Antiromanticism?

Go down

Antiromanticism?

Post by Admin on Tue Nov 17, 2015 7:54 pm

Who here considers themselves antiromantic as well, and what does it mean to you? Are you against romance on principle, or rather, are you against the expectations surrounding romance and those toxic expectations taint romance as a whole for you? Are you against the effects that limerence has on others? Or are sex and romance naturally tied for you, so that since you rejected sex and became antisexual, that you also need to be antiromantic too?

These reasons aren't mutually exclusive, and not the only possible reasons. You can describe what applies, as well as any other reasons. If you aren't, are you ambivalent, indifferent, or believe there are some circumstances in which romance would be worth it?

Personally, I'm uncertain if I can be considered antiromantic. I used to be so sure that I was, until I ended up rethinking what romance was. Disliking sex is straightforward in comparison. To me, romance is harder to define, once you cut out the sexual expectations, and the drama, possessiveness, obsessiveness and sense of obligation that are also expected of it. I can understand romance without sex, but without the latter things, what makes it different from a platonic relationship? Where is the dividing line?

What I can say for certain that I'm against all of the toxic expectations associated with romance, and how those expectations can be more toxic if sex is also involved. I oppose the implications of being someone's "other half", the sense of being someone's possession (or being seen as another person's possession). What surprises me is that so many people want to assimilate their selves into another person. To me, that idea sounds repulsive. Why would they want to give up part of their identity and self for a relationship? I can at least say I'm against conventional romance on principle. I'm also against how manipulative behaviors, which would be rightfully seen as a red flag within most other type of relationships as a sign of an abuser, are so often condoned in romantic relationships.

All of those expectations and how pervasive they are taint romance for me. I think finding a romantic relationship not tainted by those expectations is possible, but it'd be like trying to find a needle in a haystack. I have other things I need to spend my time and energy on than trying to find  it. Is that enough to make me antiromantic?
avatar
Admin
Admin

Posts : 736
Join date : 2015-04-07

https://fortressresistingsexualsociety.wordpress.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Antiromanticism?

Post by SCH0206 on Wed Nov 18, 2015 1:24 am

I consider myself antiromantic. I despise that romance is based on pulchritude and having one person be the focus of one's universe. That's what eventually "cured" me from my crushes.

I also don't like that a partner has to be more important than friends. One can have two or more friends, but one can't have more than one partner (unless it's a polygamous relationship).

You seem to be ambivalent about romance, but that's okay. I agree with your sentiments. You don't need to spend time and energy on something you're unsure of if you don't want to.

SCH0206

Posts : 456
Join date : 2015-04-30

Back to top Go down

Re: Antiromanticism?

Post by Admin on Wed Nov 18, 2015 9:47 pm

I dislike that too, and the worst is when people toss their friends aside once they find a romantic partner. I've seen some people who may want romance but disagree with it being more valuable than other relationships though, and many of them are also against romance having to be exclusive.

What makes me ambivalent is that the philosophy of the antisexual community encourages making informed decisions; we each came to the conclusion that sex isn't worth it. These are decisions we each came to on our own, but one of the underlying reasons may be that the costs and drawbacks of sex outweigh any possible benefits.

What's left me stuck in regards to whether I feel the same way about romance is that it's harder to define, so I'm thinking if I'm going to reject something, I should at least know what it is. I feel like the only way that can be done is to separate romance itself from all of those expectations surrounding it that we oppose, to see if romance itself would be worth it, but I haven't had much or any desire for romantic relationships anyways.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Posts : 736
Join date : 2015-04-07

https://fortressresistingsexualsociety.wordpress.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Antiromanticism?

Post by x Nacht Klaue x on Sat Nov 21, 2015 5:32 pm

I have never thought of the term "antiromantic" (I think). I see it as part of sexuality. I don't know other peoples view of it.. Or what romantic means to you.. To me romanticism is part of sexual-love. Or is there different types of romanticism?
avatar
x Nacht Klaue x

Posts : 1150
Join date : 2015-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Antiromanticism?

Post by Admin on Sat Nov 21, 2015 5:55 pm

☆x Pure Life x☆ wrote:I have never thought of the term "antiromantic" (I think). I see it as part of sexuality. I don't know other peoples view of it.. Or what romantic means to you.. To me romanticism is part of sexual-love. Or is there different types of romanticism?

Some people view romance as part of sexuality, while others don't. It may depend on how intertwined romance and sex are for them when it comes to experiencing sexual or romantic attractions; for some people, they are strongly intertwined, while others may feel like they're completely separate, especially if they experience one but not the other. I've always seen them separately though, in that I believe they can be isolated from each other.

It's theorized that there are several types of love, some of them are romantic in nature while others aren't. I started a thread about it here, mentioning two of the popular models: http://iamfortress.forumotion.com/t75-models-of-love
avatar
Admin
Admin

Posts : 736
Join date : 2015-04-07

https://fortressresistingsexualsociety.wordpress.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Antiromanticism?

Post by x Nacht Klaue x on Sat Nov 21, 2015 6:20 pm

@Admin wrote:
☆x Pure Life x☆ wrote:I have never thought of the term "antiromantic" (I think). I see it as part of sexuality. I don't know other peoples view of it.. Or what romantic means to you.. To me romanticism is part of sexual-love. Or is there different types of romanticism?

Some people view romance as part of sexuality, while others don't. It may depend on how intertwined romance and sex are for them when it comes to experiencing sexual or romantic attractions; for some people, they are strongly intertwined, while others may feel like they're completely separate, especially if they experience one but not the other. I've always seen them separately though, in that I believe they can be isolated from each other.

It's theorized that there are several types of love, some of them are romantic in nature while others aren't. I started a thread about it here, mentioning two of the popular models: http://iamfortress.forumotion.com/t75-models-of-love

Thanks for the link. I just read it. I need to learn more about those love styles before I can comment. I will search on google if I can find more info about it. I didn't knew about those things, interesting:)
avatar
x Nacht Klaue x

Posts : 1150
Join date : 2015-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Antiromanticism?

Post by error on Sat Nov 21, 2015 11:31 pm

Has anyone here looked at this site? I don't know if its findings regarding the "invention" of romantic love are accurate but most of the ideas it presents seem spot on to me, and they don't really require scientific evidence. The one page I linked is only the beginning, there's more links at the bottom, like this and this. I find the second one interesting because the questions in the test are basically a comprehensive list of romantic love symptoms.

To answer the thread's questions, I don't know what I consider myself. I'm not at that point where I would identify with the antiromantic label, still trying to be informed. It's separate from sex though but not mutually exclusive. If you remove the sexual expectations and every other toxic symptom of romance, I believe you're left with childish idealization and fantasies. This isn't necessarily harmful unless you allow it to blind you from a person's negative qualities. But even if it's not harmful, I still think it's delusional. And you know, the more you fantasize the more you want it to be true, it's easy to create expectations then.

error

Posts : 36
Join date : 2015-10-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Antiromanticism?

Post by Admin on Sun Nov 22, 2015 9:31 am

@error wrote:Has anyone here looked at this site? I don't know if its findings regarding the "invention" of romantic love are accurate but most of the ideas it presents seem spot on to me, and they don't really require scientific evidence. The one page I linked is only the beginning, there's more links at the bottom, like this and this. I find the second one interesting because the questions in the test are basically a comprehensive list of romantic love symptoms.

To answer the thread's questions, I don't know what I consider myself. I'm not at that point where I would identify with the antiromantic label, still trying to be informed. It's separate from sex though but not mutually exclusive. If you remove the sexual expectations and every other toxic symptom of romance, I believe you're left with childish idealization and fantasies. This isn't necessarily harmful unless you allow it to blind you from a person's negative qualities. But even if it's not harmful, I still think it's delusional. And you know, the more you fantasize the more you want it to be true, it's easy to create expectations then.

I haven't seen that site before, but great find! Very Happy I was aware that to some extent that romantic love is a cultural construct, since different cultures have different ideas of what is considered romantic love. I had also known that it originated as a construct at some point, but I didn't know that its origins could be so clearly pinpointed. The arguments listed on that site are also related to some of the concerns I've had about romance.

Overlooking a person's negative qualities is another thing that concerned me, but that doesn't have to happen if someone doesn't let it get the better of them? There are a lot of people who claim to be in stable romantic relationships. Do you think that's possible, and are they telling the truth? I still wouldn't want to over-idealize someone, because it is loving an idealized version of a person instead of who they actually are, which can create unrealistic expectations at best, and be dangerous at worst.

_________________
This fortress is for those resisting sexual society! See the main page for more information. This ongoing project is looking for contributors!
avatar
Admin
Admin

Posts : 736
Join date : 2015-04-07

https://fortressresistingsexualsociety.wordpress.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Antiromanticism?

Post by error on Sun Nov 22, 2015 11:43 am

Somewhere in there, it says that romantic feelings are not really about loving the other person as much as they are made up internal desires. And after reading some more, it seems that the site regards authentic love ("real love") to be the same kind you would have with family and friends. That love is also present in long lasting marriages, which are rare precisely because many people will marry for other reasons besides compatibility and/or a healthy relationship (like when people become very good friends before they start a relationship).

Upon googling some more, I came across this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ForeverAloneWomen/comments/3oac9h/whats_the_real_difference_between_platonic_and/ 
ignore the subreddit, ugh, but the OP makes good points
This poses a new question then: is the love in platonic and romantic relationships the same? Or is its true form only found in platonic relationships?
I'll probably get more into that in the models of love thread.

Romance has existed for a long time, but it wasn't until recently that it was prioritized or valued. Even more so now that religion is taking a back seat. I do believe it's another way for people to find fulfillment. But it's kind of like sex in that regard, it doesn't last very long.

I know what you mean and thought the same thing. Basically, if I'm aware of the boundaries and keep myself in check, then it wouldn't matter if I have romantic feelings towards someone. Right? I haven't figured out the rest just yet, but something about it still definitely bothers me. What I'm concerned with now is: are these feelings a reflection of the relationship itself? If not, should I really be feeling or paying attention to them?

For the people who claim to be in stable romantic relationships, they would have to describe what they mean exactly. Like, what about their relationship is romantic and why they think it's stable. It might be possible depending on their definition of romance but it's not that common. It's easy for two delusional people to be together, people lie to themselves all the time so what they consider stable may only be so to them and others who have similar beliefs. It's kinda like preaching to the choir.

error

Posts : 36
Join date : 2015-10-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Antiromanticism?

Post by Guest on Thu Dec 10, 2015 8:55 am

"Romantic" feelings are the fetishization of problems, and the imagining of someone else fixing them for you. Love is the striving for peace, for yourself and others.

So obviously, I'm against romance. It's just suppressed sexuality anyway. It's the same principle pretty much, you have some kind of problem/pain and pretend to need someone to fix it for you. Romantic fantasies are full of you needing help from the object of addiction in some way (Males tend to fantasize about helping women and appearing alpha, I know, but ultimately it's the same thing. They need someone to admire their masculinity. That's also a help of sorts). We need to learn to fix our own problems. And especially not create ones that don't already exist, as that's what romance does.

For example, you live a perfectly fine, mostly happy existence...and suddenly, your hormones tell you you simply can't live without seeing some person for at least 90% of the day, even though you clearly could before, as the life you had before proves. It's like training yourself to acquire a socially accepted dependant personality disorder. It's just a quarrelsome illusion which creates conflict and pain. All of our actions should ideally strive to make the world more bearable for everyone, not worse.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Antiromanticism?

Post by error on Wed Feb 03, 2016 11:51 am

@Stars.of.Tears wrote:"Romantic" feelings are the fetishization of problems, and the imagining of someone else fixing them for you. Love is the striving for peace, for yourself and others.

So obviously, I'm against romance. It's just suppressed sexuality anyway. It's the same principle pretty much, you have some kind of problem/pain and pretend to need someone to fix it for you. Romantic fantasies are full of you needing help from the object of addiction in some way (Males tend to fantasize about helping women and appearing alpha, I know, but ultimately it's the same thing. They need someone to admire their masculinity. That's also a help of sorts). We need to learn to fix our own problems. And especially not create ones that don't already exist, as that's what romance does.

Interesting. I thought about it for a bit and it makes a lot of sense. Romance seems to take the power away from the individual experiencing it and creates a weird sort of dependency on the object (the other person). At the same time, it is rooted in the self and what it wants the outcome to be, however unrealistic. It can even play in real life out the way you imagine it, but that doesn't make it healthy.

error

Posts : 36
Join date : 2015-10-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Antiromanticism?

Post by Admin on Sat Feb 06, 2016 10:28 am

Last night I read something that sounded relevant; the reasons people fall in love with each other may eventually become the reasons the relationship falls apart. A couple can't count on those obsessive, lovestruck feelings to determine the quality of their relationship, nor depend on them to allow the relationship to last, but instead have to actively maintain the relationship. It's a process that takes work, and realistically evaluating the relationship and what brought the people together. Isn't that against the conventional sense of romance?

It also bothers me that the popular idea of romance is one that's really about trying to fix real or imagined problems. I've been in a relationship where I felt like I had to be the other person's savior, and that's a terrible experience, so it really frustrates me when people glamorize that kind of dynamic.

_________________
This fortress is for those resisting sexual society! See the main page for more information. This ongoing project is looking for contributors!
avatar
Admin
Admin

Posts : 736
Join date : 2015-04-07

https://fortressresistingsexualsociety.wordpress.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Antiromanticism?

Post by Guest on Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:18 am

@Admin wrote:Last night I read something that sounded relevant; the reasons people fall in love with each other may eventually become the reasons the relationship falls apart. A couple can't count on those obsessive, lovestruck feelings to determine the quality of their relationship, nor depend on them to allow the relationship to last, but instead have to actively maintain the relationship. It's a process that takes work, and realistically evaluating the relationship and what brought the people together. Isn't that against the conventional sense of romance?

That is the definition of romance. The thing that brought them together is the danger and the thought that the other person will rescue them. As soon as that danger/problem isn't there anymore, the other person isn't needed. That isn't love, it's neediness and obsession. It's a dependency disorder. And that's what romance is.

People try to keep the danger/problem that keeps them together by going on "dates" which essentially simulate problematic situations in which the other person is there to help them. Going to a theme park raises adrenaline levels which makes them feel danger. Eating together makes them hungry, hunger is also a problem, and getting offered food raises the feeling of safety. Walking in a lonely park at night might seem peaceful, but is in actually also dangerous, because we're programmed to be scared of darkness, because we can't see what dangers might hide in it. That's why darkness is seen as more "romantic" than daylight.

It's pretty simple, actually. Maybe a relevant link? (<- Suspension bridge psychology experiment)

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Antiromanticism?

Post by Biscotti on Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:02 pm

"Relationships" are dumb and generally a sign of immaturity.

But. They ARE amusing.

I mean have you read all the stuff online about people talking about their relationships, both in bad terms AND good terms? It's like a comedy club. But hilarious in a pathetic way. Like watching Wile E Cayote fail in his attempts to catch a roadrunner. If you don't see the humour, perhaps I may be able to explain why it is.

It's like two organisms with different control systems (i.e their brains) trying to act like one organism. But the thing is, they aren't actually trying to act like one organism and don't want to. In less strong words, it's a strange dichotomy of relegating someone who isn't "special" to a "special" status.

There's something suspect. What separates to these people their "partner" and their relationships with other people. Is there a reason why they need to have a relegated "special" relationship.
Because from what I've seen, there isn't. There's hardly anything special in these "relationships".

I'm not promoting polygamy here. But it's strange isn't it.

The big question is "why". Why do people seek these "relationships". I use "relationships" in quotes to describe what these people dub as a "special" romantic relationship rather then relationship as an altogether term.

What makes these people "special". Is it because you withhold things only for them? Like voting for your favourite president or rooting for your favourite team? This could potentially be childish, I'll explain why in the next paragraph.

Is it because, as some dumb article puts it "Having someone who knows you deeply is validating."
Well, this is sort of strange too. So you only be honest about yourself with one person? Seems insincere.
Indeed, isn't it sort of contradictory to expect someone to know you, yet at the same time "love is blind". This person is obviously biased toward you, and is potentially operating off an idealized version of you, especially at the beginning of a relationship.
But yes, only being honest with one person. Seems like it might lead to that "couples-righteousness". A version of "self-righteousness" just encouraged by your partner. 

But again, the big question is Why?

Relationships are hilarious. All these problems people having, all seemingly made up. Drama that your partner doesn't agree with you on where to put the bed. Or that your partner sleeps too much. Why are these problems? Cuz we're in a relationship.
Why are you in a relationship? What is "special" about these people? Why stick with someone who sleeps too much? Why stick with someone who says you sleep too much? 
Now read this
https://www.reddit.com/r/relationships/comments/71i1fb
And tell me you don't find it funny.
What. is. the. glue. Why even stay together.

Manufactured "relationships". Manufactured problems. A lot of crap.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 940
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Antiromanticism?

Post by Biscotti on Thu Sep 21, 2017 4:58 pm

I'm starting to poll people about what they think "relationships" are and how they differ. Should I make a different thread? Or any other suggestions?
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 940
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Antiromanticism?

Post by SCH0206 on Thu Sep 21, 2017 5:08 pm

I guess you can create a poll in this thread since it's somewhat relevant to the topic.

SCH0206

Posts : 456
Join date : 2015-04-30

Back to top Go down

Re: Antiromanticism?

Post by Biscotti on Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:14 pm

Oh, I meant I was going to ask people who actually do relationships.


Also, to be clear some of the questions I asked in my rant post were rhetorical, I didn't mean to imply there were no answers to them.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 940
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Antiromanticism?

Post by SCH0206 on Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:16 pm

Oh, I thought you were talking about the opinions of forum members.

SCH0206

Posts : 456
Join date : 2015-04-30

Back to top Go down

Re: Antiromanticism?

Post by Biscotti on Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:11 pm

Also, I just used the dictionary and learned something cool.

Platonic by definition just means "non-sexual". Though I'm not quite sure what "romance" means.

So saying "How does romance differ from a platonic relationship" in the original post is a bit faulty since platonic and "romance" aren't necessarily opposites (Unless romance by definition is sexual, which to be honest it might be)
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 940
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Antiromanticism?

Post by Biscotti on Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:54 pm

Sooo my polls are coming back repeatedly with "sex" as the separation. At least initially it seems that way.

Many times though, people claim that I'm trying to get them to say that it's only separated by sex, even though that hasn't been my intention. I mainly am pursuing for them to answer my question but they usually define it illy. When I keep pressing for more exact answers they accuse me of trying to get them to say it's about sex.

On their side they claim repeatedly that they have given a clear answer. But they haven't. Their "clear" answer is usually "it's a feeling" or "It's subjective".

Take that for what it is, I can keep polling I guess. But this does sound like it's what we're going to get.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 940
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Antiromanticism?

Post by Biscotti on Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:53 pm

This article is entertaining

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201405/23-ways-single-people-are-better-the-scientific-evidence

Let me pull some of the more funny ones.

2. Among wounded warriors, the ones who have always been single are the most resilient.
So...we're saying single people are more emotionally in tune? Sounds about right.

buutt
#4 Always-single men are less likely than men of any other marital status to experience heart disease.
This one doesn't make much sense. I see no causation there and am tempted to dismiss it until one is found.

#5 Women who have always been single have better overall health
This one is vague enough to sound believable though.

So perhaps virgin powers really are a thing eh?

#8 People who get married become less connected to their friends and their parents 

#9 People who have always been single are more attentive to friends, family, and neighbors than people who are married. 

#10 Single people are more likely than married ones to keep siblings together in their adult lives.

These make sense but are individualistic

#11 Single people have a more diverse set of confidants than married people do. Both single and married people name kin as important people in their lives, but single people are more likely to also name people who are not kin.
I'd name all of you

#13 Single people have less debt than married people do, and that’s true even when the married people do not have kids.
OH REALLY NOW. Like, if this is legit I'm using this. As it is it's a bit vague and I hope they're not just saying this because mortgages because that's not debt and heck it means the married people are better off.

#14 Single people are less materialistic than married people are.
????????

#15 Single people are more likely to value meaningful work.
Whaaaa
t does this even mean

#19 It is even possible that singles are better at being their own sources of comfort and security, though so far, the relevant data are just suggestive.

Well yeah, from what I've seen this is like 100% true. Heck it's probably one of my biggest pet peeves with relationship crowds, possibly.

EDIT: Can we possibly change the notion of relationships being about being complete into a negative notion. That negative notion being that relationships are damaging. It's such an easy bridge to cross (By which I mean this narrative is awfully close to some relationship narratives already that I feel it would be easy to run a campaign about people in relationships being "incomplete" as a smear campaign)

#21 A study that included only men found that men who got married were less generous to their friends than they were when they were single. They were not any more generous with their relatives.....
Oh ok wel-
...This is especially noteworthy because single men are paid less than married men, even when they are equally accomplished.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTT????? WAGE GAP TWO POINT OHHHH BABIES OH ITS ON
meh need to know the details first

#23 My bottom line? I think single people are more resilient than everyone else. But as we social scientists are taught to say in our scholarly publications, more research is needed.

Good. This was fun. We need one of these lists for celibates now.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 940
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Antiromanticism?

Post by x Nacht Klaue x on Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:38 pm

I also want to answer to the poll :c
Wouldn't it be interesting to know the opinions of both antisexuals and non-antisexuals?


Last edited by x Nacht Klaue x on Thu Oct 26, 2017 2:58 am; edited 1 time in total
avatar
x Nacht Klaue x

Posts : 1150
Join date : 2015-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Antiromanticism?

Post by xenosimiana on Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:40 pm

For a while I've been thinking that people who engage in sexual-romantic relationships are masochistic and sadistic, because why continue in stuff like this when most of the results of it is negative?

xenosimiana

Posts : 342
Join date : 2016-11-12
Location : Detroit, MI

Back to top Go down

Re: Antiromanticism?

Post by Biscotti on Wed Oct 25, 2017 3:56 pm

I wouldn't say that myself, I don't even think it's a majority problem. But maybe your frame of reference is different (Since we both seem to just be giving our impressions) and it's a trend you see among your peers or online.

Still, I intend to make a "why do people enter relationships" thread akin to 
iamfortress.forumotion.com/t239-reasons-why-they-do-it
eventually.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 940
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Antiromanticism?

Post by xenosimiana on Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:59 pm

I look forward to that because....why? Even though I have a couple of ideas but I haven't been too immersed in it.

xenosimiana

Posts : 342
Join date : 2016-11-12
Location : Detroit, MI

Back to top Go down

Re: Antiromanticism?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum