Romance...different?

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Go down

Romance...different?

Post by SlagToccata on Sun Mar 25, 2018 9:08 pm

No such thing as a stupid question, I hope. Anyway, for all my life, I've only ever seen romance as the social facet of sex. I figured AVEN was just making things up to help confused people when they called "romantic orientation" a different thing than sexual orientation. From a cursory glance at this place, though, it seems like the same is believed here, so now I'm legitimately wondering: what's the agreed-upon difference between the two phenomena, and what could make one more acceptable than the other if they're similarly animalistic and destructive urges?

EDIT: Shoot, could someone move this to the appropriate section?
avatar
SlagToccata

Posts : 52
Join date : 2018-03-24

Back to top Go down

Re: Romance...different?

Post by Biscotti on Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:41 am

Definitions / Why I think they're perceived differently

I can define an interpersonal relationship objectively. Its a connection between 2 people and is made up of interactions between those 2 people. Subsets of interpersonal relationships can range from producer/consumer, coworkers, biological family, friends and romance.

A romance definition is a bit subjective, its actually DUALY subjective (one viewpoint for each party) and relationships already have a dynamic nature (Everyone is a stranger at one point). But ill make some generally safe claims; Its generally monogamous, its generally with the intent of being dedicated "life partners", its generally sexual.

But I think, given romances other (perceived) unique and defining characteristics, that it does not need to be inherently sexual when someone talks about it. (Obvious example would be AVEN)

I'm going to stop playing unassuming middle-party and take a stab at what you're referring to

That said if you gave a concrete definition of romance I may change my answer. There are some definitions that are more closely associated with sexuality
Relationships that make someone feel excited in a way that relates to sexual propects?
Relationships that make someone feel excited in a way that they are going to purposefully and irresponsibly stay ignorant about the reasons behind the relationship and any future growth of it because they like dwelling on the state of feeling? (I refer to this as someone who treats relationships like an art, as art is all about envoking and bringing up feelings in the viewer, but when it comes to treating relationships like that I would say it is immature if the importance of these feelings are placed over the relationship )

My own assumptions/viewpoints, which may help you see why I answered how I did

I didn't consider those last 2 examples of being that common, even though they probably are, as since they are feelings that part can be lost in translation from outside observers. Also (through nurture) I was always taught the life partner elements were more important because the feelings go away or change and in addition (through nature) I've always been highly skeptical of any rare fleeting feeling like that I've experienced. The nurture thing is probably more important as my parents/grandparents haven't divorced and seem content so I'm inclined to trust the culture they project as more intelligent with regards to what it's talking about then others.

My stance on romance is romance-skeptical It leans negative because of its seemingly overwhelming relation with nonsensical outcomes, prosexuality, and poor character with people who are in those relationships (I have rants about it somewhere) but due to its subjective nature i have to keep it at skeptical. 

Conversely I can say that absolutely no sexual acts are good.

Anyways
tldr; I just thought romance was a type of relationship which is different then an act of sex.
And I also thought it was interesting you didn't personally see a difference  (I'm expecting that you'll respond with your own viewpoint)
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 943
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Romance...different?

Post by SlagToccata on Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:43 pm

@Biscotti wrote:My stance on romance is romance-skeptical It leans negative because of its seemingly overwhelming relation with nonsensical outcomes, prosexuality, and poor character with people who are in those relationships (I have rants about it somewhere) but due to its subjective nature i have to keep it at skeptical.
Heheheh, that's certainly me as well: romance-skeptical and leaning negative. I have too many of those rants to count, but I tend to keep them to myself considering a feminist or MGTOW somewhere has probably posted it already. (Yeah, different movements, but I've always considered them to be built fundamentally upon a general antipathy toward modern notions of romance.)

Kind of wish I had more to say on the rest, but it all quite frankly leaves me wondering if there's really a place strong friendship ends and romance begins, and why said magnitude would necessitate two terms considered vastly different. I agree there are certain interpersonal connections that are much more emotionally charged than others, but again, not sure where one type begins and the other ends.

As for why I don't see a difference, my general upbringing left me with the idea that "couple = love = romance = sex", in other words that it's all the same deal. When I discovered the asexual community and saw the "aromantic" term, I thought to myself "Huh, yeah, I guess in theory there's no reason one couldn't feel a strong emotional connection without the physical portion," but over time, I simply couldn't find a difference between relationships that were fueled by sex and ones that were fueled by the notion of "romance". When I really thought about it, it only seemed to be needlessly complicating the nature of intimate relationships with arbitrary additional words (a trend that very, very much continued...)

I think if such feelings could be defined, they would probably be the expected emotional response to physical intimacy, like trauma is to injury (bad example, but I can't think of another...wish I was more articulate today.)
avatar
SlagToccata

Posts : 52
Join date : 2018-03-24

Back to top Go down

Re: Romance...different?

Post by Biscotti on Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:33 pm

Kind of wish I had more to say on the rest, but it all quite frankly leaves me wondering if there's really a place strong friendship ends and romance begins

Well that's part of the reason I included "monogamous" as one of the attributes, since I thought it's exclusivity was one that was different then friendship.

Reminds me there was a book I read awhile ago when I was a kid that featured too very close wanderers who weren't in a romantic relationship. (Well at least it didn't seem that way). Don't box yourself by these definitions too much.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 943
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Romance...different?

Post by Hate100 on Wed Apr 18, 2018 11:31 am

Romance doesn't have to be about sex.It depends on the people involved.The reason why people can't and don't want to make the difference between romantic and sexual is their evil sexual desires.

Hate100

Posts : 25
Join date : 2017-05-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Romance...different?

Post by Biscotti on Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:08 pm

Funny coming from someone called hate lol (Im only joking) and I believe I agree
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 943
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Romance...different?

Post by Hate100 on Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:51 am

Why is it so funny?

Hate100

Posts : 25
Join date : 2017-05-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Romance...different?

Post by Biscotti on Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:38 am

Because romance is referred to as "love" (Despite involving the hateful institution of sexuality)

I only meant it was thematically ironic for "hate" to be talking positively about "love". Though I get what you meant.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 943
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Romance...different?

Post by Hate100 on Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:53 pm

Okay.

Hate100

Posts : 25
Join date : 2017-05-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Romance...different?

Post by SCH0206 on Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:47 pm

@SlagToccata

If you don't mind me asking, what prompted you to ask such a question? Are you interested in pursuing a non-sexual romantic relationship or do you just want answers for clarity purposes?

A few examples of non-sexual relationships include ones among celibate/asexual couples and couples portrayed in stories for children.

SCH0206

Posts : 457
Join date : 2015-04-30

Back to top Go down

Re: Romance...different?

Post by SlagToccata on Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:55 pm

@Biscotti wrote:
Kind of wish I had more to say on the rest, but it all quite frankly leaves me wondering if there's really a place strong friendship ends and romance begins

Well that's part of the reason I included "monogamous" as one of the attributes, since I thought it's exclusivity was one that was different then friendship.

Reminds me there was a book I read awhile ago when I was a kid that featured too very close wanderers who weren't in a romantic relationship. (Well at least it didn't seem that way). Don't box yourself by these definitions too much.
How is a monogamous relationship exclusive when someone can have multiple over time? I get the idea that said partner would be one's favorite at a given time, but that doesn't imply it's something more than strong friendship or mutual sexual attraction. Not wanting to box myself by definitions is exactly why I'm asking; I can't seem to find reason "romantic" isn't a superfluous term when I objectively look at alleged examples. That should address @SCH0206's question as well.
avatar
SlagToccata

Posts : 52
Join date : 2018-03-24

Back to top Go down

Re: Romance...different?

Post by SCH0206 on Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:17 pm

@SlagToccata wrote:
@Biscotti wrote:
Kind of wish I had more to say on the rest, but it all quite frankly leaves me wondering if there's really a place strong friendship ends and romance begins

Well that's part of the reason I included "monogamous" as one of the attributes, since I thought it's exclusivity was one that was different then friendship.

Reminds me there was a book I read awhile ago when I was a kid that featured too very close wanderers who weren't in a romantic relationship. (Well at least it didn't seem that way). Don't box yourself by these definitions too much.
How is a monogamous relationship exclusive when someone can have multiple over time? I get the idea that said partner would be one's favorite at a given time, but that doesn't imply it's something more than strong friendship or mutual sexual attraction. Not wanting to box myself by definitions is exactly why I'm asking; I can't seem to find reason "romantic" isn't a superfluous term when I objectively look at alleged examples. That should address @SCH0206's question as well.

I guess you have a point there, though the best way I can differentiate between friendship and romance is that with friendship, you like someone, but you don't make them the center of your universe while with romance, you do things like holding hands, cuddling, kissing, and spending most of your time with them and even living with them, things that many people don't do in platonic relationships.

SCH0206

Posts : 457
Join date : 2015-04-30

Back to top Go down

Re: Romance...different?

Post by Biscotti on Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:40 pm

@SCH0206 wrote:
@SlagToccata wrote:
@Biscotti wrote:
Kind of wish I had more to say on the rest, but it all quite frankly leaves me wondering if there's really a place strong friendship ends and romance begins

Well that's part of the reason I included "monogamous" as one of the attributes, since I thought it's exclusivity was one that was different then friendship.

Reminds me there was a book I read awhile ago when I was a kid that featured too very close wanderers who weren't in a romantic relationship. (Well at least it didn't seem that way). Don't box yourself by these definitions too much.
How is a monogamous relationship exclusive when someone can have multiple over time? I get the idea that said partner would be one's favorite at a given time, but that doesn't imply it's something more than strong friendship or mutual sexual attraction. Not wanting to box myself by definitions is exactly why I'm asking; I can't seem to find reason "romantic" isn't a superfluous term when I objectively look at alleged examples. That should address @SCH0206's question as well.

I guess you have a point there, though the best way I can differentiate between friendship and romance is that with friendship, you like someone, but you don't make them the center of your universe while with romance, you do things like holding hands, cuddling, kissing, and spending most of your time with them and even living with them, things that many people don't do in platonic relationships.

Take that and combine it with the "exclusive" definition.

If you're doing things like that with more then one person at a time who you consider "romantic" (Including just general time-sharing), then jealousy and other problems happen. In that way I think it's still definable.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 943
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Romance...different?

Post by SlagToccata on Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:29 pm

holding hands, cuddling, kissing, and spending most of your time with them and even living with them
Sounds sexual to me. *shrugs* It's to a lesser to degree than intercourse, but they seem to stem from the same biological impulse. Straight people do that with members of the other gender, gay people do it with members of the same gender, and prepubescent children don't bother at all, no?
If you're doing things like that with more then one person at a time who you consider "romantic" (Including just general time-sharing), then jealousy and other problems happen. In that way I think it's still definable.
I wouldn't be too sure that emotional response is set in stone. I felt jealous when my friends played with other kids on the playground back in kindergarten, but was taught to think otherwise and took that lesson with me. The chemicals blasting in people's heads when in relationships just makes them act like children again. Heck, that's exactly the reason I signed up here to begin with.
avatar
SlagToccata

Posts : 52
Join date : 2018-03-24

Back to top Go down

Re: Romance...different?

Post by SCH0206 on Sun Apr 29, 2018 10:21 pm

@SlagToccata wrote:
holding hands, cuddling, kissing, and spending most of your time with them and even living with them
Sounds sexual to me. *shrugs* It's to a lesser to degree than intercourse, but they seem to stem from the same biological impulse. Straight people do that with members of the other gender, gay people do it with members of the same gender, and prepubescent children don't bother at all, no?
If you're doing things like that with more then one person at a time who you consider "romantic" (Including just general time-sharing), then jealousy and other problems happen. In that way I think it's still definable.
I wouldn't be too sure that emotional response is set in stone. I felt jealous when my friends played with other kids on the playground back in kindergarten, but was taught to think otherwise and took that lesson with me. The chemicals blasting in people's heads when in relationships just makes them act like children again. Heck, that's exactly the reason I signed up here to begin with.

Well, while those actions are done in committed relationships, some of them are done in platonic ones, too.

For example, holding hands is common among little girls and their best gal pals. It's also done among siblings and parent/child relationships.

While kissing on the lips is something most platonic people don't do, you can kiss someone's cheek without being in a romantic relationship. Examples include kissing friends' and family members' cheeks. 

Of course, children can't live with their friends because they're minors, and they have to live with their parents/guardians until they're of age. When they're grown up, they can live with other adults without being in a committed relationship with them, like roommates.

Now that I think about it, I can see why you have a difficult time separating friendship and romance since the actions I listed above can be done in both committed and platonic relationships.

About jealousy: The good thing about platonic relationships is that while jealousy does occur, you can remind yourself that it's okay for others (and yourself) to have more than one friend. That's something that most people would object to in romantic relationships unless they practice polygamy, and that has its own problems.

SCH0206

Posts : 457
Join date : 2015-04-30

Back to top Go down

Re: Romance...different?

Post by x Nacht Klaue x on Tue May 08, 2018 11:23 am

Romance & love can make one "blind".
avatar
x Nacht Klaue x

Posts : 1156
Join date : 2015-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Romance...different?

Post by Admin on Wed May 09, 2018 8:15 pm

I've gotten stuck trying to distinguish romantic relationships that aren't dominated by limerence from very committed friendships. Limerence is the overwhelming sense of obsession with the other person, feeling like they're the entire world, and feeling very possessive of them. All of the things stereotypically associated with romance.

Living together isn't exclusive to romantic relationships. When I was trying to figure this out, was I being charitable assuming that there is a form of romance that is can still exist without the clingy, obsessive and annoying aspects of limerence?

_________________
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: Romance...different?

Post by Biscotti on Thu May 10, 2018 2:32 pm

I waved the white flag a bit ago. I'm a bit lost on this discussion now. 

To answer admin, I'm not exactly sure what being charitable means. Are you asking if a non-limerant romantic relationship is seen as a "liberal" take on it? I think relationships understandably have expectations and that those expectations are ideally communicated between the parties so that the relationship is understood and symmetric. (Like a business transaction is symmetric. But a thief/theived relationship is asymmetric). And at least your description of "clinginess" and "annoying" all seem like traits of an asymmetric relationship. (Assuming you are talking about a relationship you are in and not just relationships in general) In that light I think symmetric relationships are not that liberal of an idea. Though I'm speaking theoretically and not "educatedly".
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 943
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Romance...different?

Post by Admin on Thu May 10, 2018 7:39 pm

@Biscotti wrote:I waved the white flag a bit ago. I'm a bit lost on this discussion now. 

To answer admin, I'm not exactly sure what being charitable means. Are you asking if a non-limerant romantic relationship is seen as a "liberal" take on it? I think relationships understandably have expectations and that those expectations are ideally communicated between the parties so that the relationship is understood and symmetric. (Like a business transaction is symmetric. But a thief/theived relationship is asymmetric). And at least your description of "clinginess" and "annoying" all seem like traits of an asymmetric relationship. (Assuming you are talking about a relationship you are in and not just relationships in general) In that light I think symmetric relationships are not that liberal of an idea. Though I'm speaking theoretically and not "educatedly".

By being "charitable", I meant being more idealistic towards what romance could be, by assuming romance itself isn't just limerence or infatuation, therefore the possibility that romance itself isn't always shallow. If the infatuation is mutual, it may be a symmetric relationship if the relationship is generally equal, while one-sided relationships and relationships that are mutual but very unequal would be asymmetrical.

_________________
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: Romance...different?

Post by Biscotti on Thu May 10, 2018 8:08 pm

I'm also a bit confused as to what a "romantic relationship" means in your post.
Is a long-running marriage considering "romantic" even if it is not as infatuated or "romantic" or whatever as it may have been at the beginning?

And could an infatuation really be a symmetic relationship? I associate infatuation as being primarily emotionally driven and thus the mutual understanding of itself being inconsistent and shaky at best. Also brings to mind the very cringy claim of sexuals that "intimacy is communication". Which I see what they're saying but my gosh is that cringe or a very cringy way to go about it to where it would be a primary descriptor of it.

I'm not sure if romance can ever not be shallow or not. I mean friendships can be shallow as well. So what makes a relationship shallow?
What makes a relationship shallow ideas:

Is the fact that it's focused so much on each other shallow? (Like how you might say a single person is "selfish" a couple is..."couplish". But I'm not too sure about this one. I mean universal altruism is a high bar to live by, but maybe that's not what I mean.)
The sexual part is shallow, let's just get that out of the way we already all know that.
Is the fact that it forms unnecessary dependencies shallow? (Don't think so but that can still a negative for it.)
The sentiment that having one makes you desirable? Or that it validates you in some way?
The over-focused obssession to sacrifice needlessly? (Dont think it's shallow, still a negative).
What are your ideas?



Last edited by Biscotti on Thu May 10, 2018 8:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 943
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Romance...different?

Post by SCH0206 on Thu May 10, 2018 8:11 pm

I have another one: that there's a heavy emphasis over pulchritude and little importance is put on inner beauty.

SCH0206

Posts : 457
Join date : 2015-04-30

Back to top Go down

Re: Romance...different?

Post by Biscotti on Wed May 16, 2018 9:16 pm

I think romance is simply two idiots putting too much weight in the other persons words, which are similarly idiotic, in order to justify and exponentially output more idiotic behaviour.

Is it like a job. Where you'll do something stupid, such as throwing into the compost 15 pancakes every morning because it's what the managers say to do, you don't care. And thusly you're not the one to blame.

It's an echo chamber of stupidity and a void of free-thought. Well, at least that seems to be a common trait of it.
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 943
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Romance...different?

Post by SlagToccata on Sat Jun 02, 2018 1:51 pm

This conversation sure lost its direction fast. I guess that proves my suspicion?
avatar
SlagToccata

Posts : 52
Join date : 2018-03-24

Back to top Go down

Re: Romance...different?

Post by Biscotti on Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:28 am

I'm still not convinced that sort of relationship is necessarily inherently sexual. As sexuals are not necessarily monogamous and there may be other reasons why such a relationship would occur.

However, I'm interested in hearing what you think about family relationships, as those are more linked to sexuality aren't they?
avatar
Biscotti

Posts : 943
Join date : 2015-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Romance...different?

Post by Guest on Fri Jul 06, 2018 1:40 am

I also see no difference between romantic and sexual attraction, and I agree with your definition that "romance" is simply the social and therefore restrained and polite form of sexuality.

It could be that romance evolved to deceive and falsely signal sexual availability to others. As in, when you are aware that other people are watching, you restrain yourself so as to always have other options (people) sexually available to you later down the line. You want to obfuscate whether or not you actually have sex with this person, therefore keeping others' interest in you alive. Sexual interest of others declines as soon as it is clear you are indeed having sex with this person. This has to do with the transmission of sicknesses during sex, that all animals including humans want to protect themselves from. That is why even animals prefer virgin females for mating, it has to do with the fact that a virgin is least likely to carry STDs.

Romance is like hovering your hand over the flame, sex is like sticking your hand into it. But once you feel the urge to go anywhere near the flame, there's the problem already. Romance just means being a "careful" sexual. A sexual with standards, so to speak. But it's a dangerous game to play, and your feelings could move onto the less careful stage without warning. Not worth the risk for any reason. Why can't you just let the flame be and move on?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Romance...different?

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