What is the point of asexual romance?

[Guest]

In terms of the ''Does asexual romance=close friends?'' Question, it seems to be based on perspective, many things in life are. Of course, it begs the question ''What is romance?''. I've heard it is a social construct of actions, that it is an emotion, that it is an aid to the survival of our species. I think all of these are true, and any combination or quantity of these can be found in any romantic relationship. By feeling a close kinship and affection for a person it is more likely(but not definite) that you would wish to reproduce with that person. To go with this feeling, humans have over centuries developed ceremonies, actions and rituals to symbolism this bond. This is how I see it.

So while the feelings of affection and kinship may be the same as those you might have for a friend, do you date your friend? Give them chocolates and flowers and a card on Valentines Day? Marry them? Have kids with them? Live with them in the same house for years and years until you die? These are some of the rituals that can be outside distinguishers of a romantic relationship. Also, there is a common understanding that yes, you are both in a romantic relationship, just like you and your friends have an understating that you are friends. But, traditionally, this has come along as an extra to the main biological need to reproduce. But asexuality don't have that need. They may never engage in that element of your typical ''romantic relationship''.

So here is the point of asexual romance-it makes up for this difference. Many asexuals feel left out because they feel they cannot participate fully in what is considered by many a core element of human existence. They may be alone. But those who can fulfill the requirements of kinship and ritual to some extent they can not feel so alone and they can have a companion to see throughout their lives with (this is really only speaking for romantic aces). Of course, those who don't have any interest/need/connection to romance find their own alternatives. But anyway, I hope this makes some sense.

[TheKindredSoul]

It used to really upset me when sexuals would say that without sex, there is no romance, despite the fact that I am an aromantic asexual. I thought romance had to do with emotions more than physical actions, and to say sex is what makes romance is shallow to me (no offense), because sure, sex can be an exclusive thing shared with one person only and very special, but it has to have a bigger foundation rather than just...well...carnal pleasure and behavior. There has to be emotion, and romance to me cannot be based on one action: sex, or else I would merely deem it as sexual attraction. I always thought that romance had layers. Let me use an analogy associated with food:

Cakes can have layers and more than one layer as well. Let's add romance in, both sexual and non-sexual romance.

The sexual romance layer might be a layer in the cake, or maybe the "filling" for most people, however, I think romantic sexuals also might have the non-sexual romance layers as well.

But everyone's preference for a flavor of cake may be different, so what everyone calls romance is different, just as what people call a "yummy" cake might be a "nasty" cake.

Romantic aces probably have the non-sexual romance layer that might be the "filling" to them rather than the sexual romance which is not their preferred filling in their cake.

So people can have the sexual romance layer and non-sexual romance layer or have one without the other or none if you are an aromantic ace (plain cake w/ no layers or fillings).

I hope that made sense because that took a lot of thought to think of!

I think romantic asexuals are complex for sexual people to understand because they lack the sexual attraction, which seems to be often mixed with romantic attraction.

Being an aromantic asexual, I may have no clue on what I am saying, but I truly believe that romance can thrive without the sex. How on Earth would elderly couples be able to stay together if they cannot get intimate? They must have alternates that work for them rather than just having sex, because the relationship would probably break if that was really all that romance was based on. I also think that aromantic asexuals are misunderstood by romantics too, because people often equate definitions to experiences they have personally had. What feels romantic to a romantic may not be for an aromantic, so this can cause some confusion if aromantics speak with romantics. I get this issue quite often, but I love fine. I believe I am still able to love strongly, just in a different way, and I think even though the doors of romance and sex are closed off for me, this is still a wonderful experience for me to unlock possibly a very strong platonic/aromantic love, so I cannot see my sexuality as anything terrible and cursed, so when people are feeling sympathetic for me, it does not make any sense. But they are only looking through their own experience, not mine, and the same goes for me when it comes to them.

Whoa! I did not mean to write that much, but okay. :lol: I made my point.

[Roy M.]

People have given you answers. But when they don't tell you what you want to hear you call them dishonest and/or lazy. I think you are being dishonest in your motives for asking these questions. It doesn't look like you are looking for answers. It looks like you are looking for contrroversy.

It's one thing for people to give me answers. It's another to give me answers with intelligible explanations and reasoning. If someone says (and many here have said), "Friendship and romance are just different," and they leave it at that, then they have failed to give any kind of explanation that could be considered helpful or thought-provoking.

Of course, you could say that I am also seeking controversy, because it often takes a little controversy for anyone (myself or others) to learn things. Complacent in agreement or silence, people are less likely to learn.

[Roy M.]

In terms of the ''Does asexual romance=close friends?'' Question, it seems to be based on perspective, many things in life are. Of course, it begs the question ''What is romance?''. I've heard it is a social construct of actions, that it is an emotion, that it is an aid to the survival of our species. I think all of these are true, and any combination or quantity of these can be found in any romantic relationship. By feeling a close kinship and affection for a person it is more likely(but not definite) that you would wish to reproduce with that person. To go with this feeling, humans have over centuries developed ceremonies, actions and rituals to symbolism this bond. This is how I see it. So while the feelings of affection and kinship may be the same as those you might have for a friend, do you date your friend? Give them chocolates and flowers and a card on Valentines Day? Marry them? Have kids with them? Live with them in the same house for years and years until you die? These are some of the rituals that can be outside distinguishers of a romantic relationship. Also, there is a common understanding that yes, you are both in a romantic relationship, just like you and your friends have an understating that you are friends. But, traditionally, this has come along as an extra to the main biological need to reproduce. But asexuality don't have that need. They may never engage in that element of your typical ''romantic relationship''. So here is the point of asexual romance-it makes up for this difference. Many asexuals feel left out because they feel they cannot participate fully in what is considered by many a core element of human existence. They may be alone. But those who can fulfill the requirements of kinship and ritual to some extent they can not feel so alone and they can have a companion to see throughout their lives with (this is really only speaking for romantic aces). Of course, those who don't have any interest/need/connection to romance find their own alternatives. But anyway, I hope this makes some sense.

So would you be saying that asexual romance is just an attempt by asexuals to copy or mimic what sexuals do, while remaining asexual?

[Roy M.]

You're asking for a concrete definition of an abstract concept and a highly subjective one at that.

I would say thatI am asking for a concrete definition or understanding of a specific term in the English language.

[Qutenkuddly]

To me, romance involves forging a bond of emotional intimacy that goes far deeper than any friendship. This is usually accompanied by levels of physical intimacy that go further than one would with a friend. I would not, for example, want to snuggle in close, wrap my arms around, and whisper "I love you," into the ear of one of my Kung Fu brothers, no matter how close a bond of friendship and trust I share with them.

[test account]

Old post.

[Roy M.]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Rome" data-cid="2303997" data-time="1356413850"><p>

Truly, I think it violates basic logic to say something to the effect of: two polar opposite views can be equally correct. Either friends and significant others are essentially the same, or they aren't. They can't be both. You can't have your cake and eat it, so to speak. </p></blockquote>

Actually you can. There is such a thing as "object constancy". This is something we all learn as infants, that is, that one object can have more than one face and still be the same thing. For example, is the sky black, blue, grey, or red? Before you answer "blue", consider how it looks at night, on a cloudy day, or at sunset.

What you ask is like saying, "How can the blue sky be red?" You won't get a satisfying answer to that question because you assume the sky is always blue.

My suggestion is that "romance" and "friendship" look different to some people than most of us commonly assume. I may not understand it, and they may be deluded. But what profit is there for me to ask them to explain or prove their opinions? I can only see romance and friendship one way, so it would be a waste of time.

That might be true with things that are divisible into sections, but when you get to the indivisible parts, like the part of the sky that is red, you could not say that the part that is red is also blue, because then it would not really be red in the first place.

These social constructs of friendship and romance, as best I can tell, lack this sectional divisibility.

[Vampyremage]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Rome" data-cid="2304900" data-time="1356567050"><p>

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Laurenev" data-cid="2304552" data-time="1356520459"><p>In terms of the ''Does asexual romance=close friends?'' Question, it seems to be based on perspective, many things in life are. Of course, it begs the question ''What is romance?''. I've heard it is a social construct of actions, that it is an emotion, that it is an aid to the survival of our species. I think all of these are true, and any combination or quantity of these can be found in any romantic relationship. By feeling a close kinship and affection for a person it is more likely(but not definite) that you would wish to reproduce with that person. To go with this feeling, humans have over centuries developed ceremonies, actions and rituals to symbolism this bond. This is how I see it. So while the feelings of affection and kinship may be the same as those you might have for a friend, do you date your friend? Give them chocolates and flowers and a card on Valentines Day? Marry them? Have kids with them? Live with them in the same house for years and years until you die? These are some of the rituals that can be outside distinguishers of a romantic relationship. Also, there is a common understanding that yes, you are both in a romantic relationship, just like you and your friends have an understating that you are friends. But, traditionally, this has come along as an extra to the main biological need to reproduce. But asexuality don't have that need. They may never engage in that element of your typical ''romantic relationship''. So here is the point of asexual romance-it makes up for this difference. Many asexuals feel left out because they feel they cannot participate fully in what is considered by many a core element of human existence. They may be alone. But those who can fulfill the requirements of kinship and ritual to some extent they can not feel so alone and they can have a companion to see throughout their lives with (this is really only speaking for romantic aces). Of course, those who don't have any interest/need/connection to romance find their own alternatives. But anyway, I hope this makes some sense.</p></blockquote>

So would you be saying that asexual romance is just an attempt by asexuals to copy or mimic what sexuals do, while remaining asexual?</p></blockquote>

I really wouldn't say that's what anyone has been saying. Romance and romantic relationships are a very personal thing with many dynamics and aspects. What one person considers an asexual sexless relationship another might consider a romantic friendship. In any case, I don't think any asexuals are out to mimic sexual relationships minus the sex as that gives the impression that such relationships are inauthentic which I think is largely unfair.

What differentiates a friendship from a relationship to me is a combination of emotion and action. Even if that action isn't sex, those sensual activities I do enjoy would not feel at all comfortable being done with a friend.

What a specific I dividuals considers the dividing line between romance and friendship, however, is largely missing the point. What I consider to constitute a romantic relationship may very well be different than what another thinks. Sex, for many, might very well be essential in their own romantic relationships but for those who do not consider it to be so, that shouldn't invalidate or lesson the meaning of their own relationships.

[Michele74]

a romantic relationship is pretty much the difference between your typical (sexual) relationship and a "friends with benefits" friendship...... and yes it's possible to take that romantic relationship WITHOUT the sex and still have a relationship that differs from the typical relationship you have with your 'close friends'. To me there's a level of trust, vulnerability, and committment that goes well beyond what you find with typical friendships - as well as some exclusivity and priority - which essentially defines the relationship.

How about this question that I've raised numerous times:

What about close friendships? How is sexless romance different than that?

Endorphines released in the brain. That's the difference. The feeling of being in love (even before sex has occurred) is caused by a chemical reaction in the brain - endorphines. This phenomenon is what gives us the butterflies, the inability to stop thinking about someone (sometimes to the point of obsession), and the feeling of being in the clouds. That's how you know the difference between a close friendship and a romance (with or without sex). A close friendship doesn't involve the endorphines.

Rome, my question to you is - have you ever experienced the endorphines in your brain and the feeling of being in love before you have sex? Cause if you have - then you have your answer. That's it. That's all. Pretty simple - theoretically anyway.

I'm asexual, but I still get the stupid cursed endorphines when I meet a certain type of guy. Sucks. After all, why would any man love me if I won't satisfy him sexually. NOTE: These endorphines aren't released with every guy I meet - those are the guys that are candidates for being good friends. ....so long as they don't want to have sex with me.

[Roy M.]

I really wouldn't say that's what anyone has been saying. Romance and romantic relationships are a very personal thing with many dynamics and aspects. What one person considers an asexual sexless relationship another might consider a romantic friendship. In any case, I don't think any asexuals are out to mimic sexual relationships minus the sex as that gives the impression that such relationships are inauthentic which I think is largely unfair.

What differentiates a friendship from a relationship to me is a combination of emotion and action. Even if that action isn't sex, those sensual activities I do enjoy would not feel at all comfortable being done with a friend.

What a specific I dividuals considers the dividing line between romance and friendship, however, is largely missing the point. What I consider to constitute a romantic relationship may very well be different than what another thinks. Sex, for many, might very well be essential in their own romantic relationships but for those who do not consider it to be so, that shouldn't invalidate or lesson the meaning of their own relationships.

Why should it be unfair, if that might well be the case? I mean, it's not like they'd be the first people to have inauthentic relationships. A lot of daily social interaction is phony and dishonest. All it would be proving is that they are humans like the rest of us. Don't dismiss an idea just because you don't like it. Besides, they don't have to make an agenda out of it to mimic sexuals. Much of what we do and how we express ourselves socially is a learned behavior. If asexuals are mimicking sexuals, all it would prove, again, is that they are humans who learn from other humans, often without realizing it. People rarely ever think critically about traditions.

If you are not comfortable doing certain things with a friend, that may simply point out that you have learned different rules for socializing than other cultures in regards to how you treat friends, and your habits regarding friendship that you may share with your culture aren't what I think can define friendship, which I feel is a cosmopolitan notion.

And the mimicry on the part of asexuals would not invalidate that it is romance. It would just mean that romance is largely ceremonial, whereas friendship is not necessarily

[Roy M.]

Endorphines released in the brain. That's the difference. The feeling of being in love (even before sex has occurred) is caused by a chemical reaction in the brain - endorphines. This phenomenon is what gives us the butterflies, the inability to stop thinking about someone (sometimes to the point of obsession), and the feeling of being in the clouds. That's how you know the difference between a close friendship and a romance (with or without sex). A close friendship doesn't involve the endorphines.

Rome, my question to you is - have you ever experienced the endorphines in your brain and the feeling of being in love before you have sex? Cause if you have - then you have your answer. That's it. That's all. Pretty simple - theoretically anyway.

I'm asexual, but I still get the stupid cursed endorphines when I meet a certain type of guy. Sucks. After all, why would any man love me if I won't satisfy him sexually. NOTE: These endorphines aren't released with every guy I meet - those are the guys that are candidates for being good friends. ....so long as they don't want to have sex with me.

I have had that feeling, multiple times, but I only felt that when I was a heterosexual. There were times when I felt sexual attraction without romantic interest, but I never had a romantic interest that was bereft of sexual attraction.

Now an asexual, I cannot feel that way toward women anymore. In fact, as I became asexual, romance quickly became a silly idea to be, because I thought, if I did not want sex to be involved, why would I be in love with them? Though, to be fair, my asexuality is probably pretty unique, as it isn't a directly natural occurrence.

That said, for me personally, the endorphins explanation is inadequate.

[Michele74]

Endorphines released in the brain. That's the difference. The feeling of being in love (even before sex has occurred) is caused by a chemical reaction in the brain - endorphines. This phenomenon is what gives us the butterflies, the inability to stop thinking about someone (sometimes to the point of obsession), and the feeling of being in the clouds. That's how you know the difference between a close friendship and a romance (with or without sex). A close friendship doesn't involve the endorphines.

Rome, my question to you is - have you ever experienced the endorphines in your brain and the feeling of being in love before you have sex? Cause if you have - then you have your answer. That's it. That's all. Pretty simple - theoretically anyway.

I'm asexual, but I still get the stupid cursed endorphines when I meet a certain type of guy. Sucks. After all, why would any man love me if I won't satisfy him sexually. NOTE: These endorphines aren't released with every guy I meet - those are the guys that are candidates for being good friends. ....so long as they don't want to have sex with me.

I have had that feeling, multiple times, but I only felt that when I was a heterosexual. There were times when I felt sexual attraction without romantic interest, but I never had a romantic interest that was bereft of sexual attraction.

Now an asexual, I cannot feel that way toward women anymore. In fact, as I became asexual, romance quickly became a silly idea to be, because I thought, if I did not want sex to be involved, why would I be in love with them? Though, to be fair, my asexuality is probably pretty unique, as it isn't a directly natural occurrence.

That said, for me personally, the endorphins explanation is inadequate.

Very interesting. As a true asexual (being one my entire life), I've never understood the fascination with sex. Just out of curiosity - are you sure that you were actually in love? Or could it have just been lust? Maybe, you have always been aromantic. It seems that way - seeing as how you couldn't be in love with someone unless they had sex with you. So, I'm wondering if this is why you don't understand the point of an asexual romance. Disclaimer: If I were face to face talking to you - you would see that I'm actually saying these things on a purely inquisitive and curious level. In no way, do I intend to offend you or anything. Here's another question: what is the difference between romance and seduction to you? Is there one?

[Roy M.]

Endorphines released in the brain. That's the difference. The feeling of being in love (even before sex has occurred) is caused by a chemical reaction in the brain - endorphines. This phenomenon is what gives us the butterflies, the inability to stop thinking about someone (sometimes to the point of obsession), and the feeling of being in the clouds. That's how you know the difference between a close friendship and a romance (with or without sex). A close friendship doesn't involve the endorphines.

Rome, my question to you is - have you ever experienced the endorphines in your brain and the feeling of being in love before you have sex? Cause if you have - then you have your answer. That's it. That's all. Pretty simple - theoretically anyway.

I'm asexual, but I still get the stupid cursed endorphines when I meet a certain type of guy. Sucks. After all, why would any man love me if I won't satisfy him sexually. NOTE: These endorphines aren't released with every guy I meet - those are the guys that are candidates for being good friends. ....so long as they don't want to have sex with me.

I have had that feeling, multiple times, but I only felt that when I was a heterosexual. There were times when I felt sexual attraction without romantic interest, but I never had a romantic interest that was bereft of sexual attraction.

Now an asexual, I cannot feel that way toward women anymore. In fact, as I became asexual, romance quickly became a silly idea to be, because I thought, if I did not want sex to be involved, why would I be in love with them? Though, to be fair, my asexuality is probably pretty unique, as it isn't a directly natural occurrence.

That said, for me personally, the endorphins explanation is inadequate.

Very interesting. As a true asexual (being one my entire life), I've never understood the fascination with sex. Just out of curiosity - are you sure that you were actually in love? Or could it have just been lust? Maybe, you have always been aromantic. It seems that way - seeing as how you couldn't be in love with someone unless they had sex with you. So, I'm wondering if this is why you don't understand the point of an asexual romance. Disclaimer: If I were face to face talking to you - you would see that I'm actually saying these things on a purely inquisitive and curious level. In no way, do I intend to offend you or anything. Here's another question: what is the difference between romance and seduction to you? Is there one?

I am quite sure. I considered my interests romantic because, in addition to being sexually attracted to the girl (whichever one it was at the time), I wanted a deep and personal relationship with them. There were girls that I found sexually attractive but DID NOT interest me as human beings, so I know pretty well that it is just lust for them. Also, how would I have been aromantic, just because the implication of sex was required for me to be in love with them? Wouldn't falling in love have made me romantic? To me seduction would only imply sexual persuasion; romance need not apply.

Also, I don't take offense to questions being asked. You will notice in other threads that I ask questions and challenge statements with less regard for offending people in the pursuit of truth. If I am to be offended, it is because you singled yourself out as a true asexual, as though my asexuality is somehow fake just because I wasn't lucky enough to be born with this orientation; I had to acquire it.

[Kitty Spoon Train]

If you are not comfortable doing certain things with a friend, that may simply point out that you have learned different rules for socializing than other cultures in regards to how you treat friends, and your habits regarding friendship that you may share with your culture aren't what I think can define friendship, which I feel is a cosmopolitan notion.

Honestly, I do feel that if far more tactile intimacy was acceptable between close friends in this culture than is currently the case, then most of what I at the moment describe as "romantic" interaction could fit under friendship...

I've been single for five years. I don't miss sex at all. But I do miss cuddles. And I do miss a certain level of physical and emotional intimacy that's hard to find because it crosses typical boundaries of friendship, but also doesn't (necessarily) put me in the mindset of wanting a sexual relationship with the person.

Maybe this "thing" needs a whole third category, instead of trying to describe it as something "between friendship and romance". From what I can tell so far, only people on the asexual spectrum seem to understand what I'm talking about when I describe these feelings to them - which suggests it's something unique that maybe shouldn't be described in terms of being friendship or romance or anything in-between at all.

BTW, I feel dirty typing this - because I'm currently generally thinking that the opposite approach (total abandonment of generic labels for relationship categorisation) is the way to go. :lol:

[Roy M.]

And to be honest, that's only a certain part of our culture. Male friends tend to be less physically affectionate with each other, but if you look at female friends, they are often physically affectionate to the point that it could be confused with romance, so it's not as if that's totally missing in our culture.

I think the problem you guys are having is that friendship can come in many levels and potencies, whereas romance does not. Sure, someone could be a friend and not be super close to you, and it seems like people are letting that distract them from the fact that some of our friends are actually super close to us and hold a great deal of our trust.

I do not think a third category is needed. I think the words we have now are fine. Creating a third category only opens the door to more confusion. If anything I think people should just stop with what seems to me like a vast lack of trust for our friends.

[Qutenkuddly]

I think subjective experiences are going to vary, possibly quite substantially, from person to person. For example, I started off as grey and have experienced sexual attraction. It IS a different experience from the strictly romantic attraction and desire that I now experience. It also feels substantially different that what I experience in a friendship.

[KTBeth]

You're asking for a concrete definition of an abstract concept and a highly subjective one at that.

I would say thatI am asking for a concrete definition or understanding of a specific term in the English language.

OK, fair enough, but the English language isn't always that concrete in and of itself. Some words in English are used as a broader term for something that has many other words in other languages. Latin has four different words for love, specifically eros, philia, storge and agape. From Wikipedia:

Eros refers to “intimate love” or romantic love; storge to familial love; philia to friendship as a kind of love; and agape refers to “selfless love”, or “charity” as it is translated in the Christian scriptures (from the Latin caritas, dearness).

There's also the classic example of the different Eskimo words for snow, referring to the different types of snow. So you can see that English has one word to cover these broader topics. We can still communicate different forms, we just put adjectives in front of the words.

Now, I'm going to give an analogy that sounds kind of silly even as I'm typing this, but it's the best I could come up with so bear with me.

Think of pens and pencils as romantic relatioinships and friendships respectively. Think about a pen. It comes in many different forms. Some are plain and simple, some have caps, some have clicky mechanisms, some twist. Some pens have writing on them. There are ballpoint and fountain pens and all sorts of other pens that have a similar shape, the same function, but the specifics are all different. And yet you don't question their fundamental existence as a pen, even though they're all so different. So why not? They all share one common factor at their core: ink. That ink can be black or blue or red or green or any colour, but they all have ink. That's what makes them pens. The same can be said of pencils. They come in mechanical, #2, artists have so many types of pencils I don't even know what they do with them all, and yet they all have lead.

So think about romantic relationships and friendships. They're all pretty different in their specifics, but fundamentally, at their core, they have something in common. A romantic relationship can be between a man and a woman, two men, two women, or any other gender combination. It can involve candlelit dinners and champagne, it can involve hanging out at home playing video games. It can involve sex or it can not. There is ultimately a feeling, an attraction, a bond that forms the metaphorical ink at the core of the relationship that still makes it a romantic partnership.

Now if you're asking what specifically constitutes a romantic attraction, then you may not get an answer. There are physiological and neurological bases for these things, but I'm pretty sure these things aren't fully understood. If there are any physiologists or neurologists on this site, then by all means let me know if I'm wrong about this, but I don't think human beings fully understand emotions, so it's really difficult to describe the difference between a romantic attraction and a frienship. Emotions are less concrete than ink or pencil lead, but that doesn't mean they don't exist for people, even if they are expressed in different forms.

[Kitty Spoon Train]

Now if you're asking what specifically constitutes a romantic attraction, then you may not get an answer. There are physiological and neurological bases for these things, but I'm pretty sure these things aren't fully understood. If there are any physiologists or neurologists on this site, then by all means let me know if I'm wrong about this, but I don't think human beings fully understand emotions, so it's really difficult to describe the difference between a romantic attraction and a frienship. Emotions are less concrete than ink or pencil lead, but that doesn't mean they don't exist for people, even if they are expressed in different forms.

This is what does my head in sometimes. I have a feeling like maybe the part of the brain which makes that distinction (between friendship and romance) is damaged with me, or something. Actually, not so much friendship and romance, but more what constitutes "romance". It doesn't really gel to me why sex has to be part of it, or indeed why most of what's culturally considered part of it has to be part of it. Which makes it seem natural that it should really be just another type of "friendship" essentially, at least to a point.

In the past I tended to try to have something like what could be described as romantic friendships with girls, without even noticing that there's anything strange about that. But now I think I understand how for most people that's just plain confusing and falls through the cracks between the categories. :lol:

The real difficulty is in untangling just how much of that is nature and how much is nurture. Both in myself and in other people.

[test account]

Old post.

[crucis]

i have never, ever, ever understood the term 'romance' to include necessary sexual connotations. It remains difficult for me to believe that most people think otherwise.

The notion of sex as the end-point of romance (or what actualises it) continues to be distasteful and counter-intuitive to me. I don't consider this sentiment of mine anti-sexual; just balanced, in the context of how I've been socialised. Thus I'm certainly not going to pass ethical / moral judgements. Sex to me has absolutely no bearing on such things. It is merely what some people happen to prioritise, sometimes at the expense of other things.

[Michele74]

I have always viewed sexual romance as a this for that. As in you have sex with me and I will love you. Kind of like that bus driver when I was in kindergarten...I'll only let everyone off the bus if you give me a kiss. To me it is the same. It always feels like - in my case - the man only loving what I do for him and not really loving me at all. And what's the point in that - especially when I get nothing from sex - no orgasm, no pleasure, no "connection"....oh yes that's right I get his love. I'm looking for a man who treasures my love for him and who will love me for me. And who will not require sex as a sort of down payment. I may be Demi - but no man has ever wanted to wait longer than a month for me.

There is a difference between friendship and being in love and sexual attraction. All these things can apparently be alone or mixed with many combinations. I prefer the friendship and being in love combination. Some may require the sexual attraction to be mixed in there. Romantic asexuals by definition do not. To me - the mere act of touching is enough. .

.....oh and no I do not touch my regular friends - and my female friendships in no way resemble a romance.

Have you ever had romantic feelings for someone that you knew you couldn't ever have sex with? If not - then the romantic feelings were conditional based on sex. See, asexuals don't get that. Please explain. I'm not satisfied with your explanations. :(

[Kitty Spoon Train]

I have always viewed sexual romance as a this for that. As in you have sex with me and I will love you. Kind of like that bus driver when I was in kindergarten...I'll only let everyone off the bus if you give me a kiss. To me it is the same. It always feels like - in my case - the man only loving what I do for him and not really loving me at all. And what's the point in that - especially when I get nothing from sex - no orgasm, no pleasure, no "connection"....oh yes that's right I get his love. I'm looking for a man who treasures my love for him and who will love me for me. And who will not require sex as a sort of down payment. I may be Demi - but no man has ever wanted to wait longer than a month for me.

This reminds me of a situation that happened almost ten years ago....

I was dating / getting to know a girl whom my friends kinda set me up with. But she had just come out of a bad relationship and wasn't keen on diving right into another relationship. I did find her quite cute and was keen on getting to know her well, but of course, certainly had no intentions of getting into her pants straight away (this is years before I knew anything about demisexuality by the way).

Well, after a few months of basically very slow dating - but really just being friends I guess - all our mutual friends (the ones who set us up) were terribly pissed off with her for "leading me on and using me". She didn't have a car you see, so I was giving her rides a lot on weekends, and apparently this means that she was just stringing me along and "using me". I never saw it that way. I was happy to spend time with her, but logistically it's just the way it worked out at the time - that I'd have to drive over to her end of the city a lot, etc etc.

I never really understood the logic behind why they were so pissed off. The subtext seems to be something like: "Why would you go out of your way for someone for so long unless she's putting out?". I actually find this kind of thinking pretty cynical. So that's the deal huh? Sex in exchange for rides? Urgh.

If I look at it with the benefit of hindsight now, the only thing I would have done differently is pushed for some more solid communication. But as for dating for a few months without "getting any" being a problem? Really?? People actually think that way? It still doesn't compute.

[Akabara86]

What's the point of asexual romance?

What's the point of a best friend? What's the point in an e-pal?

Some of us do still desire someone to share our life with, someone to be silly with, to cry with to laugh with, to dream with, to share ourselves with. To share the entirety of who we are, not just what we let people see on an average day.

That's the point of an asexual romance.

[Samael]

I don't get it. What makes the relationship romantic if there's nothing sexual to it? Isn't sex ultimately why romantic relationships are a thing, you know, to get to know someone before you open up sexually to them? What makes romance without the sex any different than a close friendship? Why not simply call it friendship then?

Asexual romance is for asexual romantics and I bet they can understand the reasons for "why" from their own subjective perspectives. I'm not a romantic so romance doesn't entice me. But people who are romantics might very well see romance as having intrinsic value, something worth pursuing for its own sake.

Romance drive and sex drive are different things but get intermingled if you have both. Then, it may become hard to separate the two, to see where the line goes between them. They appear as one. When this happens, one may start wondering the question you asked, "what is the point of asexual romance". To a sexual romantic, succesful romance may be taken as a prelude to sexual satisfaction which for sexuals is something worth pursuing for its own sake. When sex gets taken off the table, romance as a supporting tool starts to lose value in the eyes of a sexual.

[Roy M.]

Truly, I think it violates basic logic to say something to the effect of: two polar opposite views can be equally correct. Either friends and significant others are essentially the same, or they aren't. They can't be both. You can't have your cake and eat it, so to speak.

Actually, when someone has a relationship, they can have whatever cake they say they have. Because that relationship is between those two people and it's not anyone else's place to tell them they're either "correct" or not correct.

Even if they have perfectly valid reasons for doing so? I can't apologize for lacking this kumbaya attitude that you and many others here seem to have. I respect people far too much to retract my honesty from them.

To say that people can't ever object to an idea is counter-intellectual at best.

[Bye Bye Birdy]

Truly, I think it violates basic logic to say something to the effect of: two polar opposite views can be equally correct. Either friends and significant others are essentially the same, or they aren't. They can't be both. You can't have your cake and eat it, so to speak.

Actually, when someone has a relationship, they can have whatever cake they say they have. Because that relationship is between those two people and it's not anyone else's place to tell them they're either "correct" or not correct.

Even if they have perfectly valid reasons for doing so? I can't apologize for lacking this kumbaya attitude that you and many others here seem to have. I respect people far too much to retract my honesty from them.

To say that people can't ever object to an idea is counter-intellectual at best.

Who cares if it's romance or friendship, though? If it's not a relationship we're directly involved in...how does the terminology the participants use affect the rest of us in any way? Especially since whether they're having sex or not is literally no one else's business. I mean, especially since "friendship" and "romance" aren't legal categories...I really don't give an eff what people want to call it. They're not legal terms, so they don't need hyper-exact, universally accepted definitions.

PS: My main point is, I don't believe we're reaching the point where the words are used so interchangeably that the loss of meaning hinders communication. If there's confusion as to the specific nature of a relationship...well, you're probably engaged in a conversation that will elaborate further than the term "friendship" or "romance" anyway. After all--"It's complicated" ;)

[Roy M.]

Truly, I think it violates basic logic to say something to the effect of: two polar opposite views can be equally correct. Either friends and significant others are essentially the same, or they aren't. They can't be both. You can't have your cake and eat it, so to speak.

Actually, when someone has a relationship, they can have whatever cake they say they have. Because that relationship is between those two people and it's not anyone else's place to tell them they're either "correct" or not correct.

Even if they have perfectly valid reasons for doing so? I can't apologize for lacking this kumbaya attitude that you and many others here seem to have. I respect people far too much to retract my honesty from them.

To say that people can't ever object to an idea is counter-intellectual at best.

Who cares if it's romance or friendship, though?

Hitchens's quote more or less sums up why I bothered to make this thread.

"Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."

[Sally]

Truly, I think it violates basic logic to say something to the effect of: two polar opposite views can be equally correct. Either friends and significant others are essentially the same, or they aren't. They can't be both. You can't have your cake and eat it, so to speak.

Actually, when someone has a relationship, they can have whatever cake they say they have. Because that relationship is between those two people and it's not anyone else's place to tell them they're either "correct" or not correct.

Even if they have perfectly valid reasons for doing so? I can't apologize for lacking this kumbaya attitude that you and many others here seem to have. I respect people far too much to retract my honesty from them.

To say that people can't ever object to an idea is counter-intellectual at best.

Who cares if it's romance or friendship, though?

Hitchens's quote more or less sums up why I bothered to make this thread.

"Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."

I hardly think Hitchens meant that we should criticize other peoples' relationships.

[Sally]

Hitchens's quote more or less sums up why I bothered to make this thread.

"Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."

I hardly think Hitchens meant that we should waste anyone's time criticizing other peoples' relationships.