Aromanticism; a romantic aromantic

re·la·tion·ship  [ri-ley-shuhn-ship]
noun
1. a connection, association, or involvement.
2. connection between persons by blood or marriage.
3. an emotional or other connection between people: the relationship between teachers and students.
4. a sexual involvement; affair.

This is going to be one tough pickle to write. I'm still in the midst of understanding it myself. I've had a burden on my shoulders all my life, I've never felt right but I've never been sure what the problem was. Being so close to the LBGT community I've questioned my sexual orientation but that wasn't the problem, I questioned my gender identity but that wasn't the problem either. It took a long while, and quite a deal of courage to finally face the term: Aromantic.

But even now, even after I personally identify as an aromantic I have people come to me and tell me that I'm wrong, that I can't be aromantic and that I certainly don't feel the way I feel. They say I need to do more research, they say I'm just not that type of person. It makes me feel small, and scared, to have these giants and trusted friends tell me I'm wrong when I see no alternative. We don't believe things because we choose to. We believe things because life has led us to that perspective, and until something changes, there's no reason for us to abandon that belief.

This is the story of my journey for knowledge, and how I arrived at the concept of aromanticism.


The following is an excerpt from a conversation I had with a very dear friend:



Samuel Wilkes
ahhhh
I don't understand myself.

Mystery Man
Person A again?

Samuel Wilkes
I think I'm a non-committal, polyamorous, panromantic pan/bisexual
Yeah
Person A just left. They've been here for about 3 hours.

Mystery Man
So are you guys coming over tonight?

Samuel Wilkes
It's made me realize I want to be in no relationships, but I don't want the loneliness of being in no relatinship
They're gone to Dinner
I can come to dinner if you'd like, but totally up to you

Mystery Man
You just kinda want a communal house where there's always people, but you're never obligated to anyone?
I need the extra bodies, I think. Person B and Person C backed out

Samuel Wilkes
I don't even know
I'll be there then

Mystery Man
Heh. 'I don't even know" is a very true answer to many questions

Samuel Wilkes
Okay,
Every relationship I have ever been in
at some point, I have thought--no not thought because there have been no words--felt like I am supposed to be a single person.

Mystery Man
I can't say I empathize
Every relationship I'm in, the companionship has completed me.
I've been in*
I'm only in one right now
*shifty eyes*

Samuel Wilkes
lol
I think that's the route I'm going to take
I'm going to keep everyone at arms length
Dude, maybe I'm aromantic?
Polyamorously aromantic. Isn't that a curve ball?

Mystery Man
You've raised that idea before . . . what is it you don't like about a relationship? Do you know? Can you narrow it down?
It's an odd way to be by the stats, but certainly nothing logically inconsistent about it
I would say that straight poly-amorous aromantics are lauded in our society

Samuel Wilkes
No, I can't. It's like I'm a 0 living in a world of 1s where the 1s get together to equal 2, but when I get with a 1, I'm a 1, and that feels like it goes against my nature, like my soul is positively charged and becoming negatively charged, or vice versa.

Mystery Man
Like you're becoming less yourself and more of the other person?

Samuel Wilkes
When two people get together they become something greater than the sum of their parts. Or, more specifically, they become something different
I am me. I want to be me. It's really hard to rationalize the feelings.

Mystery Man
I always feel like my girlfriends become an extension of me

Samuel Wilkes
kind of, yeah, but I have a super aversion to that
like I'm losing myself
and if you haven't yet noticed, I'm a pretty awesome guy to lose xD

Mystery Man
Better not date me then
Apparently

Samuel Wilkes
Shucks

Mystery Man
I dunno, I think my philosophy on personal identity kinda forbids the idea of losing oneself
So I can see where you're coming from, but only on a theoretical basis, y'know?

Samuel Wilkes
yeah

The part where Mystery Man mentions me having brought up the idea of aromanticism before comes from a conversation he and I had about orientation. He had mentioned his orientation as being an asexual panromantic and I, at the time believing it to be for the novel of things, replied that my orientation and identification were the inverse. At a later date I brought it up to say it wasn't true, mostly out of shame. How dare I be aromantic? An aromantic pansexual would just be a slut, right? Doesn't care for relationships, will take any piece of tail he can... I wasn't that person so I went to him and retracted my claim.

But after the conversation he and I had, wherein I realized I was likely aromantic I began to feel easier about the world. I think I finally understood myself enough to stand up and look at the world. It was like walking into a new room, fully expecting friendship awaiting you, like your first day of kindergarten. But beyond that door was confusion. So much confusion. People look at me funny when I mention the word aromantic. That's weird, they must think. And I'll give them that. It is weird. It's not as easy to understand as, say, heterosexualism, or even homosexualism. Heck, Biromanticism. Panromanticism. They all have a very definite, clearcut, expectable and acceptable definition.

Not to say there isn't a definition of aromanticism. I'm sure you could drag one out from somewhere. But the truth is I'm having the most trouble figuring out what it means for me. My girlfriend told me I wasn't aromantic, that I didn't understand what it meant. She sent me to an "article" so I could do research on it, I believe with the hypothesis that I would realize I was wrong. Whatever. I'm not out to prove or disprove anything. I'm here to understand myself and why and what exactly I feel. So I took a look, it was "Becoming Loveless" that she sent me to, and I had a good read through that, quite a few times. And the more of it I read, the more I realized it was how I felt. But that raised a problem in and of itself.

She sent me this article because she was afraid of me being aromantic. She pulled up the article to show me that I couldn't be what she feared. But now that I'm affirming that fear I can't so easily go to her and tell her I'm aromantic. I mean, she's my girlfriend, I'm in a relationship with her, and I want to be, it's just hard to explain.

We're friends. We're good friends that live together and spend a lot of time together. She's the closest friend I have right now. But I'm my own person. I'm my own me. She poses the retort: "Is this just a convenience relationship?" She does have a vehicle, and I am quite lazy. No, I don't think it is. I mean, if she didn't have a car I wouldn't want to move. But what is left unsaid is "What is it if it's not a convenience relationship?"

To that, I really don't know. But what I do know is that the same blog she linked me to that posted "Becoming Loveless" also posted "Girlfriend Question" because she is also in a relationship by choice.

The number one thing I want to convey is that there is a major difference between amoury and romance. I identify now as a poly-amorous aromantic. I can love people, be really quite fond of them. Want them in my life. But not necessarily in the relationship kind of way. Maybe my heart has a bit of a defect, maybe there's something wrong with me. I really don't think so. All I know is that I can really truly love the people around me, as a family of friends. Sometimes I just get mystified, flabbergasted. I sit back in my chair and stare at a computer screen in abject awe at how great it is to have such wonderful people, such wonderful friends in my life. I may be missing out on some things, but I get along just fine. :)