asexual romantic attraction

Status
Not open for further replies.

maereth

Registered
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Hi everyone, I'm not sure this is in the right category, but let's give it a go.

I'm looking for ideas on describing a romantic attraction, but in a person that is asexual, so uninterested in sex and not being motivated by it, as I don't really know how to tease it apart, especially in terms of how it feels first-hand.
I have a teenage character in my story, and I was thinking about having him struggle with his sexuality, as in discovering, or at least considering that he might be asexual. However, I need him to still be interested in a girl. Now I've read about and thought about asexuality before, and I thought I understood it roughly, but the problem is, I'm a girl (a woman even haha), and my experiences do not seem useful.
I mean, I read about aces having crushes, yet not feeling attracted to someone sexually, and I think I get it, but how to describe it in a book so that it sounds natural, and is a good enough motivation for him to admit that he likes her and wants to try having a relationship?

I hope this makes sense, thanks for your input :)
 

King Neptune

Banned
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
4,253
Reaction score
372
Location
The Oceans

maereth

Registered
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Sexual attraction and romantic attraction are different spectra.

Exactly, its hard to define these things, but asexuals can feel attraction which is not sexual, and that's what I'm asking about.

(Thanks kuwisdelu, i'll ask to have it moved)
 

amergina

Pittsburgh Strong
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
15,599
Reaction score
2,471
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Website
www.annazabo.com
ro·man·tic
rōˈman(t)ik/
adjective
adjective: romantic; adjective: Romantic
1.
conducive to or characterized by the expression of love.
"a romantic candlelit dinner"
synonyms:loving, amorous, passionate, tender, affectionate; informallovey-dovey
"he's so romantic


Apparently you want to make "romantic" mean something other than what it means. Do you actually mean Platonic love? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_love

Platonic love would be more in line with being aromantic than asexual.

Someone can be sexually attracted to someone and not romantically interested.
 

Silva

saucy
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 24, 2015
Messages
1,764
Reaction score
260
Website
twitter.com
He might like the way her hair shines in the sunlight. He might adore the way she laughs. He might be fascinated by the pert little ski-jump of her nose. He might feel satisfaction with the happy fuzzy way he feels when he's with her. He might like the way she listens and makes him feel like he matters. He may like the security of being in each others' arms, and possibly even the feel of warm skin against warm skin on a cold night. He might revel in their companionship and feel like his heart would break if she was gone.

But none of this will have a sexual context.
 
Last edited:

maereth

Registered
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
He might like the way her hair shines in the sunlight. He might adore the way she laughs. He might be fascinated by the pert little ski-jump of her nose. He might feel satisfaction with the happy fuzzy way he feels when he's with her. He might like the way she listens and makes him feel like he matters. He may like the security of being in each others' arms, and possibly even the feel of warm skin against warm skin on a cold night. He might revel in their companionship and feel like his heart would break if she was gone.

But none of this will have a sexual context.

This is exactly the perspective I was hoping for, thank you!

(Ok, actually, I don't know how to ask to move this, could anyone point me in the right direction?)
 

King Neptune

Banned
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
4,253
Reaction score
372
Location
The Oceans
Platonic love would be more in line with being aromantic than asexual.

Someone can be sexually attracted to someone and not romantically interested.

I don't disagree, but I regard romantic love to be sexual by its nature, but sexual attraction without romantic interest is possible.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
That is how it is for you, how it is for romantic asexual is very different. You can't just say other people's experiences and identities don't exist or are inconceivable. The easiest way to see first person accounts would be to visit the AVEN forums or one of the asexual dating site forums. Physically there is a range from romantic non-touching to non sexual cuddling.
 

AW Admin

Administrator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
18,772
Reaction score
6,285
I don't disagree, but I regard romantic love to be sexual by its nature, but sexual attraction without romantic interest is possible.

It would be more accurate if you were to indicate that you personally feel this to be true for you.

What's true for you, isn't universally true for everyone.
 

Tazlima

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
3,042
Reaction score
1,494
I'm not asexual, so take with a grain of salt, but there are lots of elements to a romantic relationship apart from the sexual one. Take out the desire to insert tab A into slot B (or any variation thereupon), and see what's left. Most people I've known in successful long-term relationships describe their partner as their best friend. You wake up in the morning and snuggle up, content to be with this person you love. At the end of a long day, when you come home and see their smiling face, just being near them lifts your spirits.

You cook dinner together and talk about your day. You cuddle on the couch and watch a favorite show together. You go for walks and watch the seasons change together. And throughout all of it is this common thread... there's noplace I'd rather be, and nobody I'd rather share this with. You look forward to growing old with this person.

Sex is great, but most people aren't horny 24/7. Assuming you are or have been in a romantic relationship, what do/did you do together and how do/did you feel the rest of the time when you're with that person? What do/did you love about him/her?
 

edutton

Ni. Peng. Neee-Wom.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
2,771
Reaction score
667
Location
North Carolina, unfortunately
You might also consider asking this question in the AVEN forums (http://www.asexuality.org/)... I had an ace-related question regarding my own MS, and when I explained what I was doing and that I wanted to get the rep right, they were very kind in answering what I needed.
 

sohalt

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 14, 2009
Messages
1,725
Reaction score
392
Location
Austria
Website
notsosilentsister.tumblr.com
The idea that romance and sex should go together is a fairly modern innovation. Courtly love, which has shaped western culture's idea of romance, is not supposed to be "consummated" (or at least not _necessarily_supposed to be consummated; the sexual unavailabity of the target of desire is a main - if not always the whole - point.) Of course sexual desire usually still plays a big part - through its suppression or sublimation, not through its absence. Committing to eternal faithful devotion whithout any intention of acting on sexual desire is still different from not having that desire in the first place.

Personally, I've found that the distinction can be a bit academical. My first crush in school - oh, he was so out of my league! Very popular; class president; at least three other girls (that I knew of) had a crush on him too. And he had a type and it wasn't me.

Even then, in my heart of hearts, I knew that was kinda the point. I didn't want anything _from_him. I just wanted to look at him all the time, and listen to his voice, and generally bask in his presence. There was no need for him to want anything from me. I wouldn't have known what to do with a boy who wanted anything from me. Sex wasn't on my mind at all. But it certainly felt very romantic to me.

I do think that romance is a bit more (and often enough actually less) than affection, tenderness, loyality, feelings you might have for a sibling or a pet. But that special ingredient certainly doesn't have to be sex. Attraction, fascination, might be purely aesthetic, or purely intellectual, and not less powerful for that. Intimacy, exclusivity - can be a sharing of many things other than bodily fluids; secrets, truths, weaknesses and vulnerabilities. (My crush, he told me a secret once, or at least something you would not bring up in small talk. I was outside of myself. I'm sure he knew I had a crush on him. We had unspoken understandings, or at least, it was easy enough to imagine, and that's all it sometimes takes, a bit of imagination, this idea of having seen something others wouldn't, to be seen in a way others didn't - some secret knowledge of a truer meaning beneath the surface of things.)

Most importantly, I think, there's a longing - maybe even more powerful when less clearly defined, usually for some sort of transformation, of the world around us, or of ourselves. My favourite poem by Tennyson is The Lady of Shalott. She's cursed to sit at the loom in her tower, never to look outside the window - just at a magical mirror, showing nothing but reflections. Until one day, the mirror shows her Lancelot. And she just has to go to that window now. The mirror cracks, and she leaves the tower, gets on a boat and dies. And she never does anything with Lancelot. But that's not important. The important thing is that she looks out of the window, and gets out of the tower.

Romance is what makes you leave the tower. Sometimes that involves sex. But it really doesn't have to.
 
Last edited:

maereth

Registered
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Thank you for all the responses. Like I said, I am aware that attraction and relationships are not just about sex, I've educated myself about asexualism, and I've been in romantic relationships. The issue was that there is always a specific feeling that allows you to recognise that you like someone, and I wanted to tease apart the sexual and non-sexual aspect of that, but didn't trust my own judgement to be honest. I also wondered how the male perspective would be different seeing as guys do approach these things differently (I know they're not *all* about sex and have feelings and I don't mean to be whatever the reverse of misogynistic is, which is also why I asked).
Anyway, I'll go on the aven forum as well, and think about it now that I have some starting points. Thanks again.
 

Siri Kirpal

Swan in Process
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
8,943
Reaction score
3,151
Location
In God I dwell, especially in Eugene OR
Sat Nam! (Literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

I once attended a poetry reading in which a woman read her poem about wanting a man of her own to cuddle with...as long as sex wasn't part of the bargain. That sounds like what you're looking for.

Yes, romantic love used to be a whole different ballpark from sexual love. You could try reading the poems of Rumi or other Sufi masters to get the difference. In many parts of the world, marriages are not based on romance. (And no, that's not necessarily the terrible thing a great many novels make it out to be.)

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal
 

MurderOfCrows

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2010
Messages
266
Reaction score
21
Location
Utah
This thread has some great discussion about how sexuality and romantic attraction, especially the donut comparison (there are several.) I've included the relevant text here, but removed the 'transsexual' item because it's ...well, read the forum. Dude writing this does not understand Transgender folk, and it's kind of gross to suggest that someone is only attracted to transgender folk because they're transgender. But anyway, here's a kind of metaphor for you.

One of my ace friends uses various 'some people admire the donut's aesthetics but has no desire to eat the donut' as a good way to explain romantic/aesthetic attraction as opposed to sexual attraction.

She says she basically wants to just hold hands, have her hair petted, and cuddle someone, but not shag them. Like friendship, yes, but bit more intimate.

There is a donut shop.
A heterosexual female walks in and chooses one with blue icing.
A heterosexual male walks in and chooses one with red icing.
A homosexual female chooses red, and the homosexual male takes a blue one.
A closeted homosexual chooses their 'appropriate' donut, but gazes longingly at the other when no one is looking.
A bisexual debates for several moments, eventually playing eeny-meeny-miney-mo to decide which donut they want for the day.
An asexual looks briefly at the donuts, shrugs, and goes to look at the cakes.

A demisexual might purchase a donut or two, but only after buying other sweets (such as cake) from the shop for a while.
A pansexual doesn't really see why everyone is so nit-picky about their donuts. Red, blue, purple: they all taste the same, right?

A heteroromantic female walks in and enjoys the smell of the donuts with blue icing.
A heteroromantic male walks in and enjoys the smell of the donuts with red icing.
A homoromantic female prefers the smell of red donuts, and the homoromantic male likes the smell of blue donuts better.
A biromantic thinks both types smell wonderful, just in different ways.
An aromantic sneezes a bit as they walk into the shop, and might hold their breath until they get to the cake section.

A demiromantic didn't really like the smell of donuts at first, but it slowly grew on them after spending lots of time in the shop.
A transromantic likes the way the purple-iced donuts smell like a mix between red and blue.
A panromantic walks into the donut shop and takes a big breath because they just love the smell of donuts in the morning. And, yes, the cake is lovely too, but we're focusing on donuts.
A polyamorous person asks for a box of a dozen donuts. The color(s) depend on said person's preference.

(Some people's favorite smells and favorite donuts don't match up, in the same way that one might love the smell of vanilla extract, but not enjoy a spoonful of it.)

Taken from the AVEN forums here.

(I also personally believe that pansexuality is just the hot new term for bisexuality, because literally nobody bisexual is rigidly adherent to dating only being with strictly binary heteronormative folk and won't date nonbinary/intersex/trans folk. It's freaking ridiculous to think that bisexuals are monolithically gender binary enforcers. But monosexual prejudice against bi/pan folks has been around for literally forever, though, so trying to make a new umbrella term to say I'm not one of THOSE people... is kind of a thing.)
 
Last edited:

King Neptune

Banned
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
4,253
Reaction score
372
Location
The Oceans
This thread has some great discussion about how sexuality and romantic attraction, especially the donut comparison (there are several.) I've included the relevant text here, but removed the 'transsexual' item because it's ...well, read the forum. Dude writing this does not understand Transgender folk, and it's kind of gross to suggest that someone is only attracted to transgender folk because they're transgender. But anyway, here's a kind of metaphor for you.

One of my ace friends uses various 'some people admire the donut's aesthetics but has no desire to eat the donut' as a good way to explain romantic/aesthetic attraction as opposed to sexual attraction.

She says she basically wants to just hold hands, have her hair petted, and cuddle someone, but not shag them. Like friendship, yes, but bit more intimate.



Taken from the AVEN forums here.

(I also personally believe that pansexuality is just the hot new term for bisexuality, because literally nobody bisexual is rigidly adherent to dating only being with strictly binary heteronormative folk and won't date nonbinary/intersex/trans folk. It's freaking ridiculous to think that bisexuals are monolithically gender binary enforcers. But monosexual prejudice against bi/pan folks has been around for literally forever, though, so trying to make a new umbrella term to say I'm not one of THOSE people... is kind of a thing.)

Without going into detail, would it be oversimplification to suggest that you think it's a matter of which sense(s) one prefers that would be most relevant? Somewhat analogous to: a man with only a hammer. . . But here it's to the one with the big eyes it's a matter of appearance, while to the one with a big tongue it's all about taste, and so on?
 
Last edited:

MurderOfCrows

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2010
Messages
266
Reaction score
21
Location
Utah
Without going into detail, would it be oversimplification to suggest that you think it's a matter of which sense(s) one prefers that would be most relevant? Somewhat analogous to :to a man with only a hammer. . . But here it's to the one with the big eyes it's a mater of appearance, while to the one with a big tongue it's all about taste, and so one?

Exactly. My friend's homoromantic, so she really like frilly girls to cuddle and definitely prefers a masculine role to her own situation. "She's so cute I just want to hold hands with her and see her smile!"
 

AW Admin

Administrator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
18,772
Reaction score
6,285
(I also personally believe that pansexuality is just the hot new term for bisexuality, because literally nobody bisexual is rigidly adherent to dating only being with strictly binary heteronormative folk and won't date nonbinary/intersex/trans folk. It's freaking ridiculous to think that bisexuals are monolithically gender binary enforcers. But monosexual prejudice against bi/pan folks has been around for literally forever, though, so trying to make a new umbrella term to say I'm not one of THOSE people... is kind of a thing.)

You may believe that, but it isn't what pansexual means. Here's a dictionary definition:

Relating to, having, or open to sexual activity of many kinds.

I note that the OED cites the first attestation as 1969 (as used in the common sense, rather than the Jungian psychological sense), with the definition

That encompasses all kinds of sexuality; not limited or inhibited in sexual choice with regards to gender or practice.

It's a larger scope than bisexual (two-sexual) in that pansexual isn't about male or female or hetero or homo; it's all (pan) sexualities. It's a larger Venn diagram, for which straight and queer are just one area of a very expansive canvas.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
I've included the relevant text here, but removed the 'transsexual' item because it's ...well, read the forum. Dude writing this does not understand Transgender folk, and it's kind of gross to suggest that someone is only attracted to transgender folk because they're transgender. But anyway, here's a kind of metaphor for you.

You weren't kidding.

Some damn doctor handed trans people a donut at birth and told us it was our destiny and we were like what the fuck dude this is a fucking donut not my fucking destiny and then we threw the donut away because it tasted awful too.

And then were like, this is stretching a simplistic donut analogy an awful long way.
 
Last edited:

MurderOfCrows

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2010
Messages
266
Reaction score
21
Location
Utah
You may believe that, but it isn't what pansexual means.

You are again literally suggesting that bisexuals embrace and encourage heteronormativity, won't date transpeople, etc. They are Strictly on male/female axis. That it is strictly "two-sexual." Since Ithis has nothing to do with the thread at hand, I'm asking for a cease/desist - I think you're factually wrong and you won't be able to 'correct' my thinking on the topic, no matter what you link or quote.


You weren't kidding.

Some damn doctor handed trans people a donut at birth and told us it was our destiny and we were like what the fuck dude this is a fucking donut not my fucking destiny and then we threw the donut away because it tasted awful too.

And then were like, this is stretching a simplistic donut analogy an awful long way.

Exactly! The donut isn't a perfect vehicle but it's a good starter point for someone not familiar with diverging sexuality/attraction orientations.
 

Cath

The mean one
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
8,971
Reaction score
2,298
Age
50
Location
Here. Somewhere. Probably.
Website
blog.cathsmith.net
You are again literally suggesting that bisexuals embrace and encourage heteronormativity, won't date transpeople, etc. They are Strictly on male/female axis. That it is strictly "two-sexual." Since Ithis has nothing to do with the thread at hand, I'm asking for a cease/desist - I think you're factually wrong and you won't be able to 'correct' my thinking on the topic, no matter what you link or quote.
Let's establish a few things here:

  1. what you personally believe is irrelevant to what is or what is not factual.
  2. you don't have the right to tell other people what they can or cannot do in this forum.
  3. you're drawing conclusions from someone else's words that are not logically concluded from the argument posed.

That the person you are addressing happens to be both the site Admin and someone known for being very precise in her language is not in your favor either, but were this post directed at anyone I'd say the same. The One Rule to Rule Them All on this forum is Respect Your Fellow Writer - that includes allowing that other people may believe or understand things differently than you do. If you don't want to read what someone has posted, just step away from the thread.


I'm going to close this thread for a few hours because I won't be able to keep an eye on it until later. When it reopens, could I ask people to stick to answering the original question and to please be mindful of the RYFW rule. Thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.