Posts tagged romance
Posts tagged romance
Yeah, no, we haven’t. We live in a society that puts more emphasis on sexual attraction at first sight, but romantic attraction definitely is still a driving factor. Crushes? Romantic attraction, often without a close bond, sometimes without any kind of a bond whatsoever.
Also, all you need to do is go watch a few romcoms to see that society is head over heels in love with the idea of love at first sight. Hell, it’s in all the media everywhere. Peeta Mellark - loved Katniss for years before he’d ever talked to her. Angel (on Buffy the Vampire Slayer) - says something about loving her because he could see her heart, then spends a season being weird before owning up to his crush on her. Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann - I can’t remember the wording, but they crushed on each other since they were 10 and societal standards kept them from having even a friendship. Anakin Skywalker. Most Shakespearean couples. Don’t give me that kind of crap - romantic attraction at first sight is definitely a thing.
And as a demiromantic, I really don’t appreciate you trying to downplay and erase my identity. I am a very extreme case of demiromanticism, so using myself as an example should be dramatic enough for you. All of the people I’ve met and befriended over the years have been nothing but platonic, except for one person. My best friend of now 13 years is the person I am closest to in the world. I trust her with everything, she knows everything about me, our bond is unshakeable. She is the only person I have ever been romantically attracted to - I need that strong of a bond to even start to feel romantic attraction. I am demiromantic. Getting to know someone a bit and then developing a crush? Doesn’t cut it. That’s just alloromanticism. You’ve got to have that close bond element.
I feel like using all fictional cases of romantic attraction at first sight doesn’t really help prove it actually happens, but yeah exactly.
And from the other side of the coin, I’m the exact opposite of a demiromantic - every single one of my crushes happened at (or practically just after) first sight. No bonding at all for it happen, let alone a close bond. In fact, if it wasn’t for this one current case, I would think the possibility of bonding with a crush was completely impossible for me since I always felt so detached from them despite the infatuation.
It’s kind of funny, there are probably a ton of would-be considered demiromantics out there but wouldn’t think of themselves as such just because they think “love” at first sight & similar concepts are bullshit, that it only exists in fiction. Even if demiromantics are much more common than those who identify as that, it doesn’t mean that identity or concept itself is unnecessary.
"Love" at first sight does sound pretty absurd - especially with how romance is so…romanticized - & it may not even happen often enough to be the "norm", but it definitely does happen to people.
ALSO, I highly doubt all non-ace people require bonding before romantic attraction can happen. There’s a hell of a lot of different kinds of chemistry out there.
I noticed theres no blogs dedicated to mixed orientations at all, which I think is a problem. The only time you see anyone talking about romantic/sexual orientations not matching is on asexual (“who can be of any romantic orientation”) or aromantic (“who can be of any sexual orientation”) blogs, which still excludes a lot of people who may feel torn, questioning or confused about their feelings.
So I really want to help run a blog that focuses on:
Anyone want to help me on this? Obviously I think it would be best if it was run by people with mixed orientations, but otherwise I think it’s important that moderators (right term?) have diverse experiences & identities.
For reference I’m a hetero(grey)romantic asexual cis woman (and single, white, able-bodied, neuro-atypical in her early 20s). This is something I (or anyone probably) definitely can’t/shouldn’t do alone.
P.S. - I’m thinking about calling it “ mixed-not-matched “…..really as long as it’s something that indicates non matching sexual/romantic orientations I think it should be ok
I love how people so often seem to forget that romantic attraction =/= sexual attraction. Those two are different.
A person can be homosexual but biromantic, for example.
This is important.
Please don’t ignore romantic attraction.
There really needs to be a blog dedicated to this. I’m so disappointed there doesn’t seem to be one already :(
College Final Major Project
These are posters I created for my final major project at the end of my 2-year Level 3 BTEC Extended Diploma in Graphic Design.
I decided to create an information pack for schools and colleges providing resources for them to share with students about LGBT+ issues.
Created in Illustrator.
You are welcome to print these for your own personal use or to put up in LGBT+ safe spaces/societies/clubs/etc.
"Inside Out" is a fictional campaign.
While these are wonderful, I’m kind of upset that you forgot about bisexuals… :(
I guess because bisexuality is relatively more known & understood so they decided to skip it. Then again I’ve heard/read some really ridiculous things about people’s impression on bisexuality, so a poster on that probably wouldn’t be a bad idea…
Mark Carrigan, Asexuality: The ‘X’ In A Sexual World
I love this quote so much because I’ve said the SAME thing to my friends when talking about asexuality. So many times in our culture we couple romance and sex and they just AREN’T the same thing. They aren’t the same feeling. And, I’ll use TV as an example, too many times in our media shows will write in “romantic” plots and most of it is about sex and we are expected to enjoy this—expected to support this. But it feels so unreal and contrived because this kind of portrayal weighs heavily on the sexual aspect of a relationship, and we as the audience on some level understand that this isn’t right. That a truly romantic relationship/connection isn’t necessarily about sex or sexual desire.
The reality is that romance and sex are different. They may support each other, but they are fundamentally different. Having a distinction, thanks to the asexual community, i think allows us to speak to a new language of interpersonal connection. One that is richer and more definitive than the distinctively sexualized one we’ve been speaking.
“i hope you fall in love with someone who makes you question why you ever thought you would be better off alone” i hope someone casually invalidates a fairly significant part of your identity for the sake of a shitty john green-esque text post
I wonder how they expect someone to take that….”Yeah, maybe one day I will have such feelings for someone to the point of co-dependency. What a joyful day that will be, to never again be responsible for my own happiness!”
Aro or not, that’s a rather shitty thing to hope for someone.
It’s twisted that such an unhealthy message is so damn prevalent.
one of the most poisonous myths of our culture is that you need to be in love to be fully a person
I am not half of a whole
I am whole within myself (and so are you, and so is everybody)
if you can’t live without someone, if you need someone else to feel complete, if you feel like less of a person when you’re not in love, that’s not love, that’s codependence
healthy love is what happens when two whole people choose to stand side by side — not because they need each other, but because they don’t want to be apart even though they could be
I am not waiting for my other half
I am whole
I do find it funny that lesbians are perceived as man-hating but gay men are not perceived as woman-hating, and in fact are often illogically shielded from accusations of misogyny simply by being gay
I’m interested in both the actual and ideal relationship conduct of cross-orientation allosexuals: people whose romantic and sexual orientations don’t match.
Just to review, cross-orientation sexual identities include but aren’t limited to:
- heteromantic homosexual
- homoromantic heterosexual
- biromantic heterosexual
- biromantic homosexual
- homoromantic bisexual
- heteromantic bisexual
- aromantic heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual
- heteromantic pansexual
- biromantic pansexual
- homoromantic pansexual
- panromantic bisexual, homosexual, or heterosexual
I imagine that the most common practice amongst these allosexuals is to still have conventional romantic-sexual relationships with others because that’s the normative behavior and lifestyle, and perhaps some cross-orientation folks don’t mind being in these functionally normative relationships, even though they’re not actually experiencing one form of attraction to their partners while participating in the relationships.
But there must be some cross-orientation allosexuals who really would prefer to keep their romantic and sexual relationships separate. Who want nonsexual romance and nonromantic sex and to have that separation happen in the most seamless way possible.
I figure the biggest problem for cross-orientation allosexuals is invisibility, like it is for asexuals. If you’re a cross-orientation allosexual person and you meet another allosexual who isn’t—one who just experiences romantic and sexual attraction the same gender or genders—trying to communicate that you’re romantically into them but not sexually into them or vice versa is hella difficult because they just don’t know that such a thing is possible or that cross-orientation sexuality exists. And we live in a culture that says romance doesn’t exist without sex and ongoing sex without romance is the behavior of somebody “afraid of commitment” or “afraid of emotional attachment” or somebody who’s a slut and just wants to have sex with multiple people rather than one person they’re dating.
But in a perfect world, where everyone in society knows that cross-orientation sexuality exists and where everyone is open-minded enough to accept nonsexual romance and nonromantic sex and the coexistence of a sexual partner with a romantic partner who are two different people involved with the same person, would the average cross-orientation allosexual set out to form romantic relationships without sex and sexual relationships without romance and say “fuck it” to combining the two forevermore?
Are there already cross-orientation allosexuals who have managed to form these separate relationships in their lives? How’s it going?
And what about aromantic allosexuals? I’m guessing they’re the cross-orientation types who are most easily demonized, when other allosexuals actually hear about them. What’s an aromantic allosexual’s first choice lifestyle? Regular sex and otherwise no life partner, living alone, having friends? Sex with people they’re attracted to sexually and a nonsexual/nonromantic life partner who’s the emotional center of their lives? For aromantic allosexuals who want a life partner, does gender matter? Do some aromantic allosexuals want more than one partner? A kind of nonromantic polyamory?
I’m a celibate asexual with no romantic identity, but I’m really interested in cross-orientation allosexuals and their experiences and the possibility they represent of a diverse society where nonsexual romance and nonromantic sex are practiced as commonplace, accepted, supported lifestyle choices. I can understand wanting love without sex, and though I don’t desire sex, I have always perfectly understood and supported sex devoid of romance.
I think cross-orientation sexuality needs to become visible. I think it needs to be discussed openly. I think it needs to have a presence in our media. I think cross-orientation allosexuals should be able to separate their romantic relationships from their sexual relationships as they desire, rather than having to settle for romantic-sexual relationships just because those are the norm and most allosexuals don’t think nonsexual romance and nonromantic sex are acceptable.
I just want to live in a world where everybody understands that you can love someone romantically and not feel sexually attracted them, you can want to fuck someone silly but not feel a shred of romantic attraction to them, you can want romantic relationships without sex and sexual relationships without romance, and you don’t need to sexualize a romantic relationship to make it real or romanticize a sexual relationship to make it appropriate.
definitely a thing, and an important concept to have!
Sometimes I question my aromantic-spectrum identity for the reason that I have no idea what romantic attraction would even entail for me, if I were aware of experiencing it as such.
Then I remember that I have no idea what romantic attraction is or feels like other than being told “you know it when you feel it,” and I am certain again that I don’t experience it. If I have no awareness of having a certain feeling, I can’t be experiencing that feeling at all.
I think the “you know it when you feel it” phrase isn’t as accurate as people like to think.
There are definitely times when romantic attraction hits you like running into a brick wall, but it is a complicated feeling since it’s more like a collective of feelings rather than just one. So for some (many?) people there are times where you may get some of those feelings & aren’t sure if it’s enough to be considered romantic or they may not even be as intense as expected & may not even really notice them.
When I’m talking about feelings though I’m basically referring to infatuation since that’s how romantic attraction manifests itself for me & many others. I don’t get the “I wanna date/be in a romantic relationship with you” thoughts at some point like most people do, but that’s because I don’t like how clingy they seem & interpersonal attraction normally doesn’t overlap with it.
I guess the conscious interest in romance with someone is enough for someone to tell they’re being romantically attracted to someone, I’ve seen it personally & don’t really get it myself though, but as far as the “romantic feelings” everyone talks about I’m pretty sure that’s infatuation.
….wow that was rambly.