Poll - Can you be “in love” without romantic attraction?

[acekat]

Another question in my quest to understand what the heck “romantic” means lol

 

If you’re aromantic, do you still fall in love with people sometimes? Or if you’re alloromantic, have you fallen in love with a friend non-romantically?

[KABONA CARRY]

Not only is it possible to fall in love without romantic attraction, it hits so much harder when you do---for me, at least. I still miss the person I fell for queerplatonically in a way that I never missed my ex or other folks I had some level of (albeit rather weak) romantic attraction towards. 

[Ivi]

I guess this is the difficulty of language and my brain annoyingly needing to be too accurate so I didn't vote. I think in mainstream language falling in love means romance, the feeling of infatuation romantically before real love sets in (if it does). Kind of the same like "I'm in love with him" feels different, more romance-driven and less like deep love than "I love him", but that is just my perspective, I have noticed that many people see them the opposites than I do. 

I sometimes have "fallen in love" with a new good friend occasionally, but not in a romantic way, I'd say more like autistic way of having a new good friend and being overly exited about it, forgetting everything else than the joy of having that new person in my life and yeah, this kind of falling in love has happened to me multiple times. But in mainstream language it wouldn't be falling in love, and yes, it would go to the ASD special person category. 

I feel like my thought cut of here, but these are my thoughts: I tend to see the world from a weird lens and maybe put different weight on language than most people or the mainstream meanings of language...so i didn't vote due to being so far off of mainstream in language understanding. 🙂 

[Philip027]

"In love" is generally understood to be romantic, so I personally would not phrase it that way or it may be prone to confusing or misleading people.

[Picklethewickle]

I admit I don't understand the question. Not all love is romantic, and people love each other outside of romance. Queerplatonic and platonic partners love each other. But, like Philip027 said, I've only heard the exact phrase "fall in love" used to mean romance. I also don't understand the way the poll options mainly focus on friendships turning into love. Feelings change, but I don't understand love to mean the change of feelings. Am I taking this to be more complicated than it is? 

[acekat]

14 minutes ago, Picklethewickle said:

I admit I don't understand the question. Not all love is romantic, and people love each other outside of romance. Queerplatonic and platonic partners love each other. But, like Philip027 said, I've only heard the exact phrase "fall in love" used to mean romance. I also don't understand the way the poll options mainly focus on friendships turning into love. Feelings change, but I don't understand love to mean the change of feelings. Am I taking this to be more complicated than it is? 

Thanks for your response! I admit this wasn’t terribly well thought out, but I meant is, do you only feel “in love” with someone if you’re romantically attracted to them, or have you ever felt “in love” with someone you were only ever platonically attracted to? It’s very subjective, I’m just curious to hear different perspectives! 😄

 

I’ve personally would say I’ve been in love with multiple friends but not had any romantic feelings for them, and I call all of them either platonic or alterous crushes. I also use the word love a lot for a variety of things, I also have intense emotions and am nuerodivergent, so I probably have a different definition of “in love” than most nuerotypicals. 

[acekat]

5 hours ago, Ivi said:

I guess this is the difficulty of language and my brain annoyingly needing to be too accurate so I didn't vote. I think in mainstream language falling in love means romance, the feeling of infatuation romantically before real love sets in (if it does). Kind of the same like "I'm in love with him" feels different, more romance-driven and less like deep love than "I love him", but that is just my perspective, I have noticed that many people see them the opposites than I do. 

I sometimes have "fallen in love" with a new good friend occasionally, but not in a romantic way, I'd say more like autistic way of having a new good friend and being overly exited about it, forgetting everything else than the joy of having that new person in my life and yeah, this kind of falling in love has happened to me multiple times. But in mainstream language it wouldn't be falling in love, and yes, it would go to the ASD special person category. 

I feel like my thought cut of here, but these are my thoughts: I tend to see the world from a weird lens and maybe put different weight on language than most people or the mainstream meanings of language...so i didn't vote due to being so far off of mainstream in language understanding. 🙂 

I totally relate this, I think I use the term “in love” to describe loving someone very deeply and having an exceptionally strong emotional bond with them. I’m unsure whether most people only develop that bond with romantic partners/crushes, or if it’s an entirely different experience of being in love. If the first reason were true I’d be interested how many women vs men have been in love platonically, I know at least in the USA more women seem to have more emotionally deep friendships than men, at least from what I’ve seen/heard.

[Sally]

A detail:   There's no need to say "alloromantic."  It makes no sense.  You're either romantic or you're nonromantic.  

[Olallieberry]

Are we talking about the difference between "I love them" versus "I'm in-love with them?"

 

Romance practically is the very definition of what in-love means. But of course people can love each other and not feel romantically about it.

 

Sometimes people in that situation break up. Because they'd rather be available for a romantic relationship than be committed to a non-romantic one.

 

That would seem to not be the case for aromantic people.

[acekat]

4 minutes ago, Olallieberry said:

Are we talking about the difference between "I love them" versus "I'm in-love with them?"

 

Romance practically is the very definition of what in-love means. But of course people can love each other and not feel romantically about it.

 

Sometimes people in that situation break up. Because they'd rather be available for a romantic relationship than be committed to a non-romantic one.

 

That would seem to not be the case for aromantic people.

a) yes, b) this is part of my confusion, because romantic attraction implies something different than being “in love”, unless people are falling in love with each other at first sight/ first meeting.

[Olallieberry]

2 minutes ago, acekat said:

romantic attraction implies something different than being “in love”

Yes, I suppose it does. In exactly the same way that sexual attraction implies something different than "sleeping together."

[Liara]

For me « in love » is connected to romance. For instance I love my partner but I’m not in love with her anymore because I don’t have any romantic feelings for her since a long time. But I still care for her a lot.

[Ceebs]

If I tell someone for whom I feel nothing romantic that I'm in love with them, I can guarantee they will immediately assume I'm confessing that I've developed romantic feelings, which is going to make things incredibly confusing and awkward. Not that I've ever directly said 'I'm in love with you' to anyone in my entire life like I'm announcing I'm going to take the bins out or something, but I'm aware that that's what 'in love' denotes.

 

I have no doubt that one can feel very intense love that doesn't involve romantic feelings and that it can even feel like falling for them in some way. But calling it 'in love' makes things confusing. I guess unless you're using it very loosely like you might say 'I'm in love with the new song by [whatever singer]' or 'I'm in love with this house I saw listed for sale' or 'I'm in love with my new puppy'... but still, using it for a person for whom you don't have romantic feelings is not typical.

[Mult]

"I love you" is broadly used by many different people in many different relationships including familial and platonic.

 

"I'm in love with you" is romantic, but it is sometimes used as a joke in other settings where it is still being used in the romantic sense but isn't serious (like if your friend brings you something really nice and you say something like "I'm so in love with you! You're the best!" This depends on the type of friendship though)

 

So personally I would say being "in love" requires romantic intensions, and I personally don't consider platonic love an "attraction" like romantic attraction. 

[everywhere and nowhere]

7 hours ago, Sally said:

A detail:   There's no need to say "alloromantic."  It makes no sense.  You're either romantic or you're nonromantic.  

How about being a romantic in the philosphical sense - feeling a genuine connection to the worldview represented in romantic (as in "the cultural current predominant in early 19th-century Europe") literature and philosophy - and feeling a need to distinguish that from emotional orientations?

 

As for the question, I don't really have an opinion on that issue. Perhaps because the sexual is comparatively clear - no matter what I might feel for some people, I am also sex-averse without the tiniest doubt, absolutely unwilling to do any sexual or even just non-clothed activities with any other person. "Being sexual" in my life is limited to being a narrator of sexual scenarioes, and would never want it to change. And the romantic... it is much more hazy and blurry, I don't see any sharp dividing line between "romantic" and "platonic".

However, given my development in the recent years, making my mind on such issues and deciding that even if I knew how to form romantic relationships, I probably could never feel comfortable in a relationship because of my very high need for solitude - I can say that I can fall in love (not that it happens often), but I don't want to be in a romantic relationship. Is it perhaps what this difference is about?

[Olallieberry]

 

[Olallieberry]

1 hour ago, everywhere and nowhere said:

How about being a romantic in the philosphical sense

What would that have to do with the "allo-" vs "a-" part?

[OnlyAverage]

The Eight Greek Loves

The ancient Greeks understood that love is not a single experience but a spectrum of connections, each with its own character and purpose. Where English forces us to use one word for everything from passion to friendship to devotion, Greek carved out distinct territories for each.

---

Eros (ἔρως)

Sexual and passionate love

Named for the god of love himself. Eros is desire, fire, the pull toward another person that is as much physical as it is emotional. Plato explored eros extensively, arguing that while it begins in the body, it can be a gateway to appreciating beauty in a more transcendent sense. This is the love that consumes, that demands, that makes people do irrational things. It is powerful and necessary, but the Greeks also warned that eros alone is unstable. A flame that burns without fuel.

Philia (φιλία)

Deep friendship and mutual respect

Aristotle considered philia the highest form of love. It is the love between equals who see and value each other clearly. Not the rush of eros but something steadier: loyalty, shared truth, genuine goodwill for the other person's well-being. Aristotle distinguished between friendships of utility, friendships of pleasure, and true friendships of character. Only the last is real philia. It requires time, trust, and a willingness to be known.

Storge (στοργή)

Familial and natural affection

The love that exists between parent and child, between siblings, between family members bound by blood and history. Storge is not chosen. It is the quiet, instinctive attachment that forms through proximity and shared life. It doesn't need to be earned or proved. It simply is. Of all the loves, storge asks the least and endures the most.

Agape (ἀγάπη)

Unconditional, selfless love

Love without conditions, without expectation of return. Agape is the decision to act in love toward another person regardless of what they give back. The Greeks saw it as the most radical form of love. Christianity later adopted agape as its central concept of divine love, but the idea predates that tradition. Agape is not a feeling. It is a practice. It is love as a verb, not a noun.

Ludus (λούδος)

Playful, flirtatious love

The early stages. The butterflies. The teasing, the laughter, the lightness of two people discovering each other. Ludus doesn't take itself too seriously, and that's its gift. It is the reminder that love can be joyful before it becomes weighty. Children at play experience ludus naturally. Adults have to remember how.

Pragma (πράγμα)

Mature, enduring love

The love that remains after eros has cooled and ludus has quieted. Pragma is built through patience, compromise, tolerance, and the daily choice to stay. It is the love of couples who have weathered decades together, not because the fire never dimmed, but because they tended it. Pragma is unglamorous and rarely celebrated, but it may be the most difficult love to sustain.

Philautia (φιλαυτία)

Love of self

The Greeks split this into two forms. The first is healthy: self-compassion, self-respect, an inner stability that allows a person to give love without being depleted by it. The second is destructive: narcissism, vanity, self-absorption at the expense of others. Aristotle argued that a person must possess the healthy form of philautia before they can truly love anyone else. You cannot pour from an empty vessel.

Mania (μανία)

Obsessive love

The shadow side of eros. Mania is love that has curdled into possession, jealousy, and anxiety. It is the love that needs constant reassurance, that cannot tolerate distance, that confuses control with connection. The Greeks did not celebrate mania. They recognized it as what happens when love is driven by insecurity rather than genuine affection. It is eros without philia, desire without respect.

This list is by no means exhaustive but I hope it helps.
 

[maybeimamazed]

It's a matter of respecting social conventions in order to assure effective communication. I can't call a chair a teddy bear.

 

Being in love with someone is broadly assumed to imply romantic feelings. So no, I don't see how you can be in love with someone without romantic feelings.

[everywhere and nowhere]

2 hours ago, Olallieberry said:

What would that have to do with the "allo-" vs "a-" part?

A need to distinguish between being (a) romantic ("a", because in this case it would be used as a noun) as a "philosophical orientation" and being (allo)romantic as an emotional orientation?

[Picklethewickle]

11 hours ago, Sally said:

 There's no need to say "alloromantic."  It makes no sense.  You're either romantic or you're nonromantic.  

The use of alloromantic and allosexual is the norm outside of AVEN. People call themselves both of these terms. Pushing "romantic" and "nonromantic" as orientation labels only happens here, and only by people who aren't aromantic. So if you could stop trying to call me "nonromantic" right now that´d be good. 

[Olallieberry]

1 hour ago, Picklethewickle said:

The use of alloromantic and allosexual is the norm outside of AVEN. People call themselves both of these terms. Pushing "romantic" and "nonromantic" as orientation labels only happens here, and only by people who aren't aromantic. So if you could stop trying to call me "nonromantic" right now that´d be good. 

This is either not right or it's talking about what non-allo people say. "Allo" romantic isn't a self-identification which a lot of "romantic " oriented people use. It's a label which other people invented and imposed upon them (us). Sometimes they (we) elect to go ahead and use it, usually when we're already in an aroace space. Even in such spaces, whether Aven or another one, they (we) often say no-thanks and self-identify as "romantic," not as alloromantic.

 

And I don't know what "outside of Aven" means. Are you talking about other aroace-spectrum spaces? And are you really, really sure you're talking about allo people and not about what non-allo people call them (us)?

[BiGeekFan]

2 hours ago, everywhere and nowhere said:

A need to distinguish between being (a) romantic ("a", because in this case it would be used as a noun) as a "philosophical orientation" and being (allo)romantic as an emotional orientation?

I'm romantic in the sense of appreciating nature, Mary Shelly, and Beethoven, non-romantic in the sense of feeling not included in the pop-culture construction of a "romantic relationship," wtf-romantic in the sense that I just don't understand how romantic attraction/orientation is supposed work. 

 

4 hours ago, OnlyAverage said:

The ancient Greeks understood that love is not a single experience but a spectrum of connections, each with its own character and purpose. Where English forces us to use one word for everything from passion to friendship to devotion, Greek carved out distinct territories for each.

My feeling is that for most people in the U.S., romance prioritizes Eros, Mania, and limited forms of Ludus over Philia and Pragma. I want Philia and Pragma personally. I also think that the romantic relationship -- as envisioned within American culture -- still prioritizes cis, straight, and neurotypical people. While I recognize that some people want to expand that to include non-sexual, queer, and divergent relationship styles, it just doesn't fit.

 

Ironically, many of the 19th century romantics explicitly embraced early forms of polyamory and relationship anarchy in ways that are rejected or treated as exceptions by modern romance. 

[Artemis42]

1 hour ago, Olallieberry said:

This is either not right or it's talking about what non-allo people say. "Allo" romantic isn't a self-identification which a lot of "romantic " oriented people use. It's a label which other people invented and imposed upon them (us). Sometimes they (we) elect to go ahead and use it, usually when we're already in an aroace space. Even in such spaces, whether Aven or another one, they (we) often say no-thanks and self-identify as "romantic," not as alloromantic.

 

And I don't know what "outside of Aven" means. Are you talking about other aroace-spectrum spaces? And are you really, really sure you're talking about allo people and not about what non-allo people call them (us)?

Man I don't want to derail this too bad but I just get curious about this sometimes because I've never fully understood this issue? 

I'm what aromantic people would call alloromantic. I don't really give a shit if they do. What's so bad about it? How is it so meaningfully different from just romantic? I understand that this is a bit different from complaining about words like cisgender, but it honestly feels close to me anyway. I'm not trying to sound accusatory, but apologies if I do. I just honestly don't understand. 

[Artemis42]

I don't really understand what being in love means either, even as someone who feels romantic attraction and love. The phrasing "in love" is definitely romantically-coded though, just culturally. But I could also see how one could also be queerplatonically in love. Maybe I would argue that "in love" means wanting to be committed to another in some way, which would still be distinct from friendships and familial relationships. Love takes many forms, but "in love" has a narrower meaning. 

[Picklethewickle]

2 hours ago, Olallieberry said:

This is either not right or it's talking about what non-allo people say.

No. It's a term people choose for themselves, not one that other people pick for them or use to describe some other.

2 hours ago, Olallieberry said:

Are you talking about other aroace-spectrum spaces? And are you really, really sure you're talking about allo people and not about what non-allo people call them (us)?

Yes, I'm completely sure.

Maybe you think I exclusively mean aroace social media spaces. These terms are used in every book written to educate people about aromanticism and asexuality, especially the ones targeted toward helping allo people understand. "Outside of AVEN" means literally everywhere else that talks about these concepts, places and resources that aren't AVEN. The idea that the term "allo" is othering, forced upon you, or somehow meaningless because it actually just says "normal in a way not worth mentioning" is an attitude I've only encountered on AVEN.

[OnlyAverage]

From what I can tell the term allosexual was coined on November 26th, 2011 by Tumblr user metapianycist in a blog post titled "Testosterone and my gray asexuality" Within a decade it moved from niche Tumblr jargon to the glossaries of PFLAG and GLAAD, the pages of peer-reviewed  journals, and a formal Dictionary.com entry.

 

Before "allosexual" existed, the ace community had an awkward vocabulary problem. From roughly 2002 to 2011, forums like AVEN used the word "sexual" or "sexuals" to describe everyone who wasn't on the asexual spectrum. (I was on AVEN back then when all this went down!)

Regardless of the history the word allosexual was created by the asexual community (per my limited research, happy to be corrected) to describe the non-asexual majority without simply calling them "sexual". Without the asexual community the term allosexual wouldn't exist in its current form. So when people say allosexual is a term people choose for themselves, that's not quite accurate historically. It was coined by the ace community to describe non-ace people.

 

• https://historicallyace.tumblr.com/post/149146363062/a-history-of-words-used-to-describe-people-that
• https://cupcakearrow.tumblr.com/post/85582956951/when-allosexual-was-coined
• https://queerdom.fandom.com/wiki/Allosexual

 

Edited Wednesday at 10:48 PM by OnlyAverage
Whoops, I slipped into formal research mode: removing what AVEN stands for, we all know. :)

[Olallieberry]

51 minutes ago, Picklethewickle said:

No. It's a term people choose for themselves, not one that other people pick for them or use to describe some other.

Yes, I'm completely sure.

Maybe you think I exclusively mean aroace social media spaces. These terms are used in every book written to educate people about aromanticism and asexuality, especially the ones targeted toward helping allo people understand. "Outside of AVEN" means literally everywhere else that talks about these concepts, places and resources that aren't AVEN. The idea that the term "allo" is othering, forced upon you, or somehow meaningless because it actually just says "normal in a way not worth mentioning" is an attitude I've only encountered on AVEN.

I'm not going to say there's nobody who identifies as alloromatic like you say, but I was reacting to when you said 

 

4 hours ago, Picklethewickle said:

The use of alloromantic and allosexual is the norm outside of AVEN

No, it really isn't. The norm is that sexual and romantic people never even heard of "allo" anything.

 

The norm is that they haven't even heard of aro and ace.

[BiGeekFan]

1 hour ago, OnlyAverage said:

Regardless of the history the word allosexual was created by the asexual community (per my limited research, happy to be corrected) to describe the non-asexual majority without simply calling them "sexual". Without the asexual community the term allosexual wouldn't exist in its current form. So when people say allosexual is a term people choose for themselves, that's not quite accurate historically. It was coined by the ace community to describe non-ace people.

 

As one of your citations pointed out, that happened because some of us have a problem with "sexual" as an orientation label. In the thesaurus, synonyms include carnal, erotic, passionate, sensual, animalistic, voluptuous, and wanton. https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/sexual For me, personally, it's a very strong abuse trigger as a sexualized minority and assault survivor. 

 

That said, I have no interest in arguing over personal preferences in identity language as long as my personal preference for allosexual, bisexual, non-asexual, or just about any other term is also respected. 

[Picklethewickle]

4 hours ago, Olallieberry said:

No, it really isn't. The norm is that sexual and romantic people never even heard of "allo" anything.

 

The norm is that they haven't even heard of aro and ace.

Now you have taken it out of context. I said

 

5 hours ago, Picklethewickle said:

everywhere else that talks about these concepts

not everywhere in the world. Don't shift goalposts on me.