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?
this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
34 points (100.0% liked)
LGBTQ+
6191 readers
1 users here now
All forms of queer news and culture. Nonsectarian and non-exclusionary.
See also this community's sister subs Feminism, Neurodivergence, Disability, and POC
Beehaw currently maintains an LGBTQ+ resource wiki, which is up to date as of July 10, 2023.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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?)
It definitely seems to be a category that isn't something that's actively measured for typically. Like, people can identify having no interest in sex pretty easily because it's a notable divergence from typical behavior, but romance is hard to see anyway, and an aromantic or demi-romsntic relationship still probably looks pretty similar to a lot of other relationships from the outside. Especially in the case if marriages that aren't entered into due to love, but due to things like shared parenthood, financial security, or just habit.
Because it's not immediately obvious whether or not this term would apply to what most would consider 'typical' relationships, it's a little harder to pin down what proportion of the population qualifies. It may be much closer to the norm than we'd assume, especially considering it seems to have been identified from a space that's examining the possibilities of human variety in relationships rather than attention being brought to it because of its accompanying struggle against some taboo or assumption.
Other people noticed that I was queer looong before I really had the words to make sense of any of that. To me I was just me, but to them I was this weird little aberration, and they were sure to let me know. Part of the identity and understanding that developed around those attributes were in opposition to this oppressive social force that insisted on a specific standard that I would never meet.
I honestly largely identify with a sort of demi-romantic perspective, and certainly with a demi-sexual one. Falling for people I already feel an emotional connection with it's certainly familiar. I feel the social pressure or expectation to prioritize sex and relationships from time to time, but I don't really feel the pressure of an impetus for romance in the same way.
Not to say that that invalidates it at all, but it does make me wonder if it's maybe a little closer to the baseline than some of those other factors we might explore.
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