"Romance" (romantic love) is subjective and perplexing

[Shadowbird]

Trying to comprehend "romance" (technically "romantic love") seems nearly impossible, because of a lack of a standardised description. Of course, like everything else in reality, it is complex and variable. The one thing that appears most clear to me is that it's human social relations. From there, it becomes a mess of ever defining any kind of variations. Maybe this is more difficult to understand due to questioning beyond the basic, popularised notions, or from some more objective than subjective viewpoint. It always provides confusion and my thoughts result in believing that it's so subjective and descriptions vary between individuals, that it's best left ignored and to simply exist with the feelings toward specific individuals, free of judgment and expectations, devoid of any labels or regard of them. Occasionally, however, I encounter situations that evoke this questioning once again and tend to try understanding it (which is practically futile in the end...)

 

Because I view it as generically as being social relations, it brings up comparisons to other forms of human bonding and how it varies per individual toward any living being or even ideas, the latter through which I most understand "romance" as a similar term to that of idealisation or glamorisation -- a person could very well possibly have ideal views toward any organism or concept, that are not always realistic (from a more objective viewpoint; otherwise can be easily real to the individual, being from a more subjective viewpoint). A person can experience intense attachment, passion, and/or commitment toward, not exclusively a stranger who becomes a friend, but a family member or even a pet. Perhaps, however, it's all about the common instances found in humans in which it's primarily associated with initially strangers, and this is what's been most focused on when describing "romance"/romantic love -- but what even is the "common" instance that's been claimed to exist exclusively as "romantic love"?

 

What defines "aromanticism" in comparison to "romantic love"? How are they different and similar to each other? If it's all varying subjective forms of social relations and feelings...

[Ceebs]

5 minutes ago, Shadowbird said:

Perhaps, however, it's all about the common instances found in humans in which it's primarily associated with initially strangers, and this is what's been most focused on when describing "romance"/romantic love

I'm confused. What does romantic love have to do with strangers?

[Shadowbird]

 

7 minutes ago, Ceebs. said:

I'm confused. What does romantic love have to do with strangers?

I meant, from an objective perspective, that it seems like people establish a relationship (whether romantic, platonic, etc.) that starts out with people they don't know, whether it starts out platonic or romantic or something else between them.

[silent__]

7 minutes ago, Shadowbird said:

It always provides confusion and my thoughts result in believing that it's so subjective and descriptions vary between individuals, that it's best left ignored and to simply exist with the feelings toward specific individuals, free of judgment and expectations, devoid of any labels or regard of them. Occasionally, however, I encounter situations that evoke this questioning once again and tend to try understanding it (which is practically futile in the end...)

Many, many things are like this, incredibly complex and subjective. Especially considering that our language is awfully lacking in words to describe emotions and anything in that realm. But I think that's what makes topics like this so interesting to think about. It's one of those things that each person sort of has to define for themself - what does romance mean to me? And then it has to be a discussion that you have if you ever want to have a romantic relationship with someone. And for me that's kind of good, because I wouldn't want that sort of relationship anyway with someone who didn't want to talk about it and what it means to both of us.

[Ceebs]

4 minutes ago, Shadowbird said:

 

I meant, from an objective perspective, that it seems like people establish a relationship (whether romantic, platonic, etc.) that starts out with people they don't know, whether it starts out platonic or romantic or something else between them.

I'm still not understanding. Not trying to be a dick, I swear... but everyone is a stranger at some point. They can't not be. Every friend, every romantic partner, has once been a complete stranger.

[Shadowbird]

@silent__ Yes, of course -- reality is entirely so complex for whatever the topic in question may be, and having the terminology, some way to describe and communicate anything encountered/observed can easily be difficult. Surely, on an individualistic scope, it becomes a whole unique experience of how one interprets whatever they perceive. Maybe reality is so intricate that it's impossible to grasp -- it's no doubt human senses are limited to the external reality. Human experience becomes a personal one because it's all we know. But yeah, certain words have become mere tools of communication amongst one another in this species, down to the culture, to help understand some generic idea of something similar, even though it's realistically always going to be completely different from another person and no two people think/feel/experience exactly the same... So it comes to a matter of establishing a less complicated form of an agreement on a topic, which is easier/better to do in any type of a relationship.

[Shadowbird]

5 minutes ago, Ceebs. said:

I'm still not understanding. Not trying to be a dick, I swear... but everyone is a stranger at some point. They can't not be. Every friend, every romantic partner, has once been a complete stranger.

True, everyone is indeed a stranger to each other initially. I was originally saying that maybe when the concept of romantic love was being developed or recognised, it was mostly focused on the event in which people would meet another they don't know and had ended up experiencing some form of intimacy (or involving behaviours of courtship).

[binary suns]

I don't think romance is hard to understand. Romantic attraction is emotional attraction where one desires to be close with someone, and it leads to a desire for romantic activity and a romantic relationship. What romantic activities look like can sometimes be hard to describe, but there are common things too, things like pet names and holding hands and doing things together and flirting and using affectionate speech to express your feelings for them. as well as kissing. there is also gift giving and romantic dinner or a romantic walk.

[Shadowbird]

@Ashe. Maybe those are the common components that applies to a majority of people involved in that type of relationship? It gets confusing when these things are just as well applicable to what someone might just consider a "friend" of some sort or a "family member" of some sort. There's even few cultural differences. Attraction and feelings can very well have variations between individuals, and what to consider or label them as is completely subjective. There are people who experience emotional attraction with friends or family, whomever they might feel close to, and such doesn't necessarily only link with romance. Even some of the common activities as listed can be done in people's own ways to close friends or family members or even a pet. Attraction, again, is so complex and variable, including and excluding a number of things per individual.

[Gray Watcher]

All the recent questions about what is romantic have made me confused.  Before, I would definitely say it was kind of a "I know it when I see it kind of thing".

 

But now I wonder if there is any qualitative difference between my strong romantic relationship or my strong friendships.  There is absolutely a quantitative difference, I spend 90% of my time in the same house as my wife and over 60% in the same room.  But I don't know that other than the pet names, hugs and kisses if there is any real difference in my attraction to her vs my better friends.  (We have an adult child, but that is really more of a practical difference).

[binary suns]

On 9/8/2021 at 11:28 AM, Shadowbird said:

True, everyone is indeed a stranger to each other initially. I was originally saying that maybe when the concept of romantic love was being developed or recognised, it was mostly focused on the event in which people would meet another they don't know and had ended up experiencing some form of intimacy (or involving behaviours of courtship).

I've always thought friendship was usually the precursor to romance. I don't anymore think that's always the case, but I feel like it definitely does happen with some people. That people are friends before they develop a romantic interest in each other and a romantic connection and dating. I know of a few couples like this. two of my relationships started with friendship. albeit it did develop quickly, over the course of a month or three. 

 

I think also people can find romance with a stranger too, I'm not discounting that. one of my relationships was that way. and people are finding partneres throught dating apps and websites. so this definitely happens too. But, I feel like it's not exclusively strangers, friendship first is also common.

[Nern]

I agree that this is subjective, and I feel a little silly even sharing my perspective because I have identified as aro ace for my entire adult life (until now-- I'm questioning) and I have zero romantic or sexual experience, so what do I know? I can't possibly understand these topics given my lack of experience, and I don't claim to. I have a lot of uncertainty and confusion.

 

But that being said, I think I may be a non-SAM aro with a touch of gray, because I personally cannot even begin to understand romance without sex or sex without romance. I know the SAM is useful for many and I'm not saying it's wrong, but in my own head, romance and sex go together, and I don't think I'd ever want to have one without the other.

 

When I think about having sex with someone and the kinds of feelings (emotionally) that I would want to have for the person I had sex with, in my mind, those feelings are romantic. And when I think of the kinds of emotional feelings for the other person that could result from having sex, those feelings are also romantic. 

 

And I know physical affection and romance are not the same thing, but I feel the same way about physical affection as I do about romance. I've never had any desire to touch or hug or kiss anyone, or cuddle, or any of that, but as I've been thinking about sex, I can see how those other forms of physical affection could very gradually build up to it, and I can understand them better that way. Same thing with someone telling me I'm beautiful or something. Usually, if someone told me I was beautiful, I would want to smack them, but if it was someone who I was thinking of having sex with at some point, then yeah. It would be important to know that they actually liked my body. I sort of have to start with my understanding of sex and work backwards in order to understand romance, and it's all just theoretical/intellectual for me at this stage.

 

I've recently become more open to the idea of a romantic or sexual relationship some day, and as I become more open to the idea of sex, I become more open to the idea of romance and vice versa. These things move together for me. Again, I can't emphasize enough that I don't think the SAM is wrong, and if others are happy having a relationship that's purely romantic or purely sexual, that's great for them, but this is just how I have to approach it.

 

 

[Shadowbird]

On 9/9/2021 at 10:51 AM, Ashe. said:

I've always thought friendship was usually the precursor to romance. I don't anymore think that's always the case, but I feel like it definitely does happen with some people. That people are friends before they develop a romantic interest in each other and a romantic connection and dating. I know of a few couples like this. two of my relationships started with friendship. albeit it did develop quickly, over the course of a month or three. 

 

I think also people can find romance with a stranger too, I'm not discounting that. one of my relationships was that way. and people are finding partneres throught dating apps and websites. so this definitely happens too. But, I feel like it's not exclusively strangers, friendship first is also common.

It typically is friendship, and the varying degrees of affection depends on how one is attracted to another and how the initial social interactions and feelings develop over time and all. First impressions definitely matter. Some people have certain expectations when meeting some people, and at times there's not as much of specific expectations with others. But a person never knows how their early social relations with another human will truly develop, regardless of whether or not the person (or the other) may have certain aims with them.

[Shadowbird]

@Nern At a point it seems when labels become so specific and perplexing, and a lot of humans are relatively complex and fluctuate throughout their entire lives, it's probably not worth too much thought. Yet sometimes it can't be helped to question things, it's only natural.

 

It's true -- some people tend to associate romance and sex because of how commonly involved they are with one another, especially in media, some cultures, and certainly a time in human history, but of course isn't realistically the black-and-white case where there exists variety (just at a smaller level than the majority). It may have been linked a lot when people would speak of the importance of marriage, and talks of romance and sex being often associated if not basically followed by romance.

Physical affection, certain emotions, and sex are to help the human species continue to populate and survive, hence the common drive for such. The concept of "romantic love" some day spawned in a culture in association to some overriding feeling of an idealised bond with another person. But, of course, this is an early human mindset and more was to be discovered about the human neurodiversity/variety to understand how intricate the species is, so the concept has changed a bit since then in finding how even some friendships between people can be confused with romance and vice versa.

So while romance and sex are often related to each other, the existence of human variation proves that it's not 100% necessary (some don't like sex but like having a close friendship or romance or whatever they want to label it as, some like sex but don't want any other kind of bond with the person, and whatever other variances of attraction and social relations there are). This is why the notion of "romance" confuses me.

[Ceebs]

On 9/9/2021 at 1:51 PM, Ashe. said:

I've always thought friendship was usually the precursor to romance.

I guess for me, in order for it to actually work as a romantic relationship, there has to be an underlying friendship. It doesn't have to have existed for years or anything prior to me being able to feel romantic interest, but I've learnt a relationship won't be successful for me if I don't feel a sense of strong friendship that would still exist even if romantic feelings didn't. I had a relationship with someone I was drawn to romantically and sexually because they became intensely interested in me and 'love-bombed' me, and after much confusion and stress I found myself having feelings for them... but I realised after it was over that we were never friends. We didn't trust each other at all, and the emotional connection wasn't good -- just intense. I've since learnt what it's like to have a relationship where you're really great friends as well as the other stuff (and yes, you can still have the intensity and it's actually better), and it's just... worlds apart.

[Janus the Fox]

For me too a deep friendship must be in place for several years that something more can develop (though it’s been four and a half years with the BF that a bond is formed.  Still waiting for any platonic, altruistic, emotional, sensual, romantic, sexual or any attraction to develop still, as described in definitions or anecdotal experiences I’ve read over the years)