Demiromantic means that one only experiences romantic attraction after a close connection has already been formed. I am a person who identifies as demisexual, which is similar in definition to demiromantic
I certainly don't. People have recommended dating sites to me because I'm so lonely, but I have no interest in ever using them, and I don't know how it's freaking possible to be interested in someone you hardly know. I'm surprised there's even a special word for this. I think demiromantic is just a fancy way of saying human.
Generally no, which is why the "demiromantic" and "demisexual" labels aren't recognized by anyone credible in the sexology or psychology fields. Normal, emotionally healthy people, with rare exceptions, don't feel romantic attraction to someone they just met; it takes some time to develop. That's why, In general, these labels aren't helpful. This isn't to devalue those who choose to identify that way, but there's really nothing in the psych or sexology literature to support the idea that these are distinct labels for the above reason.
Well it depends on how you look at things. Romantic attraction involves things like crushes as well if you ask me, and it's relatively common and happens a lot for people to develop crushes, etc. on others 'from afar' or they haven't known too long/well(you could even argue a stronger feel like 'love at first sight'). Look how many people have developed crushes on someone at school they hardly/probably didn't even know or ended up feeling something for, say, a waiter/waitress they only saw twice who seemed nice... It seems a bit more...exclusive than demisexuality if you ask me, but it would involve getting to know someone on a deeper level than usual before you experience romantic attraction. It's just another level of attraction is all. Looks like some miss the point and overlook things a bit...a common situation among a group of people who themselves want to be not seen as foolish...>_>
Well, I know demisexuality isn't the average. Most people can feel sexual attraction to strangers. That's completely different from being romantically attracted to them.
From what I know of the literature on relationships (and I'm no expert in this area), my understanding is that crushing on people is normal, but *not* crushing on people is equally normal. There's a pretty significant portion of the population who are cautious in starting new relationships and may not feel initial "spark" but see it develop over time. Trying to classify people in that category as having a special type of sexual/romantic orientation (making the incredibly generous assumption that there's a difference) for something that's a normal variation in the way people interact seems counterproductive, which is why I have a problem with those sorts of labels. I have a strong suspicion that the concept of someone who doesn't feel any sexual attraction to someone until they feel romantic attraction is more likely a manifestation of the numbing (and related lack of vulnerability )that is, unfortunately, a widely prevalent and increasing trait in the population, particularly the younger population. This is one of the pieces of the study of shame and shame resilience, and I suspect that if we were to examine the attributes of those who identify with demiromantic/demisexual attributes (whether or not they identify with that label), we'd likely find a high degree of numbing and invulnerable traits.
