Jump to content

What is frayromantic?


DangerFive

Recommended Posts

So I've been poking around the romantic/aro forum trying to figure out what I am. A day ago I would've said heteroromantic, but the more I look around, the more I think I'm probably grey-ish. Anyway, I saw the term frayromantic, but I couldn't seem to find a definition for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fray- is used as the opposite of demi-, so I guess fray-romantic would be the opposite of demi-romantic, i.e. romantic attraction that comes on strong but goes away once you get to know the person.

Which doesn't make a lot of sense, because what's romantic about it if it goes away right after?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frayromantic = normal person.

Same with fraysexual.

It's where you lose romantic attraction once you get to know the person well/once a bond has formed etc. Very common for ...many, many people.


(EDIT What I mean by that is, many, many people get romantic attraction to the *idea* of the person, but the *real* person - the person you get to know better once you get close to them - never lives up to the romanticized idea you had in your mind and you lose that attraction, also..people literally just get bored and want to move on. There are people whose entire lives are made up of many (like dozens of) short relationships due to this happening. Same with sexual attraction, this happens over and over again for many people)

Link to post
Share on other sites
God of the Forest

Frayromantic = normal person.

Same with fraysexual.

It's where you lose romantic atraction once you get to know the person well/once a bond has formed etc. Very common for ...many, many people.

(EDIT What I mean by that is, many, many people get romantic attraction to the *idea* of the person, but the *real* person - the person you get to know better once you get close to them - never lives up to the romanticised idea you had in your mind and you lose that attatction, also..people literally just get bored and want to move on. There are people whose entire lives are made up of many (like dozens of) short relationships due to this happening. Same with sexual attraction, this happens over and over again for many people)

Splendidly well put Pan :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

While i agree that's normal, it shouldn't happen 24/7. And that's what Fray refers to. Normal people lose interest at different spans into the relationship but Frays seem to lose it at the same point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While i agree that's normal, it shouldn't happen 24/7. And that's what Fray refers to. Normal people lose interest at different spans into the relationship but Frays seem to lose it at the same point.

I would consider that "a pattern of fleeting romantic interest in people" and not, like, an orientation that needs its own word. In my entirely-irrelevant-to-how-people-think-of-themselves opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While i agree that's normal, it shouldn't happen 24/7. And that's what Fray refers to. Normal people lose interest at different spans into the relationship but Frays seem to lose it at the same point.

How on earth would anyone know that? It's not like we have a huge database of Frays (and every other permutation of semi-sexual beings out there) we can refer to. These are just names that are being made up in the moment; they're not huge populations with histories.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I basically agree with what Panficto said on another thread, except in this circumstance it's with romanticism.

Quote

Whats needed is a thorough study of sexuality, so an individual can understand if they are not, in fact, just experiencing normal aspects of sexuality. Which many here are. Many base their asexuality on flawed ideas and concepts about sexuality perpetuated throughout the ace community. We need better (accurate) information on this site about sexuality, so people can stop making all these wild assumptions about what asexuality is.

And thus tell what does or does not fall on the Gray spectrum. --And I'll make a poll on the Frayromantic/sexual thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all your comments, everyone. I feel like I may have unknowingly touched a nerve here. :unsure:

I think that for me personally the definition makes some sense. I've always thought I'm kind of weird because I can't seem to have a romantic relationship that lasts longer than 2 months. It doesn't matter how well I know the person (some of the guys I've dated have been good friends of mine that I've known for years before we started dating) - I hit 2 months and I've completely lost the romance. I still genuinely enjoy the company of the guy and want to hang out, but the thought of doing anything conventionally romantic (holding hands, kissing, hugging, etc.) makes me physically ill. But as Pan has said, maybe I just have an idealized vision of what a romantic relationship is supposed to be like, and after a couple of months the reality doesn't match the ideal and I get bored. I don't think that's the case, but it's definitely something for me to think about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, that's another point i wanted to bring up; some Frays know their partner quite well before asking them out, so them not measuring up to what they expected doesn't seem to apply.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Oh, that's another point i wanted to bring up; some Frays know their partner quite well before asking them out, so them not measuring up to what they expected doesn't seem to apply.

Oh? - Why? - Romantic expectation can't be entirely partner conception specific. I'd see it more like a mental drawer stuffed with clippings from all your absorbed movies books stories.

A other leg for the orientation to stand on: One could describe a romancer as a person tied to their everyday life (AKA shit & shovel) with a bungee rope. - Being romantically attracted goes along with a change in energy spending pattern. - you live on full steam, neglect what you can when it is in the romance's way and all the procrastinated stuff piles up and buries you and especially the romantic feelings later, when your initial romantic momentum stressing the bungee rope has run out of power and the rope snaps you back into your own problems / unshared hobbies etc.

Did you get everything done during your last aromantic week? - If not: the 1st romantic week won't have an 8th day but lots of unusual activities to fill the regular 7 ones....

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a frayromantic I disagree, that it would be completely common. I literally don't want to even become friends with the people I feel attraction towards, because that would ruin the feeling and I'm not into collecting a lot of friends for the sake of it.

It might be common to SOMETIMES have frayromantic experiences, but it aint common to always function this way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which doesn't make a lot of sense, because what's romantic about it if it goes away right after?

Yay, how exhilarating to hear, that my orientation makes no sense!

And it doesn "go away right after", if you avoid getting close to the person, duh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(EDIT What I mean by that is, many, many people get romantic attraction to the *idea* of the person, but the *real* person - the person you get to know better once you get close to them - never lives up to the romanticized idea you had in your mind and you lose that attraction, also..people literally just get bored and want to move on. There are people whose entire lives are made up of many (like dozens of) short relationships due to this happening. Same with sexual attraction, this happens over and over again for many people)

Fair point, but I think for frayromantics (at least myself, and the definition seems to confirm it), it's not that you get into a relationship and the feelings fade when you eventually get bored, but rather that the feelings fade long before a relationship would be a realistic option.

I even consider myself an exception to the definition, because I can at least get to know them a little bit, as opposed to the feelings disappearing instantly when they're not total strangers to me anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

. EDIT: There was a double thingie going on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, that's another point i wanted to bring up; some Frays know their partner quite well before asking them out, so them not measuring up to what they expected doesn't seem to apply.

Why would we even ask people out? I sincerely want to hear from people, who are aware of their fray-tendencies. I know I wouldn't ask anyone out.

While i agree that's normal, it shouldn't happen 24/7. And that's what Fray refers to. Normal people lose interest at different spans into the relationship but Frays seem to lose it at the same point.

I would consider that "a pattern of fleeting romantic interest in people" and not, like, an orientation that needs its own word. In my entirely-irrelevant-to-how-people-think-of-themselves opinion.

Well, there's a word for lithromaticism, so why not frayromanticism. They're both as obscure. And of course I wouldn't use this word in discussions with people, who have no clue about romantic orientations in the first place. Or any people, really, unless they specifically ask if there's a term for what I have explained to them about my attraction patterns. But I don't see how it's wrong to have a term. It kind of clarifies my own thinking, at the very least.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this interesting...

What exactly is it that disappears if you get close to someone?

My attractions are all bundled together so I have no idea how to separate "romantic" feelings from anything else. My first thought was that it's the heart racing/giddy feeling you get around someone. Is that right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Burgundy Ashe

it's "normal" for crush-like feelings to disappear when one gets to know someone, but a crush is essentially intense feelings of infatuation. attraction is a much broader topic than just that...

basically a frey-whatever is someone who only experiences attraction alike crushes, and only on strangers or distant peers. that is certainly not the common experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My first thought was that it's the heart racing/giddy feeling you get around someone. Is that right?

Yes, I would say it's that, and a certain dreamy, almost euphoric feeling, that you can get by thinking of the person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How exactly do you define Fray, sindi?

Do you mean you lose romantic attraction immediately after entering a relationship or being asked out?

While I've only talked to a few Frays and know the popularized definition, but they should be able to date the person for at least a little. But I've come across a person on here (who states they've talked to like 20) saying the definition is wrong and that Frays just rarely keep attraction to a person, which i disagree with and know that's normal. What i will agree with is that the popularized definition is wrong; it erases demi-frays.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you mean you lose romantic attraction immediately after entering a relationship or being asked out?

I can't speak for others, but for me it's at the point when I start to know them even as a friend. It depends on the particular crush how much I would "tolerate" knowing them, but the feelings would never last to the point where I would consider dating (I don't do dates with strangers), let alone a relationship.

What i will agree with is that the popularized definition is wrong; it erases demi-frays.

What are demi-frays? Are demiromantics not essentially the opposite of frayromantics?

Link to post
Share on other sites

there are people who are demiromantic who cannot keep attraction

Then that's not fray; as said, frays can date, they just can't keep the attraction. That would be Lithromantic (aka Aporomantic, which i prefer because its prefix isn't a metaphor), if anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there are people who are demiromantic who cannot keep attraction

Then that's not fray; as said, frays can date, they just can't keep the attraction. That would be Lithromantic (aka Aporomantic, which i prefer because its prefix isn't a metaphor), if anything.

I used to identify as lith, but that didn't really fit the bill. I don't see how I'm not a fray, if my attraction fades "too early" for a fray? wouldn't it just make me even more of a fray than the average fray, as frayromanticism is all about the attraction fading as closeness increases?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frayromantic = normal person.

Same with fraysexual.

It's where you lose romantic attraction once you get to know the person well/once a bond has formed etc. Very common for ...many, many people.

If this was the case, the idea of romantic couples wouldn't be nearly non existent

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ And like we said, it being 24/7 isn't normal. Yes it's normal to lose interest, yes it's normal to get bored of a person (before or after dating), but that being 24/7 and not just occasional is not normal. Just like all orientations are't occasionally feeling otherwise; that Demis don't just occasionally require a bond but it's like that every time; that asexuals don't just occasionally not desire sex but they don't desire sex every time, and Frays can never keep attraction every time.

@sindi

Well, the definition is unclear, so idk if that's because they didn't think of people like you when it was coined or because it is meant to include that; i can't find anything talking of it more in depth. To my understanding of the term and experience with a few of them on here, i have never heard it used on someone who is unable to even enter a relationship due to it (but again, there aren't many people like that on here so my experience is limited). All the people I've seen who ended up being it were able to date (for example) 2 months before losing the attraction, and it happened at that mark every time. And it's not due to anything they know of; it just disappears-- poof.

(which come to think of it, is another thing i disagreed with by that person i mentioned that was declaring she knew alot about Frays; she said the attraction didn't fade but just greatly weaken)

And Fray heavily overlaps with Lith; they're practically the same thing with a slight difference (and that difference being whats separating them with you). Losing interest when someone isn't what you thought is normal, but never being able to keep it obviously isn't. If the cause of the loss of interest isn't because the person isn't who you thought, then it may not be actual reciprocation that's turning you off but the possibility of it. (this part ends up not applying to her so i might as well decrease your reading time by offering a skip button) Either way, what you're feeling is certainly Gray-aromantic; so if no label fits that's always a good thing to go with (though I'm not saying create another; there are already too many as there is, seriously).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Which means if your crush asked you out before you got to know them then you would be able to date them.

Technically I could, but I'm just not into dating strangers, like I said in some reply. I'm rather distrustful and asocial, which is a completely separated matter from being frayromantic.

So in order to be Fray being able to actually date the person is required.

You could as well say, that being able to actually have sex is required for being asexual, 'cause otherwise it's just "issues" or something.

If you can't then that's Lith.

But I'm not lith. It's not about the reciprocation for me. I even like to be admired from a distance. It's the closeness that "turns me off".

Either way, what you're feeling is certainly Gray-aromantic; so if no label fits that's always a good thing to go with (though I'm not saying create another; there are already too many as there is, seriously).

I feel like frayromanticism fits me best. Obviously not all frays will behave similarly, just as not all asexuals will compromise to have sex just because they can.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So in order to be Fray being able to actually date the person is required.

You could as well say, that being able to actually have sex is required for being asexual, 'cause otherwise it's just "issues" or something.

No, you're comparing apples and oranges. Being sexual/romantic requires to desire those things (so you would technically be romantic), but anything past that like with a sub-orientation such as Fray (which would then put you bordering aromantic) depends strictly on its definition. Your logic is like saying Demisexuals have to had acted on their sexual desire to be demi, but what's actually required is them to possibly desire to act on it; so if they did have sexual attraction after an emotional bond but never desired to act on it then they wouldn't be demisexual (i.e. Gray-sexual) but Gray-asexual.

Also, i retract the parts of my paragraph you replied to and rewrote the first paragraph. (sorry; given the time i though no one would be on to reply and i could think over my reply longer) Hmm, so your disinterest trigger is feeling close to them? Like it feels stifling?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I see now, where we fail to understand each other. To you, the definition of romantic attraction includes a literal desire to date. And I guess I can't blame you, because I've seen that definition repeated a lot, and to a lot of people it rings true. Personally, I don't see it that way - I think attraction can be much more abstract than that. A fascination, coupled with euphoric "butterflies in the stomach" type of feelings, counts as attraction to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, no, sorry, i worded that poorly in attempts to try to keep things basic/short. Sexual attraction and sexual desire are the same thing minus the specific person detail, where as romantically it doesn't reflect that and romantic attraction is a feeling when romantic desire is a desire for such a relationship. Someone can be romantic/Gray-romantic and just desire a romantic relationship while never feeling romantic feelings for the person, so desire alone can also be a contributor to orientation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...