WinterEcho Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Warning: much rambling ahead. <_< So I've been lurking about on the site for a while, and one thing I see a lot of is people confused about whether they're panromantic or aromantic(including myself!). For a long time, I thought that there was lust and then there was love, but the type of love had to do with your intentions and relationship with the person, not the emotions involved. But then I was talking with a friend of mine(who is romantic and sexual)and she explained to me that she felt a very different love for me than she did for her boyfriend, that the emotions were almost completely different(and that lust had nothing to do with it). This led me to question my romanticality because while I don't feel a special, unique emotional desire for a romantic relationship with anyone, I do intellectually think sometimes that a romantic relationship would be desirable. I basically want to be committed partners with them. As such, I don't think I'm aromantic because I do sometimes desire a romantic-type relationship, but I don't think I'm panromantic because I don't feel romantic love, just platonic love with different intentions. I don't know if this is how all the people who can't choose between aromantic and panromantic feel, so please respond if you agree/disagree. Demiromantic also doesn't apply. I never feel a special romantic love(or if I do, the border is blurry, not distinct), even after getting to know someone. This could theoretically apply to anyone struggling to pick between romantic and aromantic, regardless of gender. Pan just seems to be the most common. Now that you've gotten through that ramble-fest, here's my question: is there already a word for this that I just haven't heard? If not, can we make one? My ADD has already formulated some potential candidates for a label. ^_^ Or maybe this description does fall under aromantic or panromantic and I'm just being an idiot. Thoughts? Link to post Share on other sites
Jillianimal Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I would think aromantic works based on not having romantic feelings for anyone. I think it's possible to want or even enjoy being in a romantic relationship for various reasons without being romantically attracted to anyone & vice versa, kind of like wanting to try sex without finding anyone sexually attractive. Link to post Share on other sites
maven Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I would think aromantic works based on not having romantic feelings for anyone. I think it's possible to want or even anjoy being in a romantic relationship for various reasons without being romantically attracted to anyone & vice versa, kind of like waning to try sex without finding anyone sexually attractive. Agreed. Aromantic isn't about whether or not you want a romantic relationship (though that's often used as a shorthand description), it's about whether or not you feel romantic attraction. There are aromantics who desire to be in a romantic relationship, but they do not feel romantic attraction. Link to post Share on other sites
samepage1 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 There is some talk on here about aromantic people who want committed, partnered relationships that aren't romantic. Could that be what you want? Alternatively, if some type of relationship appeals to you intellectually, that doesn't mean you want it. What matters is your feelings about relationships. Link to post Share on other sites
WinterEcho Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 Thanks for your replies! I see what you guys are saying about potentially falling under the label "aromantic". My only issue is when I try to explain to people that I'm aromantic, but still desire romantic relationships. I just wish there was a term, maybe a subdivision of aromantic, that helped me explain it without people with only casual knowledge of aromantics being confused. :) Edit: samepage1, could you please link me to that thread? It sounds similar to the type of thing I'm looking for. ^_^ Link to post Share on other sites
Janus the Fox Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Strangly I feel in a similar way to that. For me, I do not desire romance in any way, but I "could" be capable of it, yet have'nt found it regardless of gender. Theres intelectural curisoity for romance with both (and a few "other" curisoities ;)) but other then that, no real desire at all. Link to post Share on other sites
WinterEcho Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 Strangly I feel in a similar way to that. For me, I do not desire romance in any way, but I "could" be capable of it, yet have'nt found it regardless of gender. Theres intelectural curisoity for romance with both (and a few "other" curisoities ;)) but other then that, no real desire at all. Yeah! You phrased it much better than I did. I suppose it really does fall under curiosity more than anything, though just romantic curiosities/interests for me ^_^ . Maybe too many labels is a bad thing, but I think it would be handy to have a word to explain it. Romanticurious? Haha, maybe not. :D Link to post Share on other sites
maven Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Thanks for your replies! I see what you guys are saying about potentially falling under the label "aromantic". My only issue is when I try to explain to people that I'm aromantic, but still desire romantic relationships. I just wish there was a term, maybe a subdivision of aromantic, that helped me explain it without people with only casual knowledge of aromantics being confused. :) Edit: samepage1, could you please link me to that thread? It sounds similar to the type of thing I'm looking for. ^_^ So there are aros who would like to be in a long-term platonic relationship (look up zucchini or queerplatonic), and then there are aros who want to be in a romantic relationship (here are a couple links I could find, I know there are more, you can try searching... it also comes up every now and then on the Aromantic thread). And then, of course, there are those who are indifferent or uninterested in either. Link to post Share on other sites
goodbye Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Thanks for your replies! I see what you guys are saying about potentially falling under the label "aromantic". My only issue is when I try to explain to people that I'm aromantic, but still desire romantic relationships. I just wish there was a term, maybe a subdivision of aromantic, that helped me explain it without people with only casual knowledge of aromantics being confused. :) Edit: samepage1, could you please link me to that thread? It sounds similar to the type of thing I'm looking for. ^_^ I think we think about relationships in more or less the same way. I like to use the term "pseudoromantic", but that's just me. ^_^ Link to post Share on other sites
Maiandra HW Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I totally understand what you're talking about. I used to be really confused about my romantic identity. I experienced romantic attraction so little and I was having trouble defining for myself what having "romantic" feelings meant without sex as a context, and I was starting to think maybe I was aromantic. That idea made me kind of unhappy, not because there's anything wrong with being aromantic, but because I personally was so in love with the idea of romantic love and really wanted to be able to form romantic relationships. However, I never thought that loving the idea of romance constituted a sexuality label. For me--though I realize for others it might be different--it's a personality trait that's separate from sexual orientation. I loved romance when I thought I was aromantic, and I love romance now that I know I'm panromantic. Well, technically, I think I'm gray-romantic, panromantic, with "gray-romantic" basically meaning that in terms of romantic-ness--as in, how romantic I am, as opposed to for whom I have romantic feelings (these are the labels like biromantic, heteroromantic, panromantic, etc.)--I'm somewhere between romantic and aromantic. But the "gray" label isn't that important to me. Link to post Share on other sites
WinterEcho Posted March 16, 2012 Author Share Posted March 16, 2012 I like to use the term "pseudoromantic", but that's just me. ^_^ Ooh, that's a good one! I might have to steal it from you. ^_^ I totally understand what you're talking about. I used to be really confused about my romantic identity. I experienced romantic attraction so little and I was having trouble defining for myself what having "romantic" feelings meant without sex as a context, and I was starting to think maybe I was aromantic. That idea made me kind of unhappy, not because there's anything wrong with being aromantic, but because I personally was so in love with the idea of romantic love and really wanted to be able to form romantic relationships. However, I never thought that loving the idea of romance constituted a sexuality label. For me--though I realize for others it might be different--it's a personality trait that's separate from sexual orientation. I loved romance when I thought I was aromantic, and I love romance now that I know I'm panromantic. Well, technically, I think I'm gray-romantic, panromantic, with "gray-romantic" basically meaning that in terms of romantic-ness--as in, how romantic I am, as opposed to for whom I have romantic feelings (these are the labels like biromantic, heteroromantic, panromantic, etc.)--I'm somewhere between romantic and aromantic. But the "gray" label isn't that important to me. Cool! I agree, I have always liked the concept of having a committed relationship, even if I don't actively fall for people in a romantic way. I'm glad you've found a label you like(and are just happy with yourself in general! :)) Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.