A headless figure in a winter coat stands in a desert, above it floats a split-open, walnut-like object with a thin sprig on top, wrapped in a horizontal cloud

DESCRIPTION: ‘Nebularomantic’ describes people who find it difficult to distinguish between romantic and platonic attraction and who associate this experience with their neurodiversity. The origin of the term, the current state of research on alexithymia and autism, and the question of what a label can achieve.

Nebularomantic: a word for something hard to put into words

‘Nebularomantic’ is a self-description used by people who find it difficult to distinguish between romantic and platonic attraction and who link this experience to their neurodiversity. The term originates from online communities; it is not a clinical category and does not refer to any scientifically proven type of brain or orientation.

That is precisely why it is interesting. It raises a question that goes beyond the individual micro-label: what happens when an experience initially appears merely as confusion, overwhelm or personal failure – and is then given a name?

What ‘nebularomantic’ refers to

The widely accepted definition is on the LGBTQIA+ Wiki. According to this, ‘nebularomantic’ falls within the aromantic spectrum and refers to people who find it difficult or impossible to distinguish between romantic and platonic attraction, whilst recognising their neurodiversity as relevant to this experience. The entry defines the term as a self-identifier.

The prefix refers to the Latin word ‘nebula’: mist, haze, wisp or cloud. It denotes a lack of clarity whilst feelings are present. Closeness is present, as is affection perhaps, along with physical arousal or a desire for attachment. However, the question of whether this constitutes ‘being in love’, friendship, desire, admiration or something else cannot be answered unequivocally.

A parallel self-identification is ‘nebulasexual’, which refers to sexual attraction. Such terms give people words for experiences that don't fit conventional relationship vocabulary.

Nebularomantic is not a diagnosis. The term does not describe a diagnosed neuropsychological cause. Initially, it simply describes how someone currently characterises their own uncertainty or ambiguity regarding attraction.

Distinctions: nebulasexual, demisexual, quoiromantic

Nebularomantic overlaps with three related terms. They address different questions. One is whether a feeling can be named at all. The other is under what conditions it occurs.

Nebulasexual lies on the same continuum and relates to sexual attraction. A previous article on this blog classifies the term as part of the quoisexual spectrum. This means that sexual attraction as such cannot be identified. Both terms may apply to the same person, but need not. Someone may clearly recognise sexual attraction yet remain uncertain as to whether a connection is romantic or platonic. The reverse situation also occurs.

Demisexual and demiromantic describe something different. Here, attraction is recognisable as soon as it arises. It only develops once an emotional bond has grown. Demisexual people describe a sequence in which intimacy precedes desire.

The confusion arises because both groups can say, ‘At first, I don’t feel anything there’. For demisexual people, this is a statement about the timing; for nebularomantic people, it is a statement about the perceptibility of their own state, and this can remain the same even after years.

Quoiromantic, also known as WTFromantic, is another term. It refers to people for whom romantic and platonic closeness overlap, or for whom the distinction makes no sense, without any specific cause being claimed. In the Wiki classification system, nebularomantic is the variant that explicitly links this experience to neurodiversity. So, anyone who uses the word is not only describing it but also making an attribution, and research has so far failed to cover that attribution.

The origin of the word

No verifiable creator by name is known. The relevant Wiki entries document the term’s subsequent use, but themselves contain references to incomplete or non-editorially verified information. Older accounts of the term’s origins and the design of the associated flag are, in some cases, contradictory.

Micro-labels rarely originate in academic institutions, associations or publishing houses. They initially circulate in forums, on Tumblr, on Discord servers, on TikTok or in community image and text archives. Their history is therefore often fragmentary: a single post, a reused graphic, a profile since deleted, a term passed on without any identifiable author.

‘Nebularomantic’ likely belongs to the wave of terminology that has developed in Tumblr and MOGAI contexts since the early 2010s. MOGAI, originally a collective term for marginalised sexual orientations and gender identities, became a space of intense linguistic production during this period. There, terms relating to gender, attraction, relationships, and self-perception emerged, circulated, and evolved rapidly.

This context of emergence is significant. Many of these words were coined by young people who could not come to terms with conventional categories or who did not fit into them. In such situations, creating new language is an attempt to make experiences socially legible.

The background

‘Nebularomantic’ presupposes that romantic and sexual attraction can be distinguished. This assumption predates the micro-label. It was developed and disseminated within asexual and aromantic circles.

The Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN) was founded in 2001. The term ‘aromantic’ can be traced back to discussions there from the mid-2000s at the latest. The ‘Split Attraction Model’, now widely used, was consolidated later. It describes the possibility of treating sexual, romantic, aesthetic, emotional or platonic attraction as distinct from one another.

This differentiation initially served a practical purpose. A person may experience little or no sexual attraction and yet still be in love, seek a bond or desire a romantic relationship. Conversely, someone may experience sexual attraction without desiring romantic love or a couple relationship. Without this distinction, different experiences would be subsumed under a single term.

In a 2020 study involving asexual people, Antonsen and colleagues found that a large proportion of respondents reported romantic attraction, whilst another proportion did not. This does not yet support every single category of the Split Attraction Model. However, it does highlight why the separation of sexual and romantic attraction has become necessary for some people for descriptive purposes. A single word for ‘orientation’ is not always sufficient.

The model is, however, a language people can use to describe differences, rather than a scientific classification system of desire. Like any language, it can be helpful, remain too broad, or become too nuanced.

What the science says

No research exists on ‘nebularomantic’ itself, no representative surveys on its prevalence, no confirmed diagnostic criteria, and no studies demonstrating a specific link between this micro-label and particular neuropsychological characteristics.

Nevertheless, experience remains true. A distinction must, however, be made between a described experience and a scientifically established category.

Research does exist on individual phenomena that may underlie such a self-description for some people. These include, in particular, alexithymia. The term refers to difficulty identifying one’s own emotional states, distinguishing between them, and putting them into words. The emotions are present; it is simply not easy to determine their nature, intensity and significance.

A meta-analysis of 15 studies found that, within the groups examined, people on the autism spectrum were significantly more likely to have difficulty recognising and putting their own feelings into words. Around 50 out of 100 participants on the autism spectrum achieved scores in the studies that indicated pronounced alexithymia. In the control groups without autism, the figure was around 5 out of 100. However, the results vary from study to study because different groups were examined and different questionnaires and cut-off points were used.

It is important to note that alexithymia is not the same as autism. It is more common among people with autism, but does not affect everyone. Conversely, people without autism may also have difficulty recognising, distinguishing or naming their own feelings.

Bird and Cook have suggested that some of the differences in emotional processing that are generally attributed to autism may be linked to co-occurring alexithymia. This alexithymia hypothesis represents an important correction to earlier deficit-based narratives. However, it does not allow for the reverse conclusion that all emotional or social differences in autistic people can be attributed to alexithymia.

Research on interoception is also only indirectly relevant here. Interoception refers to the experience of internal bodily signals: heartbeat, breathing, tension, tiredness, nausea, warmth, hunger or arousal. In their sample, Shah and colleagues found that alexithymia was a better predictor of interoceptive difficulties than an autism diagnosis. This contradicts the simplistic claim that interoceptive problems are necessary or exclusively ‘autistic’. However, it does not prove that romantic attraction is therefore difficult to recognise.

Several levels lie between bodily signals and self-description. A rapid heartbeat can signify joy, fear, sensory overload, sexual arousal, social tension, curiosity or the pressure of expectation. Whether someone concludes from this that they are in love depends not only on interoception but also on life experiences, cultural relationship scripts, previous relationships, language and the specific situation.

Alexithymia and interoceptive difficulties can, for some people, create a context in which distinguishing one’s own emotional states is made more difficult. Whether this specifically affects the distinction between romantic and platonic attraction has not yet been investigated.

Autism, sexual orientation and self-description

Research has found that, within autistic samples, self-identification outside heterosexual or conventional orientation categories is more common. In 2018, Rita George and Mark Stokes conducted an online survey of 309 autistic and 310 non-autistic participants. In their sample, 69.7 per cent of autistic respondents described themselves as non-heterosexual, compared with 30.3 per cent in the control group.

In 2021, Elizabeth Weir, Carrie Allison, and Simon Baron-Cohen studied 2,386 adolescents and adults, including 1,183 autistic people. In this study, autistic women and men were more likely to report identifying as asexual or belonging to an ‘other’ orientation category.

These findings are relevant, but their scope is limited. Both studies rely on self-reported data and self-selected, non-representative samples. They do not investigate whether people can distinguish between romantic and platonic attraction. Nor do they provide evidence of a neurobiological cause for certain orientations.

In certain online samples of people on the autism spectrum, there is therefore a higher likelihood that individuals will describe their orientation as falling outside conventional categories. Many factors may explain this. Possible explanations include different patterns of experience, a weaker attachment to conventional social scripts, a greater willingness to engage in self-reflection, or easier access to community-specific language. The studies cannot conclusively distinguish between these possibilities.

Nevertheless, this is not without significance for the question of ‘nebularomantic’. If people categorise their experiences differently, weigh them differently, or feel less bound by conventional categories, this is socially and psychologically relevant, even if no new diagnosis can be derived from it.

What a word achieves

A word makes an experience communicable, but in doing so it also alters it. Yet this does not explain its causes.

Anyone who can say, ‘I cannot tell for certain whether this is romantic or platonic attraction’, no longer needs to interpret this ambiguity as a weakness of will, emotional immaturity or a personal shortcoming. The statement becomes more concrete. It can be explained, discussed within a relationship or explored in psychotherapy.

This is a significant advantage. The social illegibility of the experience exacerbates many psychological burdens. What cannot be named easily appears chaotic, embarrassing or wrong. In this sense, self-labelling can provide relief, because it shifts an experience from the realm of nameless deficiency into the realm of communicable diversity.

In any case, a label cannot be confirmed or refuted. Further questions include:

· What forms of closeness are experienced as pleasant, oppressive or unclear?

· What physical, emotional and mental signals arise in encounters?

· Which expectations regarding relationships, exclusivity, sexuality or being in love create pressure?

· Which desires can be articulated despite uncertainty?

· Which boundaries need to be clearly communicated, even if one’s own self-interpretation remains provisional?

One concept can open the door to such questions.

The looping effect

The philosopher Ian Hacking has described how classifications of people function differently from classifications of minerals or animal species. People experience how they are categorised. They can adopt, reject, reinterpret, use strategically or protest against a category. This alters their experience, and with it the category's meaning. Hacking referred to this reciprocal relationship as the ‘looping effect’.

Micro-labels illustrate this dynamic in an accelerated form. A term is proposed, taken up by others, depicted visually, categorised in lists, criticised, redefined and disseminated via social media. Its meaning does not arise at a single point of origin, nor does it remain static there. It is created through its use.

No identity is inauthentic simply because it is linguistically conveyed through a self-designation. People can only understand and communicate their experiences using the words available to them. New words expand this repertoire.

A term can reduce shame, foster belonging, and enhance understanding. However, it can also become a rigid mould that dismisses tentative questions too quickly. This depends on whether the label is used as a flexible description or as a definitive definition of essence.

Why mockery is inappropriate

The usual dismissal of micro-labels, particularly from mainstream medicine, goes like this: made-up identities, attention-seeking, ‘Tumblr nonsense’. This reaction misses the mark for several reasons.

First, it confuses the lack of scientific validation of a term with the non-existence of the experience it refers to. The fact that there is no research on ‘nebular romance’ does not mean that people cannot experience difficulty in distinguishing between romantic and platonic closeness.

Secondly, the mockery often implies an intention for which it has no evidence. Those seeking a word to describe a distressing or confusing experience often want language that reduces self-reproach and facilitates difficult communication.

Third, the mockery itself rests on an unfounded view of science. It presupposes that there is a correct, limited number of permissible self-descriptions. No objective standard supports this. Terms may be poorly chosen, incomprehensible, redundant or socially unworkable. This does not mean people should not be allowed to coin new terms.

It is also documented that, in online conflicts over MOGAI and micro-labels, troll and fake accounts have invented or exaggerated terms to ridicule queer communities. This circumstance calls for critical evaluation of sources. However, it does not justify treating every unusual self-description as deception or mockery.

Collectivisation mania

The opposing position is no better either. If every minor difference immediately becomes a fixed identity category, language can obscure what it is meant to describe. Then, the management of terms takes the place of the question of what a person actually experiences, seeks, fears or wishes to agree upon with others.

Distinction may be necessary. The problem arises when a category is treated as a complete explanation.

‘I am nebularomantic’ can be a helpful first statement. It should not automatically be the last. The sentence can mean: ‘I need time to understand my feelings of closeness.’ It can also mean: ‘I don’t know if I want a romantic relationship.’ Or: ‘I’d like a relationship, but the familiar terms don’t fit.’ Or: ‘I feel a connection, but I can’t predict how it will develop.’

These statements are not the same. A micro-label can make them visible, but cannot replace them.

Attraction is also not a measurable quantity. It changes with relationship experience, life stage, stress, psychological strain, security, social context and the specific person involved. A self-description may therefore remain provisional. It does not need to be cast into a definitive identity to be valid.

What a label does not answer

‘Nebularomantic’ answers the question of how someone currently describes their own ambiguity. It does not answer what that person wants from another person.

It does not answer:

· Whether closeness is desired.

· Whether sexuality is desired, possible or uncomfortable.

· Whether a romantic, friendly, open or exclusive relationship is being sought.

· What level of commitment is possible.

· How to communicate uncertainty without leaving the other person in the dark.

· What happens when two people have different wishes.

These questions remain unanswered even with a well-chosen label. In romantic relationships, they are more crucial than the question of whether one’s self-description is perfectly defined in conceptual terms.

In the context of neurodiversity, this can create a particular strain. Many social environments demand a quick and unambiguous answer about feelings: ‘Are you in love? Do you want a relationship? Is this friendship or something more?’ This demand can be overwhelming if one’s own feelings only become apparent late, in a different way, or are not clearly discernible.

A term such as ‘nebularomantic’ can temporarily ease the pressure. It allows one to say: ‘I don’t yet know how to express this in the categories you expect.’ However, the task of communication remains: desires, boundaries, uncertainty and possible changes must be discussed with one’s partner.

The key points in brief

• ‘Nebularomantic’ is a micro-label from online communities for people who find it difficult to distinguish between romantic and platonic attraction and who link this experience to their neurodiversity.

• The term is not a diagnosis, not a medically recognised category of sexual orientation, and not evidence of a specific neurological cause.

• No research exists on ‘nebularomantic’ itself. Its origins, exact authorship and early history are only fragmentarily documented.

• Alexithymia describes difficulties in recognising, distinguishing and verbalising one’s own emotional states. It occurs more frequently in the autism samples studied, but does not universally explain autism and does not indicate a specific difficulty with romantic attraction.

• Internal signals are ambiguous. Biographical, social and linguistic processes lie between bodily sensations and the interpretation ‘I am in love’.

• Studies find that, in certain online samples of people on the autism spectrum, self-descriptions outside heterosexual and conventional orientation categories are more common. However, they do not measure ‘nebulous romance’ nor its causes or prevalence.

• A micro-label can make a diffuse experience communicable, reduce shame and facilitate the negotiation of relationships.

• A label becomes problematic only when it is intended to replace open self-reflection or concrete communication about desires, boundaries, and commitment.

• The crucial factor is whether a word facilitates understanding. Mocking unusual self-descriptions and demanding ever more nuanced self-classification misses the point.

Sources

· LGBTQIA+ Wiki: ‘Nebularomantic’

· LGBTQIA+ Wiki: ‘Nebulasexual’

· AUREA: Splitting Attraction: A History of Discussing Orientation

· Antonsen, A. N., Zdaniuk, B., Yule, M., Brotto, L. A.: ‘Ace and Aro: Understanding Differences in Romantic Attractions Among Persons Identifying as Asexual.’ Archives of Sexual Behaviour 49, 2020, pp. 1615–1630.

· Kinnaird, E., Stewart, C., Tchanturia, K.: “Investigating Alexithymia in Autism: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.” European Psychiatry 55, 2019, pp. 80–89.

· Bird, G., Cook, R.: “Mixed Emotions: The Contribution of Alexithymia to the Emotional Symptoms of Autism.” Translational Psychiatry 3, 2013, e285.

· Shah, P., Hall, R., Catmur, C., Bird, G.: “Alexithymia, Not Autism, Is Associated with Impaired Interoception.” Cortex 81, 2016, pp. 215–220.

· George, R., Stokes, M. A.: “Sexual Orientation in Autism Spectrum Disorder.” Autism Research 11, 2018, pp. 133–141.

· Weir, E., Allison, C., Baron-Cohen, S.: “The Sexual Health, Orientation, and Activity of Autistic Adolescents and Adults.” Autism Research 14, 2021, pp. 2342–2354.

· Hacking, I.: ‘Making Up People.’ London Review of Books 28, No. 16, 2006.

· Hacking, I.: “Kinds of People: Moving Targets.” Proceedings of the British Academy 151, 2007, pp. 285–318.