So What Exactly Replaces Sex in an Asexual Relationship

[Chiaroscuro]

I've been having a conversation with some folks over in the Partners of Asexuals thread, and I realize there's something I still don't understand about what an asexual person is looking for in a relationship. Bear with me for a moment...

In a romantic sexual relationship, there are two components: Sexual Desire and Affection.* Mutual sexual desire is what seperates the relationship from one in which there is just affection (my relationship with my brother, my kids, etc...). Affection is what seperates the relationship from a one-night-stand (I can desire someone I don't much like). So, for a sexual person, a relationship can be expressed:

Sexual Desire + Affection = Romantic Relationship

Subtracting desire from the equation, I don't understand what seperates an unromantic realationship from a romantic one. Is it as simple as saying "I want a partner, and I choose you?" Is the choosing enough to make the relationship something more than an intense friendship? Or is an intense friendship the thing your heart desires?

-Chiaroscuro

*-I know Ghosts will correct me by saying there are sexual folks for whom this isn't true, but I believe that it's true for the vast majority of us.

[cijay]

So What Exactly Replaces Sex in an Asexual Relationship

I've been having a conversation with some folks over in the Partners of Asexuals thread, and I realize there's something I still don't understand about what an asexual person is looking for in a relationship. Bear with me for a moment...

In a romantic sexual relationship, there are two components: Sexual Desire and Affection.* Mutual sexual desire is what seperates the relationship from one in which there is just affection (my relationship with my brother, my kids, etc...). Affection is what seperates the relationship from a one-night-stand (I can desire someone I don't much like). So, for a sexual person, a relationship can be expressed:

Sexual Desire + Affection = Romantic Relationship

Subtracting desire from the equation, I don't understand what seperates an unromantic realationship from a romantic one. Is it as simple as saying "I want a partner, and I choose you?" Is the choosing enough to make the relationship something more than an intense friendship? Or is an intense friendship the thing your heart desires?

-Chiaroscuro

*-I know Ghosts will correct me by saying there are sexual folks for whom this isn't true, but I believe that it's true for the vast majority of us.

That's a good question but first I would say that I don't believe ANYthing 'replaces' the sex. I have an enormous advantage because my asexual relationship would be complete as it is. It's not like there'd be a big void in it waiting to be filled by something else. It's like asking me what replaces diamond rings or olives in my life. Nothing. I don't want a diamond ring and I don't want olives so I don't need to replace them with anything.

But - while I'm using the diamond ring - what's the difference between an engagement with a ring or without? Just the ring. It's not like they need to get anything to replace the ring to make it complete.

As for what would be the difference between an unromantic relationship from a romantic one to an asexual? Well, for me it would first be that both parties have 'stopped looking' for a partner. There would be no going out for supper one night and have the other saying *giggle* "I met someone, no I mean I MET someone if you know what I mean. Yeah sure, we'll still be friends, yeah, just you, me and my new someone." and then you have to sit there while they blah-blah-blah about the new person and the only time they call you is when they have a fight with their new person.

I don't know about anyone else but that'd be my answer.

[mouri_shin]

hmm.. good question..

i think of myself as monogamous.. that might be the cause for me..

i've thought about this alot recently: why can't i let got of my fears and hopes, etc. to all my friends? why is it this one person who is the only one i feel comfortable enough around? I've been in this situation before where that person has changed, and once i close myself to them, they can't get back in.

ie: i had a friend who i was in a relationship with in the past tell me 'you know, i'm always here for you if you need a friend to talk to or a shoulder or anything' and i was very grateful, but i knew i would never do either of those things anymore. I had in the past. but i can't now.. and i really don't get it either XD

[Lehcar]

It's a fair enough question, but I think you've made an understandably common mistake in not distinguishing romantic feelings from sexual ones. Or rather, not treating the two as separate entities.

I am aromantic and asexual, so I am probably one of the lease qualified people to be trying to explain this, Chiaroscuro, but I'll give it a shot. The idea is that romantic feelings are actually different from sexual desire, ie one can feel romantic attraction sans sex. So it's not 'Sexual Desire + Affection = Romantic Relationship', it's more like 'sexual desire + romantic desire = romantic sexual relationship'.

I'm sorry, I don't know how to explain it past the idea that romantic attraction is different from sexual desire. Some help guys? From someone who's experieced it!?!?

[Face]

I can see why you want to know this and I think you've put it very well with your equation. I'm sure both parts will vary among the different types of asexual, even the affection part, but especially the 'other missing bit' among those who do or don't like touching or prefer 'intellectual closeness', as well as between male and female.

For me the affection part is combined with a desire for closeness to the point of exploring each others bodies, just not involving intercourse, and for that to be reciprocated. As a guy I feel that I like the idea of protecting someone I love too. There's also an ego thing of being loved by someone you desire. That might make me feel more secure and stop the heartache when thinking about it.

All of those are things that differentiate the feelings from the affection I have for, say, my mother or my pet cat.

I also want the relationship side of sharing life together. This can be partially filled by friendship if you can find someone who has time for you but it would only be complete to have someone who is all these things together.

Hope that helps a bit.

[Chiaroscuro]

Thanks for the input, guys. Let me expand on my question a bit, based on what you've written, with a scenario:

Let's say you have a partner whom you love deeply, with whom you spend most of your time... to the exclusion of others. This person is the first person in your life, the one you know you'll live with for the rest of your life. Your life-partner. You'll care for them, receive care from them, protect them and their interests above all others.

My great-grandmother and her adult daughter had such a relationship. For at least 20 years they lived together, cared for one another, spent most evenings together. They went out on the town, went to the opera, received family gatherings as a pair.

Did they have a "romantic" relationship in the asexual sense? If not, why not? What distinguishes their relationship from a romantic asexual one?

-Chiaroscuro

[Face]

For me, like I said, the distinguishing feature would be the physical closeness which I doubt your great-grandmother and daughter had. I'm pretty sure that most of what I am talking about would fit in your category of "expressions of mutual desire" that are not overtly sexual but driven by the heart and mind rather than by the groin (apologies if this is not the case, this is the bit I find hard to understand as an asexual with just macho sexual references to go on).

For other asexuals that relationship could well qualify as 'romantic' or certainly fulfil every desire they have for a relationship, whether they call it romantic or not.

[mouri_shin]

wow o.o haha i looked up several definitions of romance and still can't answer that one! XD

that example would definitely portray a strong relationship. but i think the true distinction between 'closeness' and 'romance' is in the subtle actions: the way they look at each other (say playful versus affectionate eyes) the way they touch (ie: entertwining of the fingers vs the arms or light touches to the hand / arm vs touches which call attention to the words being spoken at that moment) 'getting lost' in someones eyes is considered romantic..

i mean, i would love to spend every day with my best friend, we each have so much in common but so many unique interests that we each enjoy watching or hearing about if not taking part in. but i wouldn't use the word romance because the quiet moments aren't spent contemplating each other's beauty or our relationship, but rather enjoying a bit of quiescence in life knowing the other person is helping you handle what goes on.

maybe this is just a matter of an individuals definition..?

[Tool1989]

mouri_shin.....you know exactly what I think about when I look for romance. That is something I dream of.....especialy getting lost in their eyes. Sorry I just needed to say that. :P

[Face]

mouri_shin.....you know exactly what I think about when I look for romance. That is something I dream of.....especialy getting lost in their eyes. Sorry I just needed to say that. :P

Yeah mouri's definition is much better than I could have written and I do agree with it (I am still romantic; I think. :oops: )

[Chiaroscuro]

I think I get it. It's what I imagine as "Snow White and Prince Charming" style romance... completely chaste, but romantic as hell.

Actually, most Disney movies feature pairs of thoroughly non-sexual people having intensely romantic relationships. Sleeping Beauty. The Little Mermaid. Beauty and the Beast. They're desexualized because they're aimed at little kids, but they may as well be made for asexuals too, I suppose.

Thanks again for your thoughts,

-Chiaroscuro

[ghosts]

Very good topic!

In a romantic sexual relationship, there are two components: Sexual Desire and Affection.* Mutual sexual desire is what seperates the relationship from one in which there is just affection (my relationship with my brother, my kids, etc...). Affection is what seperates the relationship from a one-night-stand (I can desire someone I don't much like). So, for a sexual person, a relationship can be expressed:

*-I know Ghosts will correct me by saying there are sexual folks for whom this isn't true, but I believe that it's true for the vast majority of us.

:P Well- I'd say that in all sexual romantic relationships, they would generally include both sexual desire/activity and affection. Of course, as I'm sure you'll also realize, it's possible that one (perhaps both?) of these elements could be missing, even in a relationship amongst two sexual people. (if you want me to explain myself further, just let me know) And yeah, I do feel that it's possible for a sexual to be in a "romantic" relationship without feeling a strong sexual desire for that person, but I'm not gonna get into that (I might contribute more in that other thread if I have a bit more time today).

But anyway- I think your mistake lies in thinking that there *is* something missing from an asexual relationship because sexuality is out of the picture. But there is nothing missing- sexual desire/activity is something separate from the other feelings that people have for each other, as others have pointed out so far.

I like when questions like this come up though- although I've basically been trying to show what can constitute an asexual romantic relationship vs. a sexual romantic relationship, I'm not crazy about the term "romantic". I think it can definitely be a useful term for many people to think about their different relationships, but I think it simplifies the relationships that many people have with others. After all, "romantic" varies for so many people, as we've noticed in this thread.

I'm not really sure how to get into this without having a really big post, but I think that sometimes, distinguishing between your closest relationships can diminish what one relationship means to you vs. another. For example, Chiaroscuro, you wrote "the relationship something more than an intense friendship?" It just comes across that one is less than the other. I realize that there are often different feelings involved between various relationships, but... Who's to say that someone's feelings in a romantically defined relationship are more than someone who's not in a relationship defined that way- even if that relationship appears to everyone else to be "just a friendship"?

Also, by the way- exclusivity and monogamy don't necessarily set romantic relationships apart from others, since there are plenty of people who don't want exclusive relationships and don't practice monogamy.

I'm sorry, it's hard for me to explain, and sometimes I go back and forth with my feelings about this- because, after all, I know that if I wanted to, I could say that I am a romantic person based on many of the things people have said on AVEN. The way I feel and act in at least one of my relationships is surely enough to classify myself as a romantic person rather than aromantic, but it just doesn't work for me... Maybe I'll try to come up with a thread about this at some point. But to just finish up real quickly, I think that there is a certain way of thinking about and defining our relationships in our society, and part of that is to distinguish between "romantic relationship", which has certain expectations about what's involved in the relationship, like sexuality, more intense feelings, exclusivity, commitment, etc., vs. "friendship", which is generally thought of as very important too, but just less important and not someone you want to form your life around. Perhaps this structure, if we can call it that, can have an effect on how we view are own relationships, which is probably one of the reasons that asexual people who first come here are so often confused (although there are other kinds of structures in place that cause this too), and why sexual people often have a hard time comprehending "romantic relationships" without the sex.

[Tool1989]

I don't really have fetishes. Yeah I masturbate but that's kinda like a private thing. Don't want sex because I strongly believe that having a non sexual relationship is just as good (if not better) than having a sexual relationship. I had an emotional bond with my ex-girlfriend before we even made out (3 months after we met) and during that time I realized that you don't need sex or anything related to be happy. All you need is security and comfort. The only dreams I've had recently was staring into my girlfriend's eyes while holding her and her saying "I love you" and it was like the perfect scene. There was a waterfall nearby away from civilization. It was midnight and we were lying down cuddling each other talking to each other about things we have had to overcome to be together and how far we've come since we first met....I loved dreaming that and I hope it comes true someday.....lol sorry for getting off topic. Nothing really replaces sex. It's like an optional add on to couples. You don't NEED to have sex but like you don't NEED to be romantic. It depends on who you are. Just because one person thinks that THEY NEED sex doesn't mean everybody who is sexual does. If you really want to get an answer, I would rather spend time cuddling than having sex.

[mouri_shin]

mouri_shin.....you know exactly what I think about when I look for romance. That is something I dream of.....especialy getting lost in their eyes. Sorry I just needed to say that. :P

Yeah mouri's definition is much better than I could have written and I do agree with it (I am still romantic; I think. :oops: )

^^;

i'm a total sucker for getting to watch someone's eyes

[Chiaroscuro]

Ghosts writes:

For example, Chiaroscuro, you wrote "the relationship something more than an intense friendship?" It just comes across that one is less than the other. I realize that there are often different feelings involved between various relationships, but... Who's to say that someone's feelings in a romantically defined relationship are more than someone who's not in a relationship defined that way- even if that relationship appears to everyone else to be "just a friendship"?

I don't make a value judgement on whether or not friendship carries more or less importance than a "romantic" relationship, simply that there's a difference between the two.

I think that there is a certain way of thinking about and defining our relationships in our society, and part of that is to distinguish between "romantic relationship", which has certain expectations about what's involved in the relationship, like sexuality, more intense feelings, exclusivity, commitment, etc., vs. "friendship", which is generally thought of as very important too, but just less important and not someone you want to form your life around.

I agree wholeheartedly that much of the issue is about expectations, and they're perpetuated by the arts (ie: Disney & Leave it to Beavers' visions of the chaste romantic relationship). I guess what I'm mostly left with is that it's about choice. If you feel that a romantic relationship is something you want, then you and one of your friends mutually define your relationship as romantic. I don't mean that in a soul-less way, I understand that there's chemistry involved, and a "falling in love" feeling, but there's nothing that seperates that relationship from all others, other than choice.

For sexuals there's a very concrete division between behavior that's appropriate between lovers and that which is appropriate between friends. The lack of such a concrete division is what has puzzled me when asexuals talk about having a relationship.

-Chiaroscuro

PS - I'm as uncomfortable with the term romantic relationship as you guys are. I'm open to suggestions.

[Tool1989]

Very true indeed. I am not uncomfortable saying romantic relationships cuz I feel it's different than a sexual relationship cuz sex doesn't mean romance. But you are right....everybody has different perspectives on it.

[yay]

Romantic love. There are lots of people I am physically and emotionally attracted to, but just not sexually. All the people I've liked, I've never desired to have sex with them. I've wanted to hug or kiss them, spend quality time but never get in between the sheets.

[Puzzle_chick]

Good question certainly...but I have to say I don't think, at least for me, that there's anything there to replace. My life and my love for someone is complete without sex. Thus, no empty place to fill in. But sexual people usually see sex as a way of being close and intimate, so if the question is really how do asexuals be close and intimate...it kinda depends on the person. The way I show that is to talk, share hobbies, spend time with, and just share my life with the person in a way that I don't with a friend. I'm also open to cuddling. x3

As for the question about how do you differentiate between a close friendship and a romantic something-or-another...I think the answer is that there is no answer to it. See, for me it's just a feeling inside of me that I know this is THE person and when I say I love them that it's deeper than if I said that to my family or friends. It's just a particular feeling inside me that let's me know.

Personally I hate how people are so quick to give love and affection universal labels. In the end, love and affection are what they are to different people. We can throw a bunch of labels over them, but they're each going to mean something different to each of us no matter what "universal" label they're given. I know the love I feel for my Mom, whom I care deeply about is different than the love I feel for my life partner, but they're BOTH extremely deep love. However the love I feel for my mom, which could be labeled "close friendship" might not be the exact same thing that the person next to me would consider "close friendship." Thus, the label is pointless. It's the feeling that matters.

Feh, I'm probably overanalyzing this. I drove too much today, am totally out-of-it...

[Eta Carinae]

If you feel that a romantic relationship is something you want, then you and one of your friends mutually define your relationship as romantic. I don't mean that in a soul-less way, I understand that there's chemistry involved, and a "falling in love" feeling, but there's nothing that seperates that relationship from all others, other than choice.

For sexuals there's a very concrete division between behavior that's appropriate between lovers and that which is appropriate between friends.

I'm not sure this is true. Sexual people can have friends with benefits (as they say), sometimes good friends with benefits. How do those people distinguish between a romantic partner and a friend they also sleep with? (And some of them do.) I think this issue is one that pops up whenever you separate sex from romance, or vice versa. Sex makes for a relatively clean dividing line between kinds of relationships; feelings, though, are murkier.

[Shockwave]

Asking an asexual what replaces sex in their relationship is like asking a vegetarian what replaces meat in their diet - it doesn't need to be replaced because it doesn't leave a vacancy.

[bbctv]

sort of depends, as even in some sexual relationships sex plays a fairly minor role (i know sexual couples who have sex quite seldom, or even often but it's more just 'cuz they're bored.)

i never really think of relationships as some sort of sum of a few emotional components that then makes it ROMANTIC. i kind of go with the "if the people declare it a relationship, it is" reminiscent of the Joseph Campbell definition of science fiction (or any genre) that it's determined by whatever the editors in that genre print or put out.

i'd say that some people just enjoy spending time with the other person, as different people have different levels of need and desire for physical affection, so i'd say that it might appear quite similar to a sexual relationship, just that physical affection would never lead to sex. what degree of physical affection occurs is likely highly variable. i've known asexual couples who were quite demonstrative and then sexual ones who rarely displayed any affection, probably since for them any sort of affectionate touching was linked to sexual desire (or created it in them.)

a lot of variation, but i don't think anything replaces it, just it doesn't happen and that physical affection doesn't lead to it. i mean, when somebody tells me (rarely does anyone) that they can't see how i MAKE DO without sex i just can't imagine what it's like to feel a desire for it. nothing really REPLACES sex in my life, just there isn't any.

[Chiaroscuro]

Sexual people can have friends with benefits (as they say), sometimes good friends with benefits. How do those people distinguish between a romantic partner and a friend they also sleep with?

Quoting from my opening post: In a romantic sexual relationship, there are two components: Sexual Desire and Affection. Mutual sexual desire is what seperates the relationship from one in which there is just affection (my relationship with my brother, my kids, etc...). Affection is what seperates the relationship from a one-night-stand (I can desire someone I don't much like).

I can desire someone and not love them, I can love someone and not desire them. The two things are separate, but both are components of what we are calling a "romantic" relationship (for sexual people). If affection is missing, no amount of sex can make it into a romantic relationship. If sex is missing, no amount of affection can make it into a romantic relationship.

See, for me it's just a feeling inside of me that I know this is THE person and when I say I love them that it's deeper than if I said that to my family or friends. It's just a particular feeling inside me that let's me know.

So, again, it's choice that defines the asexual relationship? Over the years, I can imagine you might feel that a number of people are THE person, but they might not feel the same about you. Then, one day, the other person also feels your are THE person, and you choose to share your life together as romantic partners. Assuming neither of you yearns for sexual expression, there are certain advantages to the asexual relationship... just in terms of simplicity. One less minefield to navigate together.

Asking an asexual what replaces sex in their relationship is like asking a vegetarian what replaces meat in their diet - it doesn't need to be replaced because it doesn't leave a vacancy.

Cute. Actually a vegetarian replaces meat with complete proteins like beans + rice. What is the complete protein in your diet, Xenius?

i never really think of relationships as some sort of sum of a few emotional components that then makes it ROMANTIC. i kind of go with the "if the people declare it a relationship, it is" reminiscent of the Joseph Campbell definition of science fiction (or any genre) that it's determined by whatever the editors in that genre print or put out.

David and I crossposted, so I'll add this bit in now. Great comments, David. I agree my mathematical equation of what makes a romantic relationship is a simplification. At the most basic level, we're all making choices about how we define our relationships, romantic or otherwise. On the other hand, there's a huge disconnect between how most sexuals are defining their "romantic" relationships, and how asexuals are doing it. It's fascinating for me to hear what constellations of expectations you guys go into a relationship with that are different than what mine are.

-Chiaroscuro

[Shockwave]

Asking an asexual what replaces sex in their relationship is like asking a vegetarian what replaces meat in their diet - it doesn't need to be replaced because it doesn't leave a vacancy.

Cute. Actually a vegetarian replaces meat with complete proteins like beans + rice. What is the complete protein in your diet, Xenius?

This is a bit off topic but, like I said, I don't have to replace meat in my diet. I get much more than the 50 grams of protein I need without trying.

[Gavroche80]

Asking an asexual what replaces sex in their relationship is like asking a vegetarian what replaces meat in their diet - it doesn't need to be replaced because it doesn't leave a vacancy.

Cute. Actually a vegetarian replaces meat with complete proteins like beans + rice. What is the complete protein in your diet, Xenius?

If I understood this correctly, you are asking what replaces sex for an asexual, using the food analogy, right?

It made me think of something...I was born without a sense of smell. I've never smelled people, food, flowers, anything. Apart from a brief spell of depression about 12-13 years ago when I realized that I couldn't actually smell (I thought I could when I was a child, but I was mistaken...I didn't know any better), I haven't missed it or felt bad about its absence. In the same way, I have never felt a need to be intimate with anyone, but it took me years to realize that. I tried to convince myself that I was sexual, just like I convinced myself I could smell, because I wanted to be "normal."

When I tell people I can't smell (and that all food tastes the same), they usually react in the same way that a sexual person might react to someone who isn't interested in sex. They think it's horrible, and that I'm missing out on so much, and I must be miserable, etc. It's all I've ever known, so how could I be unhappy? I still enjoy eating...textures are what attracts me to certain foods. On a side note, I sometimes wonder if my anosmia (lack of smell) is a cause for my lack of relationships, since I can't sense pheromones (although that is still a very contested subject). I have always been a hopeless romantic, but I've never actually fallen in love. I've had maybe one or two crushes, based mainly on appearance, but that's it. Anyways...

I don't think I willingly "replace" my lack of sexual activity with anything in particular. It definitely leaves me with more time to devote to my passions (games and opera/musicals), but it's not as if I sit here and think "I'm deprived of having sex, so I need to fill that void with something." That may be true for a sexual person who is choosing to be celibate, but it's not true for me.

Sorry if I got a little long-winded.

[Eta Carinae]

Sexual people can have friends with benefits (as they say), sometimes good friends with benefits. How do those people distinguish between a romantic partner and a friend they also sleep with?

Quoting from my opening post: In a romantic sexual relationship, there are two components: Sexual Desire and Affection. Mutual sexual desire is what seperates the relationship from one in which there is just affection (my relationship with my brother, my kids, etc...). Affection is what seperates the relationship from a one-night-stand (I can desire someone I don't much like).

But there is affection in a friends with benefits relationship. That's why it's called friends with benefits, and not just casual sex. There are sexual people that can care greatly about a friend and sleep with that friend, but still not consider it a romantic relationship. It's just a friend they sometimes have sex with.

[Tool1989]

Isn't kinda like a subsititute until one of them finds a partner though?

[Eta Carinae]

Isn't kinda like a subsititute until one of them finds a partner though?

A friend with benefits, or something else? If the former, then I don't think so, at least not all the time. Polyamorous people, for instance, aren't likely to be using their friend as such. And even if they are, I don't think it's really relevant: they still have to distinguish between a friend they're having sex with and a romantic partner they're having sex with, and whatever makes those two categories different is (generally) not based on sexual activity. This is basically the same distinction the OP is asking about, despite the fact that it involves sex in this case.

[ghosts]

::gathers thoughts together::

I agree wholeheartedly that much of the issue is about expectations, and they're perpetuated by the arts (ie: Disney & Leave it to Beavers' visions of the chaste romantic relationship). I guess what I'm mostly left with is that it's about choice. If you feel that a romantic relationship is something you want, then you and one of your friends mutually define your relationship as romantic. I don't mean that in a soul-less way, I understand that there's chemistry involved, and a "falling in love" feeling, but there's nothing that seperates that relationship from all others, other than choice.

I think that actually, most people make choices about this- I don't mean to generalize though. But still... you wrote that there's different feelings involved, Chiaroscuro, even in a sexless relationship- ie, "falling in love" feeling- wouldn't that be what separates that relationship from others?

For sexuals there's a very concrete division between behavior that's appropriate between lovers and that which is appropriate between friends. The lack of such a concrete division is what has puzzled me when asexuals talk about having a relationship.

I don't think this is completely true, although I will generally argue that people choose to put some sorts of divisions and boundaries between "romantic relationships" and "friendships"- although perhaps "choice" isn't the right word, since it's often very much a societal thing. And many asexual people do have boundaries- maybe kissing is only a romantic relationship activity, or maybe cuddling is a concrete division. I agree that sex is often a very convenient clear marker though... Overall, when asexuals talk about their romantic relationships vs. friendships, I think they are referring to a different set of feelings, and possibly different kinds of activities as well.

PS - I'm as uncomfortable with the term romantic relationship as you guys are. I'm open to suggestions.

I'd rather not use it at all, but sometimes I wonder if it'd be better to reclaim the word or something... Then I could start calling all my closest relationships "romantic".

Puzzle_chick, what you wrote makes sense- different people think about relationships in different ways, and I think that's why labels can be so confusing to people.

And now, going along with Chiaroscuro's & Eta Carinae's discussion- There is such a thing as sexual people having sex outside of a defined romantic relationship, like the friends with benefits thing. This isn't just casual sex necessarily, having been in this type of relationship myself (or currently, rather). There's loads of affection and love, but we never bothered defining our relationship as a romantic relationship, plus we never made it exclusive- we still call ourselves "friends" just to make it easy, because what other word/term is there to use? However, I would argue that there isn't any *essential* difference between our relationship and the relationships he had defined as "romantic" in the past- one of the main differences was that it is basically an undefined relationship; we made the relationship what we wanted it to be. It doesn't carry the social expectations that it might have if we decided to define it differently. And also, another one of the main differences is that it is it's own separate relationship, which makes it different just because that's the way relationships work.

Umm, hope that's making sense...

[Tool1989]

....I hate science.

[Lucy Locket]

I agree wholeheartedly that much of the issue is about expectations, and they're perpetuated by the arts (ie: Disney & Leave it to Beavers' visions of the chaste romantic relationship). I guess what I'm mostly left with is that it's about choice. If you feel that a romantic relationship is something you want, then you and one of your friends mutually define your relationship as romantic. I don't mean that in a soul-less way, I understand that there's chemistry involved, and a "falling in love" feeling, but there's nothing that seperates that relationship from all others, other than choice.

Sure there is! You don't have that "chemistry" or "falling in love" feeling with your family, or close friends (well, I don't.)

For sexuals there's a very concrete division between behavior that's appropriate between lovers and that which is appropriate between friends. The lack of such a concrete division is what has puzzled me when asexuals talk about having a relationship.

I wonder about this too. I have what might be called a "romantic friendship" with a gay friend, which includes kissing, stereotypical romantic - type stuff and us saying we love each other. We've even suggested we might get married in a few years' time for tax purposes. So I think that's past the sexual's idea of "friends" and into "lovers" territory, but we don't fancy each other. There's nothing remotely sexual about it. His last boyfriend understood this! And didn't get upset ...