This is a sweet post about the idea of two aromantic platonic partners having a convenience marriage. If you didn’t know, aromanticism refers to a romantic orientation characterized by a lack of romantic attraction or interest in romantic relationships. Individuals who identify as aromantic may still experience other forms of attraction, such as platonic or aesthetic attraction, but they do not feel the desire or need for romantic partnerships. Aromanticism is a spectrum, and individuals who identify as aromantic may have varying experiences and feelings about relationships.
Congratulations, you may now high-five the bride.
…I’m more confused now than ever as to what, by definition, romantic love actually is. People say it’s not the same thing as sexual love, and I believe it. It’s more than just snuggling and kissing and having cute and/or nauseating pet names for each other — I’d call that expressions of romantic love, but not the thing itself. It could be that it’s being comfortable being close to the other person, but I have friends that I’m not romantically interested in at all, who are huggers, and I’ve grown used to hugging them in return and it not being awkward.
What makes the love romantic, I think, is the exclusivity of it — the idea that you belong to this person and they belong to you, and they are your top priority and you are theirs (with the possible exception of your God being your shared top priority if you are religious; or your children, if you have them, taking top priority for a time). You would do anything for them and they for you; you trust them with anything and everything.
And that’s the kind of stuff I’m reading in this post, especially with the support of the post about the things that actually make marriage work.
I will not question the existence of aromantics, nor deny what they experience. But stuff like this makes me question whether people on either side of the argument have a clear definition of the terms they’re using.
This post kinda confuses A-romantic with A-sexual. A married couple can be very much intimate with each other without being romantic. Married Friends With Benefits is totally a thing.
Yeah, I kinda got that impression too. This is an ASEXUAL marriage, as opposed to an AROMANTIC one. All the closeness and intimacy, without the sexual component.