You must log in or # to comment.
This article’s descriptions of how to know if you’re demiromantic suffer from being too vague and not literal enough. Like, it says you may be demiromantic if love at first sight isn’t a thing for you, but then it says love at first sight doesn’t actually mean live at first sight. Or you may be demiromantic if you don’t have “many” crushes, but how much is a normal amount?
deleted by creator
You’re welcome to your opinions but have you considered not being a dick about it?
I don’t need to. I’m demi, you brilliant example of humanity.
You should see a doctor about that stick up your butt, and maybe revisit that whole reading comprehension thing. I was summarizing what was being said in the article in a tongue-in-cheek way. Take a deep breath, drink some water, and count to ten before you jump on the next person who didn’t say anything wrong.
hey, fellow cowbee. i feel like your tongue in cheek comment could have been clearer about being tongue in cheek, especially since you had at least three people read it and pause (two commenters and myself)
i appreciate you were trying to be glib, but it’s not always obvious to everyone on the internet. it might be worth clarifying that in your posts going forward to avoid these sorts of misunderstandings (e.g. adding a /s or “just to be clear, this is tongue in cheek”)
you’re accusing the commenter of needing to take a deep breath, but i feel like you could honestly take that same advice. you’re really coming off as needlessly combative here, but as far as i can tell, you’re the one who signed up for the instance where the core tenet is “be(e) nice”. if that means something to you, i think you really ought to consider whether or not you’re representing that with your posts
They directly called me a dick and aphobic, and you’re telling me to be nice? I WAS being nice in comparison to what I could have said in response.
There is no way to interpret what I said as aphobic with the smallest grain of reading comprehension. I mean, it wasn’t even that many words to stumble through. It’s REALLY hard to miss a question mark, or the first word of a sentence, both strong indicators of the tone of my comment.
If you also had a hard time understanding the comment, maybe you should also slow down a bit before jumping down someone’s throat who didn’t do anything wrong and is showing a remarkable amount of restraint after being aggressively accused of bigotry, dickishness, and ignorance for a comment that was no more controversial than being in agreement about the vagueness of the article.
Go school the person who started the aggression if you really need to scratch that itch, not the one who was the recipient of their aggression and is standing their ground.
They directly called me a dick and aphobic, and you’re telling me to be nice? I WAS being nice in comparison to what I could have said in response.
well, respectfully: your comment is kind of dickish and does read–if not as aphobic–at minimum as being flippant about something people just are. if you don’t want it to come off that way, you probably should have led with being demi.
as a mod: i pretty distinctly side with @fracture@beehaw.org here, nor do i particularly blame @lolcatnip@reddthat.com.
I was being flippant about the article. There is no reason I should have to fling about my sexuality and status as a member of a group when I was perfectly obviously commenting on the article, not the group. But as you’re the mod, I’ll find a way to defend myself that I AM allowed to do here.
you know, i feel like you were very heavily affected by being called out about this comment. i’m not sure i fully understand why, but it seems like the accusation of being a dick and being aphobic really bothered you. and you are certainly correct that they could have more clearly (and nicely) worded their intention check. it would have been nice for them to have said something like, “hey, your comment is coming off kind of aphobic to me, could you clarify your intentions?” instead
i think, the trouble with flippant comments on the internet, is that (without a lot of extra work), you have a pretty hard time ensuring that your comments are interpreted correctly. i think we can agree that this is largely a misunderstanding, right? at least, by how much you’ve emphasizing reading comprehension, i hope we can agree on this
and i don’t think they were misinterpreting it at you. does that make sense? like, i think their intention was fairly straightforward (“i don’t want to allow what is possibly aphobia without calling it out”). again, they could have worded it in a clearer and kinder way. but i think that intention, at its heart, is a decent one. i don’t believe their intention was like, “i’m going to misinterpret this on purpose to antagonize you”
and i’m not trying to make you come off as a bastard here. i empathize with you a lot, it sucks to make an offhand comment and have it blow up into a shitstorm like this. it’s ass, and i’ve been there before. a lot
honestly that’s why i’m writing this, because in retrospect, i wish someone had told me to chill the fuck out (directed at my past self, not you)
the other reason i’m writing this, and the reason i’m not writing to the commenter, is because you are the one who signed up for a site whose only rule is “be(e) nice”
i can tell you’re actually genuinely trying here, and i want to recognize that, and also say that you can do better
“i’m being nicer than i could be” is such a shitty, self-destructive path to go down. this is the same shit parents use to justify abusing their kids in different ways than they were abused growing up, only to look back and realize in horror that what they were doing was still abusive
the rule is not “be(e) nice when someone is nice to you”
the rule is “be(e) nice”
and i hope you believe that you can do it. i know it’s fucking hard. i know it takes so much restraint. i’m lucky that a lot of my worst bullshit was on reddit and it’s been nuked since the migration. it’s taken years for me to get to the point where i get a spicy reply and don’t go full aggro on their ass in response. but i did it and you can do it, too
and i think that’s so important to develop. not just for others, but for yourself. i think signing up for beehaw says something about you, that you value kindness and you want to be better at it. that you want to be a person who gets a spicy reply and can still treat it with reasonable intentions. that you don’t want to perpetuate the cycle of people endlessly escalating arguments on the internet
if you need help, i’m happy to help. if you want to throw a draft my way for a first pass, go for it. if you need anger management techniques, i got em. i believe in you and i’m happy to put my money where my mouth is in terms of supporting you
anyways, i hope something in my long ass post reaches you. i hope you can tell, i really genuinely don’t want this for you
oh, and just to make it clear: i’m not advocating for letting yourself get walked on. but you can definitely stand up for yourself and be kind about it at the same time
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
mmm, we don’t need to do snipes like this.
Do I read you right that you equate having many crushes and/or falling for ‘love at first sight’ with being a shallow idiot?
deleted by creator
Even if you know it’s not smart, how do you control your feelings, then? You just feel attracted, you don’t choose.
deleted by creator
This sounds very much like responses to depression along the lines of “have you tried just thinking positively?”
if you don’t have “many” crushes, but how much is a normal amount?
As someone who’s aro, one is too many.
In all seriousness, I agree with you. Seems mostly vague and a lot is pretty common for “alloromantic” people (is that the right term? I haven’t paid much attention to any of that lately, so I’m probably out of the loop). But I could be missing it because I don’t relate much and now probably sound like one of those people who says “demisexual is how most people are” and most who fit into that category can pretty much immediately say, “no, not really”.
I think the biggest example in there that seems to be more “concrete” than the others is the bit about only ever having romantic feelings for friends or people you’re otherwise close with.
That one makes sense to me as a “predictor” of what might be “demiromantic”. Not drawn to people for any reason other than friendship, and then feeling like something more, whereas other people might be drawn to someone else purely for romantic reasons.
I’ve actually sometimes wondered about this label before but never really found a way to define or apply it in the simple way that I can with demisexuality.
Romance seems a bit more nebulous than sexuality. Like, physiologically speaking. Certain things happen with sexual attraction. I guess when it comes to brain chemicals, things happen with romantic attraction as well, but I’m not certain they’re as easy to identify as boing and sploosh.
boing and sploosh
I think you just slid me further up the ace scale.
Not drawn to people for any reason other than friendship, and then feeling like something more, whereas other people might be drawn to someone else purely for romantic reasons.
Reading these kinds of descriptions always make me wonder if non-demi-romantic people exist outside of fairy tales. With demisexuality, I can totally imagine someone being sexually attracted to someone else without caring romantically or otherwise about them (as such people visibly exist), but I can’t imagine anyone being romantically attracted to someone who they don’t know. Unlike with other lgbtq labels where I can look around and see that lots of people are actually the way I can’t imagine being, there isn’t an ‘other’ I can contrast with in the case of demiromanticity. I don’t even know what you call people who aren’t demiromantic?
Kinda inclined to agree with the other guy that said
So, basically you’re demiromantic if you’re not a shallow idiot?
. The only non-demiromantic person I can think of is Johnny Bravo and he’s not a real person. (afaik?)
It definitely seems to be a category that isn’t something that’s actively measured for typically. Like, people can identify having no interest in sex pretty easily because it’s a notable divergence from typical behavior, but romance is hard to see anyway, and an aromantic or demi-romsntic relationship still probably looks pretty similar to a lot of other relationships from the outside. Especially in the case if marriages that aren’t entered into due to love, but due to things like shared parenthood, financial security, or just habit.
Because it’s not immediately obvious whether or not this term would apply to what most would consider ‘typical’ relationships, it’s a little harder to pin down what proportion of the population qualifies. It may be much closer to the norm than we’d assume, especially considering it seems to have been identified from a space that’s examining the possibilities of human variety in relationships rather than attention being brought to it because of its accompanying struggle against some taboo or assumption.
Other people noticed that I was queer looong before I really had the words to make sense of any of that. To me I was just me, but to them I was this weird little aberration, and they were sure to let me know. Part of the identity and understanding that developed around those attributes were in opposition to this oppressive social force that insisted on a specific standard that I would never meet.
I honestly largely identify with a sort of demi-romantic perspective, and certainly with a demi-sexual one. Falling for people I already feel an emotional connection with it’s certainly familiar. I feel the social pressure or expectation to prioritize sex and relationships from time to time, but I don’t really feel the pressure of an impetus for romance in the same way.
Not to say that that invalidates it at all, but it does make me wonder if it’s maybe a little closer to the baseline than some of those other factors we might explore.
I’ve never crushed on anyone…
I’ve lusted after people, but I don’t really understand crushes…
That being said, I have no idea where I sit on the romantic spectrum, because I can and have been in loving relationships that I strongly value, and actively desire, yet to me, they feel like an extension of friendship. Every one of my partners has been a really close friend, and we developed that friendship in to a relationship.
How does one know if they’re demiromantic or just aromantic? I know I’m demisexual because I can sort of “simulate” having an emotional connection to an imagined fantasy, but romance doesn’t have a space we’re expected to intentionally simulate, and I’ve never experienced any sort of romance (though I haven’t been close to that many people).
I honestly can’t understand the concept of having romantic feelings for someone you don’t truly know. What’s the basis for it? Sexual attraction? Sure. You can see someone is attractive by just a glance, though for me, personality takes that attraction way, way further. But I can see a superficial, I-don’t-know-this-person-but-damn-they-give-me-tinglies-down-there. Love and romance however have to be based on a foundation of actually knowing someone, feeling a connection, and that connection becoming more.
I think it really boils down to not being able to define the milieu in which demiromaticism differentiates itself. You can say homosexuality vs. bisexuality vs. heterosexuality. Or cis vs. trans vs. enby, etc. and you understand the different natures of those identities. But what would alloromanticism? look like? What defines it?
For me, it’s not crushes. Love at first sight? Eh. That just seems like fascination/infatuation/crushing that one is conflating with something more. To me, crushes are an indicator that you’ve seen something in someone that’s jumped out at you and makes you want to either create a connection with them, or that you want to deepen an existing connection.
So what defines non-demiromaticism?
N.B. This isn’t a denial or rejection of one’s identity or of this label as a whole. I’m genuinely having a hard time with this.
so i’m demisexual and i know that because 1) i can identify what sexual attraction feels like in myself and 2) i understand that my baseline for sexual attraction is different from what’s considered allosexual
however, i feel like i can’t really say the same for romantic attraction. i’m not sure, i think i can identify how it feels within myself. but i don’t really know what’s considered baseline. the question i’d really like answered is, what’s an alloromantic’s experience like? do they get butterflies and blushy feelings by just looking at someone? maybe i’m demiromantic as well, but it seems like a rare® experience among people i know than being allosexual is
another (interesting, albeit unlikely) possibility is that being demiromantic is more common than being alloromantic. again, it’s unlikely, but i enjoy the thought experiment of the demi-side of the spectrum being more populated than the allo side. what if the aro side of the spectrum was more populated? it’s just interesting to consider what we take for granted and how much we can assume it’s true
deleted by creator
