roboticanary Posted September 21 Share Posted September 21 Out of interest, I wondered what the best way to describe romance you have seen, heard, read, etc is. like, if you could point to one thing and say, this is what romance is as a jumping off point for explaining your aromanticism what would you choose. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck The Guy Posted September 22 Share Posted September 22 kind of opposite to what you're asking lol but in my experience the best definitions of romance i've ever heard have been from long and detailed paragraphs, whereas before realizing i was aro, i thought romantic love was just liking someone more than usual HAHA. how wrong i was, finding out its like a whole nother thing entirely BUT if i had to point to a specific aspect of romance i would say it's the obsessive nature of it that tipped me off the most LOL i was like i've never been that way towards another human being in general 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravigirl Posted September 22 Share Posted September 22 I was so ready to nail this explanation and realized as I tried to type that I have no idea how to describe romance while excluding other kinds of love. I decided to google it to see what came up and one of the sources literally said “Romance is loving someone for their beauty” which seems very shallow. Another source said it was about intimacy and phsyical passion, which kind of exludes asexual relationships, and intimacy can be important in many relationships. All this to say I learned nothing and am even more confused now. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Newest Fabled Creature Posted September 22 Share Posted September 22 (edited) This is not really answering the question that you proposed, which is basically 'what is the best explanation you have heard for romance.' And I'm sorry for that, because I have literally never heard any good way to describe romance that didn't attack or exclude other forms of companionship. The only thing I have learned about romance (in its descriptive word form) is the very colonial ties it has - like with amatonormativity, which is something that correlates with certain [toxic] aspects of Christianity (like the Christian belief that their love is more pure because they devote it to their God) that was both exhibited before the Europeans arrived to the Americas, and especially during their colonization of it, and there after. Amatonormativity also correlates with other prejudices, like racism for example (and other types of bigotry of course), but I'm certainly not the right person qualified to fully dive into that specific aspect of it. But all of this affects literally everyone - aspec or not, queer or not, Christian or not, and no matter the race (though, there is more disparity depending) - and sadly it can sometimes burden the whole entire personal experience/tie with romance and romantic attraction. I am not saying that the experience of romantic attraction or performing romance is inherently tainted, because no it is not. Just because you love romance or the idea of it, perform it, or experience it, doesn't make you the people that collectively made/make it so exclusive. Your own experiences are pure, just the way we talk about it can't be ripped away from how it was decided to be described. The definitions of romance, or what "makes up a valid romance," is the problem - with it usually being very dominating of the very ambiguous and all-encompassing nature of intimacy and relationships, as a whole. If you're in a polyamorous relationship, then you must have ill-faith, and you must be "using your partners"; if you're in a QPR, then that's just a friendship or a romantic relationship; if you hold hands with a friend, then you must be in love with them; if you go out with a friend one-on-one, then all of a sudden it's a "date" of sorts. Those last two assumptions are usually placed upon opposite gender friendships, with one time it being assumed of me and my brother, ew - "because you don't look related" well now you know we are, so stop it. Edited September 22 by The Newest Fabled Creature 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABC Posted September 26 Share Posted September 26 (edited) It’s similar to platonic, but it’s NOT QPR nor platonic. Platonic-adjacent is the best I can come up with. It’s used in a similar sense of when someone says they’re [gender]-adjacent, similar to experiencing a gender identity, but they are NOT the gender identity they say they’re adjacent to. Honestly, so many descriptions of romance that don’t conflate it with sensuality or sexuality are very similar to descriptions of platonic relationships. But then there’s also cases where someone just feels attraction with a stranger (online personalities including non-celebrities are included, we are online personalities too), instead of forming from platonic relationships as is typical with real life peers. And then there are also cases where in mainstream toxic heteromanticism (?) where they say “m and f can’t be friends” “same gender best friends? nah it probs gay” and it has a chance of veering into repulsive PUA territory, or perhaps those anime “-dere” stereotypes that most recipients won’t reciprocate towards. The attraction is genuine, but the way it’s expressed can be offputting and creepy depending on the individual situation. Because if you can express platonic or sexual attraction respectfully, surely you can express romantic attraction respectfully without being offputting. It’s tough trying to define what romance is especially so when it’s something we don’t experience, it makes it harder from our perspective to try defining it. But if we’re still trying to define it, looking at another angle, as a bunch of activities that define it, they’re just very normal activities that for a matter of fact can be enjoyed by oneself, or with family or friends, so it defeats the purpose of even listing the stereotypical activities associated with romance, which the user above me @The Newest Fabled Creature already pointed out why it’s flawed that they have a strong association to romance at the first place. Other than activities, “ship dynamics” can be between any 2 individuals in any relationship ever, such as familial, platonic, or even non-platonic business colleagues. After all “ship” in that context just comes from “relationship” but of course the allonormative mainstream insists it’s a romantic relationship. Edited September 26 by ABC 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
organs and bone Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 On 9/22/2024 at 9:02 AM, ravigirl said: I was so ready to nail this explanation and realized as I tried to type that I have no idea how to describe romance while excluding other kinds of love. I decided to google it to see what came up and one of the sources literally said “Romance is loving someone for their beauty” which seems very shallow. Another source said it was about intimacy and phsyical passion, which kind of exludes asexual relationships, and intimacy can be important in many relationships. All this to say I learned nothing and am even more confused now. I have to agree. Once I start thinking about the actual definition I get confused. I think part of it is that it’s hard to put words to emotion. The first definition I found was “an intense feeling of deep affection. “ and then ugh it’s like WHAT is affection “fond attachment, devotion, or love” and then it’s love again. idk, sorry if that was wayyyy to confusing 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alto Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 I find the best explanation of romance is 1) feeling romantic attraction AND 2) wanting a romantic relationship Those seem to be the two wheels that form the bicycle that is romance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jexen Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 16 hours ago, alto said: I find the best explanation of romance is 1) feeling romantic attraction AND 2) wanting a romantic relationship Those seem to be the two wheels that form the bicycle that is romance. But what makes attraction/a relationship romantic? Is it involving romance romance? I certainly can't think of an answer that doesn't rely on the word romance Romance seems like the sort of thing where every definition I might come across ends up being ether circular, meaningless or just plain wrong. Maybe romance is just inherently self defined, a loose concept without clear borders. Maybe it's just a vibe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That_Gurl_Sparklez Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 As an aroflux person who does switch to allomanticism, romantic attraction is like platonic attraction, but makes it 20x stronger (assuming you're alloromantic/experiencing allormanticism) Also take nervousness and/or excited-ness when being around them, wanting to protect them and/or be by them always, and generally wanting to show affection for them and crank that up 20x as well (again, assuming you're experiencing romantic attraction fully) It's also important to note that the desire to be in a conventionally romantic relationship is not the same as romantic attraction. For example, my romantic attraction fluctuates, but my desire to be in a conventionally romantic relationship doesn't. I still want the relationship regardless of my current levels of attraction. Another good example of that is cupioromantic people, who experience little to no romantic attraction but still desire a romantic relationship. I got off topic kinda, but I thought that was important to put when talking about romantic attraction! :D 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AroAceGamer Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 The only good interpretation of romance I've ever seen is in Sherlock fanfiction - but I would say that romance is when you love someone but like enough to want to kiss them? Idk. Like you would throw yourself into a fire for them but not in a 'hey just thought id save you' way in a 'hey i think you look nice and i want to kiss you way'? I am just realising I am very inept at explaining this... I am aromantic and i know this because I have never and will never love someone in this way. I just have friends, nothing more. And no, not in the way that friends are viewed in BBC Sherlock. Actual non romantic friends I'm blabbering I'll shut up now XD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
organs and bone Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 15 minutes ago, AroAceGamer said: The only good interpretation of romance I've ever seen is in Sherlock fanfiction - but I would say that romance is when you love someone but like enough to want to kiss them? Idk. Like you would throw yourself into a fire for them but not in a 'hey just thought id save you' way in a 'hey i think you look nice and i want to kiss you way'? I am just realising I am very inept at explaining this... I am aromantic and i know this because I have never and will never love someone in this way. I just have friends, nothing more. And no, not in the way that friends are viewed in BBC Sherlock. Actual non romantic friends I'm blabbering I'll shut up now XD not to ruin the vibe but I thought you said shrek for a hot sec there 😭😭😭 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.