Aromantic, or, I will run with you.
Sep. 29th, 2011 03:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aviaAfter something feathertail said to me, I wonder if I am actually aromantic.
I identified as grey-romantic for a while, but I wonder if, I'm more close to aromantic in fact. I think, I have difficulty telling because, when you take the sexual part out of a relationship, what is the big difference between romance and a close platonic relationship? It seems like it is making romantic relations seem cheap and simple, by saying I am aromantic because I don't want a relationship where hugs and kisses are expected, or where there's a pressure to say "I love you" before the person leaves the house, or where we always sleep in the same bed. I'm sure there are many wonderful romantic relationships where people don't do these things.
But, in the end, it comes to this: I would prefer to talk about stories with you than cuddle you. I would prefer to talk about what matters to you in a philosophical way, than talk about our feelings for each other. When we go out and stare at the stars, I want you to love them with me because they are the stars, not be thinking only of me, and I want to think of them, too, and think, it is nice that someone will appreciate the wonder of the sky with me, not it's so nice to have this background to our beautiful feelings.
I want to have fun with you, and I want to have deep moments with you, and I want those things to be based on what we share. Interests, ideas, stories, worlds, the wonder of nature and being non-human (because I'm not sure I could be close to someone who is completely human, not really). Running through the forest, feeling our wings, paws, tails. Watching the city lights spin and make patterns. Exploring the edges of conscious mind. Waking the world from its long sleep.
And I would like to curl up with you, too, and tell you how wonderful you are. But I would like to do it just because I want to, with no feeling that "we are romantic now, this is what we do". I want to do it just because you are. And I'm sure, that many romantic people will say, romance does not have to be like that, too... but in romantic relationships I always did feel that I should be spending a particular amount of time saying "sweet nothings" to a person. I won't say sweet nothings. I say sweet somethings, because I feel them, because they are true, not because it is "romantic". Not because I feel warm fuzzy feelings for you and want to hold your hand, but because you are genuinely a wonderful person who makes my mind and soul light up with wonderful ideas and you're amazing, you're special, you're someone I want to protect, and I want to hear your words and know your thoughts.
It's emotional, sometimes, but not romantic. It's like seeing a building and thinking, "wow, that building is so beautiful. The way it's designed, the way sound echoes in it, the little sculptures here, there, and the atmosphere is so nice... I would like to spend a lot of time in it, I would like to learn more about it, I would be sad if they destroyed it, I would mourn, it is precious." And sometimes, I might even want to touch it, run my hands over the stones or curl up in a part of it, sometimes I might even feel something like a crush, but... it's not the same.
I think part of it, is, I feel crushes on other people, but, I don't need the return. It says something that the only people I have really deeply loved romantic ways, and the feeling stayed and didn't turn into something that made me nervous, are people who didn't love me back. I want them to like spending time with me, I want them to be my friend, I want them to share their deep secrets, but... I don't need them to love me. When I walk through a beautiful building, I don't expect it to love me back. I can feel the atmosphere, and I want it to like that I am here, I want it to be okay that I am here. But, I like to just appreciate it. I like to say my affections to it, without thinking that it will develop into a big social stress where we constantly worry about what we are doing for each other, whether it is enough.
I guess, that's what romance is to me, social stress. I want to say what I feel, when I feel it. Which, might sometimes be traditional "romantic" things, and, sometimes not. I care for people, I do want to show that I like them. But, I don't think I can want a "romantic relationship", where everything is that way. It feels too crushing, too heavy.
(And, that is part of why I do have romances with things like, the stars, the forests, the wind. I feel romantic for them. Because it is safe. They do not need me, and I can pour out all I want and never be afraid that they will turn it into a chain.)
I can't be needed. I want to move through the world, being interesting to people, bringing magic, bringing wonder, but... I want to inspire them to find it in their own selves. I want to show them how they are wonderful, so that they can find that deep inside and keep it, because it is part of them. And I will stay around them, because I like them, because they matter to me, because they are flock and we run and fly together. But, only a few people are allowed to bind me. And, it's irony, or perhaps, it's the exact reason... those people, are the ones who I know can throw me away without too much thought. I allow them to bind me because I know they don't need me to bind them too.
The role of "toy", I am comfortable with. The role of "one who runs with you", that too. The role of "needed", not much.
(And to S. if you are reading, but you are probably not, that is more of the answer to your question, I guess.)
And this all feels too negative, I guess, so, I want to work on a post for another time, about how I do show love to people, what love is to me.
feathertail said to me, I wonder if I am actually aromantic.I identified as grey-romantic for a while, but I wonder if, I'm more close to aromantic in fact. I think, I have difficulty telling because, when you take the sexual part out of a relationship, what is the big difference between romance and a close platonic relationship? It seems like it is making romantic relations seem cheap and simple, by saying I am aromantic because I don't want a relationship where hugs and kisses are expected, or where there's a pressure to say "I love you" before the person leaves the house, or where we always sleep in the same bed. I'm sure there are many wonderful romantic relationships where people don't do these things.
But, in the end, it comes to this: I would prefer to talk about stories with you than cuddle you. I would prefer to talk about what matters to you in a philosophical way, than talk about our feelings for each other. When we go out and stare at the stars, I want you to love them with me because they are the stars, not be thinking only of me, and I want to think of them, too, and think, it is nice that someone will appreciate the wonder of the sky with me, not it's so nice to have this background to our beautiful feelings.
I want to have fun with you, and I want to have deep moments with you, and I want those things to be based on what we share. Interests, ideas, stories, worlds, the wonder of nature and being non-human (because I'm not sure I could be close to someone who is completely human, not really). Running through the forest, feeling our wings, paws, tails. Watching the city lights spin and make patterns. Exploring the edges of conscious mind. Waking the world from its long sleep.
And I would like to curl up with you, too, and tell you how wonderful you are. But I would like to do it just because I want to, with no feeling that "we are romantic now, this is what we do". I want to do it just because you are. And I'm sure, that many romantic people will say, romance does not have to be like that, too... but in romantic relationships I always did feel that I should be spending a particular amount of time saying "sweet nothings" to a person. I won't say sweet nothings. I say sweet somethings, because I feel them, because they are true, not because it is "romantic". Not because I feel warm fuzzy feelings for you and want to hold your hand, but because you are genuinely a wonderful person who makes my mind and soul light up with wonderful ideas and you're amazing, you're special, you're someone I want to protect, and I want to hear your words and know your thoughts.
It's emotional, sometimes, but not romantic. It's like seeing a building and thinking, "wow, that building is so beautiful. The way it's designed, the way sound echoes in it, the little sculptures here, there, and the atmosphere is so nice... I would like to spend a lot of time in it, I would like to learn more about it, I would be sad if they destroyed it, I would mourn, it is precious." And sometimes, I might even want to touch it, run my hands over the stones or curl up in a part of it, sometimes I might even feel something like a crush, but... it's not the same.
I think part of it, is, I feel crushes on other people, but, I don't need the return. It says something that the only people I have really deeply loved romantic ways, and the feeling stayed and didn't turn into something that made me nervous, are people who didn't love me back. I want them to like spending time with me, I want them to be my friend, I want them to share their deep secrets, but... I don't need them to love me. When I walk through a beautiful building, I don't expect it to love me back. I can feel the atmosphere, and I want it to like that I am here, I want it to be okay that I am here. But, I like to just appreciate it. I like to say my affections to it, without thinking that it will develop into a big social stress where we constantly worry about what we are doing for each other, whether it is enough.
I guess, that's what romance is to me, social stress. I want to say what I feel, when I feel it. Which, might sometimes be traditional "romantic" things, and, sometimes not. I care for people, I do want to show that I like them. But, I don't think I can want a "romantic relationship", where everything is that way. It feels too crushing, too heavy.
(And, that is part of why I do have romances with things like, the stars, the forests, the wind. I feel romantic for them. Because it is safe. They do not need me, and I can pour out all I want and never be afraid that they will turn it into a chain.)
I can't be needed. I want to move through the world, being interesting to people, bringing magic, bringing wonder, but... I want to inspire them to find it in their own selves. I want to show them how they are wonderful, so that they can find that deep inside and keep it, because it is part of them. And I will stay around them, because I like them, because they matter to me, because they are flock and we run and fly together. But, only a few people are allowed to bind me. And, it's irony, or perhaps, it's the exact reason... those people, are the ones who I know can throw me away without too much thought. I allow them to bind me because I know they don't need me to bind them too.
The role of "toy", I am comfortable with. The role of "one who runs with you", that too. The role of "needed", not much.
(And to S. if you are reading, but you are probably not, that is more of the answer to your question, I guess.)
And this all feels too negative, I guess, so, I want to work on a post for another time, about how I do show love to people, what love is to me.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-01 02:06 am (UTC)I guess, that's what romance is to me, social stress.
Yes! With traditional romantic relationships, it's easy to feel like you must act in this specific way, or else it isn't...real or meaningful, somehow.
one who runs with you
This, exactly.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-01 03:37 am (UTC)I definitely don't think all romantic relationships have to be like that. But, my level of feeling like I want to focus on any particular person, rather than inside me, is so low that, I don't think it really counts much as romantic, at that point... and I think, even if they said, you don't have to focus on me, the fact that it was a relationship would make me feel... I was supposed to do something. I should keep reminding them I love them. Etc. Or else, why call it a romance, if you don't feel all attention over each other and wanting to focus on that person?
And, people say it's not an obligation, but, I feel that and it's not something I can shake away. I prefer to just run with people. It's a lot more comfortable.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-03 01:35 am (UTC)I really get a lot of what you are saying here.
But I would describe myself as really romantic. But romantic is one of those things I'm not sure 100% what it means.
I love a lot of people. But I don't feel like I need love (or at least from most of the people I love). I have energy/love to give. And it's wonderful to share something amazing with someone else. But I don't think I mind being needed.
Totally Off-Topic:
To me romantic was things to do with love that are aesthetic or symbolic instead of practical. Like cooking for someone is definitely love (although really under-appreciated). But not so romantic.
And I feel that a lot of romantic things people do they do because they're 'supposed' to. And that there's only one kind of romance.
Sorry for going off topic.
"I guess, that's what romance is to me, social stress.
Yes! With traditional romantic relationships, it's easy to feel like you must act in this specific way, or else it isn't...real or meaningful, somehow."
This!
no subject
Date: 2011-10-03 01:39 am (UTC)When I say "aronamtic", it's rather a word used by the asexual community which means "doesn't want a romantic relationship... I think, "romantic relationship" is different from "romantic", but, it's a relationship where you say you love each other, have a lot of physical affection for each other (even if it's not sex), want to focus on each other a lot, etc. I prefer to simply have a lot of good friendships, or, bonds of "companion/family I choose" that are not romantic (I call them "flock", some people call them "pack")...
no subject
Date: 2011-10-03 02:15 am (UTC)