'Romantic love' is simply a mix of basic love and sexual attraction

The argument

There's no denying that love is involved in most relationships, and this argument does not dispute it. What it disputes is that the love involved in a romantic relationship is a distinct kind of love. That love, it holds, is no different than any other kind of love: the same emotional connection that you might feel for a best friend can also be felt for a romantic partner — the same attachment, trust, preference for that person's company, and concern for their wellbeing. If the emotional component is identical across both cases, then it cannot be what distinguishes them, and the argument looks for the difference elsewhere. The difference between a platonic relationship and a romantic relationship is not the kind of love between everyone involved; it is whether or not the two parties are sexually involved. That is presented as the only reliable line between the two categories, since everything else — intimacy, loyalty, shared history, the wish to be near someone — appears on both sides of it. Sex is then described as what catapults a relationship to a different, higher level of intimacy, allowing what could be a strictly platonic relationship to become romantic. The physical connection is what breaks down the walls of friendship and allows a romance to blossom, so the transition between the two states is accounted for by one added element rather than by the arrival of a new emotion. The conclusion follows by subtraction. If what is called romantic love consists of ordinary love plus sexual attraction, and both components exist independently and are well understood on their own, then nothing remains for the term to name. On that basis the argument holds that romantic love is not real as a distinct thing.

Premises

Counter-arguments

This leaves no room for asexual relationships. There are plenty of people who identify as asexual who have prosperous, long-term romantic relationships. Insinuating that sex is the true marker of a romantic relationship does not account for relationships where sex 1) has never been present or 2) has been been present.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise asserts the identity it needs to prove: the claim that the affection in a romance is the same as the affection for a friend is exactly what is in dispute, and it is not established by observing that both are called love. [Rejecting P2] Sexual involvement cannot be the distinguishing mark, since asexual people form romantic partnerships and friends have sex without the relationship becoming romantic — and even if the analysis held, showing that something is composed of two other things does not show it is not real, any more than a compound is unreal for having constituents.