The Aro <-> Romantic Q&A Thread

[paporomantic]

In this thread, romantics are encouraged to answer aros' questions about romance and, conversely, aros to answer romantics' questions about aromanticism, so that we learn to understand each other better  (This is an analogue of AVEN's 'Asexual-Sexual Q&A Thread'.)

_____________________________________

 

Let me start with a question to romantics (incl. @Nai @HappyBunny @Punable):

 

In the romantic love quiz that is currently in use on Arocalypse as an (inaccurate) kind of a 'litmus test', which of the statements give an incorrect impression about the nature of romantic attraction, and which grasp its nature correctly?

 

[Punable]

Well, loneliness did NOT make me fall in love, thank you very much. I fell in love because I fell in love. I didn't feel lonely as I knew that there's someone out there for me. And also, romanticism DOESN'T mean you're necessarily 'love struck', it just means you have the ability to love someone romantically differently to our sexual attraction.

 

Well, it does for me anyway. This test kinda pissed me off because the amount of 'no's I said meant that I wasn't romantically attracted to anyone, I was simply 'half love-struck'.

[Jade]

Just now, Punable said:

Well, it does for me anyway. This test kinda pissed me off because the amount of 'no's I said meant that I wasn't romantically attracted to anyone, I was simply 'half love-struck'.

It should be noted that "half love-struck" means that you've gotten the highest score out of all the romantics that have taken it so far.  (scores so far have ranged from 83-100 for romantics and 5-35 for aromantics; the test only rates you as being in romantic love if you get over 150, and being half love-sick means you got 100-150)

[paporomantic]

13 minutes ago, Punable said:

Well, loneliness did NOT make me fall in love, thank you very much.

 

Oh, so you feel the 'right' kind of love

 

The 'deficiency love' ('D-love') that's described in that section of the quiz is however a well-studied phenomenon (since Abraham Maslow's work). It's a dysfunctional type of 'love'.

 

Overall, I feel that the quiz is rather a test for limerence than a test for love.

 

The problem is that I don't understand (and have never felt) any kind of 'love' that isn't limerence 

 

13 minutes ago, Punable said:

I didn't feel lonely as I knew that there's someone out there for me.

 

That's an empowering statement  But it sounds like a religious belief to me 

[Punable]

21 hours ago, aroMa(n)tisse said:

That's an empowering statement  But it sounds like a religious belief to me 

Nah, I'm definitely an atheist.  

[Dodgypotato]

21 hours ago, Jade said:

It should be noted that "half love-struck" means that you've gotten the highest score out of all the romantics that have taken it so far.  (scores so far have ranged from 83-100 for romantics and 5-35 for aromantics; the test only rates you as being in romantic love if you get over 150, and being half love-sick means you got 100-150)

I got a 3! Does that mean I hold the world record?

[paporomantic]

33 minutes ago, Punable said:

Nah, I'm definitely an atheist.  

 

Rather, I meant 'an irrational belief'. It sounds very illogical to me that everyone has a 'match' or even has a way (easier than exhaustive search, which is impossible within the human lifetime) to find out whether the match exists.

 

I wrote a more detailed musing about this in a thread about the schromantic epistemological approach (which is admittedly a mind twister, beware).

[Cassiopeia]

Is it true that people can't help falling in love? How does that even work for alloromantic people? Is it quick? Is that love at the first sight really a thing?

[Kojote]

Why do a lot (not all) of allos seem to only exist for their partners, when freshly getting one? Is it such hard work to kick it off and make it stable before you can deviate your attention away from it again? Or does this have some other reasons? 

 

I get that this differs from person to person and not all do this, but I've seen allos do it a lot before, so I at least know it's a thing that can happen. And I never could quite wrap my mind around it 

[paporomantic]

20 minutes ago, Kojote said:

Why do a lot (not all) of allos seem to only exist for their partners, when freshly getting one? Is it such hard work to kick it off and make it stable before you can deviate your attention away from it again? Or does this have some other reasons? 

 

In my brother's case, this 'fresh' stage has lasted for 7 years already. He's been interested in spending almost all his free time with his girlfriend -> wife and then children as opposed to the other relatives and friends.

[Rising Sun]

On 16/06/2016 at 11:05 PM, aroMa(n)tisse said:

Overall, I feel that the quiz is rather a test for limerence than a test for love.

 

The problem is that I don't understand (and have never felt) any kind of 'love' that isn't limerence 

 

I agree. It describes only the limerent stage, not how people feel after the limerent stage is gone, but which isn't any less romantic, simply more rational and much more relaxed.

 

 

20 hours ago, Cassiopeia said:

Is it true that people can't help falling in love? How does that even work for alloromantic people? Is it quick? Is that love at the first sight really a thing?

 

Alloromantic people, I don't know. Personally, I can't fall in love if I also don't allow my feelings to expand first. I can also hold them back if I feel I'm starting having them. There is the potential for aborting feelings, but only at the very beginning. It's a short window to take a decision. Wait too long, and it's too late...

Love at first sight isn't a thing, other than compassion at first sight as I guess we can count this as a form of love. But from what I've seen around me, very intense attraction (like, obsessive crushes that can last a lifetime) at first sight is definitely a thing, although a thing I don't get at all. The thing is that people call these intense crushes "love" and don't make a clear difference between them.

[paporomantic]

Have you folks ever thought that romantic and platonic fantasies are a result of social conditioning and, if there were no 'cult of love/friendship', a crush or a squish would be just a swish and/or a lush? I.e. would people just want to see or touch (or bang) each other without wanting to 'share their lives' (which would definitely be my case if I hadn't been brainwashed by amatonormativists)? Or does the desire to be each other's confidants exist independently of the culture?

[Rising Sun]

I don't experience aesthetic attraction and I find intimate contact without attachment uninteresting. I just have no interest for strangers and all contact I want is simply expression of affection for somebody I'm very attached to. If there is no attachment, there is no reason to be sensual, for me. So, I don't think that it's the result of culture, for the most part. Various studies seem to show that this kind of behaviour is largely genetic in origin, some species have it, some don't and I can imagine it must be the same on an individual level for humans, as there is much more natural variation in the human species than in other species when it comes to monogamy / polyamory.

[Nai]

Wooo I got a....92  Apparently I'm "immune to the disease". Nah, I'm still romantic, just single and not openly seeking a relationship atm... Those questions were really weird, but oh well.

 

On 6/17/2016 at 3:03 PM, Cassiopeia said:

Is it true that people can't help falling in love? How does that even work for alloromantic people? Is it quick? Is that love at the first sight really a thing?

I'd say yes and no. In some situations it's almost spontaneous and unintentional. There might be a "trigger" of sorts that just causes the feelings of attraction to arise. It could be anything for anyone, we all have different tastes.

 

However it's controllable. As I said here I'm not openly seeking a relationship. There might be someone who comes along that stirs up those feelings of romantic attraction, but I'll probably ignore them. Sometimes, if you don't act upon it for long enough, then it'll settle down or go away. In my opinion, it's not really a drug in the sense that I always absolutely have to have it, and the minute the desire arises I absolutely have to act upon it. Every time I do, that is my own conscious decision.

[Nai]

On 6/30/2016 at 9:19 PM, paporomantic said:

Have you folks ever thought that romantic and platonic fantasies are a result of social conditioning and, if there were no 'cult of love/friendship', a crush or a squish would be just a swish and/or a lush? I.e. would people just want to see or touch (or bang) each other without wanting to 'share their lives' (which would definitely be my case if I hadn't been brainwashed by amatonormativists)? Or does the desire to be each other's confidants exist independently of the culture?

It's funny, how human nature affects culture and vice versa.

 

No, I think it's natural that many humans seek to share a permanent relationship with another human being. Humans are naturally social creatures that seek life long relationships, which is why I think that romantic and platonic fantasies exist. This natural want is expressed through our culture, and thus the creation of that wonderful....or maybe in some people's cases, not-so-wonderful thing called friendship and romance. So even without culture around I think that people would still find "life mates".  

 

It's not just humans. There's a whole bunch of animals that forge life-long relationships.

 

Of course some people do not have this "natural want" in them or it doesn't affect them as greatly, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

Edit (again): Better link

[Rising Sun]

I agree about lifelong bonds in general. I think it's natural to desire having life companions who never stop loving us.

However, this desire being restricted to romance and viewed as abnormal in friendships must be the cultural element here.

[Mark]

On 16/06/2016 at 9:55 PM, Punable said:

Well, loneliness did NOT make me fall in love, thank you very much.

 

Being lonely does not make me desire a romantic relationship. Even where the human interaction and company I might desire is, culturally, virtually impossible to find outside such a relationship.

[Philbo Wiseroot]

On 8/3/2016 at 10:04 AM, Mark said:

 

Being lonely does not make me desire a romantic relationship. Even where the human interaction and company I might desire is, culturally, virtually impossible to find outside such a relationship.

Yeah. If I'm interpreting this correctly - yeah, it sucks that as soon as people "pair off", they're unavailable for other commitments, it seems.

On 6/16/2016 at 8:56 PM, paporomantic said:

In this thread, romantics are encouraged to answer aros' questions about romance and, conversely, aros to answer romantics' questions about aromanticism, so that we learn to understand each other better  (This is an analogue of AVEN's 'Asexual-Sexual Q&A Thread'.)

_____________________________________

 

Let me start with a question to romantics (incl. @Nai @HappyBunny @Punable):

 

In the romantic love quiz that is currently in use on Arocalypse as an (inaccurate) kind of a 'litmus test', which of the statements give an incorrect impression about the nature of romantic attraction, and which grasp its nature correctly?

 

I lost count of how many times I said "no". I'm just gonna assume I got:

You are emerging from the illusion (or you were never deluded by romance).  And you might be ready for loving beyond romantic illusions.

[Philbo Wiseroot]

No idea what happened above  Thanks, @Bipolar Bear for letting me know! 

[Bipolar Bear]

I guess I will break my zero posts count (off topic doesnt count, I guess) for this thread.

 

@Pufflehugs04, you're very welcome! Bestie powers, activate!

 

***

 

So, I wondered what this "quiz" was all about. I barely got through the first few paragraphs before my brow started arching. For something from an edu, it reads like a confused and elementary understanding of what constitutes affection, "love" and connection. More like a magazine quiz than what I would expect from an institution, frankly... But, hey, I am not an expert. Someone worked hard to put some information together, so I'll give them that much.

 

I haven't gone into much of the quiz, but I can say that the answers are somewhat... Oh.. What word to use.. Rigged? Has anyone taken the myers-briggs test in any form? The questions/answers make it to where you have to attribute the most likely answer that is applicable to you, whether it is mostly accurate to how you identify as a person or not.

 

Example:

 

Quote

A. "I don't have a fear of heights but i have friends."

B. "I have a fear of heights and am slow to trust people."

C. "I trust everyone! Yay, friendship! Let's go bungee jumping!"

D. "Are you kidding? Trust no one and you'll never be hurt. Like being pushed from a ten story window."

 

 

... Now, which out of these should I choose to say I don't like being atop of skyscrapers, but I have a small circle of friends? What does one have to do with the other, anyway?

 

Well, that's how I felt, walking in to this quiz. But, let's just go with it and see where it takes us, shall we? I will continue reading, answering and such, and type up my thoughts as I go along. Then post what I can summarize, here. It is bound to be one hell of a post.

 

 

[justonetempest]

Huh, so I got a 6 - and I was trying to be generous. Do people who are alloromantic really experience that many of the statements in that test??

[Philbo Wiseroot]

8 hours ago, Bipolar Bear said:

I guess I will break my zero posts count (off topic doesnt count, I guess) for this thread.

 

@Pufflehugs04, you're very welcome! Bestie powers, activate!

 

***

 

So, I wondered what this "quiz" was all about. I barely got through the first few paragraphs before my brow started arching. For something from an edu, it reads like a confused and elementary understanding of what constitutes affection, "love" and connection. More like a magazine quiz than what I would expect from an institution, frankly... But, hey, I am not an expert. Someone worked hard to put some information together, so I'll give them that much.

 

I haven't gone into much of the quiz, but I can say that the answers are somewhat... Oh.. What word to use.. Rigged? Has anyone taken the myers-briggs test in any form? The questions/answers make it to where you have to attribute the most likely answer that is applicable to you, whether it is mostly accurate to how you identify as a person or not.

 

Example:

 

 

... Now, which out of these should I choose to say I don't like being atop of skyscrapers, but I have a small circle of friends? What does one have to do with the other, anyway?

 

Well, that's how I felt, walking in to this quiz. But, let's just go with it and see where it takes us, shall we? I will continue reading, answering and such, and type up my thoughts as I go along. Then post what I can summarize, here. It is bound to be one hell of a post.

 

 

Agreed. I took this a number of weeks ago (so forgive my memory). I got through exactly 8 questions before thinking "aro is not useless human, why does it think that?" A lot of the options I'd choose were "I don't trust people" and the like. The test seems to smush a lot of the trust and support aspects of a friendship into romance exclusively, and I don't like that. 

[Bipolar Bear]

6 minutes ago, Pufflehugs04 said:

Agreed. I took this a number of weeks ago (so forgive my memory). I got through exactly 8 questions before thinking "aro is not useless human, why does it think that?" A lot of the options I'd choose were "I don't trust people" and the like. The test seems to smush a lot of the trust and support aspects of a friendship into romance exclusively, and I don't like that. 

 

It also seemed to make romance out to be inherently and extremely codependent. I had to take a break, after awhile, because of how incredulous I was that this blargh was even out in the interwebspace. Do people buy into this kind of thinking? As a panromantic ace, I say "oh hell nah."

[Philbo Wiseroot]

1 minute ago, Bipolar Bear said:

 

It also seemed to make romance out to be inherently and extremely codependent. I had to take a break, after awhile, because of how incredulous I was that this blargh was even out in the interwebspace. Do people buy into this kind of thinking? As a panromantic ace, I say "oh hell nah."

While I know it isn't true, my experiences of others' romance are generally codependent. Like Ladypersonballnchain my brother's girlfriend. 

[owl]

Well, I'm pretty sure I'm not aro so... Guess I'll post here and if anyone wants to ask me anything, go ahead