I guess that's where we differ because I don't think that's true at all. I think we put so much pressure on the notions of "compromise" and someone's desires being "less important" than the other instead of learning to healthily communicate and navigate each other's boundaries.
I could put someone's desire over my own and consolidate my needs, desires, and dreams into a relational unit with someone or I could radically support that person's individuality and ability to pursue their desires themselves instead.
I think being able to look at each other and truly lay it all on the table to say "hey, this is who I am, this is who I want to be, this is where I'm comfortable existing, these are my boundaries." and still respecting and supporting one another's individuality, boundaries, desires, and goals is just as deep, loving, and difficult to accomplish as any "romantic" connection. To grow alongside someone rather than with them as a relational unit is just as rewarding, in my opinion.
being able to look at each other and truly lay it all on the table to say “hey, this is who I am, this is who I want to be, this is where I’m comfortable existing, these are my boundaries.” and still respecting and supporting one another’s individuality, boundaries, desires, and goals is just as deep, loving, and difficult to accomplish as any “romantic” connection
Is this not how romantic love is defined? I always understood it to be the intimacy and mutual respect of a good friendship with the addition of an active commitment to the success and wellbeing of your partner(s), which sounds like exactly what you describe here.
Do you not actively commit to the success and well-being of your friends? If your friends were struggling and you weren't there to support them, would they still be your friends?
“Active” is probably a poor word. Providing aid and support (material or non-material) is the default for any intimate relationship, so I consider that “passive”. Providing housing, food, emotional support, etc. to a struggling friend is completely expected and within “passive” support.
“Active” in the way I’m using it would be something like personal sacrifice or idk, raising a child. I’d buy my partner a car but for a friend I’ll drive them around. I hardly have the kind of money to have my own car but that’s an example that I think illustrates the difference for me.
Edit: additionally I sort of think there’s a level of platonic relationship above “friend”. I usually think of this relationship as “comrade/sister/brother” and it receives the same active support as a partner, the only difference being that the relationship is nonsexual. Codifying this thought makes me realize that I actually have no definition of romance.
This supposition is meaningless though, “it’s all chemicals bro none of it is real” is an ideological cop-out in the same vein as “what if we live in a simulation”. If these things are “fake” and therefore less legitimate or worthwhile, it should stand to reason that the entirety of experience, every emotion, every thought, every sound or sight or smell or taste or touch is equally chemical and equally illegitimate. An atheistic denial of reality itself, a philosophical dead-end that answers the question of “how can I prove that I exist?” with a flat “you can’t”.
So I think a huge part of the disconnect here is due to the wildly different concepts of love, romance, affection, and companionship - I mentioned in my other comments that I completely lack a framework from which to understand the concept of romance. When other people use the word they’re probably referring to something other than what I’m referring to, and that difference in understanding probably extends far beyond me and into much of the rest of the conversation around aromanticism. I think we, culturally, lack a shared understanding of romanticism (I’m sure there is a wealth of theory available but it has not yet filtered into the common consciousness) and as a result find it more difficult to discuss than gender and sexuality. People tell me I’m very romantic, but I don’t know that I experience romance as an emotion? I definitely experience affection, and that’s separate from sexuality, but it expresses similarly in platonic and sexual relationships (to different levels based on the intimacy of the relationship and if it’s sexual or not - I’ve kissed many of my friends, but not erotically). I experience infatuation, but that’s just sexual to me. I have no drive to give my partner “traditional” romantic gifts like chocolate and roses, but I do want to give them things that will delight them - but I also want to do the same for my friends. I have no interest in marriage, but that’s because it’s an institution rooted in all manner of evil. So what the fuck is romance? Does it exist as a separate thing that I simply don’t experience? Is my understanding or classification incomplete or incorrect? Am I romantically interested in my friends? How could one tell?
That was a long rambling tangent but the conclusion I’m trying to reach is that it’s possible for two things which at first appear mutually exclusive to be true at the same time. TC69 being right doesn’t completely invalidate you. There is going to be a real gulf between your experience and conceptualization and her’s because you’re different people and have internalized different ideas.
I guess that's where we differ because I don't think that's true at all. I think we put so much pressure on the notions of "compromise" and someone's desires being "less important" than the other instead of learning to healthily communicate and navigate each other's boundaries.
I could put someone's desire over my own and consolidate my needs, desires, and dreams into a relational unit with someone or I could radically support that person's individuality and ability to pursue their desires themselves instead.
I think being able to look at each other and truly lay it all on the table to say "hey, this is who I am, this is who I want to be, this is where I'm comfortable existing, these are my boundaries." and still respecting and supporting one another's individuality, boundaries, desires, and goals is just as deep, loving, and difficult to accomplish as any "romantic" connection. To grow alongside someone rather than with them as a relational unit is just as rewarding, in my opinion.
Is this not how romantic love is defined? I always understood it to be the intimacy and mutual respect of a good friendship with the addition of an active commitment to the success and wellbeing of your partner(s), which sounds like exactly what you describe here.
…what the fuck do other people think romance is?
Do you not actively commit to the success and well-being of your friends? If your friends were struggling and you weren't there to support them, would they still be your friends?
“Active” is probably a poor word. Providing aid and support (material or non-material) is the default for any intimate relationship, so I consider that “passive”. Providing housing, food, emotional support, etc. to a struggling friend is completely expected and within “passive” support.
“Active” in the way I’m using it would be something like personal sacrifice or idk, raising a child. I’d buy my partner a car but for a friend I’ll drive them around. I hardly have the kind of money to have my own car but that’s an example that I think illustrates the difference for me.
Edit: additionally I sort of think there’s a level of platonic relationship above “friend”. I usually think of this relationship as “comrade/sister/brother” and it receives the same active support as a partner, the only difference being that the relationship is nonsexual. Codifying this thought makes me realize that I actually have no definition of romance.
deleted by creator
This supposition is meaningless though, “it’s all chemicals bro none of it is real” is an ideological cop-out in the same vein as “what if we live in a simulation”. If these things are “fake” and therefore less legitimate or worthwhile, it should stand to reason that the entirety of experience, every emotion, every thought, every sound or sight or smell or taste or touch is equally chemical and equally illegitimate. An atheistic denial of reality itself, a philosophical dead-end that answers the question of “how can I prove that I exist?” with a flat “you can’t”.
deleted by creator
Ah, I follow.
So I think a huge part of the disconnect here is due to the wildly different concepts of love, romance, affection, and companionship - I mentioned in my other comments that I completely lack a framework from which to understand the concept of romance. When other people use the word they’re probably referring to something other than what I’m referring to, and that difference in understanding probably extends far beyond me and into much of the rest of the conversation around aromanticism. I think we, culturally, lack a shared understanding of romanticism (I’m sure there is a wealth of theory available but it has not yet filtered into the common consciousness) and as a result find it more difficult to discuss than gender and sexuality. People tell me I’m very romantic, but I don’t know that I experience romance as an emotion? I definitely experience affection, and that’s separate from sexuality, but it expresses similarly in platonic and sexual relationships (to different levels based on the intimacy of the relationship and if it’s sexual or not - I’ve kissed many of my friends, but not erotically). I experience infatuation, but that’s just sexual to me. I have no drive to give my partner “traditional” romantic gifts like chocolate and roses, but I do want to give them things that will delight them - but I also want to do the same for my friends. I have no interest in marriage, but that’s because it’s an institution rooted in all manner of evil. So what the fuck is romance? Does it exist as a separate thing that I simply don’t experience? Is my understanding or classification incomplete or incorrect? Am I romantically interested in my friends? How could one tell?
That was a long rambling tangent but the conclusion I’m trying to reach is that it’s possible for two things which at first appear mutually exclusive to be true at the same time. TC69 being right doesn’t completely invalidate you. There is going to be a real gulf between your experience and conceptualization and her’s because you’re different people and have internalized different ideas.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator