About romance

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Go down

About romance

Post by Admin on Sun May 03, 2015 6:04 pm

What is your stance on romantic relationships? Have you questioned if a nonsexual romantic relationship would work for you, or if it'd have the same problems that a sexual relationship would?

For those who aren't asexual, can you separate sexual and romantic attraction from each other? How easily can you separate them, and how much of an influence does this have on your decision to reject romance or not?

I've been uncertain of my attitude towards romance over the past few years, because of my experiences trapped in a codependent relationship. I'm still questioning what romance itself is, and whether or not to reject it, but I can certainly say that I'm repulsed by conventional ideas of romance glamorized by the media, and its expectations.

I hate how they encourage jealousy and possessiveness, and loss of individuality. The relationships, and what's passed off as "true love" so much by mainstream media are manipulation, and codependency, not any kind of true love. What's being encouraged under the guise of "true love", is a vicious cycle relationship martyrdom, control, and resentment. I've been wanting to question what romance is like without codependency in it. If romance itself is codependency, then I'm against it.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Posts : 736
Join date : 2015-04-07

https://fortressresistingsexualsociety.wordpress.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: About romance

Post by ForeverPure on Sun May 03, 2015 7:24 pm

A "nonsexual romantic relationship" you say? That's the sort of bizarre terminology you would see a poser from the Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN) use. I understand that the general idea of a "nonsexual romantic relationship" is that the individuals involved do not mate. However, the definition for "mating" or "sexual behaviour" is usually twisted by those sort of "asexual" communities, which the term "asexual" in itself is misleading.

Could a "nonsexual romantic relationship" include the barbaric practices of mouth-to-mouth liquid exchange, cuddling or even some kind of indirect perverse stimulation?

Let's pull up a few statements that the mites at the AVEN wiki wrote:
"Aromantics may experience squishes which are the aromantic or platonic equivalent of a romantic crush. When an aromatic get's into a relationship that's more than friends - but less than romantic - that is known as a queerplatonic relationship."

What in the hell does that even mean?

"For asexuals, who do not experience sexual attraction, it is often their romantic orientation that determines which gender(s), if any, they are inclined to form romantic relationships with."

Romantic orientation, sexual orientation, gender orientation, grayaromantic-asexual-sort-of-sexual-clearly-confused orientation and last, but not least, the pan-aromantic-romantic orientation. I really hope those words are not in a credible or widely used English dictionary.

"Some asexuals do participate in sex, for a variety of reasons."

"Some asexuals do participate in sex"

"for a variety of reasons"

That's like saying:
"Some heterosexuals do occasionally become intimate with a member of the same gender, for a variety of reasons."

For a variety of reasons, eh? One certainly being that they are not by definition, a heterosexual.

These sodomites are getting really creative in attempting to mask their sodomy with a wide range of nonsensical labels. The term, "queerplatonic" tops them all. Next thing you know, you will be seeing a "Queerplatonic Sodomite Tolerance Parade".
avatar
ForeverPure

Posts : 163
Join date : 2015-05-02
Location : Ontario, Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: About romance

Post by SCH0206 on Sun May 03, 2015 10:19 pm

"...include the barbaric practices of mouth-to-mouth liquid exchange..."

Ugh. That's a rather graphic way to describe kissing. It's a good thing I did snap out of my yearning-for-a-boyfriend phase or I would've never realized how gross that is.

SCH0206

Posts : 456
Join date : 2015-04-30

Back to top Go down

Re: About romance

Post by Admin on Mon May 04, 2015 5:57 am

@ForeverPure wrote:A "nonsexual romantic relationship" you say? That's the sort of bizarre terminology you would see a poser from the Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN) use. I understand that the general idea of a "nonsexual romantic relationship" is that the individuals involved do not mate. However, the definition for "mating" or "sexual behaviour" is usually twisted by those sort of "asexual" communities, which the term "asexual" in itself is misleading.
I felt like I needed to specify that I was only referring to romantic relationships without sex, I guess this is a bad time for me to say that I'm a member of AVEN too, although I don't fit in very well (I constantly feel pressured to give up the things I found useful from the antisexual community, which I've known of for much longer, and have loyalty towards that I don't want to give up)? There are some things I find useful on AVEN but I also have my disagreements.


Could a "nonsexual romantic relationship" include the barbaric practices of mouth-to-mouth liquid exchange, cuddling or even some kind of indirect perverse stimulation?
Some do, but also some don't. I've heard of quite a few asexuals desiring romance, but being repulsed by kissing and/or disliking touch in general, which further raises the question of what's a romantic relationship, and what sets it apart from other types of relationships, if kissing and cuddling aren't required parts, or defining parts of it?

One one hand, I like that the asexual community has done their part to challenge what "romance" is, by clearly separating it from sex, but their definitions of "romance" and "romantic feelings" end up raising more questions than they answer. The question in bold is what I was intending to ask.



Let's pull up a few statements that the mites at the AVEN wiki wrote:
"Aromantics may experience squishes which are the aromantic or platonic equivalent of a romantic crush. When an aromatic get's into a relationship that's more than friends - but less than romantic - that is known as a queerplatonic relationship."

What in the hell does that even mean?
Personally, I don't know. Some say they can see a gray area between friendship and romance, but I'm not able to make those distinctions. The only distinction I could make personally is that the romantic relationship I was in made me feel trapped, but then again, I didn't agree to it.


"Some asexuals do participate in sex, for a variety of reasons."

"Some asexuals do participate in sex"

"for a variety of reasons"

That's like saying:
"Some heterosexuals do occasionally become intimate with a member of the same gender, for a variety of reasons."

For a variety of reasons, eh? One certainly being that they are not by definition, a heterosexual.
The "variety of reasons" include peer pressure, societal expectation, and coercion, which definitely don't require being attracted to the other person. Many of the older members said that for years, they've had sex that they didn't want, just to please their partners, and because they didn't know that not having sex, and not being in a relationship were options available to them. Some of them said that they hated sex every time, that it made them sick, but felt pressured by their partner or society at large to get their lack of interest in sex "fixed", with no one siding with them.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Posts : 736
Join date : 2015-04-07

https://fortressresistingsexualsociety.wordpress.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: About romance

Post by ForeverPure on Mon May 04, 2015 11:04 am

I do not believe that, I am heavily against AVEN. They are nothing, but sodomites attempting to infiltrate movements supporting innocence. Whatever excuse or label they give, if one consents to sodomy, they are by definition, a sodomite.

The innocent cannot tolerate the guilty, just as the guilty cannot tolerate the innocent.
avatar
ForeverPure

Posts : 163
Join date : 2015-05-02
Location : Ontario, Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: About romance

Post by Admin on Mon May 04, 2015 9:01 pm

@ForeverPure wrote:I do not believe that, I am heavily against AVEN. They are nothing, but sodomites attempting to infiltrate movements supporting innocence. Whatever excuse or label they give, if one consents to sodomy, they are by definition, a sodomite.

The innocent cannot tolerate the guilty, just as the guilty cannot tolerate the innocent.

What is it that you don't believe? I've been trying to do my part to reform the system from within, by giving more support to those who refuse to compromise on sex, and are repulsed by it.

It's troubling that there are many members there who fear that they can't say anything negative about sex, even when speaking about how they personally dislike it, without being shamed and labeled as elitists. Those that are willing to compromise, and say positive things about sex, aren't automatically assumed to be pushing sex on others, or attacking those who don't want it, so there's a double-standard going on.

The double-standard was worse when I first found AVEN though. There's still room for improvement, but it's more balanced than it used to be. I was so sure I wouldn't be welcome at first. I know this is a major conflict of interest issue, but I don't think it has to be that way.

That all should probably be a separate topic, and one I'd be willing to start, but to get back to the main topic, what is romance, and what sets it apart from other types of relationships? Whatever it entails, who'd be willing to have a romantic relationship or not?
avatar
Admin
Admin

Posts : 736
Join date : 2015-04-07

https://fortressresistingsexualsociety.wordpress.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: About romance

Post by Darkthrone on Fri May 08, 2015 4:29 am

As someone who came to the antisexual community calling themselves "nonamorous" (nonamory is basically antiromancism), I find that I must reject romantic relationships. I personally am heterosexual, and in my experiences in sexual, romantic relationships, the two overlap greatly. A sexual and romantic person views sex as a normal part of a romantic relationship, so for me they go hand in hand. Even people who engage in "friends with benefits" (casual, sex only, nonromantoc relationships) often report developing romantic feelings for their sex partner.

For me, I saw how romance caused pain in my life and saw no practical way of separating the two, as they were always meant to be together.

Darkthrone

Posts : 38
Join date : 2015-05-08

Back to top Go down

Re: About romance

Post by Admin on Fri May 08, 2015 6:28 am

Nonamory61 wrote:As someone who came to the antisexual community calling themselves "nonamorous" (nonamory is basically antiromancism), I find that I must reject romantic relationships. I personally am heterosexual, and in my experiences in sexual, romantic relationships, the two overlap greatly. A sexual and romantic person views sex as a normal part of a romantic relationship, so for me they go hand in hand. Even people who engage in "friends with benefits" (casual, sex only, nonromantoc relationships) often report developing romantic feelings for their sex partner.

For me, I saw how romance caused pain in my life and saw no practical way of separating the two, as they were always meant to be together.
I found out about the nonamorous label not too long ago, and have known of antiromanticism much longer. Did you reject sex and romance at the same time, or at different points, after trying to separate them, but couldn't? It sounds difficult trying to keep a sexual, non-romantic relationship that someone may feel the need to reject both.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Posts : 736
Join date : 2015-04-07

https://fortressresistingsexualsociety.wordpress.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: About romance

Post by Darkthrone on Fri May 08, 2015 6:48 am

I heard of the nonamory label first actually. I understand nonarmory as  "nonamory is to antisexuality  as what aromanticism is to asexuality" which would mean, in my view, nonamory = anti-romanticism. Anyway, I rejected romantic relationships first, and then, after much thought, decided to also reject sex too. You are exactly correct, and may I add that I believe a nonsexual romantic relationship would be harder for me than it would be for an asexual. If a sexual is dating an asexual, the tension is caused by the sexuals desires, but if I dated a sexual but refused sex, they would have to deal with not having sex AND I would have to deal with my sexual urges, since sex and romance go hand in hand for me, a sexual romantic.

There's also the issue of societal pressure that will make a romantic relationship even harder. Look at asexuality, a lot people barely understand and accept it, and many don't. How much harder would it be to explain to a potential partner "ok so now that you understand what asexuality is, now you need to know that I am not asexual, but I still don't have sex, even though I feel an urge for it." just seems easier, more natural, and more practical to just reject both at this point.


Last edited by Darkthrone on Sun Aug 23, 2015 2:41 pm; edited 1 time in total

Darkthrone

Posts : 38
Join date : 2015-05-08

Back to top Go down

Re: About romance

Post by ForeverPure on Fri May 08, 2015 6:26 pm

Nonamory61 wrote:There's also the issue of societal pressure that will make a romantic relationship even harder. Look at asexuality, a lot people barely understand and accept it, and many don't. How much harder would it be to explain to a potential partner "ok so now that you understand what asexuality is, now you need to know that I am not asexual, but I still don't have sex, even though I feel an urge for it." just seems easier, more natural, and more practical to just reject both at this point.

Glad you departed from a clearly unhealthy lifestyle, continue on the path of abstinence and you will avoid the troubles of the corrupted. The carnal drive that compels you to mate does not exist for your benefit, but rather to "benefit" a non-existent future generation that will only be a burden on the world's already crumbling globalist economy. You may wish to consider being sterilized to prevent possibly contributing to overpopulation in case you change your mind in the future about sexuality.

You are correct about romance being interconnected with sexuality, as it exists solely because of it. Romance is the more "classy" way to engage in degeneracy, but is an unhealthy addiction nevertheless.

I hope you continue to embrace purity and reject the cancerous attitudes of sodomite propaganda.
avatar
ForeverPure

Posts : 163
Join date : 2015-05-02
Location : Ontario, Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: About romance

Post by Admin on Sat May 09, 2015 2:19 am

Nonamory61 wrote:I heard of the nonamory label first actually. I lunderstand nonarmory as  "nonamory is to antisexuality  as what aromanticism is to asexuality" which would mean, in my view, nonamory = anti-romanticism. Anyway, I rejected romantic relationships first, and then, after much thought, decided to also reject sex too. You are exactly correct, and may I add that I believe a nonsexal romantic relationship would be harder for me than it would be for an asexual. If a sexual is dating an asexual, the tension is caused by the serials desires, but if I dated a sexual but refused sex, they would have to deal with not having sex AND I would have to deal with my sexual urges, since sex and romance go hand in hand for me, a sexual romantic.

I appreciate your insights! Smile Do you consider your rejection of sex to be ideological in nature, pragmatic, or both? Here, there's a lot of emphasis on ideological reasons, but I'd understand if you have pragmatic reasons, since sex is naturally tied to romance for you, and you rejected romance first.

I know that you said that you rejected romance first, but if you had rejected sex first, and attempted a romantic relationship, do you think you still would've rejected romance, because of the possibility of being sexually attracted to your partner? Although you don't want to act on it, just having that attraction makes the relationship more difficult overall, wouldn't it?


There's also the issue of societal pressure that will make a romantic relationship even harder. Look at asexuality, a lot people barely understand and accept it, and many don't. How much harder would it be to explain to a potential partner "ok so now that you understand what asexuality is, now you need to know that I am not asexual, but I still don't have sex, even though I feel an urge for it." just seems easier, more natural, and more practical to just reject both at this point.

Yeah, so many people still can't, or won't try to understand asexuality, so it's even more of an uphill battle to explain how someone, without being asexual, can be completely sure that they never want to have sex, and explain that the problem isn't not wanting sex, but having a body working against oneself.

Have you had to deal with any of these misconceptions?: http://iamfortress.forumotion.com/t7-misconceptions

One of the goals of this community is to fight against those misconceptions, showing that we find liberation in not having sex.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Posts : 736
Join date : 2015-04-07

https://fortressresistingsexualsociety.wordpress.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: About romance

Post by Panache on Wed Jul 08, 2015 2:12 pm

@Admin wrote:Some do, but also some don't. I've heard of quite a few asexuals desiring romance, but being repulsed by kissing and/or disliking touch in general, which further raises the question of what's a romantic relationship, and what sets it apart from other types of relationships, if kissing and cuddling aren't required parts, or defining parts of it?

One one hand, I like that the asexual community has done their part to challenge what "romance" is, by clearly separating it from sex, but their definitions of "romance" and "romantic feelings" end up raising more questions than they answer. The question in bold is what I was intending to ask.



Regarding what is romance and what is a romantic relationship, I’d very much recommend the post by The Thinking Asexual called "Amatanormativity, Romance, and Partnership: My Problem with Cupioromanticism."
 
Basically, romantic attraction is limerence, or the “in love” experience, as opposed to loving someone. In medical literature it’s also referred to as “immature love.” A romantic relationship is one in which one or both partners is limerent.


Romantic gestures, on the other hand, are anything that speaks love to the other person, and exist just as much in platonic as romantic/limerent relationships. Nurturing friendships and family relationships are romantic in this sense, though what speaks love can be anything from dinner and dancing, to responding to a child’s cries, to beheading the zombie that’s about to eat your loved one’s brains. What counts as romantic depends entirely on the person, and has nothing to do with limerence.


Regarding romantic gestures, I’d recommend The 5 Love Languages and The 5 Love Languages of Children by Gary Chapman. I don’t agree with everything the author says – there’s an atrocious passage where he advocates women have sex with their husbands when they don’t want to, to “save” the relationship – but they were very enlightening about how people can express love.


Because this is all so confusing and nonintuitive, I very much prefer to use the term “limerent” over romantic, and preserve the term “romance” for the nurturing words and actions that tell a person, “I love you, I want to meet your needs.”


@ForeverPure wrote:Let's pull up a few statements that the mites at the AVEN wiki wrote:
"Aromantics may experience squishes which are the aromantic or platonic equivalent of a romantic crush. When an aromatic get's into a relationship that's more than friends - but less than romantic - that is known as a queerplatonic relationship."



Once again, people denigrating friendship, as if a limerent relationship is somehow “better” or stronger.


@ForeverPure wrote:"Some asexuals do participate in sex, for a variety of reasons."

"Some asexuals do participate in sex"

"for a variety of reasons"



My mind was blown when I first found out that some asexuals have sex. Generally, when a man claims to be heterosexual, the assumption is that he is not having sex with men.


@ForeverPure wrote:Could a "nonsexual romantic relationship" include the barbaric practices of mouth-to-mouth liquid exchange, cuddling or even some kind of indirect perverse stimulation?



Regarding kissing, as I understand it kissing is believed to have originated from kiss-feeding, with the mother or someone else masticating food, then passing it to the young child by the mouth. So kissing is a symbolic “I will feed you, I will take care of you” sort of gesture. Most modern people seem to think kiss-feeding is gross, but to me it seems a lot more normative than symbolic kissing: it’s actually probably an important mechanism by which the parent can pass on their internal flora and digestive enzymes to the child just beginning to ingest food, which would help prevent dysbiosis and its mass of associated illnesses.


Really, kissing seems to be yet another form of nonsexual intimacy that’s been usurped by the sexualization of our society and robbed of its original intent.


@ForeverPure wrote:These sodomites are getting really creative in attempting to mask their sodomy with a wide range of nonsensical labels. The term, "queerplatonic" tops them all. Next thing you know, you will be seeing a "Queerplatonic Sodomite Tolerance Parade".



I don’t know if it’s helpful to the movement to create enemy images by referring to people who have sex as “sodomites.” People who consider themselves pro-sexual may very well be reading these discussions, and be alienated by that sort of “us and them” mentality. Among the vegan community, occasionally somebody says something like, “There are no non-vegans. There are only pre-vegans.”


I used to be pro-sexual, at least ostensibly. Probably many antisexuals were pro-sexual at one time, because of society’s influence. But they had experiences and learned new information that expanded their awareness. I feel that if people knew more about the negative qualities of sexual activity, many would become antisexual, the way I did. And those who wouldn’t – perhaps they’ve had experiences and know things that, if I knew them, would make me change my mind as well. We’re all human.


I very much don’t like many things that many people do. However, I also understand that everyone’s trying to do the best they can with the resources available to them. To my mind it’s an issue of expanding people’s resources (information, options, empowerment, awareness and new ideas of the way the world could work), not calling them monsters when they do things that cause harm.


"He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone."
avatar
Panache

Posts : 125
Join date : 2015-07-05

Back to top Go down

Re: About romance

Post by ForeverPure on Wed Jul 08, 2015 3:47 pm

I do believe they are monsters; evil parasites that feed off the innocence of others. Not all of them are equally guilty, but the sodomites that are within my vicinity are absolute wastrels, hideous vermin that have been polluting every inch of civility that has managed to crawl from the sewer they call, "human civilization".

The pure must do everything in their power to separate evil from good, to leave the trash cities where the sodomites rule and construct fortified communes that protect the chaste.

It is good that a sodomite may be alienated by words alone, if that's all it takes to keep the mosquitoes away, then by all means - let those words fly.
avatar
ForeverPure

Posts : 163
Join date : 2015-05-02
Location : Ontario, Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: About romance

Post by Panache on Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:44 pm

@ForeverPure wrote:I do believe they are monsters; evil parasites that feed off the innocence of others. Not all of them are equally guilty, but the sodomites that are within my vicinity are absolute wastrels, hideous vermin that have been polluting every inch of civility that has managed to crawl from the sewer they call, "human civilization".

The pure must do everything in their power to separate evil from good, to leave the trash cities where the sodomites rule and construct fortified communes that protect the chaste.

It is good that a sodomite may be alienated by words alone, if that's all it takes to keep the mosquitoes away, then by all means - let those words fly.

Sounds like you're feeling disgusted, because you need a safe place to live according to your values.


I appreciate your responding to my remarks, as I find it interesting that we have the same (at least overall) stance on this subject, and yet such very different conclusions about what strategies would be most effective for addressing it. I suspect it has to do with our having different underlying philosophies, and I'd like to understand yours better.

The basis of most of my philosophy in life is nonviolence and consent. That's not too out there; most of the things our culture thinks of as "very bad" are because somebody did something to somebody else or their property that was violent and without their consent: murder, rape, torture, slavery, kidnapping, stealing, abuse. However, I see violence in so many aspects of our society: the way we communicate, our institutions, our diet, our medical system, our justice system, the way we treat our children, the stories we tell. I also see so much completely unnecessary suffering stemming from these violent ways of living, I can't even bear to look at it head-on. I try to look for less costly (less violent) ways of doing things. Valuing nonviolence informs many of the ways I live my life. I'd like to know if you have any "foundational principles" like that, that would help me understand your underlying philosophy.

Addiction is rather related to this, though it's probably not obvious on the surface. I've been using this system since I was a child and I'm using it still; in a general way I think there are three levels of morality:
The lowest, which is blind obedience to an authority figure.
The middle, which is acting because of threat of punishment or desire for reward.
The highest, which is listening to your conscience and doing the right thing.

The lower two levels are violent. Rewards and punishments are ways of controlling people, rather than giving and receiving free-willingly. Blind obedience is more profoundly and insidiously violent: it requires a deep usurpation and erasure of a person's will and personality. Addictive behaviors rather automatically bring a person down to the second level, because they trigger the brain's innate reward system in a major way, including endogenous opioid production, and then punishment on the flip side with withdrawal. Then, when the addiction sets in and the person becomes unable to function without the hit and their impulse control circuitry is overridden, it degenerates to the third level, blind obedience, though it's to a substance rather than a person. So that's how addiction relates to violence and nonviolence, to me.

Plus, even if this weren't the case, I can see overtly all the suffering that addictions cause, and I want no part in it, and I wish people had less maladaptive coping mechanisms available to them.

So, that's my underlying philosophy as it relates to antisexualism. I hope you'll tell me more of yours, and I can understand more.
avatar
Panache

Posts : 125
Join date : 2015-07-05

Back to top Go down

Re: About romance

Post by ForeverPure on Thu Jul 09, 2015 5:16 pm

My principles summarized:

- Serve the common good
- Promote abstinence and reject hedonism
- Avoid pain at all costs

By serving the common good:
Working in occupations that directly benefit the continuity of the community from which I rely on. These occupations are usually manual labour jobs in either sanitation or agriculture. Also being active in political movements advocating to end austerity and capitalism.

By promoting abstinence and rejecting hedonism:
Encouraging the path of abstinence and fighting against hedonist lies spread by perverted propaganda. Participating in political movements against LGBT and "true marriage" organizations that both advocate sexualism. In addition, living a life free from perversion as much as possible.

By avoiding pain at all costs:
Avoiding conflict with others and hazardous environments. Securing my ownership of my body - establishing my right to live and my right to die peacefully. This principle especially includes not voting for the Conservative Imperialist Party of Canada, but instead voting for the New Democratic Party - the most popular social-democratic party in Canada.
avatar
ForeverPure

Posts : 163
Join date : 2015-05-02
Location : Ontario, Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: About romance

Post by Panache on Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:06 pm

@ForeverPure wrote:My principles summarized:

- Serve the common good
- Promote abstinence and reject hedonism
- Avoid pain at all costs

By serving the common good:
Working in occupations that directly benefit the continuity of the community from which I rely on. These occupations are usually manual labour jobs in either sanitation or agriculture. Also being active in political movements advocating to end austerity and capitalism.

By promoting abstinence and rejecting hedonism:
Encouraging the path of abstinence and fighting against hedonist lies spread by perverted propaganda. Participating in political movements against LGBT and "true marriage" organizations that both advocate sexualism. In addition, living a life free from perversion as much as possible.

By avoiding pain at all costs:
Avoiding conflict with others and hazardous environments. Securing my ownership of my body - establishing my right to live and my right to die peacefully. This principle especially includes not voting for the Conservative Imperialist Party of Canada, but instead voting for the New Democratic Party - the most popular social-democratic party in Canada.

I suspect I see where our philosophies diverge: you’re a collectivist and I’m an individualist. I suspect you believe that what benefits the individual and what benefits society as a whole is not always the same thing, and that, when there is a conflict of interest between the individual and the collective, the greater good takes the priority.

Is that accurate?
avatar
Panache

Posts : 125
Join date : 2015-07-05

Back to top Go down

Re: About romance

Post by Admin on Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:17 pm

I appreciate that both of you shared your philosophies. I'll have to share mine later, though this may be better off as its own thread.

@Panache wrote:
@Admin wrote:Some do, but also some don't. I've heard of quite a few asexuals desiring romance, but being repulsed by kissing and/or disliking touch in general, which further raises the question of what's a romantic relationship, and what sets it apart from other types of relationships, if kissing and cuddling aren't required parts, or defining parts of it?

One one hand, I like that the asexual community has done their part to challenge what "romance" is, by clearly separating it from sex, but their definitions of "romance" and "romantic feelings" end up raising more questions than they answer. The question in bold is what I was intending to ask.

Regarding what is romance and what is a romantic relationship, I’d very much recommend the post by The Thinking Asexual called "Amatanormativity, Romance, and Partnership: My Problem with Cupioromanticism."
 
Basically, romantic attraction is limerence, or the “in love” experience, as opposed to loving someone. In medical literature it’s also referred to as “immature love.” A romantic relationship is one in which one or both partners is limerent.

I've read that post, and they defined romantic relationships as those containing romantic attraction. What I've been wanting to debate was whether romantic attraction itself is limerence, or if romantic attraction, and romance can exist without it. I'm not sure if I'm actually against romance, but I'm against the idea of being in a limerent relationship.


Romantic gestures, on the other hand, are anything that speaks love to the other person, and exist just as much in platonic as romantic/limerent relationships. Nurturing friendships and family relationships are romantic in this sense, though what speaks love can be anything from dinner and dancing, to responding to a child’s cries, to beheading the zombie that’s about to eat your loved one’s brains. What counts as romantic depends entirely on the person, and has nothing to do with limerence.

I understood that what are considered "romantic gestures" is arbitrary, and a lot of it is dictated by culture and one's own perception, but this is one of the first times I've seen romantic gestures described as applying to non-romantic and/or non-limerent relationships.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Posts : 736
Join date : 2015-04-07

https://fortressresistingsexualsociety.wordpress.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: About romance

Post by Darkthrone on Wed Aug 26, 2015 11:51 am

@Admin wrote:
Nonamory61 wrote:I heard of the nonamory label first actually. I lunderstand nonarmory as  "nonamory is to antisexuality  as what aromanticism is to asexuality" which would mean, in my view, nonamory = anti-romanticism. Anyway, I rejected romantic relationships first, and then, after much thought, decided to also reject sex too. You are exactly correct, and may I add that I believe a nonsexal romantic relationship would be harder for me than it would be for an asexual. If a sexual is dating an asexual, the tension is caused by the serials desires, but if I dated a sexual but refused sex, they would have to deal with not having sex AND I would have to deal with my sexual urges, since sex and romance go hand in hand for me, a sexual romantic.

I appreciate your insights! Smile Do you consider your rejection of sex to be ideological in nature, pragmatic, or both? Here, there's a lot of emphasis on ideological reasons, but I'd understand if you have pragmatic reasons, since sex is naturally tied to romance for you, and you rejected romance first.

I know that you said that you rejected romance first, but if you had rejected sex first, and attempted a romantic relationship, do you think you still would've rejected romance, because of the possibility of being sexually attracted to your partner? Although you don't want to act on it, just having that attraction makes the relationship more difficult overall, wouldn't it?


There's also the issue of societal pressure that will make a romantic relationship even harder. Look at asexuality, a lot people barely understand and accept it, and many don't. How much harder would it be to explain to a potential partner "ok so now that you understand what asexuality is, now you need to know that I am not asexual, but I still don't have sex, even though I feel an urge for it." just seems easier, more natural, and more practical to just reject both at this point.

Yeah, so many people still can't, or won't try to understand asexuality, so it's even more of an uphill battle to explain how someone, without being asexual, can be completely sure that they never want to have sex, and explain that the problem isn't not wanting sex, but having a body working against oneself.

Have you had to deal with any of these misconceptions?: http://iamfortress.forumotion.com/t7-misconceptions

One of the goals of this community is to fight against those misconceptions, showing that we find liberation in not having sex.

My rejection of sex and romance are more for personal reasons/repulsion. Ideological reasons don't bother me. Ultimately I like the antisexual label because it describes me, I'm against having sex on a personal level, I don't want it, and I don't like that I experience sexuality and wish to rid myself of it. 

If I rejected sex first would I later have rejected romance? Well, I don't think I'd ever get into a romantic relationship without sex, unless I dated an asexual, but that would still have the problem you mentioned, I'd be sexually attracted to my partner. My sexuality would influence my romance, I'd have to pick a partner I'm sexually attracted to in order to feel romantic attraction. They are just too connected for me. Maybe if they become unconnected for me in the future that'd change, but I don't see that happening.

Darkthrone

Posts : 38
Join date : 2015-05-08

Back to top Go down

Re: About romance

Post by Biscotti on Sat Dec 26, 2015 11:18 pm

Ok this is just a rant or perhaps blog post what touches on romance.
Before I talk I'd like to introduce Pat and Kyle, a hypothetically happily married and sexually active couple that never divorced. Of course I know a few of these in real life so they are more than hypothetical. So consider this conjecture as fact.

Now just some theories I've been sort of pondering.
Theory 1: All romance in literature are designed to give unrealstic depictions to keep people "loving the idea of falling in love". Perhaps unintentionally? I mean imagine a person in a story who is "humbug" on relationships they are just a humbug right, not an actual rational arugment holding person right, probably disillusoined through bad experience, or maybe never had the experience.

Theory 2: Good love relationships come out of mutual respect, experiences and the like not out of an obligation to a "in a romance relationship" status, holding each other and trying to conform to a societial status of romance relationships, kissing because it's what everyone else does and all that.

But whether these theories be true or not I think we can all agree on rule number 1, "If a relationship involves sex it is not a good relationship." 
*Looks at Pat and Kyle*
...Well ok, it's not a "perfect" relationship. And to be more specific I should have said, "If a relationship involves "sexual attraction toward each other" it is not a perfect relationship."
Because sex and sexual attraction are pretty much synonyms to LACK of respect. (I might talk about this line in a different post)
Sure they could be excellent people who work together well, produce non-disturbing kids (Personality wise, not talking about birth defects) but they still have that blemish of...respectful dissonance and grossness towards each other.
But what do I care? I don't. I don't care about Pat and Carl I gave up a long time ago caring about individuals, it's not my business. But it certainly wouldn't hurt to remove that aspect from their relationship. I mean if a relationship suffered because 2 people who supposedly love each other stopped *insert graphic descirption of sex here*ing, it's a bit of a laughable relationship anyways right?
That's an argument I use a lot, I just spell out exactly what is is that sexuals are defending. However inevitablly they're going to form an argument of "Yes sex is *Graphic description of stupidity here* and we're proud of it, and I'll just sit there with an expression of dsifj which is a mixed form of resignation, hopelessness, unimpressedness and jdfsijo (A complicated emotion I'll explain some other time. I should also add that I do not mean to sound like I am "better than these people" I am more "Frustrated at these people".).
I mean sure I'll admit "it's gross" and "it's not gross" isn't an argument and a subjective sentimality. (I suppose...I mean it doesn't work on them so it's not a good argument, that's the template for what a good argument is from now on.)
But here's the thing imo there's three different levels of antisexualism
1. Living to yourself...just ignore the rest of the world and their levels of pro-sexuality that ranges from slightly off-putting to harmful.
2. Showing society that being against sexuality is a completely normal viewpoint (This should be Freaking obvious) 
3. Convincing society that antisexualism is better than pro-sexualism

And you'd think the argument of "It really is completely stupid and gross" would at least give antisexualism the recognition of number, TWO. I would be completely fine with acheiving number two before I died.
Of course we have plenty of less subjective arguments as well but imo that should be enough.

Finally I never actually spell out "graphic description of sex" because it really just makes me sound stupid. That's how bad it is. I mean here we're at the end of my post so I'll try it. "Oh hey Pat I love you so I'm going to stick my penis in your vagina hole haha I'm moving my penis in and out! Oh Pat this makes my penis feel so good, lo-"
OK see what I mean?
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 940
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: About romance

Post by xenosimiana on Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:44 am

This isn't reflective of my wants but curiosity and trying to understand what romance is, because my understanding is a bit cloudy. Though we are antisexual, there are those among us that consider themselves (or others would) romantic asexuals so my curiosity is geared mainly at them. Even though they don't want sex (which is great of course) but a romantic type of connection with someone, is there an age limit? Say if the person was twelve would that make it strange? Though they have no intentions to have sex with that person?

xenosimiana

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

Back to top Go down

Re: About romance

Post by SCH0206 on Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:57 am

@xenosimiana wrote:
This isn't reflective of my wants but curiosity and trying to understand what romance is, because my understanding is a bit cloudy. Though we are antisexual, there are those among us that are what's considered romantic asexuals so my curiosity is geared mainly at them. Even though they don't want sex (which is great of course) but a romantic type of connection with someone, is there an age limit? Say if the person was twelve would that make it strange? Though they have no intentions to have sex with that person?
Well, it's typical for kids around that age to have crushes. (I was one of them, though mine were one-sided.) Of course, with them being so young, they can't do much except sit with their crush at lunch, hang out at each others' homes, or go out for ice cream.

SCH0206

Posts : 456
Join date : 2015-04-30

Back to top Go down

Re: About romance

Post by xenosimiana on Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:03 pm

What I mean is for adults is there an age limit for them since they don''t want sex but romance, is there an age limit for the person they have romantic feelings for. And if not, would it be strange for an adult to have romantic feelings for a twelve year old for example, though they don't want sex?

I apologize if I wasn't clear at first.

I'm asking because I read a description from an sex-repulsed romantic asexual that said they don't have an age limit. Though I don't think they would be interested in a child, it just made me think about the possibility of others and of course defining romance and ethics revolving around this.

xenosimiana

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

Back to top Go down

Re: About romance

Post by SCH0206 on Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:12 pm

Oh, you're talking about adults. I thought you were talking about kids.

I find that quite disturbing, even though sex isn't involved. Why corrupt a child's innocence? Why not seek out another adult? 

Besides, while some 12-year-olds have crushes, others still believe in cooties.

SCH0206

Posts : 456
Join date : 2015-04-30

Back to top Go down

Re: About romance

Post by x Nacht Klaue x on Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:29 pm

In my opinion, romance doesn't exist. It's all role play. Something which is taught since childhood. All that "romance" exists in disney cartoons and other cartoons to brainwash children with. And in movies in general. Without this role play, sometimes the relationship can break. If none of the partners participates in the romantic role play, one of them might feel bored by that partner, because the partner is not like the ones which she used to see in the romantic movies.

Edit: Some guys try hard to be like those guys in the movies (romantic, funny and good looking) and when they don't get girls that are interested, they wonder what's wrong. Because in their minds, they are like those in the movies so why aren't the girls interested in them? They ask themselves why the girls are attracted to the bad guys, do they want to be treated badly? It can lead them into low self-esteem and depression.

I could speculate that maybe those uninterested girls used to like more other types of movies. Guys that are more mysterous, good looking and known to be someone to watch out for. So the "normal" romantic role-play (kind, sweet, romantic, funny, etc) is boring to them. They prefer mysterious and danger role play (darkness, mystery, vampires, murder, etc).

Edit again: I forgot to mention the way how the talk. Girls that prefer the latter ones, they may get attracted to guys who speak in a mysterious way. Like if they were reading from a dark poetry book or something. Maybe that can be called dark romance or something, I dunno. But it's all role play, really, an illusion, in my opinion.


Last edited by x Nacht Klaue x on Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
x Nacht Klaue x

Posts : 1150
Join date : 2015-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: About romance

Post by x Nacht Klaue x on Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:15 pm

Since I don't have any IRL (in real life) life I only think about people I've chatted with during all these years. So my post above is based on people I've chatted with.

I've chatted in different chat rooms and with many people. And the desperate guys they used to ask such questions which I wrote above. Some of the things reminds me of Elliot Rodger except that they used to have a girlfriend, so they weren't virgins i think.

It happened that some guys which I chatted with went into romantic role play, even if they themselves weren't aware of it. They tried to be romantic and I felt how ridicilous it was but sometimes I too played a little.

And the outsiders, they used to play too but in a different way, as I mentioned in the post above, like if they lived in vampire movies.

I think that real life relationship can be boring to some people, so they kind of need these in their relationship to keep it going.

Candle, flowers, words that sounds "romantic, sex, etc.

As an aromantic person I don't feel the need to play any romantic role play. I prefer to be authentic. I don't think anyone is born romantic. Romance has always been popular in the movies and fairy tales.

Is romantic and romance same thing by the way? I haven't been involved in some threads and have forgot what I have read in threads about romance, etc..

Edit: To light a candle and have flowers in the room or liking poems and so on in general, is not what I mean. Hope no ones misunderstands me. I mean when people play the romantic role play..
avatar
x Nacht Klaue x

Posts : 1150
Join date : 2015-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: About romance

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Back to top


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