Poll of the Day > Is our culture too focused on sexuality over romanticity?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Or perhaps conflate them more than they should be?

Did some random thinking and googling after a friend asked me: "So what is your flag?", leading me to also go deeper in the definitions of terms to be more certain about exactly applies to me.

And it mainly led me to the thought: "Why did I actively have to learn in my 20/30's, that romanticity and sexuality are separate distinct thing?"

Why does media/society seem to act like only sexuality matters, while romanticity is also a thing? (And probably just as important, if not more?)

Who's culture?
If we're talking North America I would say there is to strong an emphasis on violence and not enough on love.

Modern Western culture as mostly dictated by US/Hollywood media.

Just meant these 2 concepts in relation to eachother, not to other things.

Nichtcrawler-X posted...

Why does media/society seem to act like only sexuality matters, while romanticity is also a thing? (And probably just as important, if not more?)

Arguably, they don't. The idea of being sexually attracted to somebody without be romantically attracted to them is very common and well-recognized, both in media and in society in general. The reverse, less so, but that's largely because asexuality is relatively uncommon and for most people, being romantically attracted to somebody does lead to sexual attraction. Media-wise, it's also a lot easier to show sexual attraction than romantic, just because you can show physical intimacy (of any sort) a lot more readily than you can show feelings.

Certainly, aro and ace representation in media is lacking (and aro in particular runs into the problem that very commonly the presence or absence of romantic love is explicitly treated as the ultimate indicator of humanity, like only counting a robot as a person if it can fall in love), but the concepts of romantic and sexual love are definitely still separate in most presentations.

Except when in is romanticity ever explicitly named separately. People make a big deal about and want to know other people's sexuality, but rarely wonder about romanticity.

Or is it just that romanticity and sexuality tend to mostly overlap for people not either Aro or Ace and thus people do not bother to separate their word choice? (Maybe even kinda like the entire Sex/Gender word confusion?)

Nichtcrawler-X posted...

Except when in is romanticity ever explicitly named separately.

Pretty much any time anyone says "I love you" to a current or potential romantic partner. There's usually some sexual attraction attached that, but colloquially, talking about "love" is almost always talking about romantic love unless otherwise specified.

Nichtcrawler-X posted...

Or is it just that romanticity and sexuality tend to mostly overlap for people not either Aro or Ace and thus people do not bother to separate their word choice?

That is what I said, yes. Again, aro and ace representation in media is lacking, and society in general has a tendency to jump to "you just haven't met the right person yet" instead of accepting that somebody simply doesn't feel romantic or sexual attraction, but most of that stems from how common it is for romance to include sexuality.

adjl posted...

Pretty much any time anyone says "I love you" to a current or potential romantic partner. There's usually some sexual attraction attached that, but colloquially, talking about "love" is almost always talking about romantic love unless otherwise specified.

Except I feel like that distinction is never explicitly named. (and yes, I notice the lack of and require that explicitness because of my autism.)

adjl posted...

That is what I said, yes. Again, aro and ace representation in media is lacking, and society in general has a tendency to jump to "you just haven't met the right person yet" instead of accepting that somebody simply doesn't feel romantic or sexual attraction, but most of that stems from how common it is for romance to include sexuality.

Right, so I suppose I am noticing such things because I am on the outside looking in on account of my many divergences from the normative? Thus from my point of view my original question is just correct because I am not part of the main culture.

I guess the question then becomes whether that is perfectly fine, or culture/people should be more forthcoming/accommodating for people like me?

The various rom-coms and (ugh) hallmark specials say otherwise. Besides, romance and sex do overlap.

SinisterSlay posted...

Who's culture?
If we're talking North America I would say there is to strong an emphasis on violence and not enough on love.

It seems today that all you see is violence in movies and sex on TV.

I am not sure if romanticity is even a real word. does that explain why it's not commonly mentioned?

I do suppose it is a constructed, not yet fully adapted into common-usage word, to describe a concept I cannot think of another word for.

Nichtcrawler-X posted...

Except I feel like that distinction is never explicitly named. (and yes, I notice the lack of and require that explicitness because of my autism.)

By and large, these are the situations in which "I love you" can be safely assumed to mean something other than romantic love:

1. The people in question are family
2. The person saying it appends something like "as a friend" or "like a brother" that explicitly specifies it's not romantic love
3. You know for certain that the people in question are just friends and the person saying it just likes to tell their friends that they love them (this is relatively unusual, but does happen)

In all other cases, you can safely assume it's romantic love without having it spelled out.

Nichtcrawler-X posted...

I guess the question then becomes whether that is perfectly fine, or culture/people should be more forthcoming/accommodating for people like me?

There's room to criticize the lack of aro/ace representation in media (and in particular, how often it's implied or explicitly stated that a character that is aro or ace is somehow defective for it), but as far as just making it clearer for people that are bad at interpreting social cues goes, not really. Here's a cheat sheet:

• If characters in media act on sexual attraction (expressing sexual desire, physical/sexual intimacy, etc.) but have not indicated romantic attraction, there may or may not be romantic attraction. There's a good chance the characters themselves don't know at the time and that resolving that uncertainty is part of the plot, so just keep watching if you want to figure it out. If nothing ends up happening to indicate romantic attraction, it was probably just sex.
• If characters in media express romantic attraction, you can safely assume that there is also sexual attraction and that some manner of physical/sexual intimacy will be happening and/or is happening off-screen, unless clearly specified otherwise. Asexual romantic relationships aren't really a thing in the vast majority of media
• If somebody in your life is talking about one of their relationships, it isn't really any of your business what the balance between romance and sexuality is, beyond what they choose to tell you. If they aren't sure of the balance themselves and ask you for advice, you can either apologize and tell them you don't understand relationships well enough to help (if that's how you feel), or you can ask for more details as appropriate and make a judgement based on that information
• If it's your own relationship, be up-front with your partner about what you want and expect out of the relationship. If they're happy with that and you're happy with what they want and expect, move forward accordingly and enjoy the happy relationship. Don't worry about labelling it if you're not sure how to, and don't worry about making it match any sort of societal expectations (except that it's with a consenting adult. That's a very important expectation). If they aren't happy with what you want/expect, you can try to find a compromise that makes you both happy, otherwise it's probably best to move on

That's pretty much every situation where you actually need understand past the face value interpretation, and of those, the last one's the only one that really matters. The other two just help with media literacy, and in the third case, you don't need a clear answer because it's not your business.

I can separate the concepts of romantic and non-romantic love. To me it just comes across like romantic love just usually gets conflated with sexuality.

But the main point you are making is completely correct. My main confusion stems from the fact I am on the Ace spectrum (combined with being on the autistic spectrum), thus my mind just works different in these regards and I just ran headlong into a wall of confusion when actually trying to look into my labels (or better put, their "official" descriptions). Because a lot of those terms are described from the point of allosexuality being the default and me not realizing that how my head works, is not allosexual.

Edit: will you stop telling me to get back in the autism-closet Gamefaqs? It is not a secret, nor is it something I should be ashamed of, so stop it!

Nichtcrawler-X posted...

I can separate the concepts of romantic and non-romantic love.

I'd argue that this is the bigger problem with modern culture. Most media doesn't seem as able to make that distinction, and the audience sure as shit isn't.

Any time you show two characters having good chemistry, people will IMMEDIATELY start shipping them. Doesn't matter how platonic their relationship is meant to be, doesn't even matter if they're related. "Will they or won't they?" has been a concept for decades (if not longer), and it seems like it's almost a given that if you have two even remotely compatible characters, large vocal swaths of the audience will immediately start demanding that they fuck.

And because that push is so strong, often when those two characters finally DO consummate the relationship, the audience loses interest. Because they got what they wanted, so now the suspense is gone. Which leads a lot of creators to tease the hell out of that relationship, even if they never intend to pay off on it. Which in turn reinforces the romantic undertones in any given platonic scene, and gives the shippers more fuel for their obsession.

Shipping is the bane of good writing. Especially when writers or producers actually pay attention to it or pander to it.

Death of the Author and all that.

Characters can be become representation when enough people see that representation, even if not originally intended.

But like you said, ultimately it comes down to how writers, producers and performers handle it.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

and it seems like it's almost a given that if you have two even remotely compatible characters, large vocal swaths of the audience will immediately start demanding that they fuck.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

And because that push is so strong, often when those two characters finally DO consummate the relationship,

Again, such things are probably what caused my confusion, since that clashes with my perception of sexuality. (and not realizing that my view of sexuality is based on A and not Allo.)

Yes.

watching an interview where a woman does not want to put out until at least the 3rd date and does not want kids until marriage and she is treated like she is crazy.