Jump to content

Aromantic or biromantic? I am really confused.


Hui

Recommended Posts

Sorry in advance in case this might be really confusing, but I'll try to describe my situation the best as I can. In terms of my romantic orientation, I am a bit torn between aromantic and biromantic for the simple reason that I don't really understand at what point you don't classify as an aromantic anymore. See, I always kinda ruled out the possibility of being aromantic simply because I experienced something I would call having crushes, yet my experiences turned out to be completely different from those of most alloromantic people. When I have a "crush" on someone, I usually admire their looks and would like to hold hands and cuddle with them, nothing more, nothing less. I don't desire romantic relationships despite having crushes. In fact, a so-called "queerplatonic relationship", a word mostly used by aromantic people, appeals to me much more than a purely romantic one.

 

The most common definition of aromanticism is "not experiencing romantic attraction". That's what I don't really understand about myself. I have crushes on people, both males and females (with a significant preference for males), yet I don't desire romantic relationships. I've heard somewhere that romantic attraction means desiring a romantic relationship with another person. If I go by this definition, I am aromantic because I don't want a relationship. However, other people say romantic attraction isn't necessarily the same as having the desire for a relationship, and by this definition, on the other hand, I would be biromantic. Ahh, this is so confusing. 

 

So my question is: Do I sound more like an aromantic or biromantic person? Or should I just stick with gray-biromantic since my experiences don't really fit into either definitions? Can a person still classify as aromantic when they do develop crushes, but don't desire a romantic relationship with the person?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to share something along these lines but I could not explain it properly. Namely: I think my sexual orientation (or lack thereof) apparently makes me "crush" or view romance differently, meaning I am into the Goethe kind of romance but not necessarily the attainable kind because all I see are allos doing it. Or, the notion is somehow always tied to an idea of sexuality.

Ultimately I think this is why at the end of the day I don't really believe in romantic orientation with what I have seen so far: I think the so-called romantic attraction isn't biological but more intellectual/affective and so, I don't think it can really be labeled because each person sees the very idea of a romance very differently, it is something that has (thankfully so!!!) variation between cultures and societies but that's just what I've been thinking personally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I want to say that only you can define your orientation, so anything I say is just a suggestion

 

You've clearly heard of QPRs, but have you heard of the term that's often linked to them, namely a squish? A squish is usually described as being the aromantic version of a crush, in that's it's platonic and not romantic in nature. Maybe this can describe what you're feeling?

 

Every single human on this planet is unique, and people therefore experience attraction differently; no two people feel it the exact same way. We've come up with a lot of words to describe our feelings, but if the labels only make you more confused, I'd suggest just going with the flow and not thinking too much about how to define yourself :cake:

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rhyme said:

First of all, I want to say that only you can define your orientation, so anything I say is just a suggestion

 

You've clearly heard of QPRs, but have you heard of the term that's often linked to them, namely a squish? A squish is usually described as being the aromantic version of a crush, in that's it's platonic and not romantic in nature. Maybe this can describe what you're feeling?

 

Every single human on this planet is unique, and people therefore experience attraction differently; no two people feel it the exact same way. We've come up with a lot of words to describe our feelings, but if the labels only make you more confused, I'd suggest just going with the flow and not thinking too much about how to define yourself :cake:

I've heard of squishes, but as with being aromantic, I always kinda ruled it out because no matter where I read it, definitions of squish usually go along the lines of having a strong desire to be friends with someone, which isn't necessarily the case for me, since I like to do certain "couple things" with my crushes, mainly cuddling and holding hands, something that's rather unusual for friends. I don't know, the word squish just doesn't really feel right to describe my experiences. It's like the feelings I have for people I am/was attracted to aren't platonic enough to be called squishes, but not romantic enough to be called crushes. If there was a term for people one desires a queerplatonic relationship with, that would be perfect I guess.

 

1 hour ago, Laurann said:

Have you considered the term lith/akoiromantic?

I did a long, long time ago, but akoiromantic has two definitions which are fairly different from one another. The most common definition doesn't really fit my experiences I think, since I do want my feelings reciprocated, just in the same, queerplatonic way as mine are. The other definition of akoiromantic, which states attraction fades when reciprocated, fits much more and actually happened to me a few times (both with romantic and sexual attraction being reciprocated).

 

Nonetheless, thank you three for your replies, have some cake :) :cake:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...