Am I Demiromantic? What Even is Romance?

[eliranpesach]

I'm trying to think through my identity, I watched Ash Hardell's amazing video series on asexuality and aromanticism as well as Evan Edinger's video on his sexuality, and, as it should be, I'm even more confused than before.

 

Here are some of the things I'm thinking-

1. I have never been on a date, had sex, or have been in a relationship. Though I do eventually want to be in a relationship.
2. BUT, I can't even imagine being in a relationship with someone unless I have an emotional connection to them.
3. (2a.) Is that really not something everyone else has? I mean, how can you want to be with another person if you don't know anything about how you 'click' with them?
4. I still find people physically attractive. Would I want to have sex with them before knowing their 'emotional energy¹?' Well, I mean they're hot, so yes?, but also sex is more than just the physical, so no?
5. Part of what makes this really confusing is that I am a cisgender heterosexual guy who eventually wants marriage. That seems very different than demiromanticism, but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I wonder if I'm just 'normal²,' and this is sorta-kinda what I'm looking for...
6. What even is romance? Like, when I say I want to be with someone, I want someone who's like a best friend, but (a) the kind of person I find attractive and (b) someone with whom I can talk about anything, be myself, etc. What's the difference between a super-close attractive best friend and a romantic partner? I just don't get it.

 

Any reflections are helpful, thanks so much.

 

² Wow, that sounds so crunchy-granola, but I think you know what I mean...

² Yes, everyone's sexuality is normal, I just don't have the right vocabulary for the better word yet.

[Guest]

Wanting marriage and being demiromantic are two different things. One is an action, the other is a orientation. It's like how one can be straight but not want to ever get married -- doesn't make them any less straight.

 

Idk if that helps?

 

And frankly, the only person who can really define the relationships you have with other people is you and the person who you have the relationship with.

[The Gnat (Natalie)]

Hey there! Welcome to AVEN  As an initiation ritual, I've gotta first offer you some cake 

 

I'm going to do my best here, but I've only begun describing myself as demiromantic in the last month, so I've still got plenty of confusion myself. I relate to a lot of what you said in your post, so I guess I'll go one-by-one and offer my POV.

 

1. Same, same, same. And same.

 

2. Also same.

 

3. I think the difference here is in degrees. For reference, I'm 21, and I've only ever had one crush, which developed on my best friend at the time after we'd been friends and spent multiple hours a week together for a year. That was in high school. When I got to college, a couple of guys asked me out, and I immediately said 'no' because, while we were friends, we'd only known each other for a few months and had never spent a significant amount of time together (e.g. I saw one of them for an hour or two a week at a club meeting). Because I'm demiromantic, the idea of dating someone I've only known for that short period of time actually affects me the same way that sex-repulsed aces describe the thought of having sex as having on them. Just absolute horror at the idea. I have no capacity to feel attraction or even explore the possibility of that type of attraction toward anyone I don't already have a deep friendship with. I mentioned this to my mom, who couldn't understand at all what I meant when I said there was no way I could possibly go on a date with this guy because "I didn't know him." Her reaction was a) you do know him! You see him every week! and b) the point of dating is to get to know someone. It's just a totally different mentality and one of the biggest factors for me in determining that I'm demiromantic. Similarly, I'd advise you to contemplate your attitude toward online dating. To me, it's terrifying because there's no way I could possibility get to know anyone deeply enough from behind a screen to have the capacity to feel romantically attracted to them, and having to go meet them with the expectation that I'm already able to feel that type of attraction if it's ever going to be there is just completely out of the question. I know this got long, but I hope that all made sense and is more helpful than confusing. 

 

4. This sounds to me like a pretty standard description of allosexuality. As an ace, there is no one that I have a genuine interest in having sex with. The only way I can imagine myself possibly having partnered sex is if, several years into a romantic relationship, my partner and I decided we just wanted to try it once and see what happens, and I felt 100% confident that we could take it super slow and stop immediately if I decided I couldn't go through with it.

 

5. I'm demiromantic, and would definitely still like to get married someday! As I say somewhat often, I love all that romantic crap. I just rarely find anybody I'm personally interested in doing it with. And I view romance a little bit differently than most of my alloromantic friends. The way I describe is that I do want a romantic partner, but first and foremost I want them to be my "adventure buddy." Yeah, we can kiss and cuddle and stuff, but more importantly this hypothetical romantic partner has got to be down to go on a walk around town at 3 am for no reason and have deep conversations about the origins of the universe while we're cuddling and stuff like that. I want a best friend that I can also do the romantic stuff with. Romance is just an added bonus on top of the best friend stuff.

 

6. I started to talk about this in my answer to your first question. I guess I see the differentiator as wanting the kissing and romantic gestures and "true love, happily ever after" kind of stuff. I honestly don't know how to describe because, like I said, I've only had that one crush, and it was such an isolated experience that I struggle to even remember what it felt like. I just know that I really wanted to date him and be his 'most important person.' I really wanted it to be us against the world, if that makes sense.

 

Obviously, I can't tell you what you feel, but you sound to me like you may be demiromantic and allosexual. Again, I hope everything I've shared has resolved more confusion than it's created. But it's also important to remember (as a matter of fact, I said this in a thread yesterday) that "probably not straight but I don't know beyond that" is a perfectly valid thing to be. Take your time in figuring it out, and don't put pressure on yourself to label something that won't do any damage by being left unlabeled!  

[eliranpesach]

On 11/3/2017 at 1:28 PM, The Gnat (Natalie) said:

Hey there! Welcome to AVEN  As an initiation ritual, I've gotta first offer you some cake 

 

Is it kosher-vegan cake?

 

On 11/3/2017 at 1:28 PM, The Gnat (Natalie) said:

3. I think the difference here is in degrees. For reference, I'm 21, and I've only ever had one crush, which developed on my best friend at the time after we'd been friends and spent multiple hours a week together for a year. That was in high school. When I got to college, a couple of guys asked me out, and I immediately said 'no' because, while we were friends, we'd only known each other for a few months and had never spent a significant amount of time together (e.g. I saw one of them for an hour or two a week at a club meeting). Because I'm demiromantic, the idea of dating someone I've only known for that short period of time actually affects me the same way that sex-repulsed aces describe the thought of having sex as having on them. Just absolute horror at the idea. I have no capacity to feel attraction or even explore the possibility of that type of attraction toward anyone I don't already have a deep friendship with.

 

Yeah, I hear that. I guess for me, instead of a flat-out "no," I'd be more inclined to say, "not yet, I need to get to know you better. Let's test out a friendship and see if we want to take it to a romantic relationship after that." I get the sense non-demiromantic people would not think of having that attitude. Once you're friends you want to remain friends and not "ruin the friendship."

As to your comment about only having one crush, I don't think I've had any real crushes... I had a crush in sixth grade, but that was mostly from peer pressure of friends asking who my crush was. I remember them asking me, "who do you like?" to which I responded my best friend who expressed the same gender as me. My friends laughed at that (homophobia wasn't even called a thing yet, especially at my school. It was expected to be attracted to the opposite sex), and asked, "No, who do you like like?" Then I just picked a girl in my class who I found physically attractive. I mean, maybe I've had a crush on a friend from high school, but I wasn't in a place emotionally (confidence or 'ready' for a relationship) to ask her out.

 

On 11/3/2017 at 1:28 PM, The Gnat (Natalie) said:

I mentioned this to my mom, who couldn't understand at all what I meant when I said there was no way I could possibly go on a date with this guy because "I didn't know him." Her reaction was a) you do know him! You see him every week! and b) the point of dating is to get to know someone. It's just a totally different mentality and one of the biggest factors for me in determining that I'm demiromantic.

 

Yeah, I was talking to both of my parents about some of these things, and they were making it seem like it's just getting to know someone, and 'all people' do that. But I feel like the relationship I'd need first is closer than how alloromantic people work.

 

On 11/3/2017 at 1:28 PM, The Gnat (Natalie) said:

Similarly, I'd advise you to contemplate your attitude toward online dating. To me, it's terrifying because there's no way I could possibility get to know anyone deeply enough from behind a screen to have the capacity to feel romantically attracted to them, and having to go meet them with the expectation that I'm already able to feel that type of attraction if it's ever going to be there is just completely out of the question. I know this got long, but I hope that all made sense and is more helpful than confusing. 

1

I'm not sure how I feel about online dating. I feel like maybe it's a good step to meeting someone who I could fall in love with at some point, but we'd have to start out as just being friends and feeling each others' Qi. (again, I totally believe in some of this Qi/"energetic thinking"/"The Force" stuff)

 

On 11/3/2017 at 1:28 PM, The Gnat (Natalie) said:

4. This sounds to me like a pretty standard description of allosexuality. As an ace, there is no one that I have a genuine interest in having sex with. The only way I can imagine myself possibly having partnered sex is if, several years into a romantic relationship, my partner and I decided we just wanted to try it once and see what happens, and I felt 100% confident that we could take it super slow and stop immediately if I decided I couldn't go through with it.

1

The more I think about it, the more I feel like I'd need to experience sex before knowing fully if I'm allosexual. The more I think about it, (this may be TMI) I am more attracted to the parts of sex that are not PIV sex, like touching their privates or even just seeing them naked. However, I am a part of a religion that doesn't allow for sex until marriage, so I guess I can't really know until then (I don't want to get into a discussion of religion and whether this is a good/bad thing). I know I'm definitely not sex-averse, though. I think I'd need to know someone emotionally to want to have PIV sex with them (that's the kind of sex I'm attracted to), but to be sexually attracted to them and want to see/touch them sexually does not require an emotional connection.

 

On 11/3/2017 at 1:28 PM, The Gnat (Natalie) said:

5. I'm demiromantic, and would definitely still like to get married someday! As I say somewhat often, I love all that romantic crap. I just rarely find anybody I'm personally interested in doing it with. And I view romance a little bit differently than most of my alloromantic friends. The way I describe is that I do want a romantic partner, but first and foremost I want them to be my "adventure buddy." Yeah, we can kiss and cuddle and stuff, but more importantly this hypothetical romantic partner has got to be down to go on a walk around town at 3 am for no reason and have deep conversations about the origins of the universe while we're cuddling and stuff like that. I want a best friend that I can also do the romantic stuff with. Romance is just an added bonus on top of the best friend stuff.

1

Yes! It's like, what's the point of having a romantic relationship if not for being present in and connecting with someone else's personality and emotions?! I also love the "adventure buddy" metaphor. What's really the difference between wanting a girlfriend and wanting a female zucchini, though?

 

On 11/3/2017 at 1:28 PM, The Gnat (Natalie) said:

6. I started to talk about this in my answer to your first question. I guess I see the differentiator as wanting the kissing and romantic gestures and "true love, happily ever after" kind of stuff. I honestly don't know how to describe because, like I said, I've only had that one crush, and it was such an isolated experience that I struggle to even remember what it felt like. I just know that I really wanted to date him and be his 'most important person.' I really wanted it to be us against the world, if that makes sense.

1

Ehhh, I don't want my relationships to be that "true love, happily ever after" stuff. I hate that kind of mushy romance. I want a romantic relationship - going on dates with my partner, talking, being there no matter what, etc. - but I want our relationship to be more 'real' than that stuff. Does that make any sense?

 

On 11/3/2017 at 1:28 PM, The Gnat (Natalie) said:

Obviously, I can't tell you what you feel, but you sound to me like you may be demiromantic and allosexual. Again, I hope everything I've shared has resolved more confusion than it's created. But it's also important to remember (as a matter of fact, I said this in a thread yesterday) that "probably not straight but I don't know beyond that" is a perfectly valid thing to be. Take your time in figuring it out, and don't put pressure on yourself to label something that won't do any damage by being left unlabeled!

 

I'm glad that others can't tell me how I feel, but I think it's good hearing what others think I feel, so I can see if it resonates with me. I also think I am at a stage where the more confusion the better. I think sitting with the confusion is actually a really good way of sorting through my feelings and figuring out what does and does not fit. As for labels, I agree, but I feel bad about possibly intruding on this space... I'm a cis hetero guy who can't tell if he's demiromantic or not, and if not, I don't want to intrude somewhere where I don't belong. I feel like I'm so close to society's definition of "normal" that I might be it.

 

As for my views on labels in general, I find them to be useful to a point. For example, I am Jewish, which you could say means that I believe in one omnipotent immanent God, that He gave the Torah to Moses on Mt. Sinai, and that there are only two non-equal genders who should sit separately in prayer services. Yet, none of the above are true about me. I don't believe in a God who is immanent or even omnipotent, I don't give God pronouns unless I am going for a hyperliteral translation of the Bible, I don't believe in a God who writes books including the Bible, I believe that gender is a spectrum and that prayer services should be conducted gender-neutrally.

 

Thank you so so much for your detailed reply! It was really useful, and there is still so much more to learn... Once again, thanks.

[Soreya]

Yo! Good evening! I've had exactly one asexual relationship so far, so my perspective may be skewed, but I can throw in my two cents.

 

To start with, I would definitely be in agreement with what FranciumSenpai said: you + your partner are the ones who get to define what kind of relationship you have. If labels don't help, don't use 'em. So if you can't figure out if what you have is a romantic relationship, as long as you and your partner are clear about what the two of you want out of the relationship, you're golden.

 

As far as dating goes, I also couldn't possibly imagine wanting to be in a relationship with someone without knowing them very well first, so I feel you there. If you're more cautious about people before you date them (as in, you want to know them well before you invest in them), that's totally fine. I think this comes down to how we as individuals use dating: I use it as a way to establish rapport with someone I want as a long-term partner whereas my twin brother, for comparison, uses dating as a way to get to know someone from scratch. For me, I wouldn't date someone unless I know that I want to try a long-term relationship with them; for my brother, he dates someone to see if he wants to be in a relationship with them at all. He uses dating like an interview process; I consider it more along the lines of, "Congratulations! You're hired! This is a probationary phase, so let's see how we do as partners!" I don't think either he nor I is going about dating in a way that's not "standard," but I do think it might be more common to use dating in the "interview" capacity. From how you talk about wanting an emotional connection first, you might be along the lines of seeing dating more in line with the "probationary phase" capacity.

 

With romance itself as a concept, I'm probably as confused as you are, friend. But the way I look at it is that your description -- "someone who's like a best friend, but (a) the kind of person I find attractive and (b) someone with whom I can talk about anything, be myself, etc." -- is essentially what a "romantic partner" is, yes! In which case, the "difference between a super-close attractive best friend and a romantic partner" is that there really isn't one. Love is accepting someone's good sides and bad sides and trying to understand them as a whole person and not just as the attractive front they present to the rest of the world; love is trusting someone with yourself, the good and the bad, and trusting that they will accept you for who you are in the same way that you are accepting them. Pulling off all of the bells and whistles, that's the end result of what we've as a society termed "a romantic relationship."

 

All the "romantic" stuff is INCREDIBLY subjective. For example, some people would consider holding hands to be romantic, others wouldn't. Some would consider cuddling romantic, others wouldn't. Some people would consider sending flowers romantic, others wouldn't. And all of that romantic stuff is ENTIRELY optional in committed relationships. We use romantic gestures as a shorthand for expressing how much we care about our partners, but if that shorthand isn't something you particularly care for, you don't have to include it in your relationships. I had a friend in high school who, every Valentine's Day, would go to the LEGO store with her boyfriend and buy a huge LEGO set to build together. Then they spent the rest of the day building it and watching cartoons. For them, that was romantic -- or it filled the role that we would have expected traditionally romantic acts to fill, if that makes sense. As long as you are doing something that your partner appreciates, and as long as your partner is doing the same for you, the "romantic" levels of the activities don't matter. You and your partner should feel like the other person cares about them and is meeting their needs. In doing so, those loving gestures may or may not fall into what we traditionally term "romantic" gestures. That's really up to you and your partner and what gestures make you feel loved.

 

The most important thing is that you and your partner are very clear with each other about what you are looking for in each other. For example, my ex-girlfriend and I, when we were still dating, both identified as aromantic. I identified that way because the way that I liked her was, fundamentally, the way that I liked my closest friends; she identified that way because she didn't like kissing, cuddling, or the other "romantic" things that usually come along with relationships. I loved cuddling/holding hands/etc., and considered that the stuff of close friendship, and so the relationship between us was messy and painful because we had very different notions about what we wanted and what we were willing to give each other.

 

Being able to figure out your labels and where you fit into the larger schema can be really useful and really validating! Equally (or possibly more) important is the ability to articulate clearly what you want from your partner. And you have the groundwork for that figured out, I would say. You want someone who is interested in marriage, who is interested in sex (to some degree), who is physically attractive, and who is willing to be emotionally open with you/have emotionally deep conversations with you. Knowing that you want those things in a person, even if you don't know how to label the fact that you want these things, is a very good place to be! I think you should give yourself space in dating and sex experiences to explore what your preferences are and how you feel about those two spheres of activity once you are active in them.

 

This was a really long answer, I'm sorry! I hope it helps!

[eliranpesach]

10 hours ago, Soreya said:

To start with, I would definitely be in agreement with what FranciumSenpai said: you + your partner are the ones who get to define what kind of relationship you have. If labels don't help, don't use 'em. So if you can't figure out if what you have is a romantic relationship, as long as you and your partner are clear about what the two of you want out of the relationship, you're golden.

 

Of course we are the only ones who would define it, but I am just trying to see if certain labels would fit me and/or the types of relationships I want.

10 hours ago, Soreya said:

As far as dating goes, I also couldn't possibly imagine wanting to be in a relationship with someone without knowing them very well first, so I feel you there. If you're more cautious about people before you date them (as in, you want to know them well before you invest in them), that's totally fine. I think this comes down to how we as individuals use dating: I use it as a way to establish rapport with someone I want as a long-term partner whereas my twin brother, for comparison, uses dating as a way to get to know someone from scratch. For me, I wouldn't date someone unless I know that I want to try a long-term relationship with them; for my brother, he dates someone to see if he wants to be in a relationship with them at all. He uses dating like an interview process; I consider it more along the lines of, "Congratulations! You're hired! This is a probationary phase, so let's see how we do as partners!" I don't think either he nor I is going about dating in a way that's not "standard," but I do think it might be more common to use dating in the "interview" capacity. From how you talk about wanting an emotional connection first, you might be along the lines of seeing dating more in line with the "probationary phase" capacity.

1

This is a really good analogy. Would this "probationary phase" be a form of demiromanticism or would it be a form of alloromanticism?

 

10 hours ago, Soreya said:

With romance itself as a concept, I'm probably as confused as you are, friend. But the way I look at it is that your description -- "someone who's like a best friend, but (a) the kind of person I find attractive and (b) someone with whom I can talk about anything, be myself, etc." -- is essentially what a "romantic partner" is, yes! In which case, the "difference between a super-close attractive best friend and a romantic partner" is that there really isn't one. Love is accepting someone's good sides and bad sides and trying to understand them as a whole person and not just as the attractive front they present to the rest of the world; love is trusting someone with yourself, the good and the bad, and trusting that they will accept you for who you are in the same way that you are accepting them. Pulling off all of the bells and whistles, that's the end result of what we've as a society termed "a romantic relationship."

 

Again, I really like this.

 

10 hours ago, Soreya said:

Being able to figure out your labels and where you fit into the larger schema can be really useful and really validating! Equally (or possibly more) important is the ability to articulate clearly what you want from your partner. And you have the groundwork for that figured out, I would say. You want someone who is interested in marriage, who is interested in sex (to some degree), who is physically attractive, and who is willing to be emotionally open with you/have emotionally deep conversations with you. Knowing that you want those things in a person, even if you don't know how to label the fact that you want these things, is a very good place to be! I think you should give yourself space in dating and sex experiences to explore what your preferences are and how you feel about those two spheres of activity once you are active in them.

1

Thanks for thinking that I have some of it figured out. I mentioned some of the problems with giving space for sex experience in my reply to The Gnat (Natalie), and with dating experience, as you were saying with the "probationary phase" type of dating, it takes a while for me to find someone I want to date, so that will take time...

 

10 hours ago, Soreya said:

This was a really long answer, I'm sorry! I hope it helps!

 

It was helpful! Even the parts that I didn't officially respond to in this reply are still really helpful! Thank you!

[LeChat]

57 minutes ago, eliranpesach said:

I wrote this long reply, but it won't let me submit it!...

Hi. Just to let you know, the reply box is time sensitive: if you take too long by writing a long reply, it'll "time-out" (i.e. log you out and not post your reply.)

 

I've had that happen to me a few times, so what I do is copy everything I wrote, before hitting "submit reply." That way, in case it does log me out, all I'll have to do is sign in again, then paste what I'd written, without having to re-write everything.

[eliranpesach]

10 hours ago, InquisitivePhilosopher said:

Hi. Just to let you know, the reply box is time sensitive: if you take too long by writing a long reply, it'll "time-out" (i.e. log you out and not post your reply.)

 

I've had that happen to me a few times, so what I do is copy everything I wrote, before hitting "submit reply." That way, in case it does log me out, all I'll have to do is sign in again, then paste what I'd written, without having to re-write everything.

Thanks. Comments have been edited and updated.

[Beaver Boy]

2a: I think most people in romantic relationships have an emotional connection. I think it just has to be a really strong emotion connection for it to be considered demiromantic

4: I consider myself asexual even though I do see some people as being hot. I think sex would feel good, I just don't really feel the sexual attraction (I think the term is autochorisexual). I've never had sex before, and I really don't feel like I'm missing out on anything.

6: Exact same thoughts here! I don't see the difference between an asexual romantic relationship and having a really close best friend cuddle buddy who I could talk to about anything. That's why I put on the ridiculously long "hetero-gray-akoiquoiromantic" label

[Soreya]

I'm glad my reply was helpful to you! And I'm glad you've had other useful commenters here as well!

 

21 hours ago, eliranpesach said:

Would this "probationary phase" be a form of demiromanticism or would it be a form of alloromanticism?

To be entirely honest, I'm not sure. I have friends who go about dating both ways: some are interested from first contact, and some very much want to be friends first. My ex-girlfriend (who later identified as aromantic) had a crush on me within our first two hang-outs and would have asked me out then if she'd been sure I'd say yes. I think it might be up to personal preference more than romantic/demiromantic/aromantic affiliation. For myself, I find it very easy to love people, but I don't want to heavily invest in someone who isn't a good fit for me, so I don't want to be too quick to select a partner -- and that's an INFJ trait as much as some people might call it a demiromantic trait, since the end result is that I only get really emotionally tied to people I know well.

 

To be frank, there might also be a sexual component to dating styles: certain folks might be more interested in dating sooner  because they're physically interested in their would-be partner. I wouldn't be as equipped to speak on that aspect, though, and I read your earlier posts about your religion and how sex wouldn't be a part of your dating experience anyway.