Jump to content

Reciprosexual/Reciproromantic


Recommended Posts

I know this isn't a term that comes up a lot, but really quick question. The definitions I've seen of it is that you only feel romantic/sexual attraction if you know the other person is attracted to you, first. Does the term still hold true/Do you think the term still holds true if you only suspect that they might?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose so. Whether you know for a fact or theory it seems to be the same thing that triggers the attraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose so. Whether you know for a fact or theory it seems to be the same thing that triggers the attraction.

Okay, that makes sense. Thank you!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this isn't a term that comes up a lot, but really quick question. The definitions I've seen of it is that you only feel romantic/sexual attraction if you know the other person is attracted to you, first. Does the term still hold true/Do you think the term still holds true if you only suspect that they might?

These various terms used in psychiatry and psychology are usually suggestive of actual pathological proportions. If you simply don't talk to strangers like, you're not this thing or that thing. But if you notice someone checking you out, you may well approach them and talk with them. But by virtue of only making that approach because you think they're interested, it doesn't mean you're some clinical term like reciprosexual or whatever. Quite the opposite, you're just normal and well-adjusted. :)

Most people only seek interaction if they believe someone's interested in them as well. That's where body language and subtle cues come into play. That interest or feeling gets conveyed non-verbally.

To have some kind of prefix-sexuality or prefix-romantic characterization you'd have to be considerably different because of it from how people are without it. Like a person isn't OCD because they they make sure their doors are locked before going to bed every night without fail at a specific time. An OCD person is the one who gets up several times throughout the night and checks them over and over.

Thus it's normal, not pathological to only be interested in those interested in, or suspected to be interested in us. If you're interested in those who don't know you exist as with celebrities there's a word for that too and that is pathological. But only being interested in people you actually know isn't pathological.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These various terms used in psychiatry and psychology are usually suggestive of actual pathological proportions. If you simply don't talk to strangers like, you're not this thing or that thing. But if you notice someone checking you out, you may well approach them and talk with them. But by virtue of only making that approach because you think they're interested, it doesn't mean you're some clinical term like reciprosexual or whatever. Quite the opposite, you're just normal and well-adjusted. :)

Most people only seek interaction if they believe someone's interested in them as well. That's where body language and subtle cues come into play. That interest or feeling gets conveyed non-verbally.

To have some kind of prefix-sexuality or prefix-romantic characterization you'd have to be considerably different because of it from how people are without it. Like a person isn't OCD because they they make sure their doors are locked before going to bed every night without fail at a specific time. An OCD person is the one who gets up several times throughout the night and checks them over and over.

Thus it's normal, not pathological to only be interested in those interested in, or suspected to be interested in us. If you're interested in those who don't know you exist as with celebrities there's a word for that too and that is pathological. But only being interested in people you actually know isn't pathological.

That's... that's not it. The keyword is ONLY and that's the important part for me here. Other people are certainly able to be attracted to people they don't know and who does not know of their existence.

Look I'm not going to argue how it's different. Probably recipro- could just as easily fall under something like secondary-whatever-attraction. But for whatever reason my mind doesn't accept secondary-anything as being entirely correct or maybe my mind felt those were way too vague and not good enough. I found this term, read its definition, and my mind accepted it and likes it. I almost screamed out loud. It's useful for my own benefit. I know that using this term is getting to be very nitpicky and possibly very few people accept it as an actual thing but I'm being nitpicky for myself and I accept it. There are nuances in my orientation that I want to understand just for myself and honestly finding this word was probably the last piece to my puzzle. If I were to talk to someone about my orientation I would just tell them that I'm ace and explain that and be done with it; if they ask more about myself I'll give them the other core definitions in my orientation, aro and greyasensual and explain those broadly. I don't plan on ever having to explain the nuances to anyone, having it written down for myself to know is good enough. My mind is happy with the weird long thing that I've got written down as my orientation, and it happens to include recipro-. Without it it felt incomplete. This is solely for me myself and I and I can finally stop obsessively trying to figure out what I am. Please don't invalidate this for me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A recipromantic/sexual (some spell it with a RO at the end of the prefix, others don't) IS different from the norm, so are the other prefixed sub-orientations. And it's not a clinical term. They ONLY feel romantically attracted to people if they know/think they're romantically interested beforehand; previously aromantic toward a person, informed they like them, and then they start to feel romantically for that person. Them knowing you exist is not the trigger.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These various terms used in psychiatry and psychology are usually suggestive of actual pathological proportions. If you simply don't talk to strangers like, you're not this thing or that thing. But if you notice someone checking you out, you may well approach them and talk with them. But by virtue of only making that approach because you think they're interested, it doesn't mean you're some clinical term like reciprosexual or whatever. Quite the opposite, you're just normal and well-adjusted. :)

Most people only seek interaction if they believe someone's interested in them as well. That's where body language and subtle cues come into play. That interest or feeling gets conveyed non-verbally.

To have some kind of prefix-sexuality or prefix-romantic characterization you'd have to be considerably different because of it from how people are without it. Like a person isn't OCD because they they make sure their doors are locked before going to bed every night without fail at a specific time. An OCD person is the one who gets up several times throughout the night and checks them over and over.

Thus it's normal, not pathological to only be interested in those interested in, or suspected to be interested in us. If you're interested in those who don't know you exist as with celebrities there's a word for that too and that is pathological. But only being interested in people you actually know isn't pathological.

That's... that's not it. The keyword is ONLY and that's the important part for me here. Other people are certainly able to be attracted to people they don't know and who does not know of their existence.

Look I'm not going to argue how it's different. Probably recipro- could just as easily fall under something like secondary-whatever-attraction. But for whatever reason my mind doesn't accept secondary-anything as being entirely correct or maybe my mind felt those were way too vague and not good enough. I found this term, read its definition, and my mind accepted it and likes it. I almost screamed out loud. It's useful for my own benefit. I know that using this term is getting to be very nitpicky and possibly very few people accept it as an actual thing but I'm being nitpicky for myself and I accept it. There are nuances in my orientation that I want to understand just for myself and honestly finding this word was probably the last piece to my puzzle. If I were to talk to someone about my orientation I would just tell them that I'm ace and explain that and be done with it; if they ask more about myself I'll give them the other core definitions in my orientation, aro and greyasensual and explain those broadly. I don't plan on ever having to explain the nuances to anyone, having it written down for myself to know is good enough. My mind is happy with the weird long thing that I've got written down as my orientation, and it happens to include recipro-. Without it it felt incomplete. This is solely for me myself and I and I can finally stop obsessively trying to figure out what I am. Please don't invalidate this for me.

"I found this term, read its definition, and my mind accepted it and likes it."

That's actually the very definition of medical student's disease. A med student learns about all sorts of things so the next time they sneeze they think "omg! it's the plague!" or whatever :)

If you find some term that fills in the blanks for you and how you think of yourself and you think fits that's fine. But by and large these terms are for when it presents some sort of difficulty or problem having it.

I think it's usually more about how people need to label every little thing instead of simply chalking it up to being different. In recognizing our differences we may feel seperated from the rest so to alleviate the feeling of seperation look for a label to describe us so we can seek out other 'different people' with that label and be part of a group again instead of the lone individual who's different. Apologies for the run-on sentence. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

-_- Just ignore this ignorent person.

Perhaps knowing it falls under the umbrella term Gray-romantic would be of some use idkwhatami.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"I found this term, read its definition, and my mind accepted it and likes it."

That's actually the very definition of medical student's disease. A med student learns about all sorts of things so the next time they sneeze they think "omg! it's the plague!" or whatever :)

If you find some term that fills in the blanks for you and how you think of yourself and you think fits that's fine. But by and large these terms are for when it presents some sort of difficulty or problem having it.

I think it's usually more about how people need to label every little thing instead of simply chalking it up to being different. In recognizing our differences we may feel seperated from the rest so to alleviate the feeling of seperation look for a label to describe us so we can seek out other 'different people' with that label and be part of a group again instead of the lone individual who's different. Apologies for the run-on sentence. :)

Stop. You are beginning to relate me to a sick patient and vaguely implying that my orientation is an illness and that is extremely hurtful. I have been doing my fucking research for the past four days. I have read through countless threads and posts. I do not just take on new terms freely. I overanalyze every term I come across. This is 100% me trying to find the correct peg for the hole that was in my orientation at the time. The other definitions did not fit. They would not work. By chance I found recipro- and it clicked immediately. I ask questions to clarify and make sure I know what I'm working with and what I'm adding to my identity. I know what the fuck I'm doing because I know what I'm feeling, not you.

My orientation is not a difficulty or problem that I need fixed. Enough said.

My orientation also does not define me. Although I feel myself to firmly be a part of the queer and particularly ace community, I do in fact have friends in other circles. College friends. High school friends. Internet friends. My family. Women. I am a part of many groups and I know that I am not alone. I also have no issues with being alone if that were the case. I am an independent person with my own will. Although it is certainly nice to have people to socialize with I do not need other people to define me. I define me. I am more than my orientation or the communities I am a part of.

Do not tell me that me trying to label something about myself is a fluke or that I'm blowing up my feelings because that means you are saying my feelings are invalid. That you know better than I what I am and how I feel. Stop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

-_- Just ignore this ignorent person.

Perhaps knowing it falls under the umbrella term Gray-romantic would be of some use idkwhatami.

I thought about not responding, but... no, I had to. I can't let them go around thinking this is okay.

That's what I was going to go with. I figured it counted as a case of rare occurrence so recipro- would fall under grey-.

Thank you for everything!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 years later...

Hello!

I can see this is an old topic but I just found it. I have to reply in it. I am 46 years old and I just knew about this term Reciprosexual. I started to look around to get some info about this, because it just clicked in my head, it all started to make sense finally. I’ve been questioning myself for the last years because some time ago I just realized how I never start a relationship or go after anyone. Even though I’ve been madly in love with some guys that did not reciprocate, in the sexual aspect I have never chased anyone, so to speak. I have only reciprocated someone else’s interest in me. I never initiate. I can spend weeks thinking of the topic but never start anything unless is the other party that wants something. So even though the topic is old, here I am to say Unlabeled ideas may be wrong. There are people who actually are like this. I’ve been like this forever only to realize after so many years. And there is nothing wrong with it. And I don’t care if there are others, or not. But it is great that there are others because I now know it is a thing. 
 

Thank you

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...