grison-in-space:
arowitharrows:
Not to sound nitpicky but I wonder why articles about asexuality will define asexuality as “not experiencing sexual attraction” but then, if aromantism is mentioned, it’s defined as “not wanting romantic relationships” instead of “not experiencing romantic attraction”. It’s just something that bothers me. Describing aromantism as not wanting romantic relationships is the same as describing asexuality as not wanting sex (which is, you know, the wrong definition).
Alloromantic people can not want romantic relationships for whatever reason, that doesn’t necessarily make them aro. Aro people can want to be in romantic relationships for whatever reason, that doesn’t mean they’re allo. I know the difference is hard for people to understand but it’s kinda important?
It’s because while sex is a category of behaviors that we can more or less define objectively using metrics like “does this end in orgasm” or “are genitalia involved in this in some way”, romantic relationships are a constructed category of relationship defined by the mutual emotions of the people in that relationship. Additionally, sex is a relatively short term behavior with a relatively clear start and end time; romantic relationships are relationships shared between two people that wax and wane unpredictably. Extra bonus: two people can even be in a consensual relationship and totally aware of the fact that they conceptualize that relationship in wildly different ways. Yo.
As it turns out when you really drill into it, the feeling of whether a relationship is romantic or or not is not super well defined. People mean different things by it, and they want different things out of romantic relationships at different times, and there’s a lot of wanting and wanting to want and wanting to want to want rolling around and confusing things. Additionally, since humans are basically social animals and we almost all seek long term attachments to some extent, but many of us live in a world where non-romantic relationships are not necessarily prioritized, there’s a lot of confusion for a lot of folks about how one goes about meeting one’s emotional needs without engaging with a romantic framework. That adds pressure to how you think about the conversation for many people.
(n.b.: I am laughing a little because I have been asking this question, followed by “so what is romantic attraction anyway?” for ten years. I still don’t have a good answer, and eventually I sort of gave up on the distinction because I got bored of arguing with people who assumed that it was a simple, obvious distinction.
Broadly, you essentially can first sort people out by whether they experience crushes, using crushes as an analogue for sexual attraction, but crushes and initial limerence behaviors isn’t really a great way to communicate who you are and what you want because a) not all romantic relationships begin with crushes, not even for allo folks, not by a long shot, b) limerence and the initial feelings we use to define a burgeoning romantic relationship when we are not defining sex as essential to the term are an inherently temporary phase of the development of a relationship and will fade within a few years 100% of the time, c) most people don’t define the importance of romantic attachments by the initial feelings at the beginning but by the depth and strength of the attachment over the long term, which is not predicted in any way by the strength or presence of limerence.
So sorting based on romantic attraction becomes a difficult way to communicate usefully about the kinds of relationships you want and are open to, because it predicates everything on feelings that are specific to the very beginnings of relationships even though most people who are worrying about this distinction are hungry for longer term relationships (otherwise mostly you’re just comfortable IDing as aromantic without the questioning). Mostly, I find that framing the paradigm of romantic orientation entirely around initial attraction derails people into trying to parse tiny details about how they feel about new initial relationships in their lives instead of helping them figure out what they really want and value in the long run, and how to find someone else who really wants that.)
Trying to define romantic attraction is wild. If you walked up to a random person on the street and asked them the difference between a romantic relationship and a close friendship, they’d probably say that you’re banging the person you’re in a romantic relationship with. Then after you explained asexual people in celibate relationships to them, and they accepted it, they’d probably start describing actions associated with typical romantic relationships are public. Kissing, moving in together, shared finances, getting married, etc.
But the entire definition of a QPR is are people who do some or all of these things while not fully being in a normal romantic relationship. Is it an all or nothing thing? Does devevation from soicetial expectations other than not having sex immediately make something a QPR? That doesn’t seem tenable. That would make a relationship with a touch adverse person in it inherently queer. Or a relationship where the parties are legally allowed to get married but never plan on doing.
And what if the reason why it seems like romance doesn’t have anything under the hood is because its not something inherent to the human condition? Unlike having sex, co-raising children, cohabitation, people seeking out bonds and connections, or even love in general- the conception of and desire for romance has a documented begining- in the course of the 1800s in Europe. And unlike the invention of sexual orientations, which described phenomenon that already existed and people already had strong emotions about- leading to people’s perception of said phenomenon changing- the invention of romance created wholly new desires. It changed the institution of marriage, or at least what it was supposed to represent, as well as what was expected of it and how courtship should be conducted. It’s age is even why it’s etymology is so weird. Romance refers to the Romans.
I don’t have any answers, just questions. And the fact that “people are what they say they are” is a perfectly suitable working definition.
