I have a question. But I don’t know who to direct it to. So I’m just going to post it and see if I get any responses. 

I’ve been reading and researching on all the different types of romantic and sexualities. Such as a panromantic (able to fall in love/have romance with any type of person) or bisexual (able to have sexual attraction towards either “males” or “females”) etc etc etc. 

There seems to be a rising trend on my dash of discussing asexuality and demisexuality. Asexuality in that they are not interested in sexual activity at all. Demisexual in that they are only interested in it once they’ve developed a deep emotional connection to someone. 

((If my definitions are off please correct me in a kind manner.)) 

Recently someone was discussing what type romantic and sexuality characters from something were. And I began to think. 

I understand asexuality, on a mental level at least. As much as I can understand something without being it. And I totally accept and respect it as a form of sexuality. But I’ve seen people make comments that (in a much shorter form here) basically say “Well I can understand being asexual its ok because you can still fall in love.” 

But. What I want to know is… What about an aromantic person? 

What if you had someone who was a-romantic (unable to feel deep emotional attraction to other humans) but pansexual (able to have sexual attraction to any other human.) 

Basically someone who enjoys sex but can’t make the supposed deep emotional connection that everyone is supposedly able to do. 

Is that ok too? 

I mean I guess in the long run whatever you are ok with in regards to yourself is what matters. But people seem to have opinions and definitions of everything else, I want to know about this. 

And what if I said sometimes I feel like I might be aromantic? Or maybe I just can’t believe in it. I don’t know.

I don’t know if this even makes sense.