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.
As an Aromantic and Asexual person, I would respectfully disagree. This is the kind of partnership I would like to have in the future, no romance or sex involved. I would like to suggest you look into queer-platonic relationships if you’d like to know more, because this is basically describing one of those!
Aromantic AND Asexual. As an Aromantic and NOT Asexual person, I would respectfully disagree. This relationship described above is primarily an Asexual one from my point of view. I recognize that aromantic is, in and of itself, a spectrum and if you’re defining the marriage above as an aromantic marriage, we are probably on the opposite ends of it.
As examples, going off that: Weddings are not exciting. They’re princess parties performatively done to satisfy arophobic relatives. Kissing is fine.
Well no, sucking face is fine. Dropping quick little kisses just because is weird and your sappiness is well, good for you, allomantics. I’ll be over here.
But I’m not paying thousands of dollars to lie about loving someone in front of an audience. I’m not paying thousands of dollars to imply loving someone in front of an audience because that is what they will read out of it and the thought of being repeatedly congratulated on ‘you look so cute together’ is squick.
In an Aromantic but not Asexual relationship that would include me: We are not ‘together’. We are not a unit except for tax purposes. We are long-term roommates who occasionally wander into each other’s rooms naked. We are probably also friends who enjoy spending time together, but we are never going to ‘make a commitment’ to each other unless it’s a commitment to never say those words again, thanks, that was gross.
Put it this way. At the end of the Princess Bride, when they kiss. It’s not the second beat of the kiss that makes me uncomfortable to watch. It’s the staring before hand and the first beat. And actually, no, because I know that’s actors and that was scripted and deeply unromantic to actually do. But when my friends who are deeply in love with each other do it, that’s the part that I don’t want.
All the purely practical examples work, but like ‘never goes to the movies alone’? That feels romantic to me. The… expectation that you have a demand on the other person’s time. The assumption that there is a movie-going unit. If you scheduled a standing appointment with that person, maybe, but not just because you’re living together and paying taxes together. You’re not doing either of those at the movies, so why would it be assumed any more than sex would be assumed?
This article clearly shows that long-term underlining is not a good idea.