What is romantic attraction?

[AceEline]

I have been searching for a while to find what romantic attraction is and means but I can’t really find it... could some of you maybe help me find an answer :). What I did find is that aromanticism is: “having little to no attraction to any gender”. But then I still don’t understand what romantic attraction is... 

 

[BeakLove]

There's no single definition but here's an operational one that most credible accounts of romantic attraction collapse to (in my opinion):

 

(a) A deep, loving attachment to another person.

(b) A tendency to romanticise the object of love and the relationship context itself.

(c) A desire for enmeshment (or "one-ness") which often manifests as emotional dependency, possessiveness, physical closeness, and sexual union.

 

One's orientation dictates the sexes (or genders) to which such an attraction is possible. 

[NickyTannock]

I've moved this thread from "Questions about Asexuality" to "Romantic and Aromantic Orientations".
 
Michael Tannock,
Open Mic moderator and Questions about Asexuality Co-moderator.

[PhantomintheCabinet]

Honestly it varies from person to person. I don't think most alloromantics truly get what romantic feelings truly are, hence why the concept of love is painted as this mysterious force no one understands. I don't understand it at all, either. Some say it's when you feel a deep connection that surpasses the intensity you feel with anyone else, but if so then why do some romantic couples feel their children are the most meaningful connection to them? This shows platonic attraction can surpass it. I guess the closest definition to romantic attraction I personally have, based on what I've seen, is when you idealize someone and see them as another half to you. It's said to be a selfless love, but to me feels rather...co-dependent and selfish. Take this with a grain of salt because it's probably due to me only having seen the super unhealthy types. To be fair, friendship can also be the same.

[BeakLove]

6 hours ago, PhantomintheCabinet said:

Honestly it varies from person to person. I don't think most alloromantics truly get what romantic feelings truly are, hence why the concept of love is painted as this mysterious force no one understands. I don't understand it at all, either. Some say it's when you feel a deep connection that surpasses the intensity you feel with anyone else, but if so then why do some romantic couples feel their children are the most meaningful connection to them? This shows platonic attraction can surpass it. I guess the closest definition to romantic attraction I personally have, based on what I've seen, is when you idealize someone and see them as another half to you. It's said to be a selfless love, but to me feels rather...co-dependent and selfish. Take this with a grain of salt because it's probably due to me only having seen the super unhealthy types. To be fair, friendship can also be the same.

Many psychologists and evolutionary scientists opine that our style of attachment to romantic partners is an emulation of the one we develop to our parents. I think you can take a more philosophical view that echoes this too. I do think in many ways what we seek from our partners is a way to re-capture the intimate (but naive) relationship we have with our parents when we are younger. Your parents are your whole world, you freely speak your mind, you love them openly and expressively. Of course in many respects it is an unequal relationship: if you have not developed the concept of propriety, if you do not understand boundaries, is it meaningful to not have any?  But I think in many ways falling in love and growing closer to a partner is a process of reversing the cynicism and bounds that life places upon you. Why is it fun to roll about naked with a partner, or to express the most impure or basic thoughts, to tell them "sweet nothings", hell, look at the cooing and baby talk. If you can be that pure, unguarded, unbounded, and intimate with someone after the ravages of adulthood have taken their toll, I think there is something special in that. 

 

But to your point: does the relationship between child and parent, parent and child, demonstrate that "platonic attraction" can surpass romantic? Well, maybe. It is certainly true that there is an intimate relationship there - emotionally and physically. Of course this diminishes a bit as children discover their own identities and boundaries are established. But it is still no wonder that many people feel their familiar relations are their closest. It is very difficult to create the sort of bond that you get after spending 18 to 20-something years with each other, even if a lot of that bond is inertial in nature. But let us think about this bond a bit more carefully. We often speak of how children idealise their parents - they are superheros of a sort to them - and many mothers and fathers also idealise their kids. The phrase "a face only a mother could love" speaks to this notion. It would of course, in common parlance, be improper to talk of this as being "romantic" but is this not similar in many ways to idealising one does with a romantic partner? And let's reflect again on the pure, unbridled intimacy of the relationship; it is often physically affectionate with cuddles and stroking and touching. As a young child your parents constitute almost your entire social sphere and world view, you openly express your emotions to them, even if they are rather naive. 

 

Can you create that in the context of a (new) platonic relationship as an adult? In other words; can you create that without the sexual motivation and (more importantly) without the romantic idealising? My personal opinion is that it's unlikely. I think infatuation is an important ingredient in falling in love, it is both a pleasant feeling in itself, and the catalyst for lowering boundaries. 

[Lily Mercy]

so this thread is as close to a definition of romance as i could find. thanks for this thread by the way. i’ve never felt attracted to another person. i normally just stumble into friendships. but i desire mutually supportive partenr/s ( i’m not picky as to numbers) i can eventually raise a family with. would that desire be a desire for a romantic relationship? I normally despise the crap that happens in romance media an i always thought that was what romance was. the dating and the silly displays of “affection” or wooing.

[DogObsessedLi]

On 12/31/2019 at 8:37 AM, BeakLove said:

There's no single definition but here's an operational one that most credible accounts of romantic attraction collapse to (in my opinion):

 

(a) A deep, loving attachment to another person.

(b) A tendency to romanticise the object of love and the relationship context itself.

(c) A desire for enmeshment (or "one-ness") which often manifests as emotional dependency, possessiveness, physical closeness, and sexual union.

 

One's orientation dictates the sexes (or genders) to which such an attraction is possible. 

This is the best description I've found, thank you. I'm actually wondering if I'm demiromantic, and your description is very helpful. Thank you.