Nogitsune Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Other than using the word romantic, what's the difference? What do you call "romantically attracted", if "romantically attracted" does not equal "wants relationship with"? See, I have no idea what romantic attraction is. But if wanting a life-long relationship or anything like it equaled romantic attraction, then I'm pretty sure if I had a sibling I got along with great, I'd be "romantically attracted" to them. I don't have any feelings of love that are less platonic than the ones I have for my mother, so either I'm romantically attracted to everyone I find awesome, which is really not how I feel about it, or I'm aromantic. Maybe maven's explanation makes more sense to you? Because that's basically what I want to say. You may as well ask how a relationship without sex or kissing can be romantic - the answer is simply that the ones in the relationship experience it as being romantic, whatever that means. Friends with benefits isn't a relationship. It's sex without a relationship... the exact opposite of a queerplatonic relationship. Friendship is also a relationship, but I used the word "sort of" to convey I don't mean it's the same thing. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 But you probably don't want to spend your life in a committed relationship with your brother. So there IS a difference, right? Ironmaidenfanatic considers herself aromantic and also says she's in love with someone and wants a relationship with them. This confuses me. Link to post Share on other sites
Trava u doma Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Hmm... I get how it's possible to love someone platonically, and want to be in a commited relationship, and be distressed by their loss and it NOT being romantic. But.... I wonder, when there are aromantics, who say the have a squish on someone, to the point they want a commited platonic relationship with them, because they love them platonically, where is the difference then? That is, I'm not trying to say there isn't, I'm just trying to understand myself... *ah, the mess in my head* Link to post Share on other sites
Nogitsune Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 But you probably don't want to spend your life in a committed relationship with your brother. So there IS a difference, right? Ironmaidenfanatic considers herself aromantic and also says she's in love with someone and wants a relationship with them. This confuses me. Well, I don't have a brother, but if I did and he was awesome, why not? Romantic attraction confuses me, too, but that doesn't mean romantic people don't experience it and are just labelling their friendships wrong. Same with aromantic people who form strong platonic relationships - we're not labelling our romantic relationships wrong, but just using the label we feel fits. Link to post Share on other sites
maven Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 But you probably don't want to spend your life in a committed relationship with your brother. So there IS a difference, right? Ironmaidenfanatic considers herself aromantic and also says she's in love with someone and wants a relationship with them. This confuses me. Hah! I was just going to whip out this example :lol: I wouldn't mind spending my life in a committed relationship with my brother. He's pretty awesome. I think that there is a difference in what you feel as the reason to be in a committed relationship with someone versus what I feel. For me, a committed relationship just means you won't leave me without looking back. It means you will be considerate of my feelings and interests. It also means you'd attempt to save me from a burning building, but sometimes that's a bit of a stretch. My brother fits those descriptions. So does my mother, father, and in the past, a close friend too. But that's not what most people would want out of a committed relationship. There's something more, right? Otherwise I wouldn't feel this chasm of difference every time someone brought up their idea of boyfriend or girlfriend. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 But you probably don't want to spend your life in a committed relationship with your brother. So there IS a difference, right? Ironmaidenfanatic considers herself aromantic and also says she's in love with someone and wants a relationship with them. This confuses me. Hah! I was just going to whip out this example :lol: I wouldn't mind spending my life in a committed relationship with my brother. He's pretty awesome. I think that there is a difference in what you feel as the reason to be in a committed relationship with someone versus what I feel. For me, a committed relationship just means you won't leave me without looking back. It means you will be considerate of my feelings and interests. It also means you'd attempt to save me from a burning building, but sometimes that's a bit of a stretch. My brother fits those descriptions. So does my mother, father, and in the past, a close friend too. But that's not what most people would want out of a committed relationship. There's something more, right? Otherwise I wouldn't feel this chasm of difference every time someone brought up their idea of boyfriend or girlfriend. Ok, cool, that all makes sense. Yes, if you feel the same way about your brother and various friends that makes total sense to me. I actually used brother because my brother is pretty awesome, and I kept trying to get him and his wife to let me live with them because I thought we'd be a great trio. What about a squish, though? How is that different from an asexual crush? What about "in love"? Can aromantic people be "in love"? By the way... I'd TOTALLY save you guys from a burning building. Well, I probably wouldn't because I'm pretty weak in upper body strength, but I'd try! Link to post Share on other sites
maven Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Ok, cool, that all makes sense. Yes, if you feel the same way about your brother and various friends that makes total sense to me. I actually used brother because my brother is pretty awesome, and I kept trying to get him and his wife to let me live with them because I thought we'd be a great trio. What about a squish, though? How is that different from an asexual crush? What about "in love"? Can aromantic people be "in love"? Sounds like something I'd have done. I will admit to unknowingly third-wheeling/cock-blocking in several different occasions... oops. :redface: I've never had a squish, but from what I remember of the AVEN definition it's just the idea that Person X is super cool and you'd love to hang out with them. I think there's a bit more of the pull to hang out with them or talk about than in normal situations where you make friends with whoever shares the same interests as you or happens to be in the same local as you, but it's not romantic in nature. Crushes require romantic attraction (so, the "spark" or however you want to describe it). Squishes can lead to friendship or QP relationships, while crushes lead to romantic relationships. When people use the phrase "in love" they're typically talking about romantic love. So no, aromantics do not "fall in love," and cannot be "in love" in that sense. However, you may hear an aromantic person saying that they are in love with Person X - in which case they are referring to platonic love. There is some argument over whether or not a person has to feel romantic attraction in order to fall in romantic love (warning- it goes in different directions and I don't think there's an agreed upon conclusion), and if romantic love does not require romantic attraction theoretically it could be felt by an aromantic. But I personally think romantic attraction is necessary for romantic love - otherwise, what differentiates romantic love from platonic love? Edit: This only applies to aromantics - people on the aromantic spectrum like greys, demis, liths, etc. can and do fall in love. By the way... I'd TOTALLY save you guys from a burning building. Well, I probably wouldn't because I'm pretty weak in upper body strength, but I'd try! :lol: :lol: :lol: When I was an angsty teenager that used to be my mental test of whether or not a person loved me. Obviously it's not scientific or anything (firemen do it on a daily basis without love) but knowing that my parents and siblings would not hesitate to save me was comforting in the "woe is me" and "nobody cares about me" days. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Huh. If there is a spark to be near the person and get to know them, how does that differentiate from a "romantic" spark to be near them and get to know them? I agree with you that romantic love requires romantic attraction. But if romantic attraction has the same definition as platonic attraction... that is, you really like the person, feel drawn to them, want to be around them, you feel like they are special or your feelings for them are different than your feelings for other people... I don't see how that's different from romantic attraction. Or, more specifically, I don't see how that differs from any other crush. Link to post Share on other sites
Whofan York Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 I've never had a squish, but from what I remember of the AVEN definition it's just the idea that Person X is super cool and you'd love to hang out with them. I think there's a bit more of the pull to hang out with them or talk about than in normal situations where you make friends with whoever shares the same interests as you or happens to be in the same local as you, but it's not romantic in nature. Crushes require romantic attraction (so, the "spark" or however you want to describe it). Squishes can lead to friendship or QP relationships, while crushes lead to romantic relationships. Now I'm wondering if I'm aromantic. I've had a squish exactly like you described for years, and because this was pre-AVEN, never figured out why it hadn't turned into a romantic relationship at least. I talked about him, worried about him, bought him Christmas presents when nobody else did, and never tried to kiss him. For most of that time I wondered if the only barrier was his persistent sweat problem! (It's okay, he won't see this post... probably.) I never wanted to fiddle in his pants, or anywhere else for that matter. I worried it wasn't normal and tried to imagine doing it, only to be revolted. But he was super-cool and I followed him everywhere, camping, pubs, daytrips, even though he clearly wasn't that bothered about me. We're still good mates, that is, we can heckle each other and get away with it. I still care about him above most of my other friends. But it is not romantic, it's a squish. Hope this helps. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 I've never had a squish, but from what I remember of the AVEN definition it's just the idea that Person X is super cool and you'd love to hang out with them. I think there's a bit more of the pull to hang out with them or talk about than in normal situations where you make friends with whoever shares the same interests as you or happens to be in the same local as you, but it's not romantic in nature. Crushes require romantic attraction (so, the "spark" or however you want to describe it). Squishes can lead to friendship or QP relationships, while crushes lead to romantic relationships. Now I'm wondering if I'm aromantic. I've had a squish exactly like you described for years, and because this was pre-AVEN, never figured out why it hadn't turned into a romantic relationship at least. I talked about him, worried about him, bought him Christmas presents when nobody else did, and never tried to kiss him. For most of that time I wondered if the only barrier was his persistent sweat problem! (It's okay, he won't see this post... probably.) I never wanted to fiddle in his pants. Are you asexual? Because that would answer the "never wanted to fiddle in his pants" question, right? Wanting or not wanting to hook up with someone has nothing to do with one's romantic inclinations. At least that much I'm sure of... I think. ;) Link to post Share on other sites
maven Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Huh. If there is a spark to be near the person and get to know them, how does that differentiate from a "romantic" spark to be near them and get to know them? I agree with you that romantic love requires romantic attraction. But if romantic attraction has the same definition as platonic attraction... that is, you really like the person, feel drawn to them, want to be around them, you feel like they are special or your feelings for them are different than your feelings for other people... I don't see how that's different from romantic attraction. Or, more specifically, I don't see how that differs from any other crush. Uhoh. Made things more confusing. I think, more than the "spark" or the drive to get to know someone, it's the intention behind the feeling. For a squish, one wants to get to know them better to be better friends, or just to revel in their awesomeness. With a crush, you want it to lead to a romantic relationship. I may also be digging myself deeper in here. I guess the main difference in my mind is that one would lead to friendship and the other would lead to romance. Perhaps the line is not so clear in real life? Like, in my life (I'm an aromantic sexual), there are people who go into the friend category and people who go into the sex category. Within a couple times of meeting a person I place them in their category (or in the third category of "douchebag" ) and that's where they stay. People in the friend category are people I'd like to be friends with, people in the sex category I'd like to have sex with and it's pretty obvious who's in which category. There are ranges, like "close friend vs. acquaintance" and "know where the forks are in your kitchen vs. not," but there's no actual crossover. The lines between friendship and romance seem a little more blurry but they're definitely there - I've had friends say "oh, he's just a friend, I could never date him" as well as "I have a crush on him but he doesn't like me, we can't be friends." Edit: And yes, romantic and sexual orientations are separate, as you can see... Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Maven, I totally understand your position. But then you profess to not having "squishes", which to me makes sense. Aromantic means no crushes. Romantic means crushes. You can call a crush a squish, but if they don't differ in anything but the word, then they really aren't any different at all. And while I understand your description of intentions behind a squish, and I completely agree that if your intention is merely friends, that's aromantic, and if it's a romantic relationship, that's romantic... but what if you want a committed, emotionally intimate relationship but you just decide not to use the word "romantic"? How does that relationship differ from an asexual romantic relationship, other than the inclusion of the word romantic? See, what I keep hearing in these answers is no descriptive difference, just a difference in identifying words. But if the identifying words don't have different meanings... if a squish leads to a queerplatonic relationship that is committed and emotionally intimate and a crush leads to a romantic platonic relationship that is committed and emotionally intimate... Then we're just using two different sets of words to refer to the exact same thing. A couch and a davenport aren't different. Soda and pop aren't different. They're just different words. Link to post Share on other sites
Almagest Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 I'm an aromantic asexual and I honestly wouldn't mind having a life partner or being in a romantic relationship (assuming I could find someone who would be willing to put up with me :P). Honestly, I think we've gone a bit overboard with our labels for different relationships. In my mind, relationships are on a gradient so it's hard to draw lines and say "this is this and that is that." I don't think it really matters what one decides to call a given relationship as long as they're happy. *shrug* Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Shuttershy Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 I'm an aromantic asexual and I honestly wouldn't mind having a life partner or being in a romantic relationship (assuming I could find someone who would be willing to put up with me :P). Honestly, I think we've gone a bit overboard with our labels for different relationships. In my mind, relationships are on a gradient so it's hard to draw lines and say "this is this and that is that." I don't think it really matters what one decides to call a given relationship as long as they're happy. *shrug* O: Link to post Share on other sites
Samael Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 I may also be digging myself deeper in here. I guess the main difference in my mind is that one would lead to friendship and the other would lead to romance. Perhaps the line is not so clear in real life? Like, in my life (I'm an aromantic sexual), there are people who go into the friend category and people who go into the sex category. Within a couple times of meeting a person I place them in their category (or in the third category of "douchebag" ) and that's where they stay. People in the friend category are people I'd like to be friends with, people in the sex category I'd like to have sex with and it's pretty obvious who's in which category. There are ranges, like "close friend vs. acquaintance" and "know where the forks are in your kitchen vs. not," but there's no actual crossover. The lines between friendship and romance seem a little more blurry but they're definitely there - I've had friends say "oh, he's just a friend, I could never date him" as well as "I have a crush on him but he doesn't like me, we can't be friends." Interesting categories you have going there. I don't personally categorize people, or not consciously anyway. I see all as equal but with individual differences, like someone's left handed instead of right handed or likes the color red more than blue. The varying differences carry little meaning in my eyes. Since I'm an aromantic asexual, I wouldn't even have any need for any categories since they're all potential friends, nothing more and nothing less :) It would feel alien for me to actively categorize people based on what kind of relationship I'd like to have with them. There's only one type of relatioship possible for me, ie. platonic friends, so it's an easy choice :D Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 There's only one type of relatioship possible for me, ie. platonic friends, so it's an easy choice :D ^^ that's my conception of aromantic. Of course I understand differentiating between work friends, acquaintances, close friends, etc. But they're all friends. I feel like there's a similar thing happening with romantic orientation that happens with sexual orientation. People assume there's some magical feeling they're missing out on, whether it be this amazingly powerful "sexual attraction" (which isn't actually amazing or powerful at all) or this amazingly powerful romantic attraction (which again, isn't amazing or powerful at all). Here is how I'd describe my partner and our marriage. She's my best friend, she understands me better than anyone else, and vice versa, we make each other feel safe, comfortable, secure... we look out for each other first, we genuinely care to make each other happy. I would prefer to spend time with her than with other people most of the time. When I come home and find her there, it feels more like home than when she's gone. Maven, I know you remember my description of the difference between romantic and platonic love... I want to share my partner's good experiences with her. i want my friends to have good experiences with or without me. It seems to me that if someone wants to share all their good experiences with a single other person, but then say "but I feel differently than you"... it makes me wonder, how do you know what I feel? How do you know we feel so differently about our partners? Link to post Share on other sites
maven Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Maven, I know you remember my description of the difference between romantic and platonic love... I want to share my partner's good experiences with her. i want my friends to have good experiences with or without me. It seems to me that if someone wants to share all their good experiences with a single other person, but then say "but I feel differently than you"... it makes me wonder, how do you know what I feel? How do you know we feel so differently about our partners? I do! And the thing that stuck out for me was that I've never needed to be a part of someone's life like that. I'm assuming the people in a QP relationship don't feel that way about each other either. It's a committed platonic relationship, like the example we talked about earlier - spending time with and living with my brother wouldn't make our relationship romantic. Hopefully someone with more experience in QP relationships can explain it better. As for your analogy of asexual people believing sexual people feel this all-amazing sexual attraction compared to aromantics believing in the all-amazing romantic attraction, I'll admit that's what I first thought when I found AVEN. I wondered if it were true, that there was something everyone else experienced that I didn't and that's why I didn't feel the need for a relationship. Prior to that, I just thought people were in relationships to provide a stable environment for kids or because they didn't want to be lonely (or, as a "non-slutty" way of getting sex). It's one of the reasons I didn't post here for a while - I wasn't sure romantic attraction existed. Many of the experiences of other aromantics on this thread mirrored mine (not understanding things like people having crushes, people suddenly becoming unable to speak in sentences around their crush, people wanting to spend every waking moment with their crush, etc). When I look at a relationship I see lots of negatives and very few positives. Obviously the rest of the world doesn't look at it like that. It made sense that there was something that other people had (romantic attraction) that made romance desirable/worth it for them, something that outweighed the negatives. And I don't know if that's what it is, but I do know that people want to be together (not just share their lives side by side like friends, but literally be intertwined with another person in their life). Your description of what makes your love romantic shows that. Whether this is because of a feeling from within (romantic attraction) or societal habits or whatever else, I can't say - I just know I've never felt that way. However, something like living with a close friend, I can understand. (If only the logical side of things - it's easier to cook for 2 than it is for 1, you can split the rent, there's someone to call the police when you don't come home at night, etc :P ) I can even understand preferring that type of situation over one where you live alone or with someone you don't know. That's what I've always thought a QP to be - a close friend who's part of your life, but not necessarily the focus of your life. Link to post Share on other sites
5_♦♣ Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 The difference between a crush and a squish is how one feels about the person one has a crush or a squish on. As one who has experienced both, I know when I have a crush and I have had a squish (even though I never knew there was a term for it until within the past year or so). Basically, I felt different when I had a crush than when I had a squish. It was simply a case of "I want to get to know that person as a friend", when I had a squish. Whereas, when I had a crush, it was more like "I want to call this guy my boyfriend, I hope they feel the same way about me". In case you're wondering, I'm talking about when I was in middle/high school, as it's been quite a while since I've had a squish on anyone-though, of course, it hasn't been as long since I've had a crush. Link to post Share on other sites
Jaleh Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 What an interesting thread! Hi all! I'm new (obviously) and I use too many parentheticals when I write (sorry in advance!) - after having read (at least skimmed) almost all of this thread I figure I relate to most of it, and that is really interesting since I wasn't really looking for another label or term but aromantic probably does describe me. So here I am :) And I'm going to dive into this really interesting point: Maven, I totally understand your position. But then you profess to not having "squishes", which to me makes sense. Aromantic means no crushes. Romantic means crushes. You can call a crush a squish, but if they don't differ in anything but the word, then they really aren't any different at all. And while I understand your description of intentions behind a squish, and I completely agree that if your intention is merely friends, that's aromantic, and if it's a romantic relationship, that's romantic... but what if you want a committed, emotionally intimate relationship but you just decide not to use the word "romantic"? How does that relationship differ from an asexual romantic relationship, other than the inclusion of the word romantic? See, what I keep hearing in these answers is no descriptive difference, just a difference in identifying words. But if the identifying words don't have different meanings... if a squish leads to a queerplatonic relationship that is committed and emotionally intimate and a crush leads to a romantic platonic relationship that is committed and emotionally intimate... Then we're just using two different sets of words to refer to the exact same thing. A couch and a davenport aren't different. Soda and pop aren't different. They're just different words. First I think that we have slightly different concepts of the word "romantic" but thats ok because language is a living thing, and people's experiences and understanding of nuance change and are shaped by experience so I'm going to try to address some major differences I would see in my life without getting into "romantic." First. I'm not really interested in relationships. Not closed to the idea, just not interested in it. But when I think of an emotionally intimate relationship for myself (an entirely intellectual exercise, i.e. I'm making most of this up). I think that there is a difference in the depth of emotional intimacy (how much is too much) and I see a difference in motivation (why am I in this relationship?). And here is where things get difficult to explain, but I'll do my best. You mentioned in a later post wanting to spend time, share experiences, etc. with your partner. I understand this as a motivation somewhere along the lines of "I want us to live our lives together." For me (and I refuse to speak for any other aromantic out there because personal experience is so.. personal) my motivation would probably be something more like this "I want to live my life, preferably with you there." I think that is a pretty big distinction.. but that's just me. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 The difference between a crush and a squish is how one feels about the person one has a crush or a squish on. As one who has experienced both, I know when I have a crush and I have had a squish (even though I never knew there was a term for it until within the past year or so). Basically, I felt different when I had a crush than when I had a squish. It was simply a case of "I want to get to know that person as a friend", when I had a squish. Whereas, when I had a crush, it was more like "I want to call this guy my boyfriend, I hope they feel the same way about me". In case you're wondering, I'm talking about when I was in middle/high school, as it's been quite a while since I've had a squish on anyone-though, of course, it hasn't been as long since I've had a crush. What's the point in even identifying a squish? Don't we all have squishes all the time, then, if it's just a "hey, I like that person, we should be friends"? Or, conversely, why make up such a stupid name for something that already has a name... friendship? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 However, something like living with a close friend, I can understand. (If only the logical side of things - it's easier to cook for 2 than it is for 1, you can split the rent, there's someone to call the police when you don't come home at night, etc :P ) I can even understand preferring that type of situation over one where you live alone or with someone you don't know. That's what I've always thought a QP to be - a close friend who's part of your life, but not necessarily the focus of your life. Ok. Your version of aromantic is something I understand... or, I should say, it mirrors my previous understanding of aromantic. I suppose it's just a case of... like everything else on AVEN, some people use the terms differently, and when they do, I get very, very confused... Link to post Share on other sites
Nogitsune Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 What's the point in even identifying a squish? Don't we all have squishes all the time, then, if it's just a "hey, I like that person, we should be friends"? Or, conversely, why make up such a stupid name for something that already has a name... friendship? "Stupid"? Uh, okay. A squish is not the same as friendship because you can have a squish on someone who's not your friend. Of course you could just say "someone I really want to be friends with" or something, but that's a bit long, so why not simply make up a new word? As for how I know I don't feel romantic attraction... well, how do you know you're not aromantic and just using the wrong label? For a whole lot of people, romantic love does involve things like candles and flowers and chocolate, even if it doesn't for you. Why not simply trust everyone to label their own experiences correctly? If I had a strong bond with the sister I don't have and we were living together, planning to do so for our whole lives, would that automatically be romantic love? If so, your use of the word "romantic" is very different from mine. And if not, when would a close familiar bond become "romantic" in your opinion, if not when the ones involved decide that it has? Your argument really reminds me of people who say that a romantic relationship without sex is "just" a strong friendship because that's what it would be like for them. Link to post Share on other sites
michaeld Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 The thread where the word squish was originally coined is here. It makes fairly interesting reading. http://www.asexuality.org/en/index.php?/topic/23290-squish/ Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 What's the point in even identifying a squish? Don't we all have squishes all the time, then, if it's just a "hey, I like that person, we should be friends"? Or, conversely, why make up such a stupid name for something that already has a name... friendship? "Stupid"? Uh, okay. A squish is not the same as friendship because you can have a squish on someone who's not your friend. Of course you could just say "someone I really want to be friends with" or something, but that's a bit long, so why not simply make up a new word? As for how I know I don't feel romantic attraction... well, how do you know you're not aromantic and just using the wrong label? For a whole lot of people, romantic love does involve things like candles and flowers and chocolate, even if it doesn't for you. Why not simply trust everyone to label their own experiences correctly? If I had a strong bond with the sister I don't have and we were living together, planning to do so for our whole lives, would that automatically be romantic love? If so, your use of the word "romantic" is very different from mine. And if not, when would a close familiar bond become "romantic" in your opinion, if not when the ones involved decide that it has? Your argument really reminds me of people who say that a romantic relationship without sex is "just" a strong friendship because that's what it would be like for them. I don't know what you're yelling at me about. What's my argument? All I said is that squish is stupid. I stand by that... squish IS stupid. "someone I want to be friends with" serves just fine. If you think the term "squish" is going to be used anywhere but these circles, you crazy! No 40 year old woman is going to go up to her 45 year old coworker and say "hey, I have such a squish on you, lets get lunch!". It's stupid. We all meet people we want to be friends with all the time and have gotten along perfectly fine without an embarrassing additional vocab word. And for the record, yes I think zucchini is stupid too. Link to post Share on other sites
5_♦♣ Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 The difference between a crush and a squish is how one feels about the person one has a crush or a squish on. As one who has experienced both, I know when I have a crush and I have had a squish (even though I never knew there was a term for it until within the past year or so). Basically, I felt different when I had a crush than when I had a squish. It was simply a case of "I want to get to know that person as a friend", when I had a squish. Whereas, when I had a crush, it was more like "I want to call this guy my boyfriend, I hope they feel the same way about me". In case you're wondering, I'm talking about when I was in middle/high school, as it's been quite a while since I've had a squish on anyone-though, of course, it hasn't been as long since I've had a crush. What's the point in even identifying a squish? Don't we all have squishes all the time, then, if it's just a "hey, I like that person, we should be friends"? Or, conversely, why make up such a stupid name for something that already has a name... friendship? I don't know about you, but I don't feel that I want to be friends with everyone I meet. In fact, as I already mentioned, it's been a long time since I felt that I want to be someone's friend. Link to post Share on other sites
Nogitsune Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I don't know what you're yelling at me about. What's my argument? All I said is that squish is stupid. I stand by that... squish IS stupid. "someone I want to be friends with" serves just fine. If you think the term "squish" is going to be used anywhere but these circles, you crazy! No 40 year old woman is going to go up to her 45 year old coworker and say "hey, I have such a squish on you, lets get lunch!". It's stupid. We all meet people we want to be friends with all the time and have gotten along perfectly fine without an embarrassing additional vocab word. And for the record, yes I think zucchini is stupid too. I'm yelling? I thought I was just being reasonably grumpy because you keep saying things that to me sound like "certain people here have stupid ideas about what romance is so they label their own feelings wrong and make up stupid words no one needs", and I don't enjoy having my own experiences explained to me. I'm happy to answer questions, but I'm beginning to feel like a strange specimen being examined. You can find words stupid, but making people who like those words and who are possibly emotionally invested in the concepts they describe feel stupid is another matter. I don't care if the word "squish" ever becomes popular, I don't even use it myself most of the time, but the recognition of the concepts behind such terms is important to me. "Hey, could you explain your stupid word to me?" is not the best way to have a pleasant conversation. Link to post Share on other sites
Stormharrier Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 What's the point in even identifying a squish? Don't we all have squishes all the time, then, if it's just a "hey, I like that person, we should be friends"? Or, conversely, why make up such a stupid name for something that already has a name... friendship? I'll agree with you that the word 'squish' is a bit daft (I prefer just using 'crush' on the theory that anyone I'm talking about this with knows I'm not interested in relationships anyway). But squishes are definitely not just wanting to be friends. Wanting to be friends is like "from what I know of you, you seem cool and I'd like to get to know you better". All very calm and reasonable. Whereas the last squish I had was borderline insanity in comparison (and I described it to one friend and he said "yep, that's a crush"). It was a case of one look at this girl and I desperately wanted to be friends with her (despite knowing literally nothing about her other than her name). I'd then keep half an eye out for her whenever she was nearby, and spend ages wondering how on earth I was going to start a conversation with her. Then when we eventually did start talking and messaging each other almost every day, it delighted me every time I got a message off her, and on the days I didn't I'd worry I'd said something to make her not like me any more and replay the last conversation several times to see if I could find anything that could've gone wrong. So that's not your typical "want to be friends with someone" reaction (I don't think!), but it also wasn't romantic cuz all I wanted was to be her friend, and just talk to her and hang out with her every now and again. And the insanity stopped once I was fairly happy with the fact I'd got there (though given the frequency with which we'd been communicating, you'd think that'd have taken less than two months. But like I said, I wasn't at my most logical there). So anyway. That's what I figure a squish is. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 The difference between a crush and a squish is how one feels about the person one has a crush or a squish on. As one who has experienced both, I know when I have a crush and I have had a squish (even though I never knew there was a term for it until within the past year or so). Basically, I felt different when I had a crush than when I had a squish. It was simply a case of "I want to get to know that person as a friend", when I had a squish. Whereas, when I had a crush, it was more like "I want to call this guy my boyfriend, I hope they feel the same way about me". In case you're wondering, I'm talking about when I was in middle/high school, as it's been quite a while since I've had a squish on anyone-though, of course, it hasn't been as long since I've had a crush. What's the point in even identifying a squish? Don't we all have squishes all the time, then, if it's just a "hey, I like that person, we should be friends"? Or, conversely, why make up such a stupid name for something that already has a name... friendship? I don't know about you, but I don't feel that I want to be friends with everyone I meet. In fact, as I already mentioned, it's been a long time since I felt that I want to be someone's friend. Fine, but I don't see how that addresses my point that it's silly to make up a silly name for something that is already common to about 99.9% of people and fully accepted by everyone. What's the point in even identifying a squish? Don't we all have squishes all the time, then, if it's just a "hey, I like that person, we should be friends"? Or, conversely, why make up such a stupid name for something that already has a name... friendship? I'll agree with you that the word 'squish' is a bit daft (I prefer just using 'crush' on the theory that anyone I'm talking about this with knows I'm not interested in relationships anyway). But squishes are definitely not just wanting to be friends. Wanting to be friends is like "from what I know of you, you seem cool and I'd like to get to know you better". All very calm and reasonable. Whereas the last squish I had was borderline insanity in comparison (and I described it to one friend and he said "yep, that's a crush"). It was a case of one look at this girl and I desperately wanted to be friends with her (despite knowing literally nothing about her other than her name). I'd then keep half an eye out for her whenever she was nearby, and spend ages wondering how on earth I was going to start a conversation with her. Then when we eventually did start talking and messaging each other almost every day, it delighted me every time I got a message off her, and on the days I didn't I'd worry I'd said something to make her not like me any more and replay the last conversation several times to see if I could find anything that could've gone wrong. So that's not your typical "want to be friends with someone" reaction (I don't think!), but it also wasn't romantic cuz all I wanted was to be her friend, and just talk to her and hang out with her every now and again. And the insanity stopped once I was fairly happy with the fact I'd got there (though given the frequency with which we'd been communicating, you'd think that'd have taken less than two months. But like I said, I wasn't at my most logical there). So anyway. That's what I figure a squish is. So a squish doesn't actually differ from a crush in any way, then... it just may lead to something different than most crushes lead to. It's like... a basketball doesn't cease being a basketball just because you're kicking it around a soccer field. A crush is still a crush, it just won't ever develop into a romantic relationship if you don't want a romantic relationship. Is that more accurate? Link to post Share on other sites
Trava u doma Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 So a squish doesn't actually differ from a crush in any way, then... it just may lead to something different than most crushes lead to. It's like... a basketball doesn't cease being a basketball just because you're kicking it around a soccer field. A crush is still a crush, it just won't ever develop into a romantic relationship if you don't want a romantic relationship. Is that more accurate? So... what you're suggesting is that a bunch of people identifying as aromantic aren't in fact aromantic or that aromantic is more what we want to do, even despite having a squish, which you believe is an another word for crush? (Huh, was that understandable?) I believe that squishes DO exist, but when it comes to myself, I'm always puzzled if what I feel is a "squish" or a "crush" - but, at the same time, I've never experienced a feeling of "I want to be in a relationship with you" or "I want to date you", which makes me unsure about identifying as "romantic", either. Because, in the end, there appears to be something that makes people want to make someone else "theirs", or simply - something that makes them start relationships - and I've never had that something that would make me want to make any distinction from "friends". (Other than "close friends", that is, with the way the word "friend" seems to be overused in English language) Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 So a squish doesn't actually differ from a crush in any way, then... it just may lead to something different than most crushes lead to. It's like... a basketball doesn't cease being a basketball just because you're kicking it around a soccer field. A crush is still a crush, it just won't ever develop into a romantic relationship if you don't want a romantic relationship. Is that more accurate? So... what you're suggesting is that a bunch of people identifying as aromantic aren't in fact aromantic or that aromantic is more what we want to do, even despite having a squish, which you believe is an another word for crush? (Huh, was that understandable?) I believe that squishes DO exist, but when it comes to myself, I'm always puzzled if what I feel is a "squish" or a "crush" - but, at the same time, I've never experienced a feeling of "I want to be in a relationship with you" or "I want to date you", which makes me unsure about identifying as "romantic", either. Because, in the end, there appears to be something that makes people want to make someone else "theirs", or simply - something that makes them start relationships - and I've never had that something that would make me want to make any distinction from "friends". (Other than "close friends", that is, with the way the word "friend" seems to be overused in English language) What I'm saying is that stormharrier's description is a crush. Stormharrier doesn't want a romantic relationship with the object of their crush because they are aromantic, but the feelings seem exactly the same between a crush and a squish. As for not wanting to make someone "theirs"... it seems that most, but not all, people who identify as aromantic agree with you on that. But some people who consider themselves aromantic claim to be in love and want a committed relationship. So while 99% of you seem to agree, there's 1% of you who are outliers and it's hard to fit their perspective into your perspective because they are, to be honest, opposing. And while I get that no one on AVEN (well not no one, but not many) will say "dude, what you're describing isn't aromanticism", you do have to understand that for those of us who AREN'T aromantic, having the majority say "aromantics don't want exclusive relationships and don't fall in love" and then having the minority say "we fall in love and LOVE relationships"... it's fucking confusing. But forget it. Sorry I asked. Just leave me alone and I'll leave ya'll alone and we'll call it a day. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.