized, that I believe it fails to create any factual distinctions outside of one's own perception of themselves.

 

But in a big way, all of that makes kind of makes sense.

 

Yes, it's true I don't typically find deciding on a label to be all that helpful. Instead when people come along trying to sort out their feelings I believe it's a better starting place to first think about:

 

1. Do you want a partner?

2. What do you want that partnership to look like?

 

Once you answer these things you have now determined a realm of compatibility - that is, words to describe what you want to help identify those who want the same thing as you -  and this is where labels could potentially become useful if only to shorten the length of your dating profile. Perhaps it just so happens that what you're looking for lines up with what those around you consider to be a romantic relationship. Maybe it lines up with what those around you consider to be a QPR.... however as a term it's really not used that much. Maybe it lines up with what those around you consider to be a friend that's just very clingy. At the end of the day every emotional partnership is individualized since the way each emotional partnership looks hinges entirely on the individuals involved in it.

 

All that being said, relationship hierarchies are real. Not only that, but cultural expectations of friendship I believe have grown smaller over the centuries while cultural expectations of exclusive partnerships have grown larger over the centuries now that it is the norm in many cultures that these arrangements are based off of a primary emotional bond more often than actual necessity. It is not a coincidence that any relationship that grows to a certain level of significance is often denoted as being "more than friendship." It is not a coincidence that lacking a partner is equated to being completely alone. There is something inherently non-platonic assumed about the concept of a "soulmate." Large gestures of one's affections have become cornerstones of the very concept of romance which is why it's pretty common to see questioning aromantics confused because they get crushes and want to be in relationships but they're just really not into flowers or diamonds. Sounds like... *drumroll*... individualism.

 

Other examples of this are people saying "I don't like romantic movies" or "I don't like to go on fancy dates at restaurants" or "I wouldn't do outrageous things for the sake of my partner." These are all cultural stereotypes surrounding romance, a word I find inherently vague. But it's a bit hard to avoid. Even in Merriam-Webster's definition of platonic they used the word: "Platonic: Of, relating to, or being in a relationship marked by the absence of romance or sex." This in itself hinges on things that were once (and often still are) considered to be universal truths. Platonic primarily is used to denote relationships that do not involve sexual intimacy. For most people, sexual and romantic intimacy are nearly impossible to separate. Yet at the same time having a "fuckbuddy" isn't that strange and in the asexual corner of the internet there are as many types of perceived attractions as there are types of cheese at an expensive grocery store.  So once again I'm inclined to just say.... individualism when it pertains to partnership.

 

Which brings me back to my default question: Do you want a partner?

 

Yes? Great. What should you call your partner? Whatever you want. At the end of the day, them being your partner (regardless of what you call that partnership) will simply serve to give them certain status in the eyes of others because amatonormativity. 

 

No? Stay single and hope no one assumes you're simply damaged deep within your soul.  

 

Don't know? Let life lead you where it will.