love without attraction

[lonely wolf]

I don't think I've ever been attracted to someone sexually, romantically, aesthetically, platonically, or otherwise. I don't form crushes or squishes. I don't enjoy or understand shipping. I don't watch porn or fantasize about sexual or romantic things. I'm indifferent to or put-off by many aspects of romance and many romantic aspects of things.

 

I am able, however, to fall in love. Once I've formed an emotional bond with someone, I can fall in love. This seems to line-up in some ways with the definition of demiromantic, but romanticism, no matter the type, seems to preclude being like me, as its description always seems to involve some sort of attraction and I don't believe I can feel attraction—primary, secondary, or otherwise.

 

I form emotional bonds. I can be affectionate in different ways and in different circumstances (though I can be uncomfortable with affection—especially IRL). I feel a lot of care and love for many people, and when I'm in a close relationship with someone, those feelings are increased. I want my close relationships to feel special and be exclusive. I sometimes hope that they can last forever (though I'm not sure if this is because I want to avoid the pain of losing them, because I feel it would be the best thing for all involved, neither, or both). I feel vulnerable in these types of relationships and yet comfortable with sharing intimate details about myself and deep thoughts and feelings. But preceding and along with this—this cluster of things that I label love—there is no attraction.

 

What makes me engage in close, loving relationships (though I don't seem to seek them out, but rather am just open to the possibility of friendships naturally evolving into loving relationships) is never some kind of pull towards that person (or some kind of explicit attraction), but instead the warm feelings I have while with them and because I enjoy being with them, being able to make them happy, and being there for them when they are upset or distressed. But these feelings are stronger than those I get with friendships. I consider these feelings part of a particular and special kind of love I feel.

 

All the relationships I've been in that adhered to the ideals of romance (because of the influence of my partners and my submissive acquiescence) and which weren't natural evolutions of friendships, I disengaged emotionally from. I felt pushed into them. And I never sought them out. I was very uncomfortable in them.

 

But I don't think the loving relationships I enjoy are queerplatonic, as those are described as being non-exclusive. And platonic love in general—or the love between friends—doesn't seem to describe how I feel in the kinds loving relationships I've been discussing. And then, as I said above, any type of romanticism including quoiromanticism (and its subsets, like quasiromanticism, or its related terms such as idemromanticism or grey-romanticism), always seem to involve some sort of attraction, which I don't feel.

 

So, as well as I can understand, I don't like engaging in sexual or romantic relationships, but I do like engaging in special loving ones—and ones distinct from the categories into which fall the other kinds of loving relationships I enjoy, such as friendship and kinship. I just don't know how to interpret and understand my feelings about this much beyond what I've outlined here. And I feel the need to find an identity to help me (and anyone I engage with in a loving relationship) understand me more, as well as to present my a/romantic orientation in a way that is able to be grasped more readily.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

I think it's quite natural to come to love someone without feeling attraction for them. Although once you do love them, there should be some attraction because of it. When you see them, your heart lights up because you're close to them and enjoy being with them. Unless you really don't feel like that, I would say this is like being demi-romantic.

 

You say you're turned off by romance, but a lot of what you said sounds very romantic, and you want it to be exclusive. So again to me it sounds demi-romantic. Of course, maybe it's a bit more alterous than romantic, then you could use that term too, but I really think that your notion of romance might be too specific, when it's actually larger and more about the feelings you have for someone, and wanting to be close and love (care for them and be cared for), and show affection in whatever way is your language of love.

I haven't read your post thoroughly though, since I'm close to being on my way out. But I still wanted to post a little something. I'm curious how you feel about it.

[Star Bit]

There are low-key romantics, both in feelings and personal desires with the other person. Doesn't mean it's not romantic attraction just because it's not head-over-heels Twilight drama. Romance comes in many shapes and sizes.

[lonely wolf]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Like many of the orientations I mentioned, alterous fits with what I described feeling in the sense that's its neither romantic or platonic, but it still seems to involve attraction significantly. I don't think I feel attraction even to those I love most specially.

[lonely wolf]

10 minutes ago, Star Bit said:

There are low-key romantics, both in feelings and personal desires with the other person. Doesn't mean it's not romantic attraction just because it's not head-over-heels Twilight drama. Romance comes in many shapes and sizes.

How do you define attraction?

[Sarah-Sylvia]

3 minutes ago, lonely wolf said:

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Like many of the orientations I mentioned, alterous fits with what I described feeling in the sense that's its neither romantic or platonic, but it still seems to involve attraction significantly. I don't think I feel attraction even to those I love most specially.

So you don't feel any pull to want to be with them and care and share affection with them? To me it sounded like you did, in your post.

[lonely wolf]

1 minute ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

So you don't feel any pull to want to be with them and care and share affection with them? To me it sounded like you did, in your post.

I like being with them. They make me happy. I'm not explicitly pulled. I don't feel anything like how romantic or platonic attraction is often described. My occasional affectionateness is also hard for me to fully understand. Attraction to the person oesn't make me want to be affectionate. I think I'm sometimes affectionate because I want to communicate my love to that person in ways beyond words.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

1 minute ago, lonely wolf said:

I like being with them. They make me happy. I'm not explicitly pulled. I don't feel anything like how romantic or platonic attraction is often described. My occasional affectionateness is also hard for me to fully understand. Attraction to the person oesn't make me want to be affectionate. I think I'm sometimes affectionate because I want to communicate my love to that person in ways beyond words.

Specifically, when you said this: " I feel a lot of care and love for many people, and when I'm in a close relationship with someone, those feelings are increased. I want my close relationships to feel special and be exclusive. "

That's romantic, and the pull to be like that with someone.. I can't see it as anything else than romantic attraction. Including wanting to be exclusive with them and everything. It's possible that you're looking at attraction differently or think it has to be big or like a crush.

[lonely wolf]

3 minutes ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

Specifically, when you said this: " I feel a lot of care and love for many people, and when I'm in a close relationship with someone, those feelings are increased. I want my close relationships to feel special and be exclusive. "

That's romantic, and the pull to be like that with someone.. I can't see it as anything else than romantic attraction. Including wanting to be exclusive with them and everything.

To me that's just love because how I experience those things doesn't align well with romance and attraction. I feel those feelings in very specific ways. And they're hard for me to define. But my heart tells me it's different from what I've read or been told about attraction and romance. The exclusivity is important to me because I want the relationship to be deep and special and very loving, and the insecurities I would feel that come with non-exclusivity would taint the relationship and the love and warmth would fade.

[lonely wolf]

I don't think exclusiveness and and specialness have to involve romance and attraction. I think they can just be a part of love.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

1 minute ago, lonely wolf said:

To me that's just love because how I experience those things doesn't align well with romance and attraction. I feel those feelings in very specific ways. And they're hard for me to define. But my heart tells me it's different from what I've read or been told about attraction and romance. The exclusivity is important to me because I want the relationship to be deep and special and very loving, and the insecurities I would feel that come with non-exclusivity would taint the relationship and the love and warmth would fade.

But that's the point of being demi-romantic, not experiencing it like is typical, not until your feelings about them grow stronger, and/or you feel love for them.

Wanting to be exclusive and the relationship to be deep and loving, and sharing intimacy on a deeper level, sharing some of the things you talked about in your original post, it's all romantic. You wouldn't feel a pull for that with them if you didn't have romantic attraction. You just develop it in a different way, and not through 'impact;. You feel closer and love first. It just screams romantic to me, what you just said.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

There are different forms of love.
You may think this is just love, but it's actually romantic too. Any pull to want that exclusivity and the warmth you talked about can easily be considered romantic attraction. And I'll leave the space for others to chime in, but everything you said makes me think you're demi-romantic.
(I also gotta go)

Good luck

[lonely wolf]

Maybe there's no current label that fits well with how I feel. I understand that you interpret what I said is romantic attraction, but it doesn't feel that way to me.

[lonely wolf]

Thanks for all that 😊

[Sarah-Sylvia]

All I'll say is that Love is love, and there's desire in love to be expressed or in a relationship in certain ways. It may not feel like attraction, but any pull is that leads to it still counts. It's not like aesthetic attraction, you dont feel it by seeing them only, you feel it because of the love you have for them

[lonely wolf]

AVEN defines sexual attraction as "a feeling that sexual people get that causes them to desire sexual contact with a specific other person." So, if the definition of romantic or platonic attraction is similar, I don't think I feel either. I don't have feelings that cause me to desire to be or do anything with a specific other person. I am not driven in relationships. I experience them and love with no drives. I don't find people attractive. The people I love are often kind and comforting, but I don't find them attractive. I can appreciate their talents and intelligence for what they are, but they do not attract me to them. The kindness and comfort does not attract me to someone either. When I realize someone is like that, I feel like we would get along well. Then, often a friendship emerges. After that, sometimes the relationship gets deeper and I begin to feel love. But then, even once I feel love, and I not attracted to the person I love. I just love them.

[lonely wolf]

Here's another post I found:

 

"Hey everybody, just wondering if there are any other alterous people here?

For those who haven't heard of it, alterous attraction is a sort of gray area between platonic and romantic attraction. It's defined as "described as wanting emotional closeness without necessarily being (at all or entirely) platonic &/or romantic". You can have a romantic or platonic orientation and be alterous. For example, I'm grey-romantic but pan-alterous.

For me, being alterous means that when I meet someone new, I don't necessarily have the "oh you're cool, let's be friends" reaction. It's more of a "oh wow, I feel this super cool emotional connection with you, can I get to know you more and make that stronger?". All of my friendships are really emotions-based and deeper in a lot of ways than typical friendships. I guess it's sort of like the emotional closeness of a romantic relationship, but with the physical aspects of a platonic one.

So what about you? Are you alterous? And if so, what's your experience with it? I've never met another alterous person, and there's not a super big internet community for us, and I guess I'd just really like to meet someone else who understands what I feel."

 

It defines being alterous as "wanting emotional closeness" with someone, but I don't consider that attraction unless that wanting is characterized by the feeling of being drawn to someone. This experiences of the person I quoted seem like attraction to me. After meeting someone new they want to "get to know [the person] more and make [the emotional connection between them] stronger." They seem to be drawn in by a connection they feel emotionally upon first meeting certain people. I am not like that. I like emotional closeness, but I am not drawn to someone because I think they can offer it. I recognize potential compatibility, which makes me consider friendship. The friendship is often initiated by the other person. From there, feelings can grow and we can get closer, but I will have never felt attraction. It moves from recognition of compatibility, to friendship, to a special kind of love. And my want of emotional closeness with that person is not an attraction. Want can kinda be an attraction in cases similar to the one I quoted, but normally desire or want should be seen as distinct from attraction.

 

Reading through so many definitions of a/romantic orientations today, I really get the feeling that attraction is not a good way to wholly define these orientations as some people with these orientations may feel attraction, but some may not. I really believe you can have love without attraction.

[lonely wolf]

I'm considering identifying for now as ultro alterous. The latin word ultro has two definitions that I think fit my version of alterous that describes having a kind of love between platonic and romantic, but not involving attraction: "voluntarily/unaided" and "on the other side." So my love is unenticed and unelicited, so in that sense it can be seen as "voluntary" or "unaided." And my love is on the other side of what it means to be alterous: not involving attraction.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

Attraction is different in someone who's 'demi'. I think that's something to consider as well. I don't experience attraction normally when it comes to sexuality but I still consider myself demi-sexual.

Nothing wrong with demi-alterous too, even if I havent heard the term before

I'm not trying to deter you away from your own labels, at all. But I wonder why you think it's different than what demiromantics experience.
 

[lonely wolf]

I should say that the way my love grows is not really voluntary in a sense, just a different type of involuntary, so the unaided sense of ultro is the better one to use in my case. My love is unaided in that it does not have the support of attraction as it grows, like a vine might need a trellis to grow upon, rather it just grows concurrently with mutual understanding of and connection to each other. 

[lonely wolf]

2 minutes ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

Attraction is different in someone who's 'demi'. I think that's something to consider as well. I don't experience attraction normally when it comes to sexuality but I still consider myself demi-sexual.

Nothing wrong with demi-alterous too, even if I havent heard the term before

I'm not trying to deter you away from your own labels, at all. But I wonder why you think it's different than what demiromantics experience.
 

I just don't feel a connection with how all these terms are defined.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

1 minute ago, lonely wolf said:

I just don't feel a connection with how all these terms are defined.

It's possible you don't understand attraction in the case of demi people.
Attraction isn't some big pull you need to feel before you feel love with someone. The form of love that pulls you to want to be close and intimate and more.. that's romantic attraction. Some call it secondary romantic attraction, instead of primary.

[lonely wolf]

Just now, Sarah-Sylvia said:

It's possible you don't understand attraction in the case of demi people.
Attraction isn't some big pull you need to feel before you feel love with someone. The form of love that pulls you to want to be close and intimate and more.. that's romantic attraction. Some call it secondary romantic attraction, instead of primary.

I don't really think anybody can understand anyone else's experiences fully, so in the end it's how I relate to the definitions out there. And I just don't

[lonely wolf]

Like "demi people" as you call them probably all have a different way of relating to that orientation

[lonely wolf]

even if it's only slight

[Sarah-Sylvia]

2 minutes ago, lonely wolf said:

I don't really think anybody can understand anyone else's experiences fully, so in the end it's how I relate to the definitions out there. And I just don't

Well I just mentioned a definition for someone demi-romantic (of attraction). I'd like to understand why you think your pull for intimacy with those you love isn't romantic attraction when by definition it would be. But like for anyone, you're the master of your experience and you choose how you want to relate. But i see no reason not to call it attraction in this case. not yet.

[lonely wolf]

3 minutes ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

Well I just mentioned a definition for someone demi-romantic (of attraction). I'd like to understand why you think your pull for intimacy with those you love isn't romantic attraction when by definition it would be. But like for anyone, you're the master of your experience and you choose how you want to relate. But i see no reason not to call it attraction in this case. not yet.

ya im not comfortable with these definitions. and when  you say 'by definition' it means nothing to me because these matters are so subjective. and i really dont think the definitions of romantic attraction fit my experiences at all

[lonely wolf]

i think the term attraction is being overused and its too wide of an umbrella. it's like with ADHD. they used to distinguish between ADD and ADHD. now they dont. i think that was a mistake cuz we lost some important specificity. the treatments for adhd dont even work with all people who would be formerly labeled as ADD

[lonely wolf]

i also dont agree with ur interpretation of my words. i don't experience "a pull for intimacy" by how i would define that

[lonely wolf]

it might be more helpful to me if u quoted me directly instead of paraphrasing cuz im tryna explain why i dont agree with the definitions out there and my best efforts to do that are all up there