Jump to content

Romance vs Romantic Identities


Guest

Recommended Posts

"Romance" as we typically hear it used may be co-opted anyways. Think of the art and music of the Romantic Period, and here is a Merriam Webster definition of romantic: "marked by the imaginative or emotional appeal of what is heroic, adventurous, remote, mysterious, or idealized". So much broader! Couple-y love is just a small part of that. Our contemporary culture really prioritizes typical couples and the nuclear families they create. In other times and other places there has been more emphasis on extended family, clans, being part of a movement, and other forms of " belonging." I think the popularity of fantasy books and movies, role playing games, people becoming goths and punks, and other forms of escapism into this expanded form of "romance" are only natural. People want something more noble than just a boring Ma and Pa at home type thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
DemisexualHulk

I honestly would not buy a special woman flowers or candy (no matter how normal it is as a part of romance), but I have definitely fallen in love with more than one person--in fact, a handful of girls, it's just that this one person I love, Amanda, is the one I, by far, not only love the most, but I'll always love her, because from my personal experience, the others I once loved, I stopped loving whenever I found someone better. And I say she's definitely "The One".

Now, when I first got here, I thought I was aromantic, but only because I focused on the fact I wasn't "in love with anybody"; then recently, I realized that wasn't exactly the case, turns out I hadn't fallen in love with anybody else since I met that her, so therefore I am not aromantic, but grayromantic. And yes, I definitely agree there's a difference between romance, and romantic identity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
artemisofephesus

I like the overall distinction in the original post of Romance and Romantic identity, and the thoughts on macro- and micro-romance. But I disagree with the idea that one must be romantic if they fall in love or want/are in a capital-R Relationship.

It is great to see that there has been a lot of discussion in this thread about how people can have romantic identities even though they don't subscribe to romantically-coded behaviours and ideas; how you can have romantic friendships without wanting or needing a monogamous-long-term relationship model. But the idea that once you fall in love with someone (and therefore know that you are capable of falling in love) you are inherently a romantic person rather than an aromantic one is something I find very much at odds with my own experience and identity. What about platonic relationships? What about people who are in love or are in a relationship and still don't feel romantic attraction or identify as romantic? Surely if you can have romantic friendships you can have aromantic love. But I feel like this thread is kind of saying 'you can't be in love and aromantic, end of story.'

For some context, I identify as an aromantic asexual. I had never experienced anything akin to what people usually describe as romantic attraction, I didn't think much of romance, I had no frame of reference with which to understand what it actually meant. After a year or so, I fell into a relationship, and I fell in love. But apart from the feelings I had for my partner, the first stuff didn't change. I wasn't suddenly romantic because I was in love.

My relationship with my partner is based on love, deep commitment and affection, and a good deal of cuddling and other non-sexual/non-kissing physical intimacy. We don't live together, we aren't 'primary partners' the way some people would describe it, and that suits me quite well. We engage in romantic-coded behaviours sometimes, but not always.

And yet I still identify quite surely as aromantic, for two reasons: firstly because I still don't understand what romantic attraction is meant to be. Being in love, for me, is not the way it is in movies and other relationships I see. But it is something I am. The second reason, I guess, is political: I don't see the need for people to be in monogamous, cohabitating, romantically-coded relationships to be happy or human, just as much as I don't see the need for people to have sexual relationships to be human. Traditional romantic relationships don't really fit with my worldview. I actually don't think that's a cop-out reason for identifying as aromantic (as some other posts have suggested), at least not when paired with not feeling romantic attraction.

TL;DR: I am aromantic. I am in love with someone. Being in love is not exclusive to romantic-identifying people, and I think saying that is actually not very good or accurate for aromantic people. It does, however, show that you can be in love in different ways (in my case, platonically).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm romantic. I think romance is stupid. I HATE when people cook for me because I find it intolerably awkward, I hate pithy gifts, I don't respond well to surprises, holding hands makes me feel like my hand is burning off... in other words, I loathe nearly every cultural signifier of romance. And yet I do love my partner, and I do want to share my life with her. Not in a "hey, it'd be cheaper if we split the bills" kinda way, or in a "hey, it'd be nice to avoid the cats eating me after I die, so maybe we should live together" kinda way, but in a "you are a very special person to me and I want to see you and be near you, and when I experience things in my life I want to share them with you, and I want you to share your experiences with me" kinda way. It is a genuine desire to merge and share our thoughts and experiences in a meaningful way. I want her to feel, think, and learn all the things I feel, think, and learn, and she wants the same. That is a romantic relationship. It doesn't matter if you have sex, or hold hands, or give each other flowers. It doesn't matter if you hate the word love or would rather burn down Hallmark than buy a card. Those are all cultural trappings and are not the same as the innate desire to partner up.

^ This quote is now my spirit animal. I need to copy and paste this into my life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I'm still trying to figure everything out but I'm sure I'm asexual and most likely aromantic. From reading a few threads and responses it seems to me that there really isn't a definition for romance or love for that matter. We like to draw lines because we like things to make sense and fit into certain boxes, but as someone already pointed out, unless you get into the head of that other person and actually feel what they feel, you can't say if it's romance/love/friendship. It all comes down to where you personally draw the line.

In my case, I'm a sucker for romance in books/movie/mangas whatever. When I speak about romance I mean what Skullery said was micro-romance, because to me what the hell is the point of giving someone you care about flowers if they don't actually like flowers? Why did you do it for then? To me romance is making gestures towards that person you care about that they will appreciate and really mean something to them.

With that said I don't like romance when it involves me. It freaks me out, physical intimacy as well. Even hugging. I don't hug my friends - not that I have many anyway, since for me it's best friend material or no friend at all. Which I guess for others that would be like Primary Partners/Strong Platonic Relationships? Specially because I only have 1 'best friend' at a time.

I sometimes have that urge to get to know someone or get close to them, because I believe we'll click together and form great friendships, but I don't want to get physically close to them, nor do I want to live with them forever. I just like having someone I can share certain thoughts with that will understand me or at the very least try to and not judge me for them and just have a good time, but I also don't have the need to want this ALL the time. Even with my best friends I don't like inviting them over to my house, or me go to theirs. My house and my space is very personal and it just makes me uncomfortable having someone there specifically for me. I would much rather meet in a neutral place. Park, movie, mall, campus, whatever, just not my placer or theirs.

TL;DR - What I'm getting at is, finding definitions and distinctions for feelings is all very subjective. You go ahead and pick whatever feels right to you. If you don't agree with most of what is been said here that romance means but you still identify as romantic then you go ahead and identify as such. No one can tell you that what you feel is wrong, or different, or not whatever it is that you are calling it. They are YOUR feelings. No one else can truly know what that would be like.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Here on my thoughts in the subject. I'm sure some of you will disagree, so please, have at it! Let's see how we all differentiate these concepts.

Romance: Romance is cultural. Romance is a concept that varies from society to society and roughly implies some sort of courtship behavior. An act is considered romantic if it fits the culturally prescribed criteria for eliciting a feeling of romantic affection in another person. A person is considered romantic if they tend toward behavior that fits the culturally prescribed criteria for wooing. As an example, in heteronormative United States culture, it is considered romantic to surprise your partner with a candlelit dinner. Whether or not the recipient actually likes candlelit dinners is more or less beside the point, because romance is determined on a macro level. It is certainly possible, but unlikely, that a person would be held out as a "hopeless romantic" if they didn't subscribe to the cultural trappings of romance.

Romance can also occur on a micro level. Let's say Patty and John are anarchist punks who just started dating. Patty has been angry with Taco Bell for some time because they misrepresent where their produce comes from, and Patty prefers local food. So, in an effort to be romantic, John vandalizes Taco Bell in Patty's name. This makes Patty swoon. Now, in one sense we'd call John romantic because he did something specifically intended to elicit romantic feelings from Patty. In another sense, however, John is not romantic, because vandalizing a restaurant does not fit into our culturally identified concept of love and wooing. So while on a micro level, John may be romantic, on a macro level, John is not going to be held out to the public as a "hopeless romantic".

Romantic Identity: Romantic Identity refers to the emotional connection you forge with others. There are so many different ways to look at this, and I think there's a fairly wide divergence in people's definitions of what actually constitutes romantic identities. Some people say that if you fall "in love", you are romantic. I'd agree with that (with a caveat that I will explore more fully below). Some say it has to do with the type of relationship you want. I'd agree with that as well. If you want an emotionally monogamous partnership, you love them and feel they are a part of you, your family, or your identity, I'd say you're in a romantic relationship. Let's all keep in mind that physical affection is but one (very common) manifestation of romantic feelings, but it is not the same thing as romantic feelings. The mere fact that you don't want to cuddle or have sex with your partner doesn't tell me whether or not you are aromantic, but it does tell me something about your preferences in regard to physical touch.

So, if you fall in love, you are romantic. If you want a primary relationship with someone where extreme mutual affection is demonstrated (either verbally, physically, or thru other behaviors), then I'd say you are romantic. I know many people who have romantic friendships... the fact that they aren't in a romantic relationship doesn't mean that the people are aromantic, but rather that they'd prefer not to have a romantic relationship. If you are capable of romantic love but prefer not to participate in it, you are not aromantic. You just don't want a relationship, and that's totally fine.

As I said above, the "in love" definition of romantic identity is troublesome because it raises a whole other problem, which is... what the hell is "in love"?! I'm the wrong person to ask, because I don't think "in love" is a real thing. I do identify as romantic, but I do not identify with the concept of "in love". I'm honestly not even sure if I can say that I love my partner differently from the way I love my best friends. The major difference between the two is that I feel a desire to be near my partner, and I feel a desire to share my life with her.

There are many different ways to express a romantic identity. You can hate candy, flowers, candlelit dinners, greeting cards, rose petals, poetry, love notes, cuddling, hand holding, etc, and still be a romantic. Why? Because you have the ability to fall in love, or you have the ability to feel the desire to share your life with someone. Personally, I'm romantic. I think romance is stupid. I HATE when people cook for me because I find it intolerably awkward, I hate pithy gifts, I don't respond well to surprises, holding hands makes me feel like my hand is burning off... in other words, I loathe nearly every cultural signifier of romance. And yet I do love my partner, and I do want to share my life with her. Not in a "hey, it'd be cheaper if we split the bills" kinda way, or in a "hey, it'd be nice to avoid the cats eating me after I die, so maybe we should live together" kinda way, but in a "you are a very special person to me and I want to see you and be near you, and when I experience things in my life I want to share them with you, and I want you to share your experiences with me" kinda way. It is a genuine desire to merge and share our thoughts and experiences in a meaningful way. I want her to feel, think, and learn all the things I feel, think, and learn, and she wants the same. That is a romantic relationship. It doesn't matter if you have sex, or hold hands, or give each other flowers. It doesn't matter if you hate the word love or would rather burn down Hallmark than buy a card. Those are all cultural trappings and are not the same as the innate desire to partner up.

AND... that's my long-winded rant on the subject. How do ya'll separate the two concepts?

O_O wow, uhhh, you kinda just described me, except replace partner with partners, I am amazed how you described it perfectly in every detail, even the part about wanting to experience each others lives and share the important moments and feelings, just one thing is different from me, I love holding hands and snuggling, I couldn't live without holding their hands or being able to cuddle

Link to post
Share on other sites
unknownpleasures

Thank you Skullery Maid for opening up such an important topic; also, thank you for your balanced and productive thoughts.

The most obvious problem with "asexual romance" is that one is confronted by gray areas on all sides, often all at once. My recent experiences, however, have taught me that these gray areas can be the most wonderful and rewarding areas of human experience. A gray area occurs--to tag onto Skullery Maid's thoughts--when our social conventions and categories don't quite apply, or the individuals involved are at a loss as to how to apply the conventions. There is horrible insecurity associated with these gray areas, but might there also be freedom? Unexpected pleasures?

Thus, I am trying to take an empirical approach to the question of a "romantic" identity. Almost every day, I try little "micro-experiments" in asexual-romantic behavior, and I see how the other people involved react. If all goes well, I try another micro-step. For me, this has been a rewarding approach in that it has opened up new avenues for the expression of love and care.

The idea of romantic identities/behaviors is important because--in my opinion--asexual people often suffer as much from a lack of giving affection as from a lack in receiving it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

There are many different ways to express a romantic identity. You can hate candy, flowers, candlelit dinners, greeting cards, rose petals, poetry, love notes, cuddling, hand holding, etc, and still be a romantic. Why? Because you have the ability to fall in love, or you have the ability to feel the desire to share your life with someone. Personally, I'm romantic. I think romance is stupid. I HATE when people cook for me because I find it intolerably awkward, I hate pithy gifts, I don't respond well to surprises, holding hands makes me feel like my hand is burning off... in other words, I loathe nearly every cultural signifier of romance. And yet I do love my partner, and I do want to share my life with her. Not in a "hey, it'd be cheaper if we split the bills" kinda way, or in a "hey, it'd be nice to avoid the cats eating me after I die, so maybe we should live together" kinda way, but in a "you are a very special person to me and I want to see you and be near you, and when I experience things in my life I want to share them with you, and I want you to share your experiences with me" kinda way. It is a genuine desire to merge and share our thoughts and experiences in a meaningful way. I want her to feel, think, and learn all the things I feel, think, and learn, and she wants the same. That is a romantic relationship. It doesn't matter if you have sex, or hold hands, or give each other flowers. It doesn't matter if you hate the word love or would rather burn down Hallmark than buy a card. Those are all cultural trappings and are not the same as the innate desire to partner up.

AND... that's my long-winded rant on the subject. How do ya'll separate the two concepts?

This paragraph makes me more confident in my romantic identity. What was making me learn towards aromantic were mostly all the cultural norms that surround a romantic relationship. I have felt desire to share my life with someone. It was actually a very good friend of mine that I still never told how I really felt because he's hetero all the way. I'd rather keep this wonderful friendship then jeopardize it knowing we're not compatible in "that way."

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhoNeedsLabels?

I think the OP summed it up really well, and much better than I could've done :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Romantic Identity: Romantic Identity refers to the emotional connection you forge with others. There are so many different ways to look at this, and I think there's a fairly wide divergence in people's definitions of what actually constitutes romantic identities. Some people say that if you fall "in love", you are romantic. I'd agree with that (with a caveat that I will explore more fully below). Some say it has to do with the type of relationship you want. I'd agree with that as well. If you want an emotionally monogamous partnership, you love them and feel they are a part of you, your family, or your identity, I'd say you're in a romantic relationship. Let's all keep in mind that physical affection is but one (very common) manifestation of romantic feelings, but it is not the same thing as romantic feelings. The mere fact that you don't want to cuddle or have sex with your partner doesn't tell me whether or not you are aromantic, but it does tell me something about your preferences in regard to physical touch.

So, if you fall in love, you are romantic. If you want a primary relationship with someone where extreme mutual affection is demonstrated (either verbally, physically, or thru other behaviors), then I'd say you are romantic.

I know many people who have romantic friendships... the fact that they aren't in a romantic relationship doesn't mean that the people are aromantic, but rather that they'd prefer not to have a romantic relationship. If you are capable of romantic love but prefer not to participate in it, you are not aromantic. You just don't want a relationship, and that's totally fine.

As I said above, the "in love" definition of romantic identity is troublesome because it raises a whole other problem, which is... what the hell is "in love"?! I'm the wrong person to ask, because I don't think "in love" is a real thing. I do identify as romantic, but I do not identify with the concept of "in love". I'm honestly not even sure if I can say that I love my partner differently from the way I love my best friends. The major difference between the two is that I feel a desire to be near my partner, and I feel a desire to share my life with her.

There are many different ways to express a romantic identity. You can hate candy, flowers, candlelit dinners, greeting cards, rose petals, poetry, love notes, cuddling, hand holding, etc, and still be a romantic. Why? Because you have the ability to fall in love, or you have the ability to feel the desire to share your life with someone. Personally, I'm romantic. I think romance is stupid. I HATE when people cook for me because I find it intolerably awkward, I hate pithy gifts, I don't respond well to surprises, holding hands makes me feel like my hand is burning off... in other words, I loathe nearly every cultural signifier of romance. And yet I do love my partner, and I do want to share my life with her. Not in a "hey, it'd be cheaper if we split the bills" kinda way, or in a "hey, it'd be nice to avoid the cats eating me after I die, so maybe we should live together" kinda way, but in a "you are a very special person to me and I want to see you and be near you, and when I experience things in my life I want to share them with you, and I want you to share your experiences with me" kinda way. It is a genuine desire to merge and share our thoughts and experiences in a meaningful way. I want her to feel, think, and learn all the things I feel, think, and learn, and she wants the same. That is a romantic relationship. It doesn't matter if you have sex, or hold hands, or give each other flowers. It doesn't matter if you hate the word love or would rather burn down Hallmark than buy a card. Those are all cultural trappings and are not the same as the innate desire to partner up.

AND... that's my long-winded rant on the subject. How do ya'll separate the two concepts?

I feel like this is wrong in some way?? I mean I'm reading and it seems to resonate with a lot of people so it has to be right in some ways, but for me it just didn't click. I agree with what you said about romance that's not it at all. Romance is definitely different for every person and just because you dislike the 'mainstream' idea of romance doesn't mean you dislike being romanced...just you like it in your own way.

I think the part that's bugging me is this:"If you want an emotionally monogamous partnership, you love them and feel they are a part of you, your family, or your identity, I'd say you're in a romantic relationship." Maybe I'm just misunderstanding, but there's something about it that just bugs me. Like say I met someone I thought they were rad and wouldn't mind spending my life with them. I think of us as friends (BFFS is more likely the proper term just more) and I would want them to be committed to me, but I'm not sure if I'd define that as romantic.

I guess there's also this part "I'm honestly not even sure if I can say that I love my partner differently from the way I love my best friends." I identify with that statement. That sounds like the definition of quoiromantic (a label I'm taking for a test drive) Not being able to distinguish between romantic and platonic feelings. And then this "The major difference between the two is that I feel a desire to be near my partner, and I feel a desire to share my life with her." I was just recently introduced to the phrase quasiromantic relationship and this sounds like exactly that! I'm sure other people could explain that better than I could ever hope to. And by no means am I trying to say "your feelings are wrong! You're not in a romantic relationship at all!" or anything of that sort. I'm just writing down what I feel. I haven't read this whole thread yet so maybe someone else explained it better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am indeed romantic! Always wondered what the difference was and how it was described. I always felt it as stated in the OP "Innate desire to partner up" and though I am asexual, I still have the desire to share my life with someone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am indeed romantic! Always wondered what the difference was and how it was described. I always felt it as stated in the OP "Innate desire to partner up" and though I am asexual, I still have the desire to share my life with someone.

This is how I feel romance works to love somone in a... should I say mentally intimate way ( a way different from that of friends or family) though it is slightly physical for me, I am asexual but have a need to cuddle and be held in my partners arms. I will state romance is different fro everyone in my opinion for me it does involve physical contact (mildly) but for others it may not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing romance with a romantic identity, to me, is like comparing sex(the act) to sexuality. that it shouldn't be done because they are separate concepts altogether and should be interpreted differently to begin with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
Wonderfulthings

I think the definitions are interesting.

Romance can be about Hollywood ideals, but also about every day romantic love, like having someone special to cater for and be catered by, physically and emotionally.

My boyfriend is, I am starting to realize, probably grey-aromantic. He has never once been in love before me (he is 28, we have been dating a year) and although he did have a very vague idea about getting himself a girlfriend, he thought his friends in relationships were silly. Everything about falling for me was quite unexpected for him. We hit off having a close connection from the start, and he claims that I am the only one truely "get" him. Still, he has been quite scared at times and I struggled to get why the transition from bachelor to serious relationship was so hard on him - since, after all, he loves me. The more I read about aromantism and especially grey-romantic, the more it makes sense. He describes it as being nothing before me to compare to me - "his heart was closed". To me, that is a bit odd to me that I should be the first for him - I have been in love with people since the age of 5, and a lot of my personal history is wrapped up with heartjoys and heartaces and the experience of my long-term romantic relationships. We both want to share our life together in every way.

Sometimes I notice that he thinks differently from me or other people we know. He doesn't expect others to fall in love easily or even have crushes fast, so he is missing out on people's motivation sometimes. He finds it difficult to relate to my past - not because he is jealous, but he just doesn't understand. I struggle a bit to explain it to him.

In a way, I have the same challenge with my sister - she recently started dating after having not been in love for 30 years. She says she used a lot of time to get to know here date and were attracted to his personality, which makes me think she is demi-romantic.

The common thing with my boyfriend and my sister seems to be that their experience of then falling for someone makes them feel very vounerable - not that I don't feel vounerable being in love, but I am somewhat used to it since I have been for more or less constantly in love for 30 years, so it is not really shocking anymore for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...

This is very interesting to me. I've been struggling with my identity for the past year or so. I don't want what I'd consider to be a romantic relationship but aromantic doesn't feel applicable to me. I "feel" heteromantic. I just wouldn't express my feelings as your average heternormative American couple would.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am seeing a lot of me here . I was mostly afraid of identifying asexual because I thought I would start to feel sexual after enough time and trust is built , but I am leaning toward wanting a relationship with another asexual. I find platonic relationships more fulfilling and tend to want to help or care for or pick up small tokens of fondness for the ones I love. I am slowly and somatically discovering I love differently and that's okay. I can love.

I actually do want to live with someone or someones and be a part of relationship,as I simultaneously remain intact , if that makes sense:/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...
AshenPhoenix

Unpinning this to put it in the general index thread which has been created here

AshenPhoenix, Romantic and Aromantic orientations moderator

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

"hey, it'd be nice to avoid the cats eating me after I die, so maybe we should live together"

Yeah, this would totally be me! I know definitely I'm aromantic now. If I would ever bother with actually wanting to live with someone, that is.

That said, this was a very useful post. Learned a lot from it. thanks Skullery Maid. :cake: :cake: :cake:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
InsightfulWolf

I do agree that romance itself is cultural. I've talked to a few people that are either in arranged marriages or will be in arranged marriages (due to religion/culture/etc) and they have a very different view of romance than many other people I know.

Traditionally in romance, there's an element of a chase. You chase what you want until you get it by wooing them with flowers or chocolates or love songs or whatever, then you live happily ever after in a castle made of bubblegum or something. You see this all the time in corny movies...the cliche "boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy tries to win girl back, boy and girl live happily ever after."

For people in arranged marriages, there isn't much to chase after because it's already there. It's more of "well we're together we might as well make the best of it." (that sounds worse than I intended it to be, but I can't figure out a better way to word it). These people tell me that instead of falling in love before getting married, they fall in love afterwards.

I don't think the second example is any less romantic than the first, and I would say it is something that occurs on a macro level. I would also call the second example romance, just not the type of romance that we are traditionally used to. It does raise a few interesting questions about how romantic identities are linked with other forms of romance though.

I don't really know where I'm going with this so I guess I'll stop :redface:

I definitely agree that romantic courtship is cultural. While the individual gestures are nice, I think doing them in a courtship manner is kind of stupid and can be deceiving. I mean, someone could give you flowers specifically because they like you and want to show that they care, but they could also give them to you because they feel like it is an obligation. Maybe they do like you, but the flowers themselves aren't from their heart. And even worse, someone could give you flowers simply to woo you for the sexual benefits they think they will gain.I guess what I'm saying is that simply performing culturally designed romantic actions does not mean that it is done in a romantic way. Also, as I will elaborate more on in a separate post, I think there is a difference between loving someone and being "in love with them." While I think you can grow to love anyone (like in an arranged marriage), I don't think you can necessarily fall in love with anyone. Of course, I'm merely speculating since I have never actually been in love.

Link to post
Share on other sites
InsightfulWolf

Romance also seems to be something you do to show someone that they are special. Culturally, you are only meant to have candle lit dinners with that one person you are in a relationship with. This form of possessiveness and singularity of affection is something I have never really understood. I can understand caring about someone, even caring more about one person more than another, but I would hate to be with someone who only treated me nicely. For example, I have read/watched many stories where a partner got upset that their partner was nice to everyone. They wanted to be treated special. I don't want that. I mean, I can understand if you want to limit the amount of physical contact your partner has other other people, but I think actions outside of that shouldn't be so connected with "romantic relationships." I think communication should be the true indicator of how you feel instead of being nice or showing that you care, because my ideal world is one where everyone is nice and caring for everyone. I guess I just have unrealistic ideals.

Like I said above, I think there is a distinction between loving someone and being in love. I also think there are different forms of each and hate the fact that English doesn't have any separate words I can use. One thing that can help is that I recently learned that in Japanese koi is a receiving love while ai is a giving love. I kind of view the difference this way. If you love someone, you don't necessarily want anything in return. You just want that person to be happy and feel extremely happy to be around them. But when you are in love, you want (or at least think about) having your feelings returned. You long to have something with that person. Of course I can see other ways the two are different, but this is the clearest way I can think to explain. I also think you can be in love with someone sexually, "romantically" (for lack of a better word I'm using this as merely a distinction from sex. It does not have romance as Skullery defined it.), spiritually, etc. You can also love someone on different levels. I actually hope to write a series of shorts depicting love from different angles at some point in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree that romantic cultural conventions are not universal, and that liking or disliking the accepted romantic conventions of your culture doesn't necessarily reflect your romantic orientation. Plenty of romantic individuals don't like things they think are cheesy or sappy. Preferring a different approach to building a romantic bond isn't the same thing as being aromantic, and being aromantic doesn't mean you automatically dislike those things. I think, though, that the reason some aromantic people see traditionally romantic things in a negative light is because they don't like the sentiment that they're meant to convey. When it comes down to it, if you don't want that kind of attention, you might not like the usual delivery method, either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
On 8/24/2012 at 8:38 PM, Calligraphette_Coe said:

my being aromantic and asexual doesn't make me anti-social or any of a number of negative things. It just means my bread is buttered a bit differen

Soo true. I've been accused of this a number of times. Either I'm weird or being too "introverted" for my own good. I happen to enjoy my own company ,I'm a pretty cool gal and I know how to show myself a good time, lol, reading all the books I can...😄

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...