Romantic vs Platonic Love

[Indigo_1499]

What's the difference between romantic and platonic? How is dating someone different from being friends with them? Because from what I know, if you're dating someone you would spend a lot of time with them and go on dates with them. But can't you spend time and go to places with a friend? I'm pretty sure it's different because of feelings, but what makes them different? I know I don't feel romantic attraction, so that's probably why I'm confused about this. But how do you feel a different type of love to someone you're friends with vs someone you're dating? Sorry I'm a very confused aro :(

Edited April 25, 2021 by Indigo_1499

[DeltaAro]

Romantic love often/usually

• is based on a gendered attraction (the romantic interest must have the "correct" gender)
• is exclusionary (which can lead to jealousy)
• is strongly influenced by physical beauty or social status
• starts with an unrealistic idolization of the romantic interest
• comes with an unrealistic aspiration of happiness from the prospect of being together
• makes people, in the beginning, be quite guarded and less truthful towards the romantic interest
• starts with overthinking and nearly obsessive behavior, which in other contexts would be considered age-inappropriate
• entails showing off "commitment" with nonsensical, costly and hard-to-fake practices (from waiting hours for the romantic interest to show up ... to buying an expensive engagement ring)
• does not develop in a continuous manner but with certain "escalation" peaks (e.g. first kiss, first "I love you")
• develops in a straw fire manner at first: it becomes strong very fast but is fragile and can easily go out completely

Now of course none of those aspects are strictly necessary for it to be romantic love; in fact usually some points are missing.

Still most of them are present and they will be expressed by behavior. So spending time with a friend and going out with them is generally very different from romantic dates.

Now could romantic love miss nearly all of those aspects mentioned? Maybe...

And probably for aros the romantic love expressed in a very cool and levelheaded, honest and straightforward manner by a polyamorous panromantic, who likes commitment to develop reasonably (not by "showing off" just because but when it actually matters), is way more palatable than usual romantic love. But this kind of "romantic love" is so off, it probably wouldn't be even regarded as romantic love but as something suspect and strange by most people.

Edited April 25, 2021 by DeltaV

[arokaladin]

I'd say you're right that it's a matter of feelings, as well as just what the people involved want to label it. You could have a platonic relationship/friendship that is identical to another person's romantic relationship. The 'difference' is just that the people who are romantically dating have decided to call their relationship romantic. There's really nothing you can say about romantic love that is true of everyone or that is never true of platonic love, and vice versa. I know that sucks as an answer but I would say realising nothing is concrete allows you to decide for yourself what relationships of all kinds look like.

[arokaladin]

27 minutes ago, DeltaV said:

Romantic love often/usually

• is based on a gendered attraction (the romantic interest must have the "correct" gender)
• is exclusionary (which can lead to jealousy)
• is strongly influenced by physical beauty or social status
• starts with an unrealistic idolization of the romantic interest
• comes with an unrealistic aspiration of happiness from the prospect of being together
• makes people, in the beginning, be quite guarded and less truthful towards the romantic interest
• starts with overthinking and nearly obsessive behavior, which in other contexts would be considered age-inappropriate
• entails showing off "commitment" with nonsensical, costly and hard-to-fake practices (from waiting hours for the romantic interest to show up ... to buying an expensive engagement ring)
• does not develop in a continuous manner but with certain "escalation" peaks (e.g. first kiss, first "I love you")
• develops in a straw fire manner at first: it becomes strong very fast but is fragile and can easily go out completely

Actually I want to challenge this a bit

I don't think what you're describing here is the differences between friendships and romantic relationships, but amatonormativity/toxic elements present in many romantic relationships. I'm not disagreeing that these things are common, but I think it's unhelpful to op to define romance like this. 

I frankly think it's rude as hell to say romantic interest is 'unrealistic', 'obsessive', or based on 'social status'. It can be, but so can friendship, sex, or any other kind of relationship. We as aros may not like how some people go about romantic dating, but romance is not inherently shallow or 'nonsensical', and it's disrespectful towards people who experience it to accuse them of automatically going around their relationships in harmful ways. Lack of attraction is neutral, and says nothing about a person. The exact same is true for experience of attraction. 

(I don't want to keep nit-picking, or misinterpret you by coming at your post with bad faith, but I'm also a little wary of the idea that gendered attraction in a romantic context involves value judgement as to 'correctness' of certain genders. I'm not sure why you would put ''correct'' in quotations apart from to call into question why someone would care about a potential partner's gender. Dating only certain genders is again, neutral. And gay/lesbian people have long been accused of close-mindedness.)

I think it's also important to point out that people within our own community experience romantic attraction. By focusing on the negative social aspects of dating, which are determined by alloromantic society, you're erasing many people who have a completely different, and much more mindful approach to it. You yourself mention that a 'polyamorous biromantic' would likely go around romance differently, and in a much more refreshing way. Why would you let your definition exclude those people, as if they do not have equal ownership of the concept? Why is the true, default experience of romance be the most normative version?

I just don't see how you can in good faith give this as an answer to op's question. It's misleading, and is not going to help anyone understand what they want for themself. It's like if a baby trans person asked a question about gender, and you gave a lecture equating gender identity to cisnormative gender roles and ignored the joy people can find in embodying their gender authentically. If you want to vent about amatonormativity, there are plenty of places to do so where it would actually be appropriate. 

Examining and dismantling amatonormativity helps everyone. Claiming amatonormative tropes as inherent to romance pushes people who experience romantic attraction out of a fight that is theirs too, allows genuinely arophobic alloromantic people to not challenge their biases because this argument paints the amatonormative way they do things as natural to them, demonises the attraction of many of the queer people we should have solidarity with, and ignores that aros can perpetuate many of these harmful relationship practices within our platonic relationships.

[Rolo]

4 hours ago, DeltaV said:

Romantic love often/usually

• is based on a gendered attraction (the romantic interest must have the "correct" gender)
• is exclusionary (which can lead to jealousy)
• is strongly influenced by physical beauty or social status
• starts with an unrealistic idolization of the romantic interest
• comes with an unrealistic aspiration of happiness from the prospect of being together
• makes people, in the beginning, be quite guarded and less truthful towards the romantic interest
• starts with overthinking and nearly obsessive behavior, which in other contexts would be considered age-inappropriate
• entails showing off "commitment" with nonsensical, costly and hard-to-fake practices (from waiting hours for the romantic interest to show up ... to buying an expensive engagement ring)
• does not develop in a continuous manner but with certain "escalation" peaks (e.g. first kiss, first "I love you")
• develops in a straw fire manner at first: it becomes strong very fast but is fragile and can easily go out completely

I disagree with this. Ignoring the weirdly judgmental tone of the whole post, I'll address these points one by one:

• Bi, pan and poly romantic people exist. And gendered platonic attraction also exists.
• Polyamory exists, as do possessive and jealous friendships.
• For some people physical attractiveness and social status are important, for many they aren't.
• This may be often a factor in limerence, but not all romance starts with limerence. This can also happen at the start of platonic relationships.
• This is true for most relationships... who starts a relationship (of any sort) with aspirations to be miserable together?
• Being guarded and less truthful with someone you don't know well is pretty normal, regardless of the relationship. Also plenty of people make an effort to start romantic relationships in particular on a basis of openness and honesty, far more so than they would if they weren't dating the person.
• Obsessive behavior is a trait of limerence, which can be a part of the initial romantic attraction but is certainly not required. Not sure what you mean by age-inappropriate.
• This one is a stereotypical (not universal) part of amatonormative romantic love, sure. I wouldn't term it as "showing off" though, plenty of people do these things without showing off at all.
• Sure. This is true of platonic relationships to an extent too, but the milestone are less obvious and significant.
• Same can be true of a shallow/new friendship.

Anyway...

To me romance is wanting to be in a committed relationship. This relationship may or may not included "romantic coded" activities like kissing, holding hands, and going on dates (I really see no difference between dating and going out with a friend, aside for the intention). It may or may not lead to moving in together and merging lives. To me it is the commitment and the internal identification that "this is a romantic relationship" that makes it romantic.

[hermi1e]

if ur asking this question, u probably haven't felt romantic attraction before, or maybe u experience attraction more fluidly, like a combo of platonic and romantic feelings :)

In my experience, the difference between a romantic vs. platonic relationship is the feelings/attraction and the connotations assigned to the actions, not the actions themselves. Either type of relationship can involve any variation of activities, intimacy, commitment, etc. No action is inherently romantic or platonic.

Romantic Feelings/Attraction: Most people i've talked to who experience romo attraction describe it rly similarly. Butterflies, surging feelings of affection, preoccupation with the person, and! most importantly! the urge to do things that u view as romantic, with a romantic connotation! For me, when i'm with my boyfriend, i want to touch and kiss and talk to him in a romantic way (romantic desires), and doing those things feels really good. With my friends, i can feel a lot of affection, but the desires are different. I don't feel the same urge to be romantic. I may want to hold hands with them, but only in a platonic way, bc i don't feel romantic attraction. Also, i don't feel the emotional Spark from holding hands or any other activities. (I'm sorry, ik this is weird/confusing to read if u haven't experienced it. Romantic attraction is often a "u know it when u feel it thing?" Not always, obv, but often.)

Romantic Connotation: The most important factor in a relationship is how u define it. A romantic relationship is romantic because the partners expressed their mutual feelings and agreed to be romantic. With me and my bf, holding hands has a romantic connotation, because that is how we define our relationship. Holding hands with my friends does not have that connotation, because we define our relationship as platonic.

(This is why unwanted romo advances can feel so uncomfortable. Like, say ur friends w someone and hav no desire to date them, but u often hold hands with them as friend. Holding hands w them platonically feels good and comfy! But then u find out that they hav a crush on u, and they are holding ur hand with Romantic Connotations, which u don't want. Suddenly, holding their hand may feel uncomfortable for u. The action itself has not changed, but the connotation changed.)

(Another example. Someone has a crush on their friend, but that friend doesn't know/doesn't like them back. Even though there are romantic feelings, the relationship still has strictly platonic connotations. This is not a romantic relationship.)

(Another-nother example: let's say two people hav acknowledged their mutual romo attraction, but decided not to date and to just be friends. Again, there are romantic feelings, but still only platonic connotations. This isn't a romo relationship, so any activities between these friends is a non-romantic activity.)

(Another, more complicated example! Wheeee! Let's say two friends decide to be friends w benefits, because they have romantic feelings for each other. They may decide "we're gonna hold hands as friends, call each other terms of endearment as friends, but kissing has a romantic connotation." Thus, certain actions are platonic and certain actions are romantic, because that's how they defined them. The relationship is only a romantic relationship if they decide to call it one.)

(OO another example, lets really shake it up. Sometimes someone will decide to enter a romo relationship without any romantic feelings/attraction. They might do this to feel closer to someone, to express affection toward someone, to adhere to social pressures, or because the other person wants to be romantic. In this example, although the person feels no romo attraction towards their partner, the activities/relationship is romantic, because they define it that way.)

Tl;dr Actions themselves are not what distinguish romo relationships from platonic relationships. A relationship is (usually) only romantic if there's mutual romantic attraction and the people have decided to label their relationship as romantic.

Basically what @arokaladin said in his first post lmao. Wish i was as concise as you

Edited April 25, 2021 by hermi1e

[DeltaAro]

6 hours ago, arokaladin said:

I don't think what you're describing here is the differences between friendships and romantic relationships, but amatonormativity/toxic elements present in many romantic relationships. I'm not disagreeing that these things are common, but I think it's unhelpful to op to define romance like this. 

I just think they're common features (toxic is too strong, btw. I just regard them as strange / odd). That doesn't mean that they're directly caused by amatonormativity in the strong way -- that there are explicit popular social norms that we should romantically love in a certain way. Ok, there are but I would certainly want to disregard them in any description. Therefore I put "usually / often" before that bullet point list.

The problem is not so simple, of course: It's possible to exert social power by the usage of words. "That's not romantic love" is not just a dispassionate assessment by looking at the general meaning.

Choice of words matters rhetorically. And many words have normative connotations with practical relevance: how we label something can make a strong difference to our attitudes towards it. Certainly that's true for "romantic love". Like it is for "torture", "terrorism", "mental illness", etc.

And in that way it's unavoidable that amatonormativity creeps into any real description.

"Romantic love" gets its meaning from common features, and in a roundabout way, because the word has normative connotations, what is common becomes normative.

If you want to avoid that problem, you must accept there is no distinct concept behind "romantic love". Sure, "romantic love" would still not be 100% free of content ... yet the remaining content would be most uninteresting (like that you cannot romantically love a tea pot). But there would not even be a vague way to distinguish it from other forms of love. Not blurry lines, but no lines at all.

I think that's clearly the worse option. You're correct that this is similar to gender, but I can accept gender as a word which, with some scrutiny applied, turns out to have no distinct concept behind it (there is no way to distinguish gender from other social grouping systems).

If "romantic love" goes down the route of "gender", then so does "aromanticism". Don't like that. I'm not aro because I don't like the sound of the word "romantic". I am because the concept behind "romantic" has some (even if vague) real meaning.

6 hours ago, arokaladin said:

frankly think it's rude as hell to say romantic interest is 'unrealistic', 'obsessive', or based on 'social status'.

Didn't say that directly so, it applied to certain aspects.

Also "unrealistic", "obsessive" and "social status" sounded worse than I meant it.

It's well proven that humans are physiologically unrealistic in their assessment of their aptitudes. . In a depressed state we become actually more realistic. Overestimating ourselves is positive because the cost of inaction is greater than that of failure. Even in the extreme, "Moonshot thinking", being unrealistic may not always be bad.

"obsessive" can also be positive. Like Edison who tested thousands of materials until he got a working light bulb. He surely was obsessed, but with something good.

And social status (if earned by exceptional qualities) or physical beauty... that goes back to Plato's conception of love as the pull the Form of Beauty exerts as instantiated in a human's beautiful body or soul. It's not really a harmful thing.

6 hours ago, arokaladin said:

I'm not sure why you would put ''correct'' in quotations apart from to call into question why someone would care about a potential partner's gender. Dating only certain genders is again, neutral. And gay/lesbian people have long been accused of close-mindedness

The reason was that "correct" sounded a bit odd because it normally applies to something objective. But here "correct" is actually a subjective preference.

6 hours ago, arokaladin said:

You yourself mention that a 'polyamorous biromantic' would likely go around romance differently, and in a much more refreshing way. Why would you let your definition exclude those people, as if they do not have equal ownership of the concept? Why is the true, default experience of romance be the most normative version?

I didn't give a definition of romantic love. Instead a list which serves as a rough description: the more points on that list apply, the more stereotypically romantic it is. A polyamorous panromantic as characterized would be on the edge of that description. That's just the common usage of that word.

The reason I did that was to say something contentful. While still respecting that romantic love is obviously vague and multifaceted, without any single defining quality. The alternative is to fully empty the concept of any distinguishable, interesting content.

In that case, there simply would be no conversation. And I would have no interest at all to exclude people from equal ownership of the word "romantic". Anyone who likes it should go ahead and use it. It would be content-less anyway: people who experience romantic love are those who decided to call their love "romantic".

3 hours ago, Rolo said:

I disagree with this. Ignoring the weirdly judgmental tone of the whole post

Yeah, I tried to make my point a little too strong. I could reword in a nicer manner but it would not change the basic message.

3 hours ago, Rolo said:

I'll address these points one by one:

I'll skip that, though there were some serious misunderstandings. The most important problem is that you also missed "often / usually" at the start. Lacking a few points of the list => it would still be widely regarded as romantic.

3 hours ago, Rolo said:

To me it is the commitment and the internal identification that "this is a romantic relationship" that makes it romantic.

Commitment is not enough to even vaguely distinguish it from friendship. And the internal identification is content-less.

Edited April 25, 2021 by DeltaV

[th-emptyhearse]

On 4/25/2021 at 3:08 PM, Indigo_1499 said:

What's the difference between romantic and platonic? How is dating someone different from being friends with them? Because from what I know, if you're dating someone you would spend a lot of time with them and go on dates with them. But can't you spend time and go to places with a friend? I'm pretty sure it's different because of feelings, but what makes them different? I know I don't feel romantic attraction, so that's probably why I'm confused about this. But how do you feel a different type of love to someone you're friends with vs someone you're dating? Sorry I'm a very confused aro :(

I don't have an answer, I just relate super hard. I don't see the difference!!! I guess this is very aro though.

[Rolo]

10 hours ago, DeltaV said:

I'll skip that, though there were some serious misunderstandings. The most important problem is that you also missed "often / usually" at the start. Lacking a few points of the list => it would still be widely regarded as romantic.

I didn't miss the often/usually, I just disagree that that is what romantic love is often/usually like, or that plantonic love can't sometimes be like that. It's certainly what the media stereotype of romantic love is often like, but basing an assessment of what is/isn't romantic love on stereotypes is ridiculous.

[Kit]

17 hours ago, Rolo said:

 

• Polyamory exists, as do possessive and jealous friendships.

THIS!! Not exactly fitting for the topic rn but I always was told you can't be jealous in a friendship etc etc. But heck, you absolutely can! That has nothing to do with romantic feelings for the person. Ofc not jealous as in "ME OR THEM" stuff but like "you got less and less time for me and that makes me sad" kind of feeling yk? I also often experienced it when friends got into a relationship and literally forgot about me. That made me a bit jealous cuz their attention was only focused on their new partner. I just missed hanging out with them and was jealous of their partner for being able to spend time with them.

Well that were my 2ct to this. Thanks for reading,lol. Have a nice Day!?

[DeltaAro]

12 hours ago, Rolo said:

I didn't miss the often/usually, I just disagree that that is what romantic love is often/usually like, or that plantonic love can't sometimes be like that.

Well, since you're operating with a basically content-free concept there can be no discussion. It's not like a normal question anymore where we have a word that designates a concept with independent meaning, which in turn refers to something in reality (in the broadest sense). So that if we agree on the meaning can ask what is true or false about it (irrespective of the word we use).

Normal questions are not about mere words. They are not verbal disputes. Instead some way down the line they have a meaning that connects to factual issues, no matter how vague or ambiguous.

But you've made it fully self-referentially about words. With no independent meaning involved: A relationship is "romantic" if self-identified that way. And the same way for "platonic".

Of course we could perhaps at least look at tendencies how the relationships differ, which are self-identified as "romantic" or "platonic". But this isn't a thing anyway, this internal identification. Couples do a lot of things, but don't explicitly identify their relationship as "romantic". And the word "platonic" outside of aro spaces is very different beast anyway.

12 hours ago, Rolo said:

It's certainly what the media stereotype of romantic love is often like, but basing an assessment of what is/isn't romantic love on stereotypes is ridiculous.

I'm open for suggestions. Except for emptying the concepts completely of distinct, word-independent meaning. That would be the most ridiculous way to handle it.

[vinniebandit]

Perhaps something relevant can be found in this ? https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7728&context=etd

and this https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1005514.pdf

amongst which:  To understand falling out of romantic love, or love dissolution, there needs to be an understanding of the term romantic love. Romantic love is a passionate spiritual-emotional-sexual attachment between a man and a woman that reflects a high regard for the value of each other's person. I do not describe a relationship as romantic love if the couple does not experience their attachment as passionate or intense, at least to some significant extent. I do not describe a relationship as romantic love if there is not some experience of spiritual affinity, some deep mutuality of values and outlook, some sense of being "soul mates"; if there is not deep emotional involvement; if there is not a strong sexual attraction. And if there is not mutual admiration-if, for example, there is mutual contempt instead-again I do not describe the relationship as romantic love. (Branden, l980, p. 3)

Edited April 27, 2021 by vinniebandit

[Kit]

4 hours ago, vinniebandit said:

Perhaps something relevant can be found in this ? https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7728&context=etd

and this https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1005514.pdf

amongst which:  To understand falling out of romantic love, or love dissolution, there needs to be an understanding of the term romantic love. Romantic love is a passionate spiritual-emotional-sexual attachment between a man and a woman that reflects a high regard for the value of each other's person. I do not describe a relationship as romantic love if the couple does not experience their attachment as passionate or intense, at least to some significant extent. I do not describe a relationship as romantic love if there is not some experience of spiritual affinity, some deep mutuality of values and outlook, some sense of being "soul mates"; if there is not deep emotional involvement; if there is not a strong sexual attraction. And if there is not mutual admiration-if, for example, there is mutual contempt instead-again I do not describe the relationship as romantic love. (Branden, l980, p. 3)

I don't really understand what the quote is saying but I already dislike it because it just says "between a man and a woman" lol. Sure it was 1980 when that person said it, but still.

[crazydreamer]

9 hours ago, vinniebandit said:

Perhaps something relevant can be found in this ? https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7728&context=etd

and this https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1005514.pdf

amongst which:  To understand falling out of romantic love, or love dissolution, there needs to be an understanding of the term romantic love. Romantic love is a passionate spiritual-emotional-sexual attachment between a man and a woman that reflects a high regard for the value of each other's person. I do not describe a relationship as romantic love if the couple does not experience their attachment as passionate or intense, at least to some significant extent. I do not describe a relationship as romantic love if there is not some experience of spiritual affinity, some deep mutuality of values and outlook, some sense of being "soul mates"; if there is not deep emotional involvement; if there is not a strong sexual attraction. And if there is not mutual admiration-if, for example, there is mutual contempt instead-again I do not describe the relationship as romantic love. (Branden, l980, p. 3)

@vinniebandit This quote isn't totally correct to me. There are a couple of problem and even though the idea is okay, I think the way this author portray's romantic love isn't great.  BTW I have also read both of the articles and I think they are okay, but the way they influence amatonormavity also leads me to believe that these weren't made to be inclusive.

1. It starts with "between a man and a woman" which is already harmful to the LGBTQ+ community.  Even though this was written in 1980, this isn't inclusive or kind.

2. It says Romantic love "reflect's a high regard for the value of each others person".  This also is harmful to people because platonic relationships also have a high regard for the value of a person.  I care about my friends a lot but I just don't want a romantic relationship with them and I assume that is true for a lot of aro people.

3. He mentions that they need a strong sexual attraction but that is just harmful for the ace community, sexual attraction isn't romantic attraction.  You can have sexual attraction and no romantic attraction (Aromantic), romantic attraction and no sexual attraction (Asexual), neither, both or somewhere in between (grey and demi).

Again this article is old and the general idea is a study, but feelings fade in and out. You can really enjoy something, then really dislike it later.

Platonic love vs Romantic love is something that is hard to understand for me as I am aroace, but I think that romantic love is just what you consider romantic actions. From what I understand, romantic feelings differ from platonic feelings because there is usually a different connotation of the way you feel.  You may like hugging your friends, but hugging a signifacant other feels different I guess? I think it's a way your feelings and actions differ from people/ a person who you feel romantically attracted too, compared to the average person or friend.

I hope this helps! 

Edited April 27, 2021 by crazydreamer

[nonmerci]

I can't really answer but I think the difference is in the feeling involved. I suppose romantic date implies feelings that we don'y really understand. I can't tell but people often speak about butterflies in their stomach, feeling light, warm, and things like that. It's difficult for me to describe it but I hope you see the idea.

 

It's like, I don't know, seing your parents vs seing your friends. You can go to the restaurant or see a movie with all of them (or you could before covid), but it's not necessary the same feelings involved.

[Blake]

I concur some of the answers here.  You are doing an action with an exclusive meaning directed toward the person. Firstly, any actions can carry a meaning, but it is us as persons who decide that specific meaning. I can hand hold with a person for various reasons, one of them can be to show affection, another to not lose that person in a crowd, or just because I want to feel a warmth. You give meaning behind each action and you communicate directly or indirectly that feeling. 

As a rule of thumb, do not assume anything that you do not understand, and ask if you are unsure. You will avoid some problems by it in the long run. My friends knows that any kind of actions directed at me by them, will be received as friends as a baseline and will not change the meaning unless verbally spoken otherwise. So when I hold hands with my friends is in a platonic way. Same with cuddles, I like to cuddle for the fact that it feels good (but only for 1-2 mins then I stop, my cat teach me how to be like that :3) so yh, only you can give meaning to your actions ^^ hope it helped

[vinniebandit]

4 hours ago, Blake said:

You are doing an action with an exclusive meaning directed toward the person. Firstly, any actions can carry a meaning, but it is us as persons who decide that specific meaning

Actions which more often than not are laden with meanings and/or allowed/recognized as acceptable (and various other factors evidently) in your specific culture. This is one of the reasons why it's so difficult to generalize.

Language/semiotics/education have already been mentioned in how feelings/emotions/sentiments can be perceived/expressed... in different ways.

After that, if we negate or "tabula rasa" these factors, what remains is brain chemistry, with all the various neurotransmitters and receptors (hormones such as dopamine, ocytocine, serotonine...).

For French speakers and readers : https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/ce-qui-nous-arrive-demain-14-15/le-jeu-de-lamour-et-de-la-chimie

https://webtv.univ-lille.fr/video/10092/la-chimie-des-sentiments

Edited April 28, 2021 by vinniebandit

[DeltaAro]

On 4/27/2021 at 5:21 PM, crazydreamer said:

BTW I have also read both of the articles and I think they are okay, but the way they influence amatonormavity also leads me to believe that these weren't made to be inclusive.

Sure, the "between a man and a woman" part is unacceptable for any definition, and also to claim that sexual attachment is a necessary component of romantic love. It's a definition strictly for straight allosexual people and excludes everyone else.

But in the end, if the definition of "romantic" has any content or substance at all, it's going to be exclusionary to someone. That's just the natural logical consequence.

I don't like it to be exclusionary, but I also really like the definition to have some substance.

[crazydreamer]

1 hour ago, DeltaV said:

But in the end, if the definition of "romantic" has any content or substance at all, it's going to be exclusionary to someone. That's just the natural logical consequence.

I don't like it to be exclusionary, but I also really like the definition to have some substance.

I get it but I prefer to be exclusionary to a few people than an entire community