About Omniaromanticism

[Storm_leopardcat]

Omniaromantic - Is someone who feels no romantic attraction whatsoever. In no way, shape, or form do they fall in love or feel any attraction to anyone.

They are completely non-romantic, and will not fall in love no matter how long they stay with someone or any other factor that could/would lead to a romantic interest in any other type of aromantic or alloromantic relationships. They do not wish to be in any romantic relationships,are not attracted to anyone. (Excepting experimentation.)

They are asensual, have no aesthetic attraction to others, and no squishes. They can experience platonic love or familial love, though not all do so.

This term was made to made a distinguish between being on the aromantic spectrum and specify from the common definition of a aromantic person, since saying someone is "aromantic" could mean they could be demiromantic, gray-aromantic, and such other types of aromantics who do feel sensual, have aesthetic attraction and such.

 

Got this from here: 

Anyone else want to discuss this? 

 

Also, for the third paragraph, why not write that they are asensual, anaesthetic, and aplatonic? Why write that they are asensual, have no aesthetic attraction to other, and do not have squishes?

And what does excepting experimentation mean? Last sentence, in brackets, of second paragraph. 

 

By that definition of Aromanticism, isn’t being Aromantic same as being on the aro-spec? 

 

What’s the difference between this term and being anattractional? 

[EGGHEAD]

okay this is actually something useful for me to consider

2 hours ago, Storm_leopardcat said:

By that definition of Aromanticism, isn’t being Aromantic same as being on the aro-spec? 

i think it depends on the individual, though i find that definition (one which i don't entirely agree with) more in the asexual community

2 hours ago, Storm_leopardcat said:

Also, for the third paragraph, why not write that they are asensual, anaesthetic, and aplatonic? Why write that they are asensual, have no aesthetic attraction to other, and do not have squishes?

i suppose that platonic attraction doesn't necessarily have to do with having squishes, idk

2 hours ago, Storm_leopardcat said:

And what does excepting experimentation mean? Last sentence, in brackets, of second paragraph. 

probably just means that relationships aren't always necessarily a no-go

2 hours ago, Storm_leopardcat said:

What’s the difference between this term and being anattractional? 

i mean it's probably the same. depends on interpretation, i guess

[illumi]

3 hours ago, EGGHEAD said:

i suppose that platonic attraction doesn't necessarily have to do with having squishes, idk

i have to add onto this by saying a squish is when youre strongly platonically attracted to someone; and develops a platonic equivalence as a crush. in this case they dont experience such strong attractions; only mild platonic love

6 hours ago, Storm_leopardcat said:

Omniaromantic - Is someone who feels no romantic attraction whatsoever. In no way, shape, or form do they fall in love or feel any attraction to anyone.

also that sounds like omniaspec and panaspec. though these two terms are more general i still find it neat 

[Storm_leopardcat]

7 hours ago, sevan said:

i have to add onto this by saying a squish is when youre strongly platonically attracted to someone; and develops a platonic equivalence as a crush. in this case they dont experience such strong attractions; only mild platonic love

also that sounds like omniaspec and panaspec. though these two terms are more general i still find it neat 

Huh, curious. Then is it possible to experience mild romantic love, and not strong romantic attraction? There must be a label for it.

11 hours ago, EGGHEAD said:

i suppose that platonic attraction doesn't necessarily have to do with having squishes, idk

By that logic, doesn't it mean that romantic attraction has nothing to do with having crushes?

To my understanding, squishes are (specific) people towards which you experience strong platonic attraction.

[illumi]

45 minutes ago, Storm_leopardcat said:

Huh, curious. Then is it possible to experience mild romantic love, and not strong romantic attraction? There must be a label for it.

uh. yeah. platonic attraction is not romantic and its a tertiary attraction. some aromantic people are capable of experiencing platonic attraction while of course not experiencing romantic attraction. the label here would be aromantic alloplatonic

46 minutes ago, Storm_leopardcat said:

By that logic, doesn't it mean that romantic attraction has nothing to do with having crushes?

To my understanding, squishes are (specific) people towards which you experience strong platonic attraction.

squishes are only considered squishes if you experience strong platonic attraction; id say the same to romantic attraction. if its mild and not strong enough to be a crush then its not. its merely romantic interest

[Storm_leopardcat]

3 minutes ago, sevan said:

uh. yeah. platonic attraction is not romantic and its a tertiary attraction. some aromantic people are capable of experiencing platonic attraction while of course not experiencing romantic attraction. the label here would be aromantic alloplatonic

I didn't say platonic attraction is romantic.

I meant as in there has to be a term/label for people who only experience mild romantic love, but not strong romantic attraction.

[illumi]

12 minutes ago, Storm_leopardcat said:

I didn't say platonic attraction is romantic.

I meant as in there has to be a term/label for people who only experience mild romantic love, but not strong romantic attraction.

grayromantic it is