Tagor

Primarily whatever is at the top in the wardrobe, and secondarily something boring as it's easiest if nobody notices you.

22

2070

For me it was basically the same as has been mentioned already. I mentally made a list of traits a partner should have and then went looking for a girl (because heteronormativity) that fit these (with the reasoning that "everybody seems to have somebody like that, and a close partner sounds good, so I better get going"). I think the shop metaphor nonmerci used is really good, as one of the main differences to "real" crushes seems to be that they're completely involuntary and not something you can actually conciously influence.

There's this server which is quite active (if you haven't found it yet): There's also arodynamics, I can send you the invite link if you want it

I calculated the percentage of people who haven't had a crush by the age of 14 (as those are the people who are likely to ask in this forum) but eventually are going to have a crush. There are 19 (15 to 20) + 7 (20+) + 31 (no crush) = 51 people who fall into this category, 26 of which eventually have a crush. So the percentage of people having a crush is 26/51 = 45.6% But as you said, it's a big difference if you have your first crush at 15/16 or 20, so the 19 in the 15-20 box are somewhat unreliable. This survey was just the first thing I found whilst googling for a statistic, and originally was only supposed to support the qualitative statement that there are people who have a crush after the age of 14. It was never intended for any kind of qualitative analysis, and frankly isn't really sound enough for it. If someone finds a better statistic I'll be glad to have it. (Though this poll being on AVEN has some benefits too, as it includes an "aromantic" option, most of the audience knows that not having had a crush is an option, and there are no people mistaking sexual attraction for a (romantic) crush) I think the reason it's mainly an issue for aro and ace people is because straight and gay people have a fixed point where they can say that feelings should have developed. The moment they do have a crush/fall in love/experience sexual attraction, they can somewhat reliably say that their body has changed enough that if they experience attraction to gender x, they'll notice it now or in a short time (as I think it is reasonable to assume that there aren't specific neural processes developing for attraction to each gender completely independently). So if they know they generally experience romantic or sexual attraction, but (as far as they know) only to a specific subgroup of people, it's relatively safe to assume this wont change dramatically. And I agree that at least some of people answering 20+likely are somewhere on the aromantic spectrum.

2015

I'd say that you can't rule out that you aren't biromantic (bisexual is a bit easier, as sexual attraction can be more reliably tested). Whether or not this has any results on how you behave is your own decision. (Or at least I would never say that somebody else is definitely not biromantic) According to the "survey" (which can only be seen as rough guidelines, as it is neither representative nor has a particularly large number of responses), 45% do not have a crush before the age of 14, and 27% of those that do eventually have a crush have their first crush after 14. Even more interestingly, 45% of those who haven't had a crush at age 14 eventually do have one. Those odds aren't that low. For yourself, you know best if you are aromantic, and I don't say that nobody can say with 100% that they are aromantic. My response was directed at why I wouldn't answer "yes, you are aromantic" but give a more nuanced reply probably involving the age/the passage of time in some form to a post roughly saying "Hello, I'm 14 yo and have never had a crush. Am I aromantic?".

Hey I'm super new to this party but honestly-- I've toiled and hemmed and hawwed over what romantic attraction is supposed to be, since literally no one can give me a solid definition (as opposed to sexual attraction, which is pretty easily described and physically experienced) but, like, honestly? This is a pretty solid definition. I've felt a lot of things for people, and they've been really confusing feelings because they fit the standards for romantic attraction. I like people a lot, I tend to worship people if I think they're cool, I get nervous around people I like, I find people attractive and get giggly when I do, I give people I like gifts, I go out of my way to spend time with them or help them out, and I spend time alone thinking about them if I like them or think they're attractive-- And none of those feelings or impulses are the result or or result in a desire for a romantic relationship with someone. That's the bottom line, and that's helped me out a lot when trying to figure out my identity. I'm sorry, I know this is more of a personal comment than a constructive one in terms of pinning down a definition like the rest of yall, but I just wanted to chip in my two cents. I feel like the problem with this definition is that it excludes everybody who is cupioromantic/romance positive aromantic. I personally am pretty sure I haven't experienced romantic attraction as defined by yet (and certainly not whilst seeing/being near the person in question). But I'd still like to at least try to have a romantic relationship; I have "an emotional response [(loneliness)] that results in a desire to have a romantic relationship with others".

I think that is a problem unique to aromanticism (and in parts to asexuality). As both are defined by the absence of something which itself is incredibly vague (there's a reason one of the pinned threads in Aromantic Discussion is trying to define Romantic Attraction and not really succeeding), there often are no specific events which increase the certainty that one is aromantic. It's like trying to prove there are no black swans (or trying to prove that conservation of energy is correct): The only thing you can say is "I guess I haven't had a crush yet. This puts me into the 95/99/99.99 percentile compared to my age cohort. As it is incredibly unlikely that this is pure chance, I'm going to say I'm aromantic." As a result, while age doesn't make aromanticism more valid, I feel like it makes it more certain. There are plenty of people who haven't had their first crush at age 12 or 14 ( https://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/23561-when-did-you-have-your-first-crush/ , not the best source, but I couldn't find anything better), so the general answer to somebody young asking about aromanticism on this forum is (or at least was when I was more active) "You could be aromantic, and it's ok to call yourself aromantic even if you aren't 100% sure about it. You can always reverse it later." In my opinion, often any other answer would be dishonest.

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about it. If you are not aromantic, you'll find out by having a crush eventually. Just don't pressure yourself to be in a relationship too much. (But I was enough of a nerd to not notice that "having a crush" was no longer a thing that only happened to older people until I was 14 or 15)

Ok, sorry, I didn't know there was a correct link in that thread now.

2013

5

I feel like there are a lot more posts by Guests now than there were when I joined in 2018. Has something changed or are there just more people who find this forum and don't want to make an account?