New research published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior provides evidence that the boundaries between romantic and non-romantic relationships are more fluid than commonly assumed, especially in the absence of sexual attraction or activity. Drawing on in-depth interviews with individuals in close, non-sexual relationships, the study suggests that people tend to rely heavily on cultural norms to define romantic connections, even when their personal experiences do not fully align with those standards.
Much of the existing research on romantic and platonic relationships assumes that sexual attraction is the main factor distinguishing one from the other. Romantic love is usually associated with sexual desire and behaviors, while platonic friendships are seen as emotionally supportive but non-erotic. But many real-world relationships do not follow this formula.
“Most of the research on romantic and non-romantic/platonic relationships assumes that sex is the key difference between these two: that romantic relationships are sexual, and even close platonic relationships are not. But, there are a lot of diverse relationship types that don’t follow this rule,” said study authors Sari van Anders, a professor at Queen’s University, and Ana Carolina de Barros, a PhD candidate.
“For example, romantic relationships can be non-sexual for a wide variety of reasons; in our sample, we had participants who were (or whose partners were) asexual, who were religious and refraining from sex until after marriage, and who had been together for decades and were no longer interested in having sex, among others. We wanted to explore how people think about their relationships as romantic (or not), in relationships where sexual attraction and/or behaviour can’t be the key difference between what is and isn’t romantic.”
The research team interviewed 30 individuals who lived in Canada or the United States and were either currently or previously involved in romantic non-sexual relationships or in close, non-romantic relationships that they described as being more significant than typical friendships. Participants were asked to reflect on one or more relationships that lasted at least two years. The sample included a mix of experiences: some participants were in relationships they described as romantic but not sexual, while others described intense non-romantic partnerships with elements of commitment, shared lives, or deep emotional support.
Each participant took part in a 60-minute semi-structured interview conducted over Zoom. The interviews included questions about how they label their relationships, what emotions and behaviors they associate with each, and how they interpret the concept of romantic attraction. Some participants had experience with both romantic and non-romantic close relationships, allowing for direct comparison.
The researchers used a qualitative method known as template analysis to identify common themes across interviews. This approach allowed them to organize the data according to recurring ideas, such as intimacy, love, societal expectations, and commitment.
The analysis produced a set of themes that offer insight into how people distinguish between romantic and non-romantic relationships when sexual behavior is not a defining factor.
One of the most consistent findings was that romantic relationships were described as more emotionally and physically intimate. Participants tended to see romantic partners as people with whom they shared deeper vulnerability and more frequent affectionate behaviors, such as cuddling or hand-holding. However, some individuals reported that their non-romantic relationships were just as intimate, and in a few cases, even more so. This suggests that while intimacy is commonly associated with romance, it is not exclusive to it.
Another theme that emerged was the perception of romantic love as qualitatively different from platonic love. While participants often expressed deep affection for their non-romantic partners, they described romantic love as having a certain ineffable quality that felt distinct. Yet, many struggled to articulate exactly what made the romantic version of love feel different, and some questioned whether the difference was emotional or simply a result of societal expectations.
Interdependence also appeared to be more prominent in romantic relationships. Participants described romantic partners as individuals whose needs and well-being they prioritized equally to their own. They reported greater lifestyle integration, including living together, making joint plans for the future, and participating in each other’s family lives. However, there were exceptions. Some non-romantic relationships—particularly queerplatonic partnerships—also involved shared housing, long-term plans, and high levels of mutual reliance.
Participants frequently mentioned societal norms as shaping their understanding of what counts as romantic. Some expressed frustration that their deeply committed non-romantic relationships were not socially recognized or understood. Others described romantic partnerships that lacked sex but still carried all the emotional markers of romance. Sex, even though it was not a component of the relationships being studied, came up often in the interviews.
“Because we were interested in non-sexual relationships, we didn’t expect sex to be discussed very often,” van Anders and de Barros told PsyPost. “However, our participants brought up sex quite a bit, especially when talking about their romantic relationships. We believe this is because, even when sexual behaviour or attraction isn’t present in a relationship, Western societies and cultures still expect these relationships to be sexual, so people feel like they have to ‘justify’ or ‘explain’ why their romantic relationships aren’t sexual. This highlights how people in diverse relationships have to talk to their partners about what makes their relationship romantic (or not), even when their relationship doesn’t match social norms about what their relationships ‘should’ look like.”
The researchers also explored how people experience romantic attraction in ways that differ from platonic interest. Participants described romantic attraction as involving a kind of magnetic pull, a desire for closeness, and often a sense of emotional intensity or nervous excitement. Physical sensations such as “butterflies” or an increased heart rate were sometimes used to distinguish romantic feelings.
Yet, not all forms of attraction were described as sexual. Some participants described romantic interest as deeply tied to emotional or intellectual connection, suggesting that cognitive compatibility and emotional resonance can drive romantic feelings even in the absence of physical desire.
In terms of structure, both romantic and non-romantic relationships required effort, communication, and commitment. Many participants described intentional behaviors to maintain these relationships, such as regular check-ins and thoughtful gestures.
However, romantic relationships were more likely to involve formal commitment structures, such as marriage or shared parenting. Still, the language used to describe both types of relationships often overlapped. Some participants called their non-romantic partners “wives,” “girlfriends,” or “life partners,” sometimes humorously, other times quite seriously. Only one label—queerplatonic—was uniquely used to describe non-romantic relationships that were closer than typical friendships but not romantic.
Participants also reflected on how their relationships evolved over time. Romantic relationships often began as friendships, and non-romantic partnerships sometimes started with one-sided romantic interest. Some relationships changed from sexual to non-sexual or shifted labels entirely. These evolving dynamics suggest that relationship categories may be less fixed than commonly thought.
“One key takeaway of our study is that romantic relationships and close platonic relationships are similar in a lot of ways!” van Anders and de Barros explained. “There was a lot of overlap in how our participants described their romantic and platonic relationships. This highlights how diverse relationships challenge what we typically assume to be the differences between “romantic” and “platonic” relationships, and how important it is to further explore these relationships and include them in our understandings, theories, and research about relationships.”
“However, when we explicitly asked participants how they defined ‘romantic,’ their definitions tended to fit social norms or ideas about what romantic relationships ‘should’ look like – even when that meant their own relationships didn’t match their definition. This suggests that people use social norms to create general definitions about relationship types, and their actual lived experiences may not have as large of an impact on these definitions as we’d expect.”
The researchers acknowledge that their definitions of romantic and non-romantic relationships were intentionally broad, which allowed for a diverse range of experiences but made direct comparisons more difficult. The category of non-romantic relationships included everything from traditional best friendships to queerplatonic partnerships, which may vary greatly in structure and meaning. The romantic relationships, by contrast, tended to be more similar to each other in terms of expectations and commitment.
Future studies could examine more specific subtypes of non-romantic relationships to better understand how they compare to romantic ones. Additional research might also explore how people in different cultures or with different identities interpret these categories, as cultural norms around relationships can vary widely.
“This project is part of the first author’s dissertation, which broadly explores how people in diverse forms of relationships define and navigate their relationships, within the context of the social norms their relationships challenge,” the researchers explained. “The other studies in this dissertation expand on these findings, to explore how other forms of diverse relationships (e.g., non-monogamous, queer, kinky) relate to social norms.”
The study, “Sex, Attraction, and Social Norms: Distinguishing Romantic and Non‑Romantic Relationships in Non‑Sexual Contexts,” was authored by Ana Carolina de Barros, Emily R. L. Lackie, and Sari and M. van Anders.
