Friendship vs asexual romance

Some women I have never felt lust for but romance

kdt26417 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Kevin

I know this is uncommon but I have felt romantic with some women without any sexual attraction. It was purely romantic. Would that qualify as an asexual attraction?
 
But with friendship, you are not actually attracted to the other person, you are not interested in them sexually.
Click to expand...

See, I disagree with this. I have friends to whom I am *extremely* attracted and interested sexually, but I have no *romantic* feelings toward them and wouldn't want a relationship. (A "capital-R relationship," as I think River put it, but then I don't think of friendship as a relationship even though technically it is a form of one.) I'm happy just hanging out with them occasionally, and if sex were to happen, it would be cool but it wouldn't change my feelings for them or my perception of it being a friendship vs. a relationship.
 
I think you and I may agree

Magdlyn said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think we agree and I believe romantic love is fundamentally asexual and sexual attraction is often caused by it. When I present this claim to other people, some are absolutely stunned by it and think it is absurd but I have experienced romantic attraction with ZERO sexual attraction (RARELY) (meaning my private part was not aroused at any time). I truly believe sexual attraction is not an inherent part of romance. It is possible to scientifically eliminate one's sex drive(by surgery) and he or she will still have the ability to fall in love with a man or woman. Is this the type of asexuality you are referring to?
 
I think you and I may agree

Magdlyn said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think we agree and I believe romantic love is fundamentally asexual and sexual attraction is often caused by it. When I present this claim to other people, some are absolutely stunned by it and think it is absurd but I have experienced romantic attraction with ZERO sexual attraction (RARELY) (meaning my private part was not aroused at any time). I truly believe sexual attraction is not an inherent part of romance. It is possible to scientifically eliminate one's sex drive(by surgery) and he or she will still have the ability to fall in love with a man or woman. Is this the type of asexuality you are referring to?
 
edpsy77 said:
I think we agree and I believe romantic love is fundamentally asexual and sexual attraction is often caused by it. When I present this claim to other people, some are absolutely stunned by it and think it is absurd but I have experienced romantic attraction with ZERO sexual attraction (RARELY) (meaning my private part was not aroused at any time). I truly believe sexual attraction is not an inherent part of romance. It is possible to scientifically eliminate one's sex drive(by surgery) and he or she will still have the ability to fall in love with a man or woman. Is this the type of asexuality you are referring to?
Click to expand...

Of course, many people (including, apparently, Dr. Freud) have believed that "romantic love" emerges out of a sexual "drive" and is basically sexual at root. I think the reality of it is much more nuanced and complex than that, but that "romantic love" does always include and involve what may properly called "erotic energy". BUT... "erotic energy" does not necessarily manifest as sexual desire, per se. It can manifest as the beatific, joyous celebration of a person's being (among other things). So I think Freud and others got it the wrong way around. Sexual desire is often elicited by the presence of erotic energy, but isn't caused by it in a simple, linear causal direction. Erotic energy always has desire as part of the mix, but sex is not the only way such desire manifests. What is desired in simple, naked eros is closeness, affection, love, companionship. Sometimes that includes sex. Sometimes not.

Sometimes the desire manifests as a longing to create good and beautiful things (or experiences) together. No one should think such relationships less passionate, urgent, glorious or precious just because genitals aren't involved. Nor should anyone assume that they are somehow more "base" if genitals ARE involved.
 
In one of my earliest and also most potent experiences of "falling in love" (when I was still just a child), sexual interest or desire may have been floating vaguely in the background, barely, but the extreme foreground of the experience was simply a strong desire to connect more fully and enduringly with my new friend. I felt it more in my chest / heart than in my genital region.

Unfortunately, I was never to see that boy again. We spent a significant part of a day together floating in a lake on inner tubes. We were pirate adventurers! And I fell utterly and madly in love with him. The anguish in knowing I'd probably never see him again was ... intense. Just remembering this experience brings tears to my eyes even today, many decades later. If that's not a "falling in love" experience and related to "romance," I don't know what it could possibly be. But my longing had barely a hint, at most, of sexual desire in it. What I desired was to never have him be away from me, to always be with him, to be adventurers in Mystery together, forever.
 
For me, romance involves sex or at least touching, cuddling, and kissing. I've never been with someone who is actually asexual. I would probably view it as more of a friendship.

I have a friend I call Blondie on here. I love her. It is completely platonic. We hang out. We go out to eat, cook for each other, etc. Basically all the things I would do with a romantic partner, except the sex part. Also, no cuddling or kissing. I do not view that as a romantic relationship. She is not asexual. She also happens to be very attractive. That spark is just not there.
 
vinsanity0 said:
Also, no cuddling or kissing. I do not view that as a romantic relationship.
Click to expand...

The fellow I have recently mentioned in my "blog" here in Polyamory.com, whom I call ABQ, tells me he has a couple of platonic female friends he cuddles with but doesn't have sex with. Very loving, affectionate friendships, these. (Rather like myself, he needs and likes physical intimacy even in platonic connections, where possible. Unlike me, he has that available at this time. I'd like to, but it's just not happening.)

We have a thread on non-sexual physical intimacy like cuddling here in this forum, somewhere. I can't remember (it having been years) who all said they are open to cuddling with platonic friends. Are you a platonic cuddler, if it is available, V.?

Apparently, many of us can't or won't cuddle with anyone they're not also having sex with. It's part of the whole gamut of human differences. (The longer I live the more diverse we seem to be!)
 
River said:
The fellow I have recently mentioned in my "blog" here in Polyamory.com, whom I call ABQ, tells me he has a couple of platonic female friends he cuddles with but doesn't have sex with. Very loving, affectionate friendships, these. (Rather like myself, he needs and likes physical intimacy even in platonic connections, where possible. Unlike me, he has that available at this time. I'd like to, but it's just not happening.)

We have a thread on non-sexual physical intimacy like cuddling here in this forum, somewhere. I can't remember (it having been years) who all said they are open to cuddling with platonic friends. Are you a platonic cuddler, if it is available, V.?

Apparently, many of us can't or won't cuddle with anyone they're not also having sex with. It's part of the whole gamut of human differences. (The longer I live the more diverse we seem to be!)
Click to expand...

I'm one of those who finds the "cuddle party" phenomenon really weird. I don't enjoy touch from people I'm not emotionally close to, with the exception of the occasional no strings sex. But I would never cuddle with them afterwards.

My husband on the other hand is a cuddle slut and would happily snuggle with just about anyone.
 
I find myself swinging through the spectrum of cuddle-slut to no-touching - totally depends on situation, but I have unlimited cuddles available for the asking.

Sometimes it is lovely to cuddle with ZERO expectations of sex (like with my SLeW), MrS is available to cuddle upon request, with Dude a cuddle pretty much implies a sexual invitation. So...I like to know if the cuddling has any sexual implication.

When I was at Burning Man, one of the tents had a pile of beanbag chairs and cushions in the middle of one of the main public tents, a feature encouraging cuddling - but ALWAYS with explicit consent! ("Would you like company?" "No, thank you, I'm comfortable.")
 
River said:
The fellow I have recently mentioned in my "blog" here in Polyamory.com, whom I call ABQ, tells me he has a couple of platonic female friends he cuddles with but doesn't have sex with. Very loving, affectionate friendships, these. (Rather like myself, he needs and likes physical intimacy even in platonic connections, where possible. Unlike me, he has that available at this time. I'd like to, but it's just not happening.)

We have a thread on non-sexual physical intimacy like cuddling here in this forum, somewhere. I can't remember (it having been years) who all said they are open to cuddling with platonic friends. Are you a platonic cuddler, if it is available, V.?

Apparently, many of us can't or won't cuddle with anyone they're not also having sex with. It's part of the whole gamut of human differences. (The longer I live the more diverse we seem to be!)
Click to expand...

It's complicated. For me touch is very sexual, even if we are not having sex. That is why I won't do the cuddle pile thing. That is supposed to be non-sexual. I feel it would be a consent issue even though I wouldn't try anything.

With Blondie? I have to admit there is some sexual attraction on my part. We would have to have an explicit conversation before that would happen. If it was determined definitely nothing sexual would happen then I could do it. I actually entertained the thought of bringing it up, but she is funny about that sort of thing.
 
a sex slut is as good as a cuddle slut

Vicki82 said:
I'm one of those who finds the "cuddle party" phenomenon really weird. I don't enjoy touch from people I'm not emotionally close to, with the exception of the occasional no strings sex. But I would never cuddle with them afterwards.

My husband on the other hand is a cuddle slut and would happily snuggle with just about anyone.
Click to expand...
Vicki I find it funny that sex slut is slammed for having "intimacy" for people they don't know to well (or at all while) the cuddle slut who is as indiscriminate in his or her intimacy is just viewed as weird. I never understood this notion that a penis or vagina were gifts for special someones. Ironically as a virgin, this viewpoint frustrates me in terms of understanding it.
 
Hugs can be sexy (literallY)

JaneQSmythe said:
I find myself swinging through the spectrum of cuddle-slut to no-touching - totally depends on situation, but I have unlimited cuddles available for the asking.

Sometimes it is lovely to cuddle with ZERO expectations of sex (like with my SLeW), MrS is available to cuddle upon request, with Dude a cuddle pretty much implies a sexual invitation. So...I like to know if the cuddling has any sexual implication.

When I was at Burning Man, one of the tents had a pile of beanbag chairs and cushions in the middle of one of the main public tents, a feature encouraging cuddling - but ALWAYS with explicit consent! ("Would you like company?" "No, thank you, I'm comfortable.")
Click to expand...

It's funny as much explicit sexual fantasies I have, I still find hugging an attractive woman sexually arousing.
 
edpsy77 said:
If you talk to a lot of people, it seems like it is intercourse or NOTHING!
Click to expand...

What does this sentence even mean? Are you saying that "a lot of people" have no interest in connecting or communing with others unless there is the promise of intercourse in the interaction?

I do imagine there are plenty of folks whose entire world view is saturated in internet pornography, in which no one seems ever to talk to one another or interact at all ... other than as sex object for sex objects. That is, through the lens of sexual objectification -- which is dehumanizing. (A word many of them don't know, it having too many syllables.)

Then again, there are "a lot of people" who spend their days injecting heroin and snorting coke and loading themselves up on meth. So your point is?
 
Your comment made me think about a debate about poly

JaneQSmythe said:
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 occur 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.
Click to expand...
Jane. Your comment made me think about the debate I had with judgemental monos (monogamous people) regarding poly on this YouTube video called "Can you be in love with multiple people?". When I made the claim that multiple romances are similar to multiple friendships, they would claim that romance and friendships are entirely different things. Yet there are people who either don't know whether their relationship is platonic or romantic or truly don't care.
 
Last edited:
What I meant was? WTF PORNOGRAPHY!!!

River said:
What does this sentence even mean? Are you saying that "a lot of people" have no interest in connecting or communing with others unless there is the promise of intercourse in the interaction?

I do imagine there are plenty of folks whose entire world view is saturated in internet pornography, in which no one seems ever to talk to one another or interact at all ... other than as sex object for sex objects. That is, through the lens of sexual objectification -- which is dehumanizing. (A word many of them don't know, it having too many syllables.)

Then again, there are "a lot of people" who spend their days injecting heroin and snorting coke and loading themselves up on meth. So your point is?
Click to expand...

There is not an intimation of some slick point that I was going to make later River. I really don't understand your testy attitude.
My point is how society views intimacy is not how I view it.

Society believes that a physically intimate relationship can not be complete without sex. Therefore, if intercourse is not included at some point in a relationship it is incomplete. I disagree because I find intercourse as one means of being sexual not the MAIN EVENT. I find hugging to be sexual and can be satisfied sexually by hugging.

I am not sure how this has anything to do with pornography where I do not feel dehumanized as being treated as a sex object in porn. As a matter of fact, I strongly desire to be treated as a sex object.

I don't need a relationship with sex. You may need it but I don't. But anyways, I don't see the connection between porn and people who may or may not watch porn not being satisfied on a intimate level if there is no sexual intercourse. I have known about these encounters way before porn was mainstream. Once again I don't have this sentiment. And BTW The porn I watch doesn't reinforce this sentiment. Sorry!
 
Last edited:
Joke!

Vicki82 said:
I'm one of those who finds the "cuddle party" phenomenon really weird. I don't enjoy touch from people I'm not emotionally close to, with the exception of the occasional no strings sex. But I would never cuddle with them afterwards.

My husband on the other hand is a cuddle slut and would happily snuggle with just about anyone.
Click to expand...

Women having no strings attached sex. I thought that was impossible. I am JOKING!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top