Romantically attracted to men but sexually attracted to women?

Again, there's no credible evidence anywhere to support the idea that romantic and sexual orientation can be separate. Most commonly, when someone describes this, it is part of the 'bargaining' stage of the process of accepting one's same-sex attraction. As we process any loss, (in this case, loss of perception as straight), there are stages we go through, denial-anger-bargaining-grief-acceptance, in processing that loss. The bargaining stage allows partial acceptance of same-sex attraction while not discarding the perception of opposite-sex attraction.

Most of the time, when someone indicates they are "sexually" attracted to one sex while "romantically" attracted to the other, it's that sort of bargaining process going on. There's another term for "romantic attraction" that is likely more accurate, and that's "emotionally intimate friendship". Most gay men, for example, have female BFFs that they are very close to... but these are friendships, not "romantic attraction".

It's also quite common that as someone comes to terms with their same sex attraction, that attraction to the same sex increases, while attraction to the opposite sex decreases. This is basically a byproduct of developing acceptance by the unconscious.

I hope that helps.

 

I don't know where you're pulling this information from, but it does not match anything I've seen in terms of widely accepted understanding, nor does it match the terms as they seem to be most commonly used on EC.

Certainly one can have strong sexual attraction that is very primal to someone that they don't feel a real emotional connection with. But when people here on EC write about "romantic attraction" they are nearly always talking about someone that they like to spend time with, and feel a deep emotional bond to, but have zero interest in having sex with. This is why a more accurate term is probably "emotionally intimate friendship."

The SAM is another of those things that is pretty much evidence- and research-free. One inherent problem is that an asexual person (if we're using the widely-used definition used by professionals) doesn't have attraction, so it therefore cannot be split. I'm sure there's a splinter group that (again, without any evidence) believes otherwise, but just because I believe the sky is chartreuse doesn't make it so.

 

Actually, no. I'm not talking about "romance" in the commonly used sense of the word, I'm using it in the context of people who talk about the difference between romantic and sexual attraction (which, actually, cannot be separated, as I said above.) Those folks, when they describe "romantic attraction" talk about having a deep sense of caring and connection, but absolutely zero interest in sexual connection with someone.

While I agree with you that this isn't an accurate definition of "romance" or "romantic attraction" in an ordinary sense, in the context of attempting to separate it from sexual attraction, the above definition is the one that is used... which is why it's a wholly inaccurate term that actually describes emotionally intimate friendship.

 

I hear what you're saying. THe issue is, it isn't relevant to the discussion about the (nonexistent) separation between "romantic orientation" (as it is commonly referred to here at EC, when we're actually talking about "emotionally intimate friendship) and "sexual orientation" as the issue is commonly discussed.

For EC's community, a discussion of "romantic love" where the term is used in a different way than people are commonly using is it simply going to further confuse people, so my strong preference would be for you to let this go, since it in no way helps the ongoing discussion.

 

For the 500th time, the standard definition doesn't matter here. That isn't what we are talking about, because that is not the terminology as it is being used to distinguish between so-called "romantic" attraction and sexual attraction.

I really don't know what else to tell you to get this message across. Complaining that the term isn't being used correctly isn't helpful, because we at EC have to work with the terminology our members are using.

I don't disagree with what you're saying at all, but the argument is pointless because in order to help people, we have to understand what they are talking about, on their terms. The point you are making does the opposite.

Please get over it and stop arguing a point that is only confusing people and muddying the waters.