asexual and aromantic

I've recently been told that not only am I asexual, I'm also aromantic - apparently those are separate things. So, I'm wondering, what's the point of romance if it's not sexual? How does it differ at all from friendship? (I thought the primary difference between a best friend and a love interest is that you want to have sex with the latter.)

You're asking a very nuanced question. Both relationships involve a type of emotional intimacy, but the difference isn't just sex, it's also the intensity of the relationship itself. Generally you spend much more time with your lover than with your Best Friend, and the feelings you share with them are much more intimate. Also the romantic relationship is in some ways more fragile, because there are more opportunities to hurt their feelings, or to be hurt. You want to engage in high intensity experiences with your lover, but because the stakes are high, you also want to be somewhat cautious not to share anything that might either hurt their feelings (such as doubts about the relationship) or things your lover wouldn't understand (usually because of the gender difference). So people will typically share things with their best friend they wouldn't share with their lover or spouse, and vice versa. Also, many times you have known your Best Friend for a lot longer than your lover, so although the relationship tends to be emotionally less intense, the Best Friend may actually know you better.

Obviously I am generalizing quite a bit, and I can only speak for myself. People with different life experiences will have a different take on it all, as they should.

edited 6th May '11 11:04:22 AM by DeMarquis

If you're asexual but romantic, you'd want to have a significant other but wouldn't want to have sex with them. ie, you'd want to be a Chastity Couple.

If you're sexual but aromantic, you'd want to have sex with people but not date them. ie, you'd be a Casanova (or an Ethical Slut, in the less negative sense).

I've been told that some individuals who were victims of sexual abuse fit into the "asexual-but-romantic" category (or at least the "not-having-sex-anytime-soon-but romantic" category), although I thankfully don't have personal experience with this.

Not necessarily. Wanting purely sexual encounters doesn't necessarily mean you'll be promiscuous about it.

I think I've been heterosexual and aromantic for most of my life. Until my orientation started changing, romance has been a bit of a foreign concept to me.

I consider love and lust to be separate, with most humans experiencing love and lust at the same time when they believe they are in love, and believe that the reason why relationships tend to die out as far as being attracted to one another goes (assuming that there were not events that would show a significant disliked trait) is because they didn't really love their partner much anyway, they just had the strong passion of lust with them, which tends to burn out within a year or so judging from what i've been told by others in sexual relationships.

As for what the difference between a best friend and a love interest is, assuming that one doesn't hold any significant sexual/romantic feelings for the best friend, I would say that the difference tends to be that the best friend is someone that one can be more familiar with and open around compared to how one tends to be nervous or afraid of rejection around a love interest, there are many people who even hide belongings that they believe will cause damage to romantic relationships, sometimes after marriage.

Best friends generally seem to be more forgiving and less jealous of you in as well since they don't have an attachment which they actively desire to protect, rather they simply trust the passive bond that keeps going because it usually doesn't hold as many threats.

Appearance is definitely something that is more common when it comes to those who desire to create romantic relationships with others compared to friendly ones, but I don't know how to explain that very well beyond how one does not really look for a best friend based on looks for the most part.

What is considered love is often rather different for individuals (there are things called true love and such, however those also tend to be subjective anyway, so...) while great friendship is typically much more similar, at least according to the amount of differences historical tales and modern life tend to have on love and friendship.

Personally, I believe a best friend is someone that is more suited to going through hardships and casual activities together with you, while a person you love is someone that makes you want to feel selfless for them, avoid causing them discomfort as much as you can, and, ideally, to always be together with when going down the path to a content life, as a person who they accepted as someone who can make them sufficiently happy.

I can't say what i'm saying may be very helpful though, since I never had a best friend.

edited 6th May '11 8:05:24 PM by Edmania

I'm bisexual and consider myself an aromantic, as I figure I am not capable of/interested in romantic relationships. I only came to this realization a couple of months ago.

I used to consider myself a heterosexual before this, and lacking interest in romance sometimes makes me feel like I am shallow. I've been told this is silly, though

I also divide friendship from romance by intimacy level, and even though I learned the difference recently I still associate the latter with sex. I should probably train myself out of this

edited 6th May '11 8:15:39 PM by AnonymousUser

I'm bisexual (though I've only recently come to realize this), but I consider myself aromantic. I don't know whether or not I'm capable of romantic attraction, but it's not something that interests me and it's not something I'm looking for.

Sometimes this makes me feel shallow, though I'm not quite sure why—something that doesn't interest me doesn't interest me, that's all.

I suppose there's a chance that I just haven't experienced romantic attraction yet and that's why I don't understand it at all. Love in general is a very confusing concept to me (as was friendship, until recently).

Maybe I just associate sex with pleasure and a desire for pleasure with selfishness, which I was taught is a bad thing. I'm probably thinking in absolutes here, which I have pretty much always had a bad habit of (though I'm trying to train myself out of that too).

edited 6th May '11 8:39:07 PM by AnonymousUser

I think the main reason I sometimes see my own lack of romance as shallow is that it seems vaguely hedonistic to me—it's like, I want the physical pleasure of sex, but not the emotional involvement that comes with a romantic relationship.

But at the same time, it's not like I chose to be that way...

I follow a similar line of thinking.

I misread the title of this thread as "asexual and aromatic".

Whoops.

"I would say that the difference tends to be that the best friend is someone that one can be more familiar with and open around compared to how one tends to be nervous or afraid of rejection around a love interest"

I tend to be nervous that I'll say or do something to make my best friend stop liking me. I figured that was due to spending much of my childhood as a friendless bullied kid, and having some people pretend to be my friend so they could bully me even more.

I can certainly see the separation. I mean, I'm not asexual or aromantic, but I'm pretty sure I could go my entire life without sex. However, I'm pretty sure I need someone to love.

There's something special about being able to snuggle up at night with someone you love unconditionally, with or without the sexy tiem.

This. As I see it, the difference must lie in emotional intimacy and, to a lesser extent, physical too, meaning the snuggling and possibly also kissing. Does asexual relationship involve kissing or is it considered a sexual act? I remember reading somewhere that kissing generates intense arousal. Maybe it is not so, if asexual, but then, what would be the point of kissing? I obviously have no experience of my own in this matter, and that's why I'd appreciate some helpful insight, if possible.

I myself am asexual, I think; I could see myself being in a romantic relationship with someone, but even thinking about the relationship evolving into a sexual one tends to bring out the Squick pretty quickly.

@Edmania:

This sounds like a romantic relationship holds many drawbacks compared to a simple friendly one. So in that case, aside from sex - which I assume is one of the main motivations to be in a romantic relationship for sexual people - what would make a romantic relationship preferable to a friendship? From what I gathered, you didn't really mention anything that'd make such a relationship desirable compared to a friendship.

If the two even can be compared in terms of pros and cons... Hmmm, I'm clearly no expert on the subject, so Shutting Up Now.

edited 7th May '11 6:31:27 PM by Onions

I can't say I have experience that would give me the answer to that, but based on what experience I do have a romantic relationship feels more powerful, and the main reason why you don't want to lose it and why it holds more threats is because is it more desirable than friendship.

What I don't get is how any of that is different from a regular friendship, given that I've felt all those feelings to varying degrees with friends. Is there any defining thing that you can say 'if this is present, then it's romantic instead of friendship?'

There isn't really a fine, well defined line.

Instead, there's a blurry, zig-zaggging line that intersects with both friendship and love interest multiple times and you have no idea if you've crossed it or not.

Being romantically involved with someone implies different things, beyond sexual things, than being a friend to someone. You generally don't live with, provide for, share the same bed with, hug, kiss, and share the same degree of emotional bond with your friends as you would a romantic partner. There's a different set of boundaries and a different level of intimacy.

Think of how you interact with your mother or father compared to how you interact with your friends. They're both a form of relationship involving a deep emotional bond, but they tend to be markedly different in terms of the kinds of information you share, they way you interact with them, and the needs they fulfill.

edited 8th May '11 12:56:26 PM by Miijhal

I used to think that there are no romances, only friends and friends with benefits, and that the term "romance" evolved as a way of glorifying lust (sort of like how people keep talking about "justice" when they want to engage in vengeance.) Then I started to think that maybe I personally was just incapable of romance. Now I'm starting to think that my original hypothesis was right after all.

"Romance" and "justice" are both noble lies.

@Feo Surely, if that were the case, there would be no celibate couples.

asexual=dont really care for sex

so im guessing aromantic means you dont care about being romantic