Jump to content

So are most sexuals demi-romantic?


square peg

Recommended Posts

If I've understood correctly, people here use 'demi-sexual' to mean sexually attracted only when romantically attracted. It's occurred to me that given the trouble many sexuals have understanding that you can have a crush on or be in love with someone without feeling sexually attracted to them, despite having very little trouble understanding that you can be sexually attracted to someone without having a crush on them or being in love, that these sexuals have never experienced romantic attraction to anyone without being sexually attracted to them first. That's probably stating the bleeding obvious but I've never really given it enough thought to consider how interesting that is. Why might that be case? I suppose there may be an evolutionary benefit to being that way. What proportion of sexuals appear to fall into this category in your experience?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm asexual, but I have to say that all the sexuals I've known (very many), seem to fall into this category. I don't think they necessarily think about it, but yes, the sexual attraction seems to come before the romantic attraction.

We really need some sexuals to respond to this. After all, they'll know better than we can!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Taken from a chat with a sexual friend, with permission:

maringa713: Weird question: Have you ever felt romantic attraction before having sexual attraction?

J: as in: ooh, she'd be a good dinner companion, before having the ooh, she's hot?

maringa713: yeah, basically

J: with about half the people I interact with actually

Then again, he stressed I could only share this if I made it clear he wasn't speaking for all sexuals, or even (let alone?) all heterosexual males.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... It's a bit hard to say what comes first.

I've never fallen romantically in love with someone I didn't find sexually attractive. But we're going back a long time here, and when I was a teenager I had relationships where we were both plainly sexually attracted to each other but didn't have sex, because we felt we weren't "ready" (and in hindsight I have no idea what that means, or what I was thinking :rolleyes:)

There are many men I've had extremely close friendships with over the years, but I've never fallen in love with any of them. Is that because I'm not sexually attracted to them? Maybe.

I think that there are probably some subconscious things going on that stop sexuals from pursuing romance with someone they're not sexually attracted to, because on some level you know you'd be setting yourself up for difficulty if you succeeded. What to do with your sex drive when the attraction to your partner just isn't there.

Just as asexuals can have a libido, but just not have it directed at men or women, sexuals do have a directed libido that causes us to seek partnered expressions of our sexuality. It's hard to get the compatibility you want when you have to rely on the other person's orientation and levels of desire lining up (which is out of your control) without adding difficulties by actively seeking romance with someone who doesn't fall into your sphere of sexual attraction.

I hope that makes sense - it almost doesn't even to me - it's a hard concept to explain. But basically I think that rather than sexual attraction coming first, there's a sort of filter that weeds anyone plainly not sexually attractive out from considerations of potential romance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
CaptainCarrot

I was wondering how long after romantic attraction does sexual attraction or sexual arousal follow in a demi-sexual?

I'm embarking on a new experience at the moment with a sexual guy, the first person not to have run off when I explained my whole situation. So I was wondering should I expect sexual attraction later...? Or is it something that may never come?

Perhaps the only way I'll know is to wait and explore my own feelings. *shrugs*

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies.

I hope that makes sense - it almost doesn't even to me - it's a hard concept to explain. But basically I think that rather than sexual attraction coming first, there's a sort of filter that weeds anyone plainly not sexually attractive out from considerations of potential romance.

It makes sense to me. Wish I had such a filter, even though it would mean never feeling romantic again (maybe I'd feel differently if I'd ever felt it intensely and chronically, which I haven't). Even better would be an 'a-dar' and ability to crush on other ases only...

Ooh just thought of something else... do you remember feeling some level of romantic attraction as a child? I think I may have but I'm not sure I can trust my memory. If you did then perhaps this filtering process kicks in only after sexual attraction does, explaining why the majority of asexuals, here at least, don't seem to have it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually hear the "DAMN! She's hot!" line before I hear "Dude, she's so cool and all!".

But that's just me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find myself Demi Heteromantic. I never get romantic feelings for someone until I've gotten to know them as a friend first. Usually there will be a chemistry that works on a friend level, as in they're cool to hang around and go places with but with me, the actual romantic attraction doesn't kick in until I feel like the other person sees me as more then a friend (then weigh everything up in my head) and then it seems to come after that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Point of interest- Demiromantic is more that you can't feel romantic attraction until you know them well, so you don't get crushes based on looks or a tiny bit of information, they develop after you get closer to the person and know them, not that you find them sexually attractive first.

I think part of it is that, for most sexuals and I'm just guessing here, physical and sexual attraction are closely linked. Anyone can look at the physical and know if you like how they look, and if enough of sexual attraction is basd on that- then it'll precede romantic attraction because romantic attraction didn't have a chance to beat it.

Also, if your romantic and sexual orientations match: then that's one thing. If they don't, then you can easily end up romantically interested in those you aren't sexually attracted to even if you're sexual. I know a guy who's biromantic homosexual but prefers girls- so for most of his dating career he's been with people he isn't sexually attracted to so, even though he's sexual, he basically been the asexual in relationships with sexual girls.

Link to post
Share on other sites
metalgirl2045

I don't actually see sexual and romantic attraction as different. Romantic attraction is what people who don't want sex call what I call sexual attraction. It's all just attraction, but what the ultimate aims of attraction are differ from person to person.

The nearest thing I get to romantic attraction without sexual is what people have been calling aromantic crushes, and the nearest I get to sexual attraction without romantic is enjoying seeing someone naked, but with no desire to interact sexually or romantically.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't actually see sexual and romantic attraction as different. Romantic attraction is what people who don't want sex call what I call sexual attraction. It's all just attraction, but what the ultimate aims of attraction are differ from person to person.

The nearest thing I get to romantic attraction without sexual is what people have been calling aromantic crushes, and the nearest I get to sexual attraction without romantic is enjoying seeing someone naked, but with no desire to interact sexually or romantically.

When people masturbate to porn, or drunkenly bed a stranger, they aren't typically romantically attracted to the individuals, would you agree? Sexual attraction is about how someone makes your genitals feel. It's very different to romantic attraction, it's just that for most sexuals, romantic attraction is accompanied by sexual attraction and the distinction is often not verbally communicated when someone is experiencing both.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Point of interest- Demiromantic is more that you can't feel romantic attraction until you know them well, so you don't get crushes based on looks or a tiny bit of information, they develop after you get closer to the person and know them, not that you find them sexually attractive first.

Oh, that's interesting. I thought that was the nature of romantic attraction anyway. It seems to be for me. So people who aren't demi-romantic are the people who experience 'love at first sight?' That really happens? Before today I thought it was a concept made up by poets and co-opted by Hollywood. :blush:

Link to post
Share on other sites
thecynicalromantic
Point of interest- Demiromantic is more that you can't feel romantic attraction until you know them well, so you don't get crushes based on looks or a tiny bit of information, they develop after you get closer to the person and know them, not that you find them sexually attractive first.

Oh, that's interesting. I thought that was the nature of romantic attraction anyway. It seems to be for me. So people who aren't demi-romantic are the people who experience 'love at first sight?' That really happens? Before today I thought it was a concept made up by poets and co-opted by Hollywood. :blush:

"First sight"= immediately, say, less than one minute.

"until you know them well... after you get close to the person and know them"= a significant amount of time, say, at least a few months.

Possible range of time in between those two in which it is possible to develop romantic interest= a pretty wide window.

Also, keep in mind: "(some) romantic interest" =/= "wholly and completely In Twu Wuv."

So yes, being wholly and completely In Twu And Neverending Wuv after merely having looked at someone once, is indeed a stupid and mythical concept made up by poets. However, most people who are going to develop romantic interest in someone begin to develop some degree of it pretty soon after meeting them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
metalgirl2045
I don't actually see sexual and romantic attraction as different. Romantic attraction is what people who don't want sex call what I call sexual attraction. It's all just attraction, but what the ultimate aims of attraction are differ from person to person.

The nearest thing I get to romantic attraction without sexual is what people have been calling aromantic crushes, and the nearest I get to sexual attraction without romantic is enjoying seeing someone naked, but with no desire to interact sexually or romantically.

When people masturbate to porn, or drunkenly bed a stranger, they aren't typically romantically attracted to the individuals, would you agree? Sexual attraction is about how someone makes your genitals feel. It's very different to romantic attraction, it's just that for most sexuals, romantic attraction is accompanied by sexual attraction and the distinction is often not verbally communicated when someone is experiencing both.

No, sexual attraction has very little, if any, effect on how genitals feel. Being sexually attracted to someone can induce arousal, but does not have to at all times. Men do not get erections every time a good-looking woman walks in front of them, or even at all times in the presence of their sexual partners.

I can find porn arousing with absolutely no attraction to the people involved. That's why people say porn objectifies women (and to be fair, it does equally to men) - the people in it are basically sex objects whose identity is unimportant (and I woulnd't want to join in with any of their activities anyway). That's VERY different from wanting to have sex with a PERSON because I find them extremely likeable.

Drunkenly bedding strangers - not into that at all, repulsed asexuals would find that about as appealing as I would. But I believe in those circumstances the person who gets drunk either in that state finds the person very attractive (even if they don't when sober), or just sees the partner as a sex toy for the night, little more than glorified masturbation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, sexual attraction has very little, if any, effect on how genitals feel. Being sexually attracted to someone can induce arousal, but does not have to at all times. Men do not get erections every time a good-looking woman walks in front of them, or even at all times in the presence of their sexual partners.

Probably not a full erection but scientists can measure much more subtle changes in penis status than that, often changes the individual can't feel. When I experience arousal it reaches its natural conclusion only if I allow or encourage that to happen, and at first it feels only like a vague awareness of that area, so arousal's more like a dimmer switch than an on/off switch.

I can find porn arousing with absolutely no attraction to the people involved. That's why people say porn objectifies women (and to be fair, it does equally to men) - the people in it are basically sex objects whose identity is unimportant (and I woulnd't want to join in with any of their activities anyway). That's VERY different from wanting to have sex with a PERSON because I find them extremely likeable.

It sounds to me like you're describing the difference between what I'm calling sexual attraction, and sexual attraction combined with romantic attraction, it's just that you call what I'm calling sexual attraction arousal instead of any kind of attraction at all. If an attraction doesn't affect the sex organs why would it be called 'sexual'? Otherwise there's no real distinction being made between it and aesthetic attraction to others, which many asexuals often feel without ever becoming aroused by the person or wanting to have sex. Alternatively it occurred to me you may be describing the same very slight arousal I feel vicariously from some sex portrayals as a result of imagining it feeling pretty much how masturbation feels but warmer (in other ways less effective I've always imagined however). I too maintain that I'm not attracted to the individuals when this happens as it wouldn't ever matter what they looked like as I'm not really paying attention to their bodies but am just imagining the physical sensations they may be experiencing, thanks to mirror neurons I suppose. Is that what you're talking about too?

Drunkenly bedding strangers - not into that at all, repulsed asexuals would find that about as appealing as I would. But I believe in those circumstances the person who gets drunk either in that state finds the person very attractive (even if they don't when sober), or just sees the partner as a sex toy for the night, little more than glorified masturbation.

Hmm yeah I'm sure that happens too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
metalgirl2045

Why would something which has absolutely no element of wanting to get closer to someone (even just physically) be called "attraction"?

If you're making comparisons between genital stimulation and lighting levels, everyday sexual attraction is more like the difference in voltage caused by almost indetactable fluctuations in the National Grid than a dimmer switch. Maybe it's detectable with ultra sensitive medical equipment but not to the person experiencing it with their usual senses. If someone is really, really not in the mood for sex it doesn't mean they're not sexually attracted to their partner.

I have no idea what the difference between aesthetic and sexual attraction is. I would say they're the same, but aesthetic attraction is just what you call it if you don't want sex. In fact I would say that aesthetic, sexual and romantic attraction are the same thing (aesthetic appreciation is subtly different) just depending on what causes you to be attracted to a person and what you would like to do with someone you're attracted to. Even for one person they can have different categories depending on the type of person they're attracted to, it's well-known that sexuals often have some people they're attracted to purely what we call sexually/aesthetically, and some they're attracted to romantically/sexually( and /aesethtically in a lot of cases but not necessarily).

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, most sexuals are just aromantic sexuals, because they want to have sex, no matter with whom it's gonna be. They feel sexually attracted to anyone with body they consider as sexy (some of them get married just because they 'don't want to be alone when they are getting older' but still think 'there's no marriage without good sex). I read that at least 2/3 of divorces in Egypt are caused by that partners 'aren't a good match in bed'.

Of course, there're also romantic sexuals, to whom sex is more or less important than romantic feelings between partners.

Demi- romantic people are another group to me, because as far as I know they don't experience sexual attraction very often and if they do, it's only one person they are attracted to (being opposite to most of sexuals, who experience sexual attraction to anyone who is 'sexy' for them).

Plus, sexual people usually experience first sexual attraction then romantic attraction, and demi- sexuals experience first very strong romantic attraction then sexual attraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
metalgirl2045

I don't what type of sexuals you've been around but I know very few if any aromantic sexuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Demi- romantic people are another group to me, because as far as I know they don't experience sexual attraction very often and if they do, it's only one person they are attracted to (being opposite to most of sexuals, who experience sexual attraction to anyone who is 'sexy' for them).

I don't think demi-romantics are necessarily demi-sexuals, so it's possible for a sexual to be demi-romantic so they feel sexual attraction as often as normal but it takes more time for them to want to date a person, or for htem to be asexual so they never feel sexual attraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Demi- romantic people are another group to me, because as far as I know they don't experience sexual attraction very often and if they do, it's only one person they are attracted to (being opposite to most of sexuals, who experience sexual attraction to anyone who is 'sexy' for them).

I don't think demi-romantics are necessarily demi-sexuals, so it's possible for a sexual to be demi-romantic so they feel sexual attraction as often as normal but it takes more time for them to want to date a person, or for htem to be asexual so they never feel sexual attraction.

The way I consider describing it is as functioning as an aromatic asexual, with no romantic attraction towards others. Say for example it takes me a long time to actually get to know someone and is more in the period of months as opposed to weeks. So during this time I fell feel completely impartial to them. Only once I've gotten to know them as a person and understand what makes them tick and what kind of person they are then I can *theoretically* develop a romantic attraction to someone.

Demi sexuals are as far as I can recall basically asexual (no sexual attraction) but sexual attraction develops after the person has gotten to know that person and after all their emotional needs are fulfilled.

For me romantic attraction is hard to describe to someone as it runs along the same lines as being close friends with someone except the other person has feelings back towards you and you think more of that person in a "romance" type setting as opposed to a "friends" type setting and doesn't feel like hanging out instead feels like spending time together

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would something which has absolutely no element of wanting to get closer to someone (even just physically) be called "attraction"?

Well it does, doesn't it? Arousal is a nice feeling for most people so when someone makes you feel a hint of arousal you'll consequently want to amp up that feeling by looking at them more, thinking about them more, touching them etc. And what amps up that feeling is often the thought of sexual acts with the person.

If you're making comparisons between genital stimulation and lighting levels, everyday sexual attraction is more like the difference in voltage caused by almost indetactable fluctuations in the National Grid than a dimmer switch. Maybe it's detectable with ultra sensitive medical equipment but not to the person experiencing it with their usual senses. If someone is really, really not in the mood for sex it doesn't mean they're not sexually attracted to their partner.

Often if someone isn't feeling aroused right now they'll still be attracted to their partner by other kinds of feelings the person can stir in them, feelings asexuals may have for people too. The same applies to every kind of attraction - I am aesthetically attracted to kittens but that doesn't mean I'm aesthetically attracted to them every moment of every day, only when I'm looking at or thinking about them in the first place, and 'in the mood'.

I have no idea what the difference between aesthetic and sexual attraction is. I would say they're the same, but aesthetic attraction is just what you call it if you don't want sex.

Aesthetic attraction is what you might feel towards a kitten. It's soft and feels good to touch, but touching the kitten has no effect on the sex organs and you're not in love with it either. You might also feel this way about a partner's hair or skin or a nice colour - drawn to it, wanting to pay it more attention for sensory, non-sexual reasons.

In fact I would say that aesthetic, sexual and romantic attraction are the same thing (aesthetic appreciation is subtly different) just depending on what causes you to be attracted to a person and what you would like to do with someone you're attracted to. Even for one person they can have different categories depending on the type of person they're attracted to, it's well-known that sexuals often have some people they're attracted to purely what we call sexually/aesthetically, and some they're attracted to romantically/sexually( and /aesethtically in a lot of cases but not necessarily).

Yeah I agree. It just seems to make sense to me that if the language used is to be meaningful and useful then what makes people sexually attracted to others if we're going to have that term, is sexual arousal prompted by responses the brain makes to them and then communicated back to the brain. Romantic attraction is caused by stimulation of a different part of the brain, as is aesthetic attraction. As they are distinct phenomena they warrant distinct terms. Although they frequently occur all at once they feel different and look different in MRI scans and other tests.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't know what I am, but when I'm in love with a boy, my desire is to get in touch with him, explore all his body even kiss and feel him closer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
metalgirl2045

Have there actually been studies done using MRI scans where the term "romantic attraction" or an exactly equivalent phrase was used?

Kittens: That's what I'd call aesthetic appreciation.

Arousal when looking at porn DOES NOT for me include the slightest element of wanting to touch the people involved. I don't think about it much afterwards either. It's not attraction at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Have there actually been studies done using MRI scans where the term "romantic attraction" or an exactly equivalent phrase was used?

I don't remember what they called it but they looked at the feelings people in romantic relationships had for each other, and asked if they believed themselves to be 'in love'.

Kittens: That's what I'd call aesthetic appreciation.

It might be called that too but personally they do attract me, by the dictionary's definition of attract.

Arousal when looking at porn DOES NOT for me include the slightest element of wanting to touch the people involved. I don't think about it much afterwards either. It's not attraction at all.

Then I wouldn't call it sexual attraction. Not all arousal involves sexual attraction (mine never does either) but the way I think of sexual attraction, it always involves arousal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
metalgirl2045
Have there actually been studies done using MRI scans where the term "romantic attraction" or an exactly equivalent phrase was used?

I don't remember what they called it but they looked at the feelings people in romantic relationships had for each other, and asked if they believed themselves to be 'in love'.

So actually you have nothing to back up your statement on what MRI scans of romantic and sexual attraction look like? As far as I know, being romantically attracted doesn't necesarily mean long-term in love.

Then I wouldn't call it sexual attraction. Not all arousal involves sexual attraction (mine never does either) but the way I think of sexual attraction, it always involves arousal.

Thank you. The bit about it not being sexual attraction was the point I was trying to make all along. If you've never experienced sexual attraction, don't bother trying to argue with someone who has about what it involves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Have there actually been studies done using MRI scans where the term "romantic attraction" or an exactly equivalent phrase was used?

I don't remember what they called it but they looked at the feelings people in romantic relationships had for each other, and asked if they believed themselves to be 'in love'.

So actually you have nothing to back up your statement on what MRI scans of romantic and sexual attraction look like? As far as I know, being romantically attracted doesn't necesarily mean long-term in love.

No but being in love is an example of romantic attraction. 'A is always B' doesn't mean 'B is always A'.

Then I wouldn't call it sexual attraction. Not all arousal involves sexual attraction (mine never does either) but the way I think of sexual attraction, it always involves arousal.
Thank you. The bit about it not being sexual attraction was the point I was trying to make all along. If you've never experienced sexual attraction, don't bother trying to argue with someone who has about what it involves.

About WHAT not being sexual attraction? You've only just presented that particular scenario, we've not been discussing it 'all along'. Well, I haven't. If you're talking about arousal in general not being sexual attraction, the mentions of the fact that I experience arousal without sexual attraction ought to have been good clues that I wasn't confusing the two, really.

The only reason I say I'm 'asexual' is that in the context of orientation the 'sexual' part is used to refer to attraction to humans, one gender or more, whereas what arouses me is an abstract concept. It's exactly the same in every other way to someone being aroused by thoughts of sex or bodies AND then wanting to think about it more and more as a result of this arousal (the 'attraction' part). I've observed no other difference between my parasexuality and anyone else's homo/heterosexuality. The same stuff happens, so it seems fair to assume that I know what I'm 'attracted to' (whether this term should be applied to abstract concepts is debatable) in the same way sexuals come to know - the body's response being an essential element.

Link to post
Share on other sites
metalgirl2045

"all along" meaning that thread of the conversation. Read it more carefully.

I know the "'A is always B' doesn't mean 'B is always A'" thing, but you've got it totally the wrong way around. What the MRI scans show of being in love could just be long term attachment and not a trace of the attraction.

The body's response has NOTHING to do with attraction. It's the MIND's response.

I've never done a bungee jump, and would never try to argue with someone who has done one what it's like to do one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...