Friendship vs asexual romance

In a friendship, the people involved identify as friends. In an asexual romance, the people involved identify as partners or some such.

It sounds more like you'd like to know if people could feel "romantic" about someone "asexual" assuming that meant you didn't have sex with them.
 
SEASONEDpolyAgain said:
It sounds more like you'd like to know if people could feel "romantic" about someone "asexual" assuming that meant you didn't have sex with them.
Click to expand...

Didn't actually have something so specific in mind. Just wondering what people's thoughts on the subject in general might be.
 
I've never been asexual for a minute, but I don't have a difficult time imagining what it might be like to have a "romantic" partnership with someone if we're both asexual. I could even see some asexual folks being involved in polyamory.

I'm a very tactile person. I love touch -- giving, receiving, sharing.... I like cuddling and massage and such. And hugs and kisses. I imagine many asexuals are like me in this respect. Maybe, for some of these, this kind of non-sexual touch is crucial to the "romantic" part of their relationships?

In any case, it's very human to want to create significant, lasting emotional connections with another / others, and to form bonds we often call "romantic" -- and sex need not necessarily be a part of that.

That said, I will say that I suspect (not know) that a great percentage of those who identify as asexual have unresolved trauma (often sexual trauma) at the root of their asexuality. Not all, though. Some are just ... way out on that end of the spectrum.
 
Hi polyboo,

While romance can include sex, there is such a thing as romance without sex. Romance can include hugging and kissing. It can include romantic gestures such as flowers and gifts. It can include anything from the five love languages. Romance is when you feel more for a person than mere friendship. You are attracted to them, sexually, even if you don't want to have sex with them. You are interested in who they are, physically as well as mentally and emotionally. You want to be close to them. These are the things that divide romance from mere friendship.

Of course, friendship can involve some touching too, a kiss on the forehead, an arm around the shoulder. It can include things from the five love languages. But with friendship, you are not actually attracted to the other person, you are not interested in them sexually. This is the defining difference.

At least that's my opinion,
Sincerely,
Kevin T.
 
I'd think true asexuals are not attracted to people sexually.

Some don't like touch, hugging or kissing. But they can feel intimate with a certain someone, want to share their lives, hang out often, live together, go on dates.

I agree the 5 Love Languages would be in the mix. Quality time, gifts, acts of service, words of affirmation. Not necessarily touch.

My sister is asexual and married. She used to put up with sex like once a week, for her husband's sake, but they don't have sex anymore, and they never cuddle or even kiss hello and goodbye. They do all the other love language things though.

They've been married 30 years. They eat together at home or out. They compliment each other's skills. They share about their days. They give gifts and definitely acts of service.

Their touch needs are met by cuddling their cat(s).
 
For me *personally*, a connection with another person isn't a relationship unless it includes sex. That's just how it works for me; I need sex in order to feel connected enough with someone to develop the deeper emotions and trust necessary for something to transition from friendship to relationship. I do also have sex with friends sometimes, and even with people I don't know well, and that *doesn't* make those connections relationships; there are other factors at play too, like how connected I feel with them to begin with, whether their personality and mine mesh well, etc....some of it is not wordable. But sex is the catalyst that takes all of those things and makes it into a relationship. I have had the same level of connection, personality mesh, closeness, etc. with people I never had sex with--and I don't consider those people to have been relationship partners. They were just friends.

However, for people *in general*, I would say the difference between friendship and relationship is level of emotional intimacy and connection.
 
Magdlyn said:
My sister is asexual and married. She used to put up with sex like once a week, for her husband's sake, but they don't have sex anymore, and they never cuddle or even kiss hello and goodbye. They do all the other love language things though.

They've been married 30 years. They eat together at home or out. They compliment each other's skills. They share about their days. They give gifts and definitely acts of service.

Their touch needs are met by cuddling their cat(s).
Click to expand...

Wow! I've heard of such people. From my point of view, it's almost a Ripley's Believe It Or Not story... or one of those circus side show type of things like the lady with the beard who swallows swards while juggling alligators.

Touch -- human touch -- for me is similar to water. I must have it or I begin to shrivel up.

Luckily for me, the new guy I'm seeing is quite the same as me in this respect. And yesterday he said to me (paraphrasing), "Let's set aside this restrictive definition we've been using for what we're exploring. Let's just see what happens and put no narrowing definition on it." We were defining what we were exploring a FWB situation. Now it's a new, emerging friendship with no holds barred and lots of touch options. Not "dating," (which implies something romantic to me) per se. But not not 'dating', either. He didn't want me to be worried that I may appear to be "romancing" him by mildly complaining 'cause I won't be able to spend any real / private time with him for a month... and by inviting him for lunch sooner than that. (I have to take the train way down there just to have lunch with him. It's kinda a big deal.)
 
Last edited:
KC43 said:
For me *personally*, a connection with another person isn't a relationship unless it includes sex.
Click to expand...

Oh, I always call those capital R Relationships, so that the word "relationship" isn't narrowed down so as not to include friendships of every kind and degree. Even working relationships are, in fact, relationships in my vocabulary. Any ongoing, regular human connection, of any kind, to me can properly be called a lower case r relationship. Heck, we could also include animals, possibly even plants.
 
I couldn't have a romantic relationship without sex. I find it rather outside my comprehension, since sex can be a big part of how I connect with people. I can have sex without romance but I don't think I could have romance without sex.

Romance makes me feel sexual towards that person. While other acts certainly are PART of a relationship, they could not constitute a romantic relationship for me.

I will hug and kiss and cuddle my friends, and have intimate conversations and such, but this does not make it romantic for me.
 
River said:
Wow! I've heard of such people. From my point of view, it's almost a Ripley's Believe It Or Not story... or one of those circus side show type of things like the lady with the beard who swallows swards while juggling alligators.

Touch -- human touch -- for me is similar to water. I must have it or I begin to shrivel up.
Click to expand...

The OP asked what asexual romance was... was it just friendship? I gave an example of a long term asexual "romantic Relationship" and you call it a circus sideshow? Way to be condescending, River!
 
Magdlyn said:
The OP asked what asexual romance was... was it just friendship? I gave an example of a long term asexual "romantic Relationship" and you call it a circus sideshow? Way to be condescending, River!
Click to expand...

You totally missed my point, or where I was coming from, Magdlyn, and apparently took offence where none was intended. I was simply saying that a marriage without any touch at all in it (which is what you had described) seemed very, very strange to me. I was highlighting something about this thing folks talk about all the time in here: "love languages". Touch is my primary "love language," so a marriage without it is weird to me. By the way, you described much more than an "asexual" coupling. You described a situation in which the spouses never touch one another at all. That -- to me -- is a whole nuther animal than a sexless marriage.

If you want to take that and turn it into something which makes me an inconsiderate, discompassionate jerk, have at it.
 
Last edited:
I'll say a little more on that topic.

"Romance" means what it means to the people who are participating in it. It doesn't have to be sexual to be "romance" for some. The criteria for what qualifies as a "romance" differs from one person to another. And those "five love languages" probably goes some distance in deciding what "baskets" folks land in. (But I suspect there may be other love languages not in Gary Chapman's short list.)

Chapman's list include

receiving gifts,
quality time,
words of affirmation,
acts of service (devotion),
physical touch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Five_Love_Languages

Notice that sex is not on this list. Likely, that's because Chapman bundles sex under the heading "physical touch," with sex being a form of physical touch.

LOTS of people (though a minority, nonetheless), have happy romantic relationships which don't include sex (at some point). Many fewer have happy romantic relationships that don't include touch. Touch includes cuddling, massage, hugs, kisses, stroking (even for a passing second or two), etc. I would have to say (I'm guessing here!) touch is probably the most common "love language" for human beings. We're mammals, after all -- and social mammals. If you observe social mammals you will see that touch is clearly a primary "love language" for most of our animal kind.

There's nothing insensitive or "condescending" about saying so. That's plain silly!
 
Last edited:
Definitions don't interest me much any more. Every relationship is unique to the people in it - romance is in the eye of the beholden.:rolleyes: I can have sex without romance and romance without sex - but physical touch is not my primary love language (acts of service is).

Dude, who is VERY physical, doesn't understand my marriage (MrS is fairly greysexual) even though he has observed it first-hand daily for 8 years now. He doesn't have to understand it.

My relationship with SLeW - I call her my "platonic girlfriend", but could use "intimate friendship". We take care of each other in ways that many would reserve for a romantic relationship. We buy each other gifts. We say "I love you". We help each other with errands and chores and ask each other for help without a second thought and offer it unasked for. We plan girl-dates. We offer each other bites of food and steal off each others plates. We plan for a future that includes the other. We snuggle and cuddle and touch. We sleep in the same bed. She is not sexually attracted to women, so sex is not part of our relationship, and I don't need it to be (although if she every wants to explore that option, I'm on board!) There is definitely an "old married couple" vibe to our teasing and bickering.

Is it "romantic"? Who cares - it is what it is and it satisfies us and makes us happy.
 
Some of this conversation here in this thread, and elsewhere in the forum, and in some of my face-to-face (f2f) life, is having the effect of dissolving some old patterns of thinking-feeling about relationships, generally. More and more I'm "seeing" relationships through a lens which has less and less to do with what I call The Script, which is how the vast majority frame all things "relationship". I find this both incredibly liberating and slightly bewildering. I never much liked The Script, anyway. But even when I wasn't utilizing Script stuff to understand "relationship" I was organizing my thoughts in reaction to more than freedom from the Script. So it feels more like I'm in the wilderness, now, with each moment and person simply being themselves / ourselves / myself. And not in a fixed, but in a very dynamic sort of way.

I haven't spent a lot of time with the fellow down in Albuquerque, yet, but in the twenty plus years I've been with my live-together partner I've never felt such potential for a rich and satisfying ongoing connection which includes touch (and sex). So, in some real sense, I'm feeling more polyamorous in practice (not just in potential or in theory) more than ever before.

ABQ, as I'm calling him in this forum, seems to be even more off-Script than I am. It's refreshing!
 
Last edited:
River said:
You totally missed my point, or where I was coming from, Magdlyn, and apparently took offence where none was intended. I was simply saying that a marriage without any touch at all in it (which is what you had described) seemed very, very strange to me. I was highlighting something about this thing folks talk about all the time in here: "love languages". Touch is my primary "love language," so a marriage without it is weird to me. By the way, you described much more than an "asexual" coupling. You described a situation in which the spouses never touch one another at all. That -- to me -- is a whole nuther animal than a sexless marriage.

If you want to take that and turn it into something which makes me an inconsiderate, discompassionate jerk, have at it.
Click to expand...

I didn't attack you ad hominem. You called my sister's relationship style a circus sideshow. This is my sister, whom I love very much. Yes, I was offended. I don't think you're a jerk, but you did hurt my feelings.

There may be a bit of undiagnosed autism spectrum thing going on with my sister and her husband both. She's always been a bit socially awkward. Also, she used to have some libido, but it lessened to near nothing when menopause happened. Does that make her a circus sideshow to you? Are you so caught up in your own drama you find others' relationships to be so alien, you come this close to calling them freaks?
 
River said:
I'll say a little more on that topic.

"Romance" means what it means to the people who are participating in it. It doesn't have to be sexual to be "romance" for some. The criteria for what qualifies as a "romance" differs from one person to another. And those "five love languages" probably goes some distance in deciding what "baskets" folks land in. (But I suspect there may be other love languages not in Gary Chapman's short list.)

Chapman's list include

receiving gifts,
quality time,
words of affirmation,
acts of service (devotion),
physical touch.
Click to expand...

I'm familiar with the Love Languages.

LOTS of people (though a minority, nonetheless), have happy romantic relationships which don't include sex (at some point). Many fewer have happy romantic relationships that don't include touch. Touch includes cuddling, massage, hugs, kisses, stroking (even for a passing second or two), etc. I would have to say (I'm guessing here!) touch is probably the most common "love language" for human beings. We're mammals, after all -- and social mammals. If you observe social mammals you will see that touch is clearly a primary "love language" for most of our animal kind.
Click to expand...

I didn't say she was happy! :p

I find her relationship strange, but they've worked things out. They used to have a sex schedule of once or twice a week on weekends for her husband's sake. He gave her things from her love language list in return, since the sex wasn't something she cared for. Now, he's chronically ill, and not presently interested in sex at all.

She and I are very different. I'm all about touch. Cuddling, with animals, kids, friends, lovers. Sex as often as I can get it. We joke that I got all the sexiness from our genes, she got none.

There's nothing insensitive or "condescending" about saying so. That's plain silly!
Click to expand...

Note that it's fine to confirm most people like to touch. But some don't. Some admit to being germophobes. Some just say "I'm not a hugger." Some are on the autism spectrum. Lots of men won't cuddle, unless it's going to lead to their dick in a hole! There are all different styles.

It's not insensitive or condescending to note all this. It's insensitive and rude to call anyone a candidate for Ripley's Believe it or Not, or a circus sideshow (freak) for not loving touch the way you do.

I see you have been naive about how others' needs for this or that in a relationship can differ from yours. That doesn't mean you have to be rude about how they operate. And calling me silly doesn't help.
 
And you know what? Lots of ladies have beards, for that matter. Especially after menopause, but some have them sooner. (Frida Kahlo is a famous example.) They just don't talk about it. They go spend thousands on electrolysis. Or they shave, wax, do laser. Are they all circus freaks to you?
 
Magdlyn said:
It's not insensitive or condescending to note all this. It's insensitive and rude to call anyone a candidate for Ripley's Believe it or Not, or a circus sideshow (freak) for not loving touch the way you do.

I see you have been naive about how others' needs for this or that in a relationship can differ from yours. That doesn't mean you have to be rude about how they operate. And calling me silly doesn't help.
Click to expand...

What we are having here is a failure to communicate. It seems to me you're assuming something by the Riply's Believe It Or Not and the circus side show references which I did not mean at all. I was attempting to use a bit of humor and a very rough analogy to indicate how strange something is TO ME, from inside MY love languages frame. I was NOT meaning to insult anyone. Not in the least. And if I mention bearded ladies, it's because they were once put on display at such circuses -- though some of them probably were wearing fake beards. Not because I think they're bad people or scary or creepy or less than or anything of the sort. So were animals with more or less of the usual number of limbs, or heads. Now I nowhere said that a goat with two heads isn't worthy of respect, kindness or love, did I? Differences are fine with me, even rather extreme ones.

So, in other words, you used the word "rude" about what I said. While I don't perceive it as necessarily rude at all. It certainly CAN be rude, especially when meant to be rude. But long time readers and posters in this forum know about me that I tend to be kind and gentle and appreciative toward others.

We're ALL different, even unique. Especially here in this forum. You may not get the half-smile and wink intended in my mention of Riply's or circuses. But it was there. ;)
 
Last edited:
Magdlyn said:
It's insensitive and rude to call anyone a candidate for Ripley's Believe it or Not, or a circus sideshow (freak) for not loving touch the way you do.
Click to expand...

It certainly usually would be. And I'll even say that it's possible that it is always rude. And I knew I might be taken in a way I never intended when I uttered those words. I'll probably never use that analogy again. As I said, it was a rough and loose analogy about how strange something feels to me. In that sense, I was talking about myself, not about your sister.

I certainly understand that we're all different in our needs and preferences, etc. And in lots of other ways, also.

I just realized that you didn't understand that I was deliberately using hyperbole about my own reaction to such news about your sister (or anyone like her in that particular respect -- about touch). My hyperbole was meant to have a slightly humorous effect, pointing at ME, not your sister! It was a failed joke in which the one being poked fun of was myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top