Can an aromantic asexual fall in love?

[true_love]

... romantic feelings are really just a temporary hormonal imbalance, and I cringe at the idea of something so transitory and fickle being called (or even being associated with) love. Love is not some goofy little flutter in your stomach, it is so much more than that.

I have to disagree based on personal experience. I sustained the intense feeling of being in love with my husband for well over a decade, in spite of the lack of reciprocation. A decade is not a goofy little flutter or a temporary hormonal imbalance...

[Guest]

i'm aromantic because i can't stand dating as it inevitably becomes about securing access to sex or is just for show. if pretty sure if all of that was taken care of then i would be able to relax, enjoy, and fall in love.

[Shockwave]

... romantic feelings are really just a temporary hormonal imbalance, and I cringe at the idea of something so transitory and fickle being called (or even being associated with) love. Love is not some goofy little flutter in your stomach, it is so much more than that.

I have to disagree based on personal experience. I sustained the intense feeling of being in love with my husband for well over a decade, in spite of the lack of reciprocation. A decade is not a goofy little flutter or a temporary hormonal imbalance...

Well, I haven't felt it for a whole decade before but I have experienced it for four or five years at a time. And to me it was still the way I described it. I've since come to realize that it was an infatuation and not really love. Sure, people can experience both an infatuation and real love for the same person (simultaneously or consecutively) but they're not the same thing.

Mon-chii-chii, I don't know if you thought I was angry in my response but I wasn't. Anger isn't something I feel often anymore and I try not to say anything when I am since that just causes problems.

[santanico]

I read a lot. And basically all the things I read have the same views on love. But what I keep thinking of is that it's all sexually oriented or something, or at the very least, romantically. So if you don't feel things even romantically, usually, do you still think it's possible?

It not only depends on how you define love, it also depends on how you define aromantic. To me, aromantic means not to feel romantic attraction to other people (like crushes). That doesn't rule out to fall in love at all.

Because there is so much confusion about what aromantic actually means, I call myself rather demiromantic than aromantic.

[Capricious]

Shockwave, no, I didn't think you were angry. (I agree, it just causes problems.) I simply didn't mean to start something this big! *Sweatdrop*

I think I'll just bow out from this. I may say something to make it worse. XD

Though, thanks for the input everyone; it's quite interesting. ;)

[ghosts]

Debates/discussions like these are awesome, Mon-chii-chii, so no worries. ;)

santanico, I agree that it depends on a person's definitions of these different terms. Although personally, I just find the term "romantic" not to my liking in the first place, so I try not to use it when referring to my emotions & relationships.

Perhaps people experience love differently. People have different concepts of what it means. I sometimes feel like love is a mix of a bunch of different attractions and emotions, and so it can really vary from person to person, from relationship to relationship. Maybe this is getting off topic a bit because I'm not really commenting on aromantics at this point, but I don't really get infatuated with anyone. I don't get the butterflies, I don't get sweaty palms, I don't write or want love poems. I don't even date. But, I know how I feel for different people, & I can say that I certainly love people, & some of them pretty intensely. I've been hesitant to say that I'm "in love" with anyone, just because that's just another term that doesn't really work for me. I don't necessarily think any of these words are situations in which you know it when you feel it, & "if you have to ask, you aren't experiencing it." What matters more to me is that I know how I feel about people, & how important they are to me. I think we can come up with our own ideas about what love is for us - granted, I know that there's that risk of people using the word "love" (or "in love") to freely. :P

[Cazz333]

Debates/discussions like these are awesome, Mon-chii-chii, so no worries. ;)

santanico, I agree that it depends on a person's definitions of these different terms. Although personally, I just find the term "romantic" not to my liking in the first place, so I try not to use it when referring to my emotions & relationships.

Perhaps people experience love differently. People have different concepts of what it means. I sometimes feel like love is a mix of a bunch of different attractions and emotions, and so it can really vary from person to person, from relationship to relationship. Maybe this is getting off topic a bit because I'm not really commenting on aromantics at this point, but I don't really get infatuated with anyone. I don't get the butterflies, I don't get sweaty palms, I don't write or want love poems. I don't even date. But, I know how I feel for different people, & I can say that I certainly love people, & some of them pretty intensely. I've been hesitant to say that I'm "in love" with anyone, just because that's just another term that doesn't really work for me. I don't necessarily think any of these words are situations in which you know it when you feel it, & "if you have to ask, you aren't experiencing it." What matters more to me is that I know how I feel about people, & how important they are to me. I think we can come up with our own ideas about what love is for us - granted, I know that there's that risk of people using the word "love" (or "in love") to freely. :P

I use romantic love to mean love that compels you to risk your life for that person, or to live with their faults and love them in spite of them. I read a relly un-cliche romantic novel once called "Barbarian king, virgin slave" where the woman sneaks out of her father's house, knocks out the man she's forced ot marry and risks death to find the king she loves.

[Sammie]

Because it just occurred to me, and I have absolutely no idea. I mean, I personally think nothing is impossible. But I also see no reason why someone can't fall in love, even if they're aromantic. Do you, personally, think it's possible? Or does being aromantic mean it'd be a no-no/can't happen sort of thing in your mind?

I read a lot. And basically all the things I read have the same views on love. But what I keep thinking of is that it's all sexually oriented or something, or at the very least, romantically. So if you don't feel things even romantically, usually, do you still think it's possible?

This is just tooooo confusing. ><; Any input?

I don't think being 'romantic' or 'aromantic' refers to liking roses and moonlight strolls. It means falling in love and wanting that love to be returned. So by my defenition, asking wether an aromantic can fall in love is like asking if a lesbian can fall in love with a man. Sure they can. Love pops up in places where you'd never expect it. You'd no longer define that person as completely aromantic/lesbian though.

Also, remmember 'there are lots of kind in love'. An aromantic may love a soulmate, a friend, a brother, without ever having feelings that we call 'romantic' for someone. What's the different between romantic love and friendship love? I'd say that no matter how you practice affection, romantic affection is likely to be monogamous in nature while friendship affection is not.

[ghosts]

What's the different between romantic love and friendship love? I'd say that no matter how you practice affection, romantic affection is likely to be monogamous in nature while friendship affection is not.

I don't think that would work as *the* defining difference, though... There are plenty of polyamorous people out there who would describe their feelings as romantic.

[Shockwave]

Also, remmember 'there are lots of kind in love'. An aromantic may love a soulmate, a friend, a brother, without ever having feelings that we call 'romantic' for someone. What's the different between romantic love and friendship love? I'd say that no matter how you practice affection, romantic affection is likely to be monogamous in nature while friendship affection is not.

For me the only difference has ever been intensity. There are many different styles of love but there is only one type, and that is a fondness that can vary from a slight preference to an overwhelming longing. And this leads me to another point: something we call the Heap Argument.

*whips out new argument*

Suppose you have a heap of clothes on the floor and start removing it one article of clothing at a time. At what point does it cease to be a heap? The difference is a completely arbitrary matter of degrees, just like the difference between romance and friendship.

[metalgirl2045]

Using my definitions of "aromantic" and "fall in love", then the answer is "by defintion, absolutely not". I don't consider not liking the structure of dating or not getting casual crushes to be aromantic, the first is just personal preference unlrelated to sexual or romantic orientation and the second is what I believe to now be known as demiromantic. And I don't consider intensely caring about friends and family to be "falling in love", that's just love.

For people who answered yes, how would you define someone who is not capable of falling in love? Double-aromantic? And how long before that word gets hijacked into actually meaning they can fall in love and yet another one has to be thought up?

[chipmunkgirl]

Does aromantic mean not being able to fall in love, or not enjoying kissing/cuddling etc.? Or are they synonymous?

I am probably aromantic, but I do form deep attachments to people. A few years ago, a very close friend of mine (let's call her Crystal) got into her first relationship and was suddenly ignoring me because she was perpetually "distracted." I was completely bummed... and when I talked to another friend in our "group" (let's call her Nadia), she told me that she had felt the exact same way when she was dumped by her ex.

Nobody would argue that Nadia was in love with her ex when he dumped her. Does that mean I was in love with Crystal? I never wanted to kiss her or cuddle or do anything that "romantic" love would involve- so according to that definition, I wasn't "in love" with her. And yet I had felt the same as Nadia had when she was dumped. Which to me suggests that the lines between different labels are very blurred.

I guess this essentially goes back to what everyone is saying- that love is very difficult to define and the answer to the question "Can aromantics fall in love?" will depend on your definition of both "in love" and "aromantic."

[metalgirl2045]

Does aromantic mean not being able to fall in love, or not enjoying kissing/cuddling etc.? Or are they synonymous?

I would have thought it was the first one. I would describe someone who wanted close intimate romantic relationshops but didn't want to kiss or cuddle a romantic asexual. If not wanting to kiss or cuddle is what most people would define as aromantic that might explain why I get confused by their definition!

[ghosts]

Does aromantic mean not being able to fall in love, or not enjoying kissing/cuddling etc.? Or are they synonymous?

I think aromantic means anything you want it to mean. ;)

And I don't consider intensely caring about friends and family to be "falling in love", that's just love.

You know, I know one woman who would insist that she is in love with her children. Who am I to argue with her? She knows how she feels, and if that's the term she feels is appropriate, no problem. I think I was gonna post that in another thread... Hm...

[reptilelover]

Using my definitions of "aromantic" and "fall in love", then the answer is "by defintion, absolutely not". I don't consider not liking the structure of dating or not getting casual crushes to be aromantic, the first is just personal preference unlrelated to sexual or romantic orientation and the second is what I believe to now be known as demiromantic. And I don't consider intensely caring about friends and family to be "falling in love", that's just love.

For people who answered yes, how would you define someone who is not capable of falling in love? Double-aromantic? And how long before that word gets hijacked into actually meaning they can fall in love and yet another one has to be thought up?

Depends on how you define love/falling in love. If you mean that “butterflies in stomach” crush thingy then no, aromantics probably do not feel that sort of stuff (this reptilelover certainly doesn't anyways ^_^ ). If by love you mean a variant of ”deeply caring for another person” then yes, aromantics can feel that (those that can’t feel love [not aware of such cases] I’d call autistic, not aromantic).

As far as I am aware, aromantic on AVEN used to mean 2 things :

1) being content in state of being single and therefore not looking/wanting to look for romantic companion (probably because, as one aromantic on board said “people are high maintenance so relationships are too much of a bother”)

2) dissociation of physical feelings from closeness – that is physical touch etc. does not inherently carry a meaning of “close” to aromantics and hence is not a “default” expression of love

I don’t honestly know when this whole aromantics can’t fall in love/can’t love etc. started. Probably misconception of number one.

As for hijacking, I’d say the term was hijacked by people who misunderstand 1) (for whatever reason) and made the term “aromantic” into some “emotional cripple” sort of a person thing… <_<

[metalgirl2045]

I've heard that too. If someone wants to describe family love as being "in love" then that's fine, they're just talking about something I would drop the word "in" for if I was talking about it.

I think I've figured where my defintion of "aromantic" differs from some other people's. I see being romantic as purely a state of mind, what the furthest you're prepared to go physically with someone is has nothing to do with that. I think it's perfectly possible to love someone the same way as a sexual or romatic asexual does, but without wanting any physical contact at all. I call that romantic asexual, not aromantic. Other people seem to set a limit of physical contact where aromantic turns to romantic. Aromantic to me is when you don't have the possibility of that state of mind.

I do wish AVEN would agree on some defintions because it's very hard to understand what people are talking about if we on principle refuse to set defintions, and I'm not sure what "visibility and eduction" we're meant to achieve if no-one will agree on what it actually is that we're trying to raise awareness of!

[reptilelover]

And how do you know someone “doesn’t have the possibility of that state of mind”, even the aromantics you do know? Do such people even exist?

And anyways, I wouldn’t consider “in love” (at least what most of the times falls under “in love”) as “love” (any form of it) – more like your hormones messing with your mind. <_<

(and incidentally, if anyone asked me if I wanted a romantic partner, whether I feel/have ever felt “in love” etc. the answer would be a firm “no”, especially considering what is meant under those terms anyways.)

(not to mention family sort of love (as in parent/child) is probably not what anyone is talking about here. And yes, you can feel love for another that is neither family sort nor romantic sort).

[metalgirl2045]

And how do you know someone “doesn’t have the possibility of that state of mind”, even the aromantics you do know? Do such people even exist?

I'm pretty sure I know a few. Can you prove they don't exist?

[reptilelover]

And how do you know someone “doesn’t have the possibility of that state of mind”, even the aromantics you do know? Do such people even exist?

I'm pretty sure I know a few. Can you prove they don't exist?

You are the one claiming something exists, it is on you to provide solid evidence (not "I think/am pretty sure I may know a few") :P . I can only speak as aromantic myself. As an “extreme” sort of aromantic, who, judging by displayed behaviour, if you met me yourself, you’d probably (wrongly) place into “not capable of feeling love” category. Wouldn’t be the first time this happened anyways (and so scepticism of your judgement unless you can provide something more solid then “it is so because I think so”… :P )

[Sanity Panda]

Using my definitions of "aromantic" and "fall in love", then the answer is "by defintion, absolutely not". I don't consider not liking the structure of dating or not getting casual crushes to be aromantic, the first is just personal preference unlrelated to sexual or romantic orientation and the second is what I believe to now be known as demiromantic. And I don't consider intensely caring about friends and family to be "falling in love", that's just love.

For people who answered yes, how would you define someone who is not capable of falling in love? Double-aromantic? And how long before that word gets hijacked into actually meaning they can fall in love and yet another one has to be thought up?

Depends on how you define love/falling in love. If you mean that “butterflies in stomach” crush thingy then no, aromantics probably do not feel that sort of stuff (this reptilelover certainly doesn't anyways ^_^ ). If by love you mean a variant of ”deeply caring for another person” then yes, aromantics can feel that (those that can’t feel love [not aware of such cases] I’d call autistic, not aromantic).

As far as I am aware, aromantic on AVEN used to mean 2 things :

1) being content in state of being single and therefore not looking/wanting to look for romantic companion (probably because, as one aromantic on board said “people are high maintenance so relationships are too much of a bother”)

2) dissociation of physical feelings from closeness – that is physical touch etc. does not inherently carry a meaning of “close” to aromantics and hence is not a “default” expression of love

I don’t honestly know when this whole aromantics can’t fall in love/can’t love etc. started. Probably misconception of number one.

As for hijacking, I’d say the term was hijacked by people who misunderstand 1) (for whatever reason) and made the term “aromantic” into some “emotional cripple” sort of a person thing… <_<

Just to revive this thread. Great post - Thanks for clarifying!

You do not feel the desire for romantic companions, what about the idea of having close friends? General friends? Aqaintances?

I like that definition....

Aromantics are people that don't engage in behaviour that they deem are romantic in nature, although it's certainly odd to think of love not romantic in nature. But that's clearly because I've defined caring as romantic behaviour. (It's obvious here that I see love as a very blurred thing)

[metalgirl2045]

I don't feel the need for a romantic companion, but I don't identify as fully aromantic because I do sometimes unexpectedly fall for someone when not looking. I have no interest in joining dating sites and making an effort to meet people for the purpose of romance. There is a big difference between not feeling the need for something and it never actually happening, and there are people to whom the latter applies.

[thecynicalromantic]

Hey, anything *can* happen. People are weird. I think "aromantic asexual" pretty much means you don't fall in love, but there can be an exception to anything. I think it'd be about as likely as a straight person being attracted to one random person of the same gender, or a gay person being attracted to one single person of the opposite gender: it doesn't happen often, but it does happen sometimes.

It happened to me, at any rate. It was weird. Also it kinda sucked, 'cos I had no idea what was going on and became sort of a basket case. >.>

[Shadow girl]

Well I don't believe I ever really have.

I've tried a relationship on here one time before but it wasn't one in my eyes so I don't count it as anything but a botched friendship.

[metalgirl2045]

Hey, anything *can* happen. People are weird. I think "aromantic asexual" pretty much means you don't fall in love, but there can be an exception to anything. I think it'd be about as likely as a straight person being attracted to one random person of the same gender, or a gay person being attracted to one single person of the opposite gender: it doesn't happen often, but it does happen sometimes.

It happened to me, at any rate. It was weird. Also it kinda sucked, 'cos I had no idea what was going on and became sort of a basket case. >.>

I agree with that. My definition of aromantic asexual is pretty much "sees the same sex as a fully straight person does and the opposite sex and a fully gay person does", with "fully" meaning romantic and sexually. I am aware of very rare exceptions but let's not forget that making an aromantic fall in love with you is not going to be any easier than making a gay member of the opposite sx fall in love with you, and most people know better than to try.

[thecynicalromantic]

Hey, anything *can* happen. People are weird. I think "aromantic asexual" pretty much means you don't fall in love, but there can be an exception to anything. I think it'd be about as likely as a straight person being attracted to one random person of the same gender, or a gay person being attracted to one single person of the opposite gender: it doesn't happen often, but it does happen sometimes.

It happened to me, at any rate. It was weird. Also it kinda sucked, 'cos I had no idea what was going on and became sort of a basket case. >.>

I agree with that. My definition of aromantic asexual is pretty much "sees the same sex as a fully straight person does and the opposite sex and a fully gay person does", with "fully" meaning romantic and sexually. I am aware of very rare exceptions but let's not forget that making an aromantic fall in love with you is not going to be any easier than making a gay member of the opposite sx fall in love with you, and most people know better than to try.

Hey, there are guys out there that think they can 'fix' lesbians. *Most* people know better than to try, but unfortunately not all... >.<

I also think trying to "make" someone fall in love with you is morally reprehensible, regardless of gender and/or sexual orientation of any of the parties involved.

I agree with your definition of aromantic asexual very much, since it's a lot easier than trying to define romance, which I've always been really bad at, which is why I like to stick with the nineteenth-century definition. :)

[Mr. Ten Below]

When I re-read this topic I almost thought I had an answer to my previous question to myself (what do I mean when I say "in love" rather than "love"?) which would be that it's more about focusing on that one person. Love is more general. Then I remembered that I'm sort of polycurious and now I'm back to the beginning.

Oh well. ^_^

[Snowflower]

Oh yes, aromantic "falling in love" is definitely possible.

I am not aromantic per se. I have been aromantic for periods of my life (not always - I go through fluctuations) and I can say that falling in love is a different experience when it's not romantic but it's still hella powerful.

I have also experienced aromantic crushes. Even that is possible. Maybe it wouldn't technically be a crush but I don't know what else to call them! They are LIKE crushes, only not in the least bit romantic.

But I shared this once with a close friend and he said I was being silly and what I was feeling was just plain old "admiration". But no, erm, it's really not. Admiration is just not on the same scale.

[metalgirl2045]

What is aromantic love?

[Tio]

My definition of aromantic asexual is pretty much "sees the same sex as a fully straight person does and the opposite sex and a fully gay person does", with "fully" meaning romantic and sexually.

Yes, thank you that is such an apt description of how I personally feel about myself and what I refer to when I identify myself as an aromantic asexual.

I have friends and family of course and the best I can describe my feelings for them is mild affection. I think my family would be shocked to hear this in truth. If I were to leave everyone behind and work/live in a totally different place I would miss them for a while, think of them here and there but after a bit I wouldn't care too much.

I'd never want a romantic relationship with someone. Never. And I don't believe myself capable of doing so. I value my independance far too much for that. I'd rather live alone than have someone with me all the time, having to justify to someone else why I should buy something, or go somewhere. Or have to check in with someone else if I changed my plans. Or even explain to anyone where I've been. Not to mention the emotional and other obligations of having a "mate." That sounds truly horrible to me.

Having another half? What? Am I incomplete on my own? Was I born incomplete? Are humans born this way? No I am a single entity. I was born complete.

And share my income, my money with someone? Hell no!

[Pitapitacup]

Hey, there are guys out there that think they can 'fix' lesbians. *Most* people know better than to try, but unfortunately not all... >.<

I also think trying to "make" someone fall in love with you is morally reprehensible, regardless of gender and/or sexual orientation of any of the parties involved.

Absolutely. The sad thing is, many people actually think it's morally "good" to try to force themselves upon lesbians or asexuals because "they need to learn to appreciate penises!".

That's the main reason that I'm careful about selecting people to let them know that I'm A. It's amazing the amount of " You mean you are playing hard to get! I will keep on annoying you into worshiping my crotch!" Then there's the inevitable ego hurt about what a horrible person I am for not falling in love with them the moment they demanded it.

Huh.