Demiromatic?

[Peechee]

Demisexuality is in a unique position. It can exist harmoniously with other sexualities. Demisexuals can also technically be Homosexual, Heterosexual, Bisexual or even Pansexual from my understanding of it.

Posters in this thread may debate this if they want. Perhaps demsiexuality has nothing to do with one's interest in a specific sex/gender and it really is exclusively a sexual attraction to one's romantic interests, in which case demisexuality can be Homoromantic, Heteroromantic, Biromantic, etc. much like Asexuality.

Though the major topic of this thread is whether "Demiromantic" exists, or whether it's a necessary label.

Some people believe in a sort of "love at fist sight" phenomenon. I've never believed this, even when I do feel certain vibes from people when I first meet them who eventually become romantic interests.

Then there are tons of people who believe that romantic interests have to be looked for as romantic interests in the first place. When someone's a friend they'll always be a friend, and if you're looking for love then someone you find wont be considered a friend, but as a potential romantic interest until otherwise put into the "just friends" box.

I've... never understood this train of thought.

Me? I have to be friends with someone first to ever consider becoming romantically attracted to them.

The path to becoming romantically attracted (and eventually sexually attracted) to someone is always the same for me: Acquaintance, Friend, Squish, Crush, Romantic and Sexual Attraction.

Needing to be attracted to someone in other ways (usually romantically attracted) in order to be sexually attracted to them makes one demisexual.

Does needing to be platonically attracted to someone before they can be romantically attracted to them make someone demiromantic?

Is needing to be platonically attracted to someone before they can be romantically attracted to them "normal" enough to not need a label?

Discuss. :)

[Pandoren]

Yes, there are several people on the boards who identify as demiromantic.

[dooomninja]

I know what you mean when you say you need to know them first. I thourght that the main reason for this is that is romantic attraction is based on mostly intelligence, wit and compassionateness which will only really appear during a friendship. Im not shore if you mean that you have to know someone for a long time before beginning to be attracted to them. I think being demiromantic would be possible because there is exactly the same range of focuses open to romantic feelings as to sexual.

[Oceania]

What Acer said. It would make sense that the spectrum of sexuality is similar to the spectrum of romanticism. Therefore one could expect the existance of demiromanticism, or even Grey-romAnticism.

[Hap2]

That's how it was with me, I was platonically connected with someone before I became romantically attracted to them.

[Cirdan]

To have romantic attraction I need to have known the person a while. I have tried getting into relationships with people I didn't know quite so well but they have ended up being much more unstable...

[***]

As a demiromantic, I do not experience romantic attraction often, and only after I get to know someone in a friendly (not a romantic) context. I don't know if anyone else experiences this, but I find there is a threshold: once someone has been a friend for a long time, I can't ever see the friendship transitioning into a romantic relationship.

[Tanwen]

Don't some people believe that we make up our minds within a very short period of time (minutes)? It doesn't work for me; there are people I hated on first meeting but over time I've realized I completely misjudged them...and those I've thought the 'bees knees'...well they let me down.

[Kalea]

Don't some people believe that we make up our minds within a very short period of time (minutes)? It doesn't work for me; there are people I hated on first meeting but over time I've realized I completely misjudged them...and those I've thought the 'bees knees'...well they let me down.

I'm with Tanwen on this. There's currently one person in particular who though I'm not really close with, we do get along, and I could not stand this person for about a year. I've been very confused when people (sexuals, in my experience, since I've never met another asexual!) can look at either a picture or the actual person for five seconds and determine whether or not they are interested. Apparently some people (or do most sexuals do this? Maybe it's part of the whole sexual thing?) set a ton of stock on "instant" attraction, and in their mind, if it's not their at the very beginning, it will never be there (which I think is absurd). Saying that, I might be demiromantic. Then again, I have major trust issues, so for anyone (even friends) to get really close to me, it takes quite a bit of time. So maybe it's just a trust thing. Either way, for me, it generally takes time for me to develop strong feelings (of close friendship or of a romantic sort), and just because I initially feel positive or negative towards someone doesn't mean I'll always feel that way towards them.

[------]

I personally always thought being demi-romantic was how the majority of romantic people worked. I still do. I don't understand how you can ever be really romantically attracted to somebody without knowing them. Personally if you have "love at first sight" it's just infacuation but the coming knowledge of the person backs up your feelings and eventually turn into romantic feelings.

As long as you're happy with how you roll: that's the important thing.

[Masquerade]

As a demiromantic, I do not experience romantic attraction often, and only after I get to know someone in a friendly (not a romantic) context. I don't know if anyone else experiences this, but I find there is a threshold: once someone has been a friend for a long time, I can't ever see the friendship transitioning into a romantic relationship.

Yes. This, exactly.

I've come to consider myself a demiromantic asexual. Yes, romantic attraction happens after getting to know someone (as would be the same with a romantic asexual). But at least for me, I've gotten to know a lot of people that I've truly felt affection for, and that affection is almost never romantic. It's like there's some level of compatibility or some very deep connection that must be made in order to induce the romantic attraction—and that's why I consider myself demiromantic, because the romantic attraction is so rare and selective that it takes one heck of a special person among an already existing group of special people to coax it forth.

[GaiaShirley]

Initially when I saw the topic's title, I thought you meant something completely else!

In the Israeli asexual community, we joke about people maybe being demiromantic, meaning they have to be in physical/sexual contact with a person before falling inlove with him... :D

[Quill Pen Gentleman]

What Acer said. It would make sense that the spectrum of sexuality is similar to the spectrum of romanticism. Therefore one could expect the existance of demiromanticism, or even Grey-romAnticism.

What is Grey-romanticism?

[dooomninja]

What Acer said. It would make sense that the spectrum of sexuality is similar to the spectrum of romanticism. Therefore one could expect the existance of demiromanticism, or even Grey-romAnticism.

What is Grey-romanticism?

i think like grey-a, grey-romantic would sometimes feel romantic attraction or like a lower level than romantics

[Selk]

I identify as this. I'd never go looking for romantic involvement and certainly NOT with someone I didn't already know well and like - therefore, I'd have to be pretty good friends and already love someone for me to even consider getting romantically involved. I think I'd maybe prefer this person to not be female, but then I prefer non-females as friends too... I don't fit in with a feminine crowd. :P

[i-N6-V]

I identify as demiromantic, and as people have mentioned, being friends with someone before becoming romantically attracted to them is not the only thing that defines it. That is a major feature, but equally important (in my opinion) is that demiromantics experience romantic attraction very infrequently, generally living life with a pretty aromantic bent.

For me, romantic relationships are very low priority; I hardly ever think of anybody in a romantic way, or even think of romance in general. In fact, I think I can say that I've never felt romantic attraction at all, although I believe that I am capable of it.

When starting to be friends with someone, there will be a point that I feel a romantic potential, where I could either go on to become closer platonic friends, or I could perhaps develop romantic attraction. Either possibility is equally desirable for me. I describe it as when the platonic and intellectual bonds are firmly established (already friends, in other words), and romantic potential combined with encouraging circumstances dictate in what direction the bonds of emotion and intimacy are developed.

My 2 cents.

Edit: and to actually answer the question posed by the OP, yes, I think demiromanticism is distinct and serves as a useful label (one can argue whether any labels are strictly necessary). I described my situation above, and I don't feel that my tendencies can be accurately called aromantic, since I think I can do the whole romantic thing, and I'd like to, sometime. But I'm also not fully romantic, as is apparent to me.

[Cazz333]

I identify as this. I'd never go looking for romantic involvement and certainly NOT with someone I didn't already know well and like - therefore, I'd have to be pretty good friends and already love someone for me to even consider getting romantically involved. I think I'd maybe prefer this person to not be female, but then I prefer non-females as friends too... I don't fit in with a feminine crowd. :P

Pretty much me. Femininity in woman is quite off putting. I can really only stand it in men. I am open to exceptions... I tend to have masculine women as my female friends or at least the other gendered type.