What Does It Mean to Be Demiromantic?
What Does It Mean to Be Demiromantic?
If you need to really get to know someone before you can fall for them, you might just be demiromantic.
This article's descriptions of how to know if you're demiromantic suffer from being too vague and not literal enough. Like, it says you may be demiromantic if love at first sight isn't a thing for you, but then it says love at first sight doesn't actually mean live at first sight. Or you may be demiromantic if you don't have "many" crushes, but how much is a normal amount?
So, basically you're demiromantic if you're not a shallow idiot?
I've never crushed on anyone...
I've lusted after people, but I don't really understand crushes...
That being said, I have no idea where I sit on the romantic spectrum, because I can and have been in loving relationships that I strongly value, and actively desire, yet to me, they feel like an extension of friendship. Every one of my partners has been a really close friend, and we developed that friendship in to a relationship.
if you don’t have “many” crushes, but how much is a normal amount?
As someone who's aro, one is too many.
In all seriousness, I agree with you. Seems mostly vague and a lot is pretty common for "alloromantic" people (is that the right term? I haven't paid much attention to any of that lately, so I'm probably out of the loop). But I could be missing it because I don't relate much and now probably sound like one of those people who says "demisexual is how most people are" and most who fit into that category can pretty much immediately say, "no, not really".
I think the biggest example in there that seems to be more "concrete" than the others is the bit about only ever having romantic feelings for friends or people you're otherwise close with.
That one makes sense to me as a "predictor" of what might be "demiromantic". Not drawn to people for any reason other than friendship, and then feeling like something more, whereas other people might be drawn to someone else purely for romantic reasons.
I've actually sometimes wondered about this label before but never really found a way to define or apply it in the simple way that I can with demisexuality.
Romance seems a bit more nebulous than sexuality. Like, physiologically speaking. Certain things happen with sexual attraction. I guess when it comes to brain chemicals, things happen with romantic attraction as well, but I'm not certain they're as easy to identify as boing and sploosh.
boing and sploosh
I think you just slid me further up the ace scale.
Not drawn to people for any reason other than friendship, and then feeling like something more, whereas other people might be drawn to someone else purely for romantic reasons.
Reading these kinds of descriptions always make me wonder if non-demi-romantic people exist outside of fairy tales. With demisexuality, I can totally imagine someone being sexually attracted to someone else without caring romantically or otherwise about them (as such people visibly exist), but I can't imagine anyone being romantically attracted to someone who they don't know. Unlike with other lgbtq labels where I can look around and see that lots of people are actually the way I can't imagine being, there isn't an 'other' I can contrast with in the case of demiromanticity. I don't even know what you call people who aren't demiromantic?
Kinda inclined to agree with the other guy that said
So, basically you're demiromantic if you're not a shallow idiot?
. The only non-demiromantic person I can think of is Johnny Bravo and he's not a real person. (afaik?)
How does one know if they're demiromantic or just aromantic? I know I'm demisexual because I can sort of "simulate" having an emotional connection to an imagined fantasy, but romance doesn't have a space we're expected to intentionally simulate, and I've never experienced any sort of romance (though I haven't been close to that many people).
I honestly can't understand the concept of having romantic feelings for someone you don't truly know. What's the basis for it? Sexual attraction? Sure. You can see someone is attractive by just a glance, though for me, personality takes that attraction way, way further. But I can see a superficial, I-don't-know-this-person-but-damn-they-give-me-tinglies-down-there. Love and romance however have to be based on a foundation of actually knowing someone, feeling a connection, and that connection becoming more.
I think it really boils down to not being able to define the milieu in which demiromaticism differentiates itself. You can say homosexuality vs. bisexuality vs. heterosexuality. Or cis vs. trans vs. enby, etc. and you understand the different natures of those identities. But what would alloromanticism? look like? What defines it?
For me, it's not crushes. Love at first sight? Eh. That just seems like fascination/infatuation/crushing that one is conflating with something more. To me, crushes are an indicator that you've seen something in someone that's jumped out at you and makes you want to either create a connection with them, or that you want to deepen an existing connection.
So what defines non-demiromaticism?
N.B. This isn't a denial or rejection of one's identity or of this label as a whole. I'm genuinely having a hard time with this.
so i'm demisexual and i know that because 1) i can identify what sexual attraction feels like in myself and 2) i understand that my baseline for sexual attraction is different from what's considered allosexual
however, i feel like i can't really say the same for romantic attraction. i'm not sure, i think i can identify how it feels within myself. but i don't really know what's considered baseline. the question i'd really like answered is, what's an alloromantic's experience like? do they get butterflies and blushy feelings by just looking at someone? maybe i'm demiromantic as well, but it seems like a rare(r) experience among people i know than being allosexual is
another (interesting, albeit unlikely) possibility is that being demiromantic is more common than being alloromantic. again, it's unlikely, but i enjoy the thought experiment of the demi-side of the spectrum being more populated than the allo side. what if the aro side of the spectrum was more populated? it's just interesting to consider what we take for granted and how much we can assume it's true
Is there any scientific basis out there for what demiromantic/aromantic or demisexual/asexual actually are? Or are they just random terms used to describe basically anybody that isn't 100% focused on attaining a relationship at any cost?