"If not with him/her I'm not interested in a relationship" Can you relate?

[Shockwave]

What you are trying to define seems like the exact opposite of the serial-monogamist.

What's that? LOL :P

Marrying several people...one at a time.

[Guest Heligan]

Generally for me to be emotionally involved I have to have some sort of reciprocation, if not there is just no point so I dont bother (the only times this doesnt seem to apply is if the person is dead-- then I seem to be able to carry on indefinately on my own- great eh!)

There being no point doesn't mean you can switch it off. I wish it didn't happen, but the way I work mean it does. There's no point in loosing your job, getting flu, you computer breaking down but just because they're pointless doesn't mean you can just stop them ever happening on those grounds.

I dunno, I pretty much can (go figure), I think for me love is definately not unconditional, and being loved back is a huge part of what attracts me. Love is something I do not something that hapens to me, flu etc isnt.

Certainly when I was younger the situation was sometimes very ambiguious after splitting up with boyfriends, that makes it harder... but focusing on being 'just friends' seemed to help me move on (lots of people stop talking to exs altogether for closure reasons, so I dont think its just me that links 'no future' with 'no love'- I just think my way is healthier).

[metalgirl2045]

You work like that, other people don't. Some people are attracted to bad boys, I don't see the point the way you don't see the point of unrequited love. But I realise for some people they can't help finding that attractive, it's not that they're stupid or into emotional-self-harm voluntarily. Everyone is different, don't confuse things that don't appeal to you with things that cannot appeal to (affect might be a better word) anyone.

[Guest Heligan]

You work like that, other people don't. Some people are attracted to bad boys, I don't see the point the way you don't see the point of unrequited love. But I realise for some people they can't help finding that attractive, it's not that they're stupid or into emotional-self-harm voluntarily. Everyone is different, don't confuse things that don't appeal to you with things that cannot appeal to (affect might be a better word) anyone.

Blimey, thats not what I was trying to do at all!

Im just trying to help explore this new term by explaining the bits of my experience that agree with what has been described and those that dont, so we can try to untangle which bits are the crucial bits and which are variable...

What I was trying to get at; was that I think not having some romantic dream seperate from a specific person, is the crucial bit, and the other stuff described might not apply (because it doesnt follow for me)

My thesis was that demiromantic seems to be one specific thing, rather than a set of behaviours. I wasnt trying to say anyone was pathetic for the other behaviours.

Clearly it would be possible for someone who has no idealised constant romantic dream to fall for a bad boy, or have end up in an unrequited love situation- but neither of those things would really be the crux of being demiromantic, they would just be the attraction criteria.

[Guest Heligan]

What you are trying to define seems like the exact opposite of the serial-monogamist.

What's that? LOL :P

Marrying several people...one at a time.

Umm I was trying to find a link for this but the term seems to have several meanings these days.

The one I meant was the person who goes straight from one relationship into the next, seemingly unable to be alone for any period of time. They may have to have the next person lined up before they leave..... Kind of like chain smoking but people not cigs.

If Ive got this right a demiromantic would just leave if the relationship died for them, they wouldnt care about being alone.... they might be sorry to hurt the person they left or they might think it was for the best, but they wouldnt stay if it was dead to them (though they might stay if it was dead to the other person as metalgirl pointed out).

[metalgirl2045]

OK, I see what you mean now. I think I agree actually.

The only problem is one of the first times I saw the term get used was in a post entitled "aromantic but longing for a relationship", which is the exact opposite of what we've boiled down to here (the "romantic dream" is very much there but has never been aimed at a particular person). However, since the content of this thread seems far more analogous to demisexuality, I think what's here is a more sensible defintion.

Unrequited love was never a criterion for me, it just always ended up that way for complicated reasons. Maybe subconciously it was, but I think it's just that when I was much younger all the interesting people weren't my age because everyone at school sucked, and I never found paedophiles and cradle-robbers attractive.

[Guest Heligan]

OK, I see what you mean now. I think I agree actually.

The only problem is one of the first times I saw the term get used was in a post entitled "aromantic but longing for a relationship", which is the exact opposite of what we've boiled down to here (the "romantic dream" is very much there but has never been aimed at a particular person). However, since the content of this thread seems far more analogous to demisexuality, I think what's here is a more sensible defintion.

Unrequited love was never a criterion for me, it just always ended up that way for complicated reasons. Maybe subconciously it was, but I think it's just that when I was much younger all the interesting people weren't my age because everyone at school sucked, and I never found paedophiles and cradle-robbers attractive.

Just watched Supernatural and the REO Speedwagon 'Can't fight this feeling anymore' was featured, and I thought thats pretty much what I have been talking about (though Im not sure the fighting it bit is universal lol)

I guess its pretty healthy you not being into peadophiles!

I think to truly be said to be 'into unrequited love' (in a criteria kind of way) you would have to only ever pursue things that very obviously had no chances of working from the outset; and lost interest if things changed to give them a chance.... other than that its just not being able to 'let go' of something which is over (though most folk seem to think letting go involves friendship too, not just romantic ideas)

From that perspective, from the outside, I suppose it might look like I am Im into unrequited love in a big way LOL. I wonder do other demiromantics (it appears the term is sticking in my head- even though Im not 100% happy with it) see the end of romantic attachment to someone as necessarily the end of friendship or not- are we more likely to fight for friendship afterwards? If we are would that be because we dont have the romance idea as innate as once its gone see no logical reason why we cant be friends?

[metalgirl2045]

No, unrequited love isn't like that at all. It starts and/or continues and/or ends with the target's interest or lack thereof not being a factor in any way, it just happens that "lack thereof" is the case.

I don't think whether or not you want to be friends or not afterwards has anything to do with orientation. Personally I would do unless it ended because they turned out to be not what I thought they were at all, because being romantically attracted to someone is for me a subset of finding them extremely likable.

[toujours]

I wonder do other demiromantics (it appears the term is sticking in my head- even though Im not 100% happy with it) see the end of romantic attachment to someone as necessarily the end of friendship or not- are we more likely to fight for friendship afterwards? If we are would that be because we dont have the romance idea as innate as once its gone see no logical reason why we cant be friends?

Actually, once, I finally got over a romantic attachment by ending the friendship. Removed his contact from all my networks alltogether, because it was just too painful to see him dedicating songs (that he had sent to me before) to his new girlfriend. It helped me heal.

But I think that is not what you asked :P

I guess it depends on the person. If it is a true, worthy friend, then you should fight until you bleed for that friendship. Problem is when the end of the romantic attachment is due because of something really bad the person did that made you change your opinion of them. Maybe they showed they're a different person from what you thought. Maybe they betrayed your trust. Maybe they did something you consider unforgettable. That is a reason to end a friendship. I've ended friendships too, I and feel a lot much better, and a better person, without them.

[Guest Heligan]

Umm I guess you are right it depends on the circumstances, clearly if someone one went kind of psychotic, refused to shut up talking about being shot ar by firing squads, then hit you and refused to leave your house (to pick something randomly out of the air LOL) then you might take years to forgive them, if ever.

I suppose I was thinking of a scenario where you are left (either because the person isnt happy with you anymore, or for someone else), or the romantic aspect of the relationship just dries up for both of you, and it ends with a wimper (someone ends up saying it of course, but you have both noticed and been thinking it) not a huge dramatic fight or anything.

For me being left or it gradually dying isnt enough to destroy a friendship; because romance is just some extra X- factor that noone can really take blame or pride for feeling... you cant make yourself love someone- so why should not being able to feel that way destroy what is there. Im quite happy to sift around in the ashes of romantic relationships, to see if there is and friendship to be salvaged.

I can see how if you do unrequited love, it wouldnt work for being left; but it still might for the gradual drying up scennarrio... The question is would the demiromantic be more likely to sift through the ashes than the serial monogamist, and if so is this a graduating scale...

Thinking about it this was is making me wonder if they are in fact opposites at all or if the serial monogamist just needs to be with anyone rather than has a romantic dream. When is it romance and when is it dependency?

I wonder do other demiromantics (it appears the term is sticking in my head- even though Im not 100% happy with it) see the end of romantic attachment to someone as necessarily the end of friendship or not- are we more likely to fight for friendship afterwards? If we are would that be because we dont have the romance idea as innate as once its gone see no logical reason why we cant be friends?

Actually, once, I finally got over a romantic attachment by ending the friendship. Removed his contact from all my networks alltogether, because it was just too painful to see him dedicating songs (that he had sent to me before) to his new girlfriend. It helped me heal.

But I think that is not what you asked :P

I guess it depends on the person. If it is a true, worthy friend, then you should fight until you bleed for that friendship. Problem is when the end of the romantic attachment is due because of something really bad the person did that made you change your opinion of them. Maybe they showed they're a different person from what you thought. Maybe they betrayed your trust. Maybe they did something you consider unforgettable. That is a reason to end a friendship. I've ended friendships too, I and feel a lot much better, and a better person, without them.

I certainly think there is a transistion period when you are trying to go from romantic to friendship... where its just bad manners to rub someones face in it by using the same songs or whatever. But after that there comes a point where the lack of song repetoire is something to tease them about, more than a hurtful thing...that discredits what once was there between you.

I certainly agree that not every friendship is worth saving, dead wood needs cutting back... I cant really be bothered with aquaintance style friendships, its either 'help bury the body' or dont bother with me.

Actually thats another interesting question, how do demiromantics view friendship generally- is it the same way as the view romance?