demiromantic-daily

[demiromantic-daily]

omg I forgot about romances through letters, that's a whole genre....

So one of my favourite books ever, This is How You Lose the Time War, and then I love the movie of The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society and there is a book but I have not read it.

Bunch more recs here. /\ A lot seem to lean into historical and/or smutty so sort through those to see what you might enjoy.

do you also have recs for romance that starts online or with letters or in another not-in-person way? most of it is about like having feelings when they touch you or something but idk if that online role play thing is similar. also so much is about kissing which makes it so hard to judge my past experiences because i never cared for kissing until i did it with my partner who i'm at least greyromantically, possibly demiromantically attracted to but even before kissing wasn't really something i cared about but it's portrayed as peak romance. it's hard to judge when you don't know what it feels like whereas most people have been hugged or cuddled before so u can transfer that.

hmm not too many and I guess the only ones I can think of include the people simultaneously knowing each other in-person (but not knowing they know each other, so the online and in-person relationships develop independently of each other. Simon vs the Homo Sapiens Agenda is fantastic and I adore it, that's for sure a good option for this; the two characters develop an anonymous email relationship which starts online and fall in love that way though they do also kind of know each other in-person. There is the movie also but it's worse. I think You've Got Mail fits the bill? Not sure, I saw it once ages ago and don't remember much. But that's another email relationship. I think it might only be the in-person one that gets romantic, though.

Other things:

Attachments by Rainbow Rowell, though I've not read it; I have liked some of her other books so it could be good. Though tbh from the blurb it sounds kind of creepy.

There are some other options that I cannot vouch for in any way. If other people have suggestions, please shout them out!

[demiromantic-daily]

do you also have recs for romance that starts online or with letters or in another not-in-person way? most of it is about like having feelings when they touch you or something but idk if that online role play thing is similar. also so much is about kissing which makes it so hard to judge my past experiences because i never cared for kissing until i did it with my partner who i'm at least greyromantically, possibly demiromantically attracted to but even before kissing wasn't really something i cared about but it's portrayed as peak romance. it's hard to judge when you don't know what it feels like whereas most people have been hugged or cuddled before so u can transfer that.

hmm not too many and I guess the only ones I can think of include the people simultaneously knowing each other in-person (but not knowing they know each other, so the online and in-person relationships develop independently of each other. Simon vs the Homo Sapiens Agenda is fantastic and I adore it, that's for sure a good option for this; the two characters develop an anonymous email relationship which starts online and fall in love that way though they do also kind of know each other in-person. There is the movie also but it's worse. I think You've Got Mail fits the bill? Not sure, I saw it once ages ago and don't remember much. But that's another email relationship. I think it might only be the in-person one that gets romantic, though.

Other things:

Attachments by Rainbow Rowell, though I've not read it; I have liked some of her other books so it could be good. Though tbh from the blurb it sounds kind of creepy.

There are some other options that I cannot vouch for in any way. If other people have suggestions, please shout them out!

[demiromantic-daily]

No i don't mean that my romantic attraction is linked to trauma but rather that i confused trauma based attachments for romantic attraction, but now realise they weren't because none of them were ever about a specific person, i moved from person to person very quickly because of some comfort they could provide rather than genuine attraction and they all blend together now. but i thought that's what romantic attraction was when it'd not

ahhh OK my bad. That makes sense though, I can totally see how it could happen.

[demiromantic-daily]

re the media, so would you say experiences of romantic attraction are all quite similar?

For the most part, kinda, yeah. Which is why I get so excited when I see anything that deviates from that. I’m a bit cynical about romance in media so that could be a factor in me thinking this but yeah. One of my favourite things about The Lunar Chronicles books was how each book’s romance felt so distinct from the last. A lot of those sorts of new-character-each-book sort of things tend to feel pretty copy and pasted. I do enjoy the Bridgerton show but those romances are all identical, really. They hit on different tropes but that’s the only thing making them distinct. The dynamics are all the same. Except Queen Charlotte and s3 Francesca back when she was being an autistic queen and before it was revealed that she was having a unique love story because she was actually just not attracted to the guy at any point. :///////////

[demiromantic-daily]

How to tell if what you're feeling for someone is romantic if you only know them online and not IRL?

tbh I don’t quite know. I think I’m only able to judge that sort of thing in-person, but I think that won’t be the case for everyone. I’ve not really had (platonic) relationships with people online except through discord and tumblr so maybe if you video call a lot you could get a sense of that more easily. Could be it feels romantic and if you meet them then it suddenly doesn’t, so that just might have to be a risk you take. But it’s totally normal to have romantic attraction to online friends and those kinds of attractions sometimes turn into long-lasting and awesome relationships! (obligatory statement to be careful and don’t give out info to strangers and beware catfishing)

[demiromantic-daily]

i don't feel demiromantic enough because i never felt like there was something wrong with me for only feeling romantic attraction towards one person, not having crushes for the most part, picturing myself growing old alone etc. i thought i felt romantic attraction until i realised most of it was trauma based attachment or squishes and everything else i never thought of as being abnormal or anything. many demiromantics seem to have had a sense of brokenness before they realised they're demiromantic and i have only had that about my asexuality, never about my romantic stuff because i was too busy thinking what i felt was romantic.

I totally get the imposter syndrome but the things you're mentioning are absolutely not necessary to be demi and everything you describe feeling sounds like a common demi thing to feel. So probably it'll just take time to adjust to the idea and you'll be good.

Romantic attraction being linked to trauma isn't the most common thing and not something a lot of demi people will feel but it's totally something that can happen and a super valid reason to label yourself as aro-spec, if it's helpful to do so.

I think be careful with the idea that aro- and ace-spec people need to feel broken in order to be actually aro- or ace-spec, since it perpetuates this idea that queerness necessitates suffering, which is just so clearly not true. I'm not saying you're bad for feeling this way, not at all, it's something that's seeped into our cultural understanding and can be a part of internalize aro/acephobia to unpack. For trans people too, it can be the idea that you're not really trans if you don't experience dysphoria. Like sure, that can be a big part of it, just as feeling broken can be a big part of an aro or ace person's experience, but it's not necessary and it's not what makes them aro/ace/trans. Experiencing infrequent/no romantic/sexual attraction or only under particular circumstances, or your gender not being what you were decided to be at birth makes someone aro/ace/trans.

Sorry if that got a bit convoluted in using so many examples at the same time. But basically call yourself what you want and the imposter syndrome will fade with time and a feeling of brokenness isn't necessary to be aro-spec.

[demiromantic-daily]

Hi! In one answer to an ask you said about going to media and how they describe romantic attraction to understand it. However, media portrayals of romantic attraction are often unrealistic even to alloromantic people ("love at first sight"), and initial crushes are often mainly expressed sexually because they are from an allo perspective where sexual and romantic attraction are often experienced as one compound attraction, so it's hard to separate the romance. They also sometimes describe something that could easily also apply to a squish. Once they get more specific in a traditionally romantic sense, they're already at the "I love you" stage, all of which makes it hard to figure out initial romantic attraction, especially when your sexual attraction doesn't align with it.

Hi! Sorry, my inbox on my main browser doesn't show my top asks anymore so I keep forgetting to go and answer this in another browser. Hate typing on mobile. break because this got long.

So I really just think media can be a good place to look to start to get an idea of romantic attraction/love. It's really not going to give you all the answers and absolutely will give you some inaccurate ideas but if you have no idea what it might be, then it's not a bad place to look to get a sense for it. Obviously good couples in your real life can be good too, but not everyone might have that and I think fiction is a great way to get a sense for what things feel like when experienced, and what love might look like behind closed doors. Not in a sexual sense, necessarily, just that observing couples in your life might not give you a full picture. But for sure a more realistic one than media, lol.

I am a sucker for romcoms but like. There are a lot of really bad ones. And most are unrealistic in a lot of ways. Mostly I think they fail in showing people falling in love way too quickly (I think the natural need to rush plot for 1h30m romcoms is a factor here, especially if the movie is more interested in exploring people in a relationship than the journey to getting into one. which isn't a criticism, some movies just do different things.) and are a bit too optimistic about characters' chances of staying together forever. Like obviously most fiction is meant as escapist fantasies for the viewer so fair enough but like so often the hurdles couples in movies have to overcome are ones that people in real life would break up over. And outside circumstances might not magically fix themselves to the couple's advantage.

I think TV can be great for showing slow development of relationships and a building of feelings. There's just more time for it and it can be a good plot point for two characters to go from friends/coworkers to into each other. These crushes aren't usually shown as primarily sexual.

Books are really where it's at for me, mostly because I love books, but I think the ability to exist in a character's head is really helpful for this sort of thing. Again, things can be not realistic and very often that's the case. Certain genres are better at being realistic than others. Like I won't say read exclusively women's fiction* sad books because that'll give an unrealistically dower perspective, but that's a reality a lot of the time too. So balance that sort of thing, at least.

*women's fiction is a term that should not be the name of the genre but like. it doesn't have another name, really. literary books focussing on relationships between people.

I think the big thing for me for squish vs crush is do I want to do things I feel are romantic with this person or not? I don't hold my friends hands or make out with them or whatever. Other people might be different and that's fine but to me those are romantic attraction things. Squishes I want to hang out and really really want to be their friend and make them laugh and whatnot. And so fiction can be a place to see ok what are those romantic attraction things, for a lot of people? I think also for me I don't really get to a place of having a crush until I am just about in love. Like the leap from one to the other is not very big. I need to feel a lot for a person to notice it's romantic and by that point it's pretty close to love. Again, this won't be the case for all demi people, but probably for many.

I'll shout out some fictional media about romance and not much about sex that I think is good at realism (these accidentally lean optimistic; that is my personal preference biasing this, sorry):

Past Lives (movie; focusses a lot on human connection more broadly but is very specifically focussed on romance; beautiful movie, just generally, also)

Emma (movie, I personally love the 2020 one; I'd also recommend Pride & Prejudice but I think Emma does a bit better job at looking at liking someone as a friend vs as a romantic partner)

Straight Up (movie, mostly about what to me reads as a queerplatonic relationship, it does talk about sex but in a way that feels pretty ace or ace-adjacent, it's really good and I love it a lot; it's not about romance, so much as the lack of it)

New Girl (tv; a fair bit about sex but, with the main couple, acknowledges the difference between their sexual and romantic attraction to one another)

The Office (tv; not my favourite show but it's decent and this is a great friendship-to-romantic-relationship-that-is-still-a-great-friendship)

Good Omens (tv; find Alternative Means to watch this, due to recent allegations, but it's still great; to me it read as very queerplatonic, until it wasn't. most people seemed to think it was romantic the whole time and I guess the latest season was written with that in mind (the first wasn't) so it's up to you what you see. either way they are canonically ace.)

Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe (book; there is a movie but the book is so much better and also the best book ever)

The Lunar Chronicles (book series; each book features a different main character and a romance subplot and each couple is very different from the last which is awesome and gives a wide variety but also this series is incredible in every other way)

Heartstopper (graphic novels/webcomics; a bit less overwhelmingly cheesy in comic form and so I really love them (the show is good too); it's got loads of stuff about attraction and love and friendship etc and I think it being written by an aroace person gives it a really good perspective on all that)

it's sort of relevant because some of the things recommended here are on prime, but there's a movement to cancel your prime subscriptions on Mar 7-14, 2025 (now), due to CEO Jeff Bezos' recent actions wrt American politics, so if that's relevant to any of you, please consider it!

[demiromantic-daily]

Question: What is the greatest magic of all? Answer: Friendship, right? [B]: The greatest magic of all is not friendship, it's chronomancy, the ability to control and warp time. If friendship were the greatest magic, look, it's a pet peeve of mine (...)

DUNGEON MASTER BRENNAN LEE MULLIGAN ANSWERS DnD QUESTIONS (TECH SUPPORT | WIRED)

[demiromantic-daily]

https://www.tumblr.com/demiromantic-daily/776649424943382528/newly-demi-here-again-i-guess-im-wondering

Ah, I thought alloromantic also need at least the smallest bit of connection because even among allos it seems to be the consensus that romantic attraction doesn't happen just based on appearance

I think it depends on the allo person, certainly some people can experience romantic attraction from just appearance and others need a bit more info but I think really it's just that they can be romantically attracted with just appearance and a bit of interaction at a minimum, where we need an emotional connection.

[demiromantic-daily]

What's your thoughts on defining demiromanticism based on only experiencing secondary romantic attraction instead of romantic attraction after an emotional bond? That's the definition the demiromantic subreddit uses, and it seems broader than the mainstream definition.

It makes sense and seems pretty in line with what I've seen before. I guess I find it a bit harder to understand right off the bat since it requires some more technical words than just "emotional connection" so I probably won't explain it using that but it does seem to be describing the same thing.

I define pan for myself as attraction to all genders, but the more common definition is attraction regardless of gender. Since I find gender does influence how I'm attracted to people, I don't find that latter one works for me too well so I use the former. I think this is sort of similar; use whichever definition feels more accurate to you or you just like better. They're both valid.

[demiromantic-daily]

oh wow i definitely think i'm demi then. i mean even just because of the connection my romantic attraction feels more intense right off the bat rather than "i wanna go on a date and learn more" because i already know so much. like... wow i'm having an epiphany. not to be like trying to sound like i'm better than allos but it's like my romantic attraction feels deeper right from the start because of that connection, like there's nothing casual about it, just... all in. also feels like i used up all my romantic attraction for this lifetime /hj

Yeah I think that's how it works for a lot of us!

[demiromantic-daily]

So ur saying that weird tertiary attraction counts even if it's become so vague and i don't wanna act on it?

Totally!

[demiromantic-daily]

How can romantic attraction be queer platonic?

They're different, they just sort of blur together for me. Like how a lot of allo people can't tell apart romantic and sexual attraction because those blur together for them, sometimes.

[demiromantic-daily]

Newly demi here again, I guess I'm wondering what's the difference between the emotional connection demi people need and the connection alloromantic people feel?

The actual connection can be the same, it's just demi people don't feel any romantic attraction without it and allo people still can.

[demiromantic-daily]

Ah, gotcha! I only ever seen a crush used as one of the earliest forms of romantic attraction.

Turns out I'm indeed demi :D

Yay, welcome!

[demiromantic-daily]

hi! i'm learning about the aromantic spectrum and i recently found your "I Am Demiromantic" booklet. i have a few (good faith) questions.

"Romantic attraction is not love, or even a crush" is this referring to the fact that platonic, sexual, sensual etc. crushes exist, like squishes? From what I have seen, the aromantic community also uses the word "crush" to mean romantic attraction and either say words like "squish" or specify by saying "platonic crush".

"many demiromantic people do not need as deep an emotional connection to be able to have romantic attraction. It varies a lot person-to-person. Some people need only a good, deep conversation to be interested in someone, or several more casual conversations like you would have with a classmate or co-worker"

i thought that this was the normal experience. do alloromantic people feel romantic attraction from less? like, what is the minimum needed for alloromantic people to feel attraction, then? it lines up with my personal experiences and i don't want to do the "demi is just normal" thing, but i also found a reblog on your blog where someone had a list of questions for alloromantic people to answer, and it sounded like most of the alloromantic people also tend to need a connection like you've described to feel attraction, unless i completely misunderstood something.

i'm just trying to figure out if you just cracked my demi egg

Hello and welcome! (for context, this seems to be like a different person than the last few asks)

"Romantic attraction is not love, or even a crush": what I mean by this is that romantic attraction is a thing alloromantic (not aromantic-spectrum) people can experience immediately upon meeting someone, and demi people experience after having an emotional connection. So an allo person might meet someone and be like "oh they're nice and smart and interesting, I would like to go on a date with them and learn more" or "the idea of kissing them/doing on a date/holding their hand is appealing." Basically yeah, just finding the idea of doing romantic things with someone appealing. Defining it tends to be really hard as it's different for everyone. Like I said in one of the other asks tonight, it tends to be a "you know it when you see it" sort of thing. So then demi people experience that also but only after having an emotional connection. So it is more often then "my good friend who I care for very much, I would like to go on a date with them and do romantic things together." Love and crushes are more intense, deeper versions of romantic attraction. Both allo and demi people need time to develop either of these. It's very common for demi people to realize their romantic attraction to someone by discovering they have a crush, since by the point we're usually capable of having romantic attraction, that's also been enough time (well, knowing the person well enough) to develop a crush. That won't necessarily happen, but it's common. Platonic, sexual, sensual crushes are a different thing, and are just the other types of attraction equivalent of a romantic crush, with that same level of a bit more intense than just a casual platonic/sexual/sensual interest.

"many demiromantic people do not need as deep an emotional connection to be able to have romantic attraction. It varies a lot person-to-person. Some people need only a good, deep conversation to be interested in someone, or several more casual conversations like you would have with a classmate or co-worker" / "do alloromantic people feel romantic attraction from less?"

Yeah, often! I'd say in this community, having deep emotional connections from long friendships is the norm, but I think that's kind of skewed due to people who identify further towards the aromantic end of the spectrum being more likely to look into aromantic stuff and eventually label themselves as demi. I think a lot of people who think of themselves as allo would likely call themselves demi if they really considered it an option. But absolutely, not everyone is. If you think of dating apps, people are seeing profiles and having maybe a brief conversation and many are genuinely attracted to these people they effectively do not know. I don't think any of this is really enough for an emotional connection, unless it's texting for a fair bit longer or you get into deep things and connect that way. I use dating apps and I am interested in people based on this but it's only ever "they seem interesting and like someone I'd get along with and maybe that could turn into something so I'd consider meeting them" and not actual romantic interest. Like I don't want to hold hands or kiss on a date since I take months to develop romantic attraction and the most I can get from a date is enjoying their company platonically and enjoying flirting because flirting is fun and it could turn into something later if I wind up being romantically attracted. Whereas holding hands and kissing on first dates is really common for allo people. I think if a demi person had a great date and did really connect deeply, this could happen too, but I think a lot of allo people have good dates but don't develop full emotional connections. It's really kind of a "do you want to do things that, to you, feel romantic, with people you've just met, ever?" and that's kind of what determines whether or not you're demi. So for me, early stages of dating don't feel at all romantic, even if that's the eventual goal. But for allo people dating is a romantic thing most of the time, even if a lot of the time with first dates they're going through the motions a lot to just meet people and feel things out, but if very soon after meeting and without having developed a connection, they are interested in them in a romantic way, then that doesn't line up so much with being demi.

[demiromantic-daily]

i suddenly feel huge impostorism about not being bi enough. i've known i was ace since forever and realised i was bi+ while in the monog relationship i'm still in today, not by actually being romantically attracted to people but because i realised i could technically picture myself with a partner of any gender (i know the potential for attraction to more than one gender is a definition of bi). once i admitted that to myself i actually started feeling physical attraction to people, thinking i wasn't ace after all for a bit. everything fell apart when i learned about other kinds of attraction and realised the physical attraction wasn't sexual but sensual, more in a "i'd make out with this person" way than a hugging and cuddling way because the last 2 are romantic to me. that's also when i realised i'm on the aromantic spectrum because i only ever experienced romantic attraction to one person who ended up being my partner to this day. and now here's the thing. my bi attraction has become less defined kinda? it's less about kissing now and more just feeling drawn to someone based on appearance but it feels like more than what people describe as aesthetic attraction? the attraction i feel is also not really anything i feel an urge to act on, it's just there. idk maybe that's because i'm in a monog relationship so my brain shut itself off from that. when i feel that attraction it does feel decidedly queer/bi though idk. i'd also feel like a liar calling myself biromantic because despite the potential for attraction definition i've only ever felt romantic attraction once towards one gender. i feel like i'm not bi enough and like i'm just holding on to this identity even though it doesn't actually belong to me, like i'm just making it into more than it is because what if it's always been nothing more but aesthetic attraction, not actually me being bi, what if the queer feelings about this attraction are just me trying to convince myself i'm bi when i'm not.

Everything you're describing sounds like being bi to me. I kind of had the same thing except I did have sexual attraction to be able to point to as an example of feeling attracted to all genders. It's certainly harder when that attraction isn't sexual and not exactly romantic. But still perfectly valid! Like I said in one of the previous asks, my romantic attraction is pretty queerplatonic, and things don't land in that same area for you probably (especially since my desire to kiss people is very firmly only romantic) but it still makes perfect sense to call this bi. That feeling of "I can see myself with someone of any gender" is one I had a lot, though I waited until I had a for-sure crush on a girl before identifying as any kind of bi but I really didn't need to do that, I could have done it long before. I was just young and a bit insecure and queerness was new to me. I think many straight/gay people can have that same feeling of "I could be with someone of any gender" but it's more in the abstract a bit, like they'd be open to that happening, but generally it feels most right with whatever gender they're into. You can totally go for it and call yourself biromantic. Worst case scenario you wind up not being, and like that's totally fine, if that happens. I think generally gendered attraction tend to line up, no matter the type. When I was young and in Denial about being into women, I had this notion that I was romantically attracted to men but sexually attracted to women. Then it turned out I can be attracted in all ways to anyone and my romantic and sexual attraction were actually the same. Later my queerplatonic attraction lined up with that. I don't really experience other forms like sensual so can't speak to that, but I think for most people anything other than platonic attraction is most generally going to be the same genders as their other attractions. This won't be the case for everyone, but I think as a general rule, is very common.