Demiromantic?

[ooze]

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...

Agreed.

First off, if I enjoy defining things in the grey area precisely, and you (hypothetical you) find it unnecessary, just ignore my definitions. But surely, I can discuss definitions with like-minded people?

As for demiromantic vs. full romantic. I'm not sure what I am and I don't particularly care, yet I would be interested in a definition for demi-anything.

I have never had a crush in my entire life, but I have fallen directly "in love" with a close friend. And no, a crush is not based solely on sexual attraction -- aces on this forum have talked about crushes they've had. I think there's some difference in romantic orientation between people who get crushes and those who don't, at least, enough of a difference to warrant a label.

If you (hypothetical you) disagree, you won't stop me from defining a term. I just won't post about it. Which I'd like to do, but whatever. If it's not welcome here then screw that.

I don't believe that "love" at first sight exists, but romantic attraction isn't necessarily love. I think what a lot of people refer to as "love at first sight" is actually "romantic attraction at first sight" and I certainly believe THAT exists. I'm trying to figure out if I experience it. And first sight does not have to be literal sight, as with the eyes.

There's a blog post about non-sexual crushes here, though I don't know how relevant it is.