Pretty sure I'm allo, but....

[KendraPM]

I'm fairly certain I'm heteroromantic, but I'm not certain and it's driving me crazy trying to figure it out. So, after careful pulling apart and examining my romantic attractions, I'm....still confused.

For the most part, I experience tradtional romantic attraction...within a set group of parameters. I meet them, speak with them, and (if they meet the criteria) within a few minutes I feel the onset of a crush. (Which I hate with a firey passion of a thoughsand inferos. It's nearly a physical pain and out of control feeling and....ugh! I hate hate hate it!) With time, and dating, the crush with morph into romantic feelings which will eventually turn into romantic love. See? Traditional. Except the hating of the crush phase. But I can typically nip that in the bud if I realize that the relationship is doomed before it's begun. No point going through that hell if there's nothing worth it on the other side.

But then, I have these exceptions. There are certain personality traits that I develope a mild-crush on. (And this one doesn't seem to gender specific, like the other one.) Something much more pleasant and easy to manage. But....I've only every had one relationship even began to work out with this set of personality traits. Every other one, I get the nice pleasant crush (and I know it's not a squish, I can identify those), followed by some mellow romantic feelings and a nice relationship. For about 3 months. Then it all fades, practically over night and I end up resenting the now viewed as an overly clingy boyfriend/girlfriend and getting annoyed that they keep calling me wanting to hang out. So I end it. The feelings are real, if less intense than the first set, but they die so easily. The only two excpetions is a man I dated for roughly six months, but had been flirting/crushing on for nearly a year. I never fell in love with him, but my romantic feelings never faded (until after the relationship ended) and I feel I could have fallen in love given enough time. The other was a girl from my high school who I never persued anything with, but who to this day still makes me smile and wonder about. The feeling for the girl never intensified, but also never truly faded. There's still a small spark there.

So, do I ignore this random quirk in my romantic orientaion? Is it even in my romantic orientaion, or part of some other emotional attraction? If it is, what is it? I've learned to ignore the second type of crush (although it is hard to do) because it almost never works out and I end up feeling horrible because I knew that I was going to lose interest but allowed things to progress anywyas. Now I just friend-zone them, despite my own feelings.

[Star Bit]

Ocasionally Lithromantic? (romantic reciprocation causing-- over time or immediately-- indifference, loss of interest, or repulsion; they can even resent or avoid the reciprocater and the term recently got a new name that does not leave its interpritation up to a metaphor; Aporomantic) Or more specifically Frayromantic? (romantic attraction fading away)

Eh, it's up to you if you want to include this in your orientation; just like a bisexual can go by straight if they are rarely interested in the other.

[deltaX]

I'm not entirely sure, but I would defintely recommend looking into the orientations Star Bit suggested. Perhaps one of them will fit you, or in your research you'll discover something else that does.

I also agree with the setiment that if you don't want to label this part of your ormantic orientation you don't have to. Labels are only useful if you find them useful, so if it is easier to just go by heteroromantic and explain your feelings more precisely when needed that is fine too. Do whatever makes you feel comfortable. You know how you feel, and even if you can't find a label that fits you exactly, that is the most important thing.

[KendraPM]

Ocasionally Lithromantic? (romantic reciprocation causing-- over time or immediately-- indifference, loss of interest, or repulsion; they can even resent or avoid the reciprocater and the term recently got a new name that does not leave its interpritation up to a metaphor; Aporomantic) Or more specifically Frayromantic? (romantic attraction fading away)

Eh, it's up to you if you want to include this in your orientation; just like a bisexual can go by straight if they are rarely interested in the other.

That could work. It may not be a label I straight up apply to my overall romantic orientation, but Frayromantic does seem to fit those circumstances. Kind of like how you said a bisexual could go by straight. I'll go by heteroromantic, but know that I'm fray in certain circumstances. And avoid those circumstrances, since they rarely end well.

I'm not entirely sure, but I would defintely recommend looking into the orientations Star Bit suggested. Perhaps one of them will fit you, or in your research you'll discover something else that does.

I also agree with the setiment that if you don't want to label this part of your ormantic orientation you don't have to. Labels are only useful if you find them useful, so if it is easier to just go by heteroromantic and explain your feelings more precisely when needed that is fine too. Do whatever makes you feel comfortable. You know how you feel, and even if you can't find a label that fits you exactly, that is the most important thing.

I've been going by grayheteroromantic, since I felt it kind of encompassed both areas, but I've not ever been satisfied with it. I'm one of those people that like labels. They help me define who I am. Although I can see how the fact that I understand how I feel to be more important than the actual label. I think I'll stick with heteroromantic and just know that I have a subset of frayromantic towards certain personalities.

I actually run into more people that I'm...frayromantically? Is that even a term?....attracted to than the stronger, more intense crush that I know will lead to a longer lasting feelings. Which is a bit frustrating, since I have begun avoiding starting a romantic relationship with these people. But I'd rather have something that will last than a brief fling that will leave my partner unhappy and myself feeling guilty.

[nerdperson777]

I thought the prefix grey- meant there was a rare instance such a thing happened so I don't think grey-heteromantic is the right term. You can possibly add grey-bi/panromantic for that one instance you liked that girl, but that one moment doesn't define your entire orientation. Plus there are people with fluid sexualities (and genders) so it's perfectly fine to switch around.

[KendraPM]

I thought the prefix grey- meant there was a rare instance such a thing happened so I don't think grey-heteromantic is the right term. You can possibly add grey-bi/panromantic for that one instance you liked that girl, but that one moment doesn't define your entire orientation. Plus there are people with fluid sexualities (and genders) so it's perfectly fine to switch around.

I mainly just went by gray because in some instances I'm heteroromantic and in some I have a less-intense romantic attraction. The gray was to cover the less intense areas, since they do happen (more frequently actually). But the term wasn't an exact fit. I tried wtfromantic for a bit before that, but that didn't work either. I guess they were "closest I can find at the time" sort of labels.

I've dated a few girls, but they've all fallen under the second set of circumstances; mild-crush that turns into easy feelings that all fade around 3 months in. The one girl I mentioned was my exception to the rule, where the mild-crush feelings never did fully fade. I occassionally go by heteroflexible, just as an overall term, but since I seem to be heteroromantic with the personality traits that last, and therefore the type of relationships I've been persuing lately, I think that it probably is my best fit.

I guess, overall, I have two types when it comes to romantic attraction; one that lasts which seems to be all males with a specific set of personality traits, my heteroromantic side, and one that fades which is geared towards a different set of personality traits, but no specific gender, my gray-pan-frayromantic side.

[Star Bit]

Yes, Frayromantic is a real term, it's just new; the Gray area is slowly getting it's titles. And not all terms have to be in latin or greek; the point of them is to be understandable. And something that frays becomes undone at the ends; your romantic attraction comes undone.

[KendraPM]

Yes, Frayromantic is a real term, it's just new; the Gray area is slowly getting it's titles. And not all terms have to be in latin or greek; the point of them is to be understandable. And something that frays becomes undone at the ends; your romantic attraction comes undone.

Oh no, I was wondering if "frayromatically" was a word. I was just changing the tense. I trust you that it's a term, I wasn't sure if I was using the correct tense.

I know some people aren't OK with it, but I really like that there's all these different subsections of things that are getting names. I like the labels, like defining what I am. It may not be for everyone, and I'm sure there's a point when it's all going to go too far, but for now it's still an area that's being discovered and labeling helps with that.