It definitely seems to be a category that isn't something that's actively measured for typically. Like, people can identify having no interest in sex pretty easily because it's a notable divergence from typical behavior, but romance is hard to see anyway, and an aromantic or demi-romsntic relationship still probably looks pretty similar to a lot of other relationships from the outside. Especially in the case if marriages that aren't entered into due to love, but due to things like shared parenthood, financial security, or just habit.

Because it's not immediately obvious whether or not this term would apply to what most would consider 'typical' relationships, it's a little harder to pin down what proportion of the population qualifies. It may be much closer to the norm than we'd assume, especially considering it seems to have been identified from a space that's examining the possibilities of human variety in relationships rather than attention being brought to it because of its accompanying struggle against some taboo or assumption.

Other people noticed that I was queer looong before I really had the words to make sense of any of that. To me I was just me, but to them I was this weird little aberration, and they were sure to let me know. Part of the identity and understanding that developed around those attributes were in opposition to this oppressive social force that insisted on a specific standard that I would never meet.

I honestly largely identify with a sort of demi-romantic perspective, and certainly with a demi-sexual one. Falling for people I already feel an emotional connection with it's certainly familiar. I feel the social pressure or expectation to prioritize sex and relationships from time to time, but I don't really feel the pressure of an impetus for romance in the same way.

Not to say that that invalidates it at all, but it does make me wonder if it's maybe a little closer to the baseline than some of those other factors we might explore.