Jump to content

Archived

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

Hajime

Demiromantic?

Recommended Posts

Hajime

Demisexuality has been defined, but when I look on the AVEN wiki, there is no reference to demiromantic. There are people on AVEN whom identify with demiromanticism and have mentioned it on the forums. If a demisexual is a person who does not experience sexual attraction until they form a strong emotional connection with someone, often (but not always) in a romantic relationship, why can't a demiromantic be a person who does not experience romantic attraction until they form a strong emotional connection with someone, often (but not always) in a a/sexual relationship?

An asexual or sexual may be aromantic, however not feel romantic attraction until there is a long running or established relationship with a specific person as opposed to being romantic outright and/or with anyone within their orientation. How could we have defined demisexuality and not demiromanticism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Asexy Existentialist

I've been thinking I'm demiromantic. It would help if others would talk about it at all... I feel so lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027

I think most people here will acknowledge demiromanticism; it's just not yet covered on the wiki.

I've been thinking I'm demiromantic. It would help if others would talk about it at all... I feel so lost.

I think that might be me as well o_o

What's on your mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Asexy Existentialist

I think most people here will acknowledge demiromanticism; it's just not yet covered on the wiki.

I've been thinking I'm demiromantic. It would help if others would talk about it at all... I feel so lost.

I think that might be me as well o_o

What's on your mind?

Are you asking me? Or the OP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
Are you asking me? Or the OP?

I'm asking you since you sound like you wanted someone to talk to o_o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Asexy Existentialist
Are you asking me? Or the OP?

I'm asking you since you sound like you wanted someone to talk to o_o

Yes. Well. I've been wondering about demiromanticism pretty much since I joined AVEN, because I don't know if what I feel for people is even romantic attraction, necessarily. I mean, I can imagine a romantic life with someone who I knew very well and got along with and grew to love. But I just don't know what I feel when I see people. I feel like people are always friends to me first. And I might think "Oh, he's cute" or "She's really funny" but I don't know if that's romantic attraction. And I have so much against relationships already... so basically, I'm really confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
Yes. Well. I've been wondering about demiromanticism pretty much since I joined AVEN, because I don't know if what I feel for people is even romantic attraction, necessarily. I mean, I can imagine a romantic life with someone who I knew very well and got along with and grew to love. But I just don't know what I feel when I see people. I feel like people are always friends to me first.

Yeah, I don't tend to view people in that way. But like you (I think?), I'm not closed off to the opportunity of something happening, so to speak.

I do think that if it ever were to happen, it would be most likely to occur with someone that I already knew and accepted as a friend, which is why I think I might lean more toward the demi- side of things.

And I might think "Oh, he's cute" or "She's really funny" but I don't know if that's romantic attraction.

That by itself doesn't seem like romantic attraction; just admirations. Depends on how much "feeling" is behind those thoughts, though.

And I have so much against relationships already... so basically, I'm really confused.

Might I ask why? Is it due to personal experiences or just the experiences of others? (If you don't mind me asking)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Asexy Existentialist

Might I ask why? Is it due to personal experiences or just the experiences of others? (If you don't mind me asking)

Just the principles. It's gonna sound selfish, but I'm more or less opposed to compromise, so having to do that and make someone else happy and not do what I wanted all of the time... wow. I really do sound selfish. Anyway, there's also the sexual aspect, which would affect 99% of my possible relationships... I dunno. It doesn't seem really worth it, to me.

And I like your new picture, but it's so hard to get used to not associating you with an asian dude on a cereal box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
Just the principles. It's gonna sound selfish, but I'm more or less opposed to compromise, so having to do that and make someone else happy and not do what I wanted all of the time... wow. I really do sound selfish.

Just a tad, when you put it that way >_>

I think a lot of people are that way though... but once they find someone that they are really comfortable with, they tend to loosen up with most things. Not necessarily regarding sexual things, but just with more trivial things... like where to go out to have dinner and such.

Anyway, there's also the sexual aspect, which would affect 99% of my possible relationships... I dunno. It doesn't seem really worth it, to me.

True, but I think that percentage could be largely affected depending on where you define your "pool" of potential relationships, so to speak.

Like... if you are always hanging around in a bar trying to hook up with people, then yeah, chances are good that the "sexual aspect" will be brought up in 99% of the possible relationships stemming from there. It might even be more than 99%, because I doubt most aces go to bars to hookup.

In short, it depends somewhat on where you go and who you know, I'd say.

And I like your new picture, but it's so hard to get used to not associating you with an asian dude on a cereal box.

Sounds like you've had your eye on me for some time? O_o

In all seriousness, I found this on another forum and was so amused by it that I couldn't help but rip it off. >_>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Asexy Existentialist
And I like your new picture, but it's so hard to get used to not associating you with an asian dude on a cereal box.

Sounds like you've had your eye on me for some time? O_o

In all seriousness, I found this on another forum and was so amused by it that I couldn't help but rip it off. >_>

Naw, I'm just on the forums a lot and so are you. So I tend to associate the regulars with their avatars. Throws me off when they change them :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027

This is actually one of the forums I post on the least >_> I'm a lot more active on various gaming forums.

Anyhoo, I'm heading to sleep soon, but feel free to PM me if you ever want to blab. I'm still trying to figure myself out when it comes to this subject, so anyone who seems to be in mostly the same shoes as me would be great to blab with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vampyremage

Might I ask why? Is it due to personal experiences or just the experiences of others? (If you don't mind me asking)

Just the principles. It's gonna sound selfish, but I'm more or less opposed to compromise, so having to do that and make someone else happy and not do what I wanted all of the time... wow. I really do sound selfish. Anyway, there's also the sexual aspect, which would affect 99% of my possible relationships... I dunno. It doesn't seem really worth it, to me.

And I like your new picture, but it's so hard to get used to not associating you with an asian dude on a cereal box.

This is actually very much something that I have been considering lately as well. I've been going through a lot of personal reevaluation of what I consider to be important in life and in relationships and one of the things I've concluded is that I'm not sure that I want to be in a relationship in which compromise is a part of it. Of course I've been in relationships in the past and been more or less content to compromise because I cared about my partner enough to do so, but I'm just not sure how worth it it is anymore. I feel like I can be quite content being alone or maybe having a close friend/cuddle buddy which removes the responsibility and obligation intrinsic in being a part of a relationship.

Of course, I've fairly recently gotten out of a long term relationship, so this may all just be a phase and 6 months or a year down the road I may be back to my usual desire of having a full and deep relationship, complete with everything a relationship normally includes minus the sex aspect. I guess time will tell for certain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matters Of The Heart

It's fun seeing two of my favorite Avenites interact. :3 (Phil, AE)

I think it's safe to say I'm not demiromantic, though. As I told someone a while back, I'm somewhat of a hyper-romantic at times. If you cut me I'd probably bleed poetry and flowers.

Demiromanticism seems safer. Less room for the sting of rejection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
test account

Do we need to define demi-this and demi-that? Do we need to suppose that there is such a thing as a 'full' sexual or a 'full' romantic? That to me is like trying to define when a person is 'fully old' or 'fully young'. To be pedantic about it, I would say we are all of us demis in everything, for I've yet to see the person who defines what it is to be 'fully sexual', 'fully romantic', or 'fully asexual' for that matter.

Sorry, but this has been bothering me for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bountiful Harvest

Do we need to define demi-this and demi-that? Do we need to suppose that there is such a thing as a 'full' sexual or a 'full' romantic? That to me is like trying to define when a person is 'fully old' or 'fully young'. To be pedantic about it, I would say we are all of us demis in everything, for I've yet to see the person who defines what it is to be 'fully sexual', 'fully romantic', or 'fully asexual' for that matter.

Sorry, but this has been bothering me for a long time.

I second this ^_^ I consider myself a romantic asexual as I do have a desire to be in a long term, stable relationship with someone else yet occasionally I'll go through a phase when I really could be doing without a relationship (almost aromantic). Most people go through swings and roundabouts, more so with "romance" as it can be a very volatile emotion. I'm romantic but I'm not swooning after every person I like and there are times when I just couldn't care at all.

Come to think of it I haven't felt any strong romantic attraction in a couple of years.. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hajime

I for one totally support and hold the idea that sexuality and romance are quite fluid and would love for there to be no definitions at all and for humans to approach one another in all honesty and pursue the relationships they desire at heart or in lust. But not everyone holds this and look to definitions for things instead. Many look here to try and find a part of themselves and I was merely curious how there is a lengthy explanation of one thing, and noting for another thing which can coincide with it, especially when there are AVENers that use demiromantic to describe themselves. If one uses the wiki, one may have an impression that it doesn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
test account

You make a very fair point. I was a bit off topic with my post. I should probably make a new thread for it :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siggy

Demisexuality has been defined, but when I look on the AVEN wiki, there is no reference to demiromantic.

The AVENwiki... is written by AVENites. If so many people want an article on there, why doesn't someone write one? I think it's because everyone is afraid that they'll get something wrong.

Also note that "demiromantic" is a relatively recent term (at least on the timescale of the AVENwiki, which gets updated very slowly.)

A few obstacles for would-be writers of a "demiromantic" article:

1. Demiromantic is supposed to be the romantic analogue of demisexuality. The problem is that there are many many different conceptualizations of demisexuality. One is the Rabger's model. Another is the idea that sexual attraction occurs only in the context of romantic relationships (and this doesn't even make sense if you transfer over to demiromanticism). My own pet definition is that demisexuals experience sexual attraction only in narrow contexts, though that precise context may differ from person to person.

2. Demisexual is a subcategory of gray-A. So if we're going to have a romantic analogue to demisexual, shouldn't we also have an analogue to gray-A? It bothers me, as a non-demi gray, that demiromantic is made out to be the only way to be between romantic and aromantic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
It's fun seeing two of my favorite Avenites interact. :3 (Phil, AE)

:blush:

If you cut me I'd probably bleed poetry and flowers.

As someone who grows faint at the sight of blood, that's somewhat of a relief. I'm still not going to cut you, though

Do we need to define demi-this and demi-that? Do we need to suppose that there is such a thing as a 'full' sexual or a 'full' romantic?

We don't really NEED to define anything; we just want to try, because people generally don't like unknowns. Human nature, etc.

Personally, the whole romantic thing isn't a big deal to me (obviously; I've never been in any "real" relationship, and am not pursuing one). I'm hesitant to define myself as aromantic or romantic though, because they both sound like two extremes, neither of which really apply to me. I'm sure there are some people out there who cannot identify as asexual, yet still don't want to refer to themselves as "fully sexual" as you put it either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sleeping Beauty

Do we need to define demi-this and demi-that? Do we need to suppose that there is such a thing as a 'full' sexual or a 'full' romantic? That to me is like trying to define when a person is 'fully old' or 'fully young'. To be pedantic about it, I would say we are all of us demis in everything, for I've yet to see the person who defines what it is to be 'fully sexual', 'fully romantic', or 'fully asexual' for that matter.

Sorry, but this has been bothering me for a long time.

I second this ^_^ I consider myself a romantic asexual as I do have a desire to be in a long term, stable relationship with someone else yet occasionally I'll go through a phase when I really could be doing without a relationship (almost aromantic). Most people go through swings and roundabouts, more so with "romance" as it can be a very volatile emotion. I'm romantic but I'm not swooning after every person I like and there are times when I just couldn't care at all.

Come to think of it I haven't felt any strong romantic attraction in a couple of years.. :huh:

Thank goodness, I was starting to feel all alone on my boat of dissent.

I think romanticism as assumed by a definition like the one in the OP (so to have the need for demiromanticism) is a myth and this is just that people are not the same.

I would really like to know what exactly they want the difference to be (definitions are always arbitrary so I'm not accusing anyone).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ooze

One other definition of demiromanticism I've heard: one does not have any desire for a romantic relationship without a pre-existing specific object of attraction.

This is NOT true of everyone. If it were, there would be no dating websites, speed dating, etc. No one would date, because no one would want a relationship. Until/unless they actually had a specific person in mind that they would want a relationship with. Eg. a friendship turned romantic. You'd already have to know them through non-dating contexts, where you weren't already seeking a relationship.

This definition was the case for me until February, when my last romantic attraction ended. At least, I think it ended. But my desire for a relationship in general, not with the specific person, is still there... so either I 'became' a full romantic, or the attraction hasn't died yet (I would believe that, actually. Ugh. *cringes*)

Which reminds me of something else. If this definition has merit, the desire for the relationship is usually directed at the object of attraction, but not always. I think you can 'transfer' intense feelings for one person, onto another. I'm going to use an analogy someone else used: you have a bunch of eggs (romantic attraction) and nowhere to put them (you can't have a relationship with the object of the attraction) so you put the eggs into another basket (transfer your feelings onto someone else). May not be the best in the long-term, but having some outlet for the feelings can be cathartic at the time, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Asexy Existentialist

To those who are questioning the need to define it, yes, I do feel it's necessary. I want to know why something the rest of the world cares so much about, something it places so much importance on, something everyone seems to share except me, isn't there. I want to know why I'm missing that kind of connect. Or else, why would we have made AVEN? Did we really need a definition for being asexual? After all, sexuality is fluid and it should be enough just to recognize that we're different...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tread Lightly

I kind of look at this with a bit of confusion. I always felt that romantic attachment usually (not always, but in most cases) stemmed from growing close to someone, or getting to know them. Most of my sexual friends don't say they're "in love" with someone until they've grown close, and they do separate love/romance from sex/lust. In my personal experience, I can't have romantic feelinsg for someone unless I know who that person is and we form a connection. So, I kind of figured that everyone was demiromantic, aside from aromantic individuals, because that's what the definition of romance/love was.

And mentally, since that was such a widespread thing, romantic-normativity causes me to think that there isn't a need for an official definition. But why not? I mean, we have labels (ew) for everything else...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bountiful Harvest

To those who are questioning the need to define it, yes, I do feel it's necessary. I want to know why something the rest of the world cares so much about, something it places so much importance on, something everyone seems to share except me, isn't there. I want to know why I'm missing that kind of connect. Or else, why would we have made AVEN? Did we really need a definition for being asexual? After all, sexuality is fluid and it should be enough just to recognize that we're different...

Sexuality tends to be more of a permanent state of mind than romanticism, don't get me wrong I prescribe to the belief that sexuality is fluid but romanticism is a whole new level of fluid. As I mentioned before, romance is a volatile emotion, something that can be too subjective to define without having to keep altering the definition or having it so broad that it becomes vague or ambiguous. With asexuality it's pretty clear cut, despite everyone's nuances we are all still the same in at least one regard.

I'm not saying demiromantacism doesn't deserve to be defined; I'm just saying it's going to be bloody difficult to create a "catch all" definition for it. But that doesn't mean we can't ;)

I am also close to what Tread Lightly is saying too. Romance develops whereas sexual attraction is instantaneous if you get it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Southpaw

Gosh, I haven't even realized it wasn't on the Wiki. XD Thank you for bringing this to attention, Hajime. I'll send this to the rest of Project Team and we'll see about getting "demiromantic" up on the wiki.

(Since I technically identify as demi-Panromantic, my gosh, how did I not see this missing?? LOL)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okami

I don't really understand. How can anyone have romantic feelings for someone they don't know much/at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
I don't really understand. How can anyone have romantic feelings for someone they don't know much/at all?

Ever heard of the phrase "love at first sight"?

Personally, that kind of thing would never apply to me; like you said, I would have to know the other person first. But there have to be some people out there for which it does apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tread Lightly

Ever heard of the phrase "love at first sight"?

I have never come across someone who'd support the claim that "love at first sight" exists. (Though, who knows. I hopefully have many more years to live, I might just meet someone who does believe in it...)

I suppose there's a chance, but even then, the chances are almost impossible.

Just to look at someone and decide you love that person without any knowledge of anything else that person does or who that person is seems somewhat shallow. That means that you define love strictly on the basis of looks (and maybe some other things that one can glean from a visual), which is all fine and dandy but just... haha, I don't even know how to phrase what I'm thinking. I'll take the opportunity to point out that there are a number of people I think are gorgeous and was instantly drawn to them because of that, but I'd never even THINK of being romantically involved with them.

Anyways, cases of "love at first sight" are most likely due a combination of persistence (ie: I like how this person looks so I will convince myself I want to be with him/her) and coincidence (ie: AH, so it just so happens that I took a leap of faith in pursuing this person and they just so happen to have the traits I desire in a significant other aside from being aesthetically pleasing to me). Which, in retrospect, isn't love at first sight at all.

As I said before, it all boils down to how you define "love" and "romance", but even popular story tale renditions of "love at first sight" are marred by the occurrence of what I just mentioned above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
test account

To those who are questioning the need to define it, yes, I do feel it's necessary. I want to know why something the rest of the world cares so much about, something it places so much importance on, something everyone seems to share except me, isn't there. I want to know why I'm missing that kind of connect. Or else, why would we have made AVEN? Did we really need a definition for being asexual? After all, sexuality is fluid and it should be enough just to recognize that we're different...

I'm can see a practical use in defining asexuality. It offsets the dominant media stereotype of hypersexuality. Between these two extremes each person can place themselves. I suspect very few people perfectly fit either extreme, and most of us fall somewhere in between, swinging back and forth over time. That's why I honestly find defining demi, grey, etc ridiculous. How many points along the continuum do we need to officially define? I think it is wiser to keep things as simple as possible. I'm sure the world is mostly populated by people who are not as sexual as the media makes out, but they're happy to consider themselves sexual on their own terms. And they don't stress about it.

I just think AVEN is in danger of promoting the idea that it's unusual to be moderately sexual, or sexual at certain times, by creating such weird-sounding terms as "Demi-sexuality" etc. I expect the rest of the world just calls it "being sexual". I don't see why plain old "sexual" should be defined so narrowly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
I have never come across someone who'd support the claim that "love at first sight" exists.

Really? I've met tons, many of whom claim that it happened with them specifically. (Though, as you've already suggested... despite this, the bitter cynic/skeptic in me still believes that many of these people do not have the same idea of what constitutes "love" that I would)

I just think AVEN is in danger of promoting the idea that it's unusual to be moderately sexual, or sexual at certain times, by creating such weird-sounding terms as "Demi-sexuality" etc.

I think a good number of us actually *don't* get that idea from "the media" though; we see it in other actual live people, many of which might even be fellow students in school, friends, acquaintances, even family members. It's one thing to see various attributes exaggerated in a TV show or a movie, but it tends to hit home harder when it can be seen in person.

And to be honest, when it comes to weird-sounding terms, the target demographic of this site has already crossed the line. Some of us already know what it's like to be referred to as an amoeba or whatever when we try to say that we're "asexual"; that term in itself already sounds "weird" to most people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...