Mark

With the possible exception of alloromantic asexuals, there's virtually no recognition that varioriented people even exist. As well as non-sexual romantic relationships often being socially acceptable whilst non-romantic sexual typically are not (especially any intended to be serious and/or long lasting).

within the aro community the concept of platonic attraction can be rather lionised and romanticised.To the point that people end having to ask "Can I be aromantic if I don't experience squishes, want a QPR, relate to the concept, etc?" Thus it needs to be stated that "aromantic ≠ alloplatonic". Outside of aro spaces virtually nobody talks about "platonic attraction" at all. It's also notable that non-romantic forms of attraction such as sexual, physical/sensual, emotional and aesthetic which are well understood by mainstream psychology are often overlooked in aro forums.

The best option would be to go with as few expectations as possible. Since how these kind of events actually play out can depend very much on the people there. Especially the organisers/facilitators.

Since QPR is an umbrella term, it will end up being used to describe relationships which are romance like and/or pseudo-romantic as well as those which are different. Very often depictions of OPRs, especially in mainstream media, are of coupled relationships. Which especially if they are also hetero, mongamous, cohabiting/marital, etc have little to tell apart from amantonormative ones.

It's notable that they didn't ask the preteens about romantic content. Especially given that romantic content falls out of the scope of classification/rating systems. With the result that it is as ubiquitous in children's TV and movies as anywhere else in popular Western culture. Also it's unclear if this asked about non-romantic sex. Thus may do nothing to address the lack of allo aro representation. Even, potentially, exacerbate the existing conflation of aro with ace.

The essential problem with this is notion is reverse causation. It would be virtually impossible for anyone who lives, and grows up, in a highly amantonormative society who isn't highly romance positive to avoid negative experiences with romance. Since romance is ubiquitous to the point that it takes considerable effort to find novels, comic books, movies, plays, TV series, popular music, etc which are free of romantic content/propaganda. It's worth noting that this kind of quest for a reason why tends to be rather selective. Rarely is it asked "Why are cis people cis?"; "Why are heterosexual/allosexual people heterosexual/allosexual?"; "Why are heteroromantic/alloromantic people heteroromantic/alloromantic?"; "Why are perioriented people perioriented?". Possibly better questions to asked would be "Why do most people stop being quoigender around the age of three?"; "Why do most people stop being quoiromantic in middle childhood?" and "Why do most people stop being quoisexual at puberty?"

Romantic coding. Non-romantic relationships outside of QPRs. Especially those involving sexual, sensual and aesthetic attractions. How a lot of "aro" terminology was coined by asexuals and/or in an asexual-centric community. Thus can have romance and sex conflation issues.

The first question is an example of complex question fallacy. These are unanswerable when any of the assumed preconditions conditions are false. (These can go unnoticed when these assumptions are commonly true. Contrast "What kind of food do you buy for your pet cat?" against "What kind of food do you buy for your pet capybara?") The second one is is a false dichotomy, another common fallacy.

The attitudes of people towards "love" in the past can be quite different to the lionisation of romance. Mania being seen as almost universally negative. Eros being seen as mixed. Philia, storge, ludus & pragma positive, but not necessarily obligatory/expected. Philautia highly positive. Agape also highly positive. In Christianity, and possibly other religious, associated with God. (A "nice person" could well be seen as expressing agape.)

Just as problematic is the way in which it's not uncommon for many parts of the aro community to lionise (and romanticise) the likes of platonic attraction, squishes, Queer Platonic Relationships, Platonic Life Partnerships, etc. Often implying that "platonic attraction" is more than sexual, physical/sensual, other emotional, aesthetic, intellectual or other non-romantic attractions. With QPR definitions often using a notion of relationship/attraction hierarchy similar to that which underpins amantonormativity. Aromantic people can be aplatonic, quoiplatonic, greyplatonic, demiplatonic, etc as well as alloplatonic. Unfortunately alloplatonic can often be a default assumption, even though it may only apply to a minority of aros. Also far too common in aro spaces and material is the false dichotomy of "romantic or platonic". Which erases a large set of other possibilities. Especially in the contexts of attraction and relationships.

This is somewhat different from the way regular psychology tends to define attraction: Romantic Sexual Physical/Sensual Emotional (of which Platonic is only a subset) Aesthetic Intellectual Most notably that both Romantic and Sexual are seen as entirely their own things rather than part of another attraction.

Also possible confusion between romantic, sexual and romo-sexual attraction. Since the colloquial usage of "crush" does not distinguish between these attractions. Even though they appear to develop at different ages. With physical/sensual, emotional, aesthetic and intellectual attractions often being overlooked and/or conflated with romantic.

In practice it's LGBTQ+ gatekeepers who tend to see aros as 'straight'. Even though they can experience homophobia. Since homophobes often look for an absence of hetero-romantic behaviour. (Romance tends to be public and sex tends to be private.)

These links are also useful for debunking when teenagers are told they are "too young to know".

The notion of "brain gender" looks to have been quite effectively debunked. Exactly, the post appears to have very little to do with romance. Which kind of ironic since the phrase "What women really want" has been used to sell the notion that (heterosexual) women should be hyper-romantic.

There's this article which suggests that alloromantics tend to develop attraction between 6 and 9 and allosexuals tend to develop sexual attraction between 10 and 13. There's another giving an age of 7. This one suggests as young as 5 (or less).

I've never understood monogamy or couple culture. Even as a child I was bemused and confused as to why groups of two were so lionised. As well as the phrase "two's company, three's a crowd".

Likely they also take advantage of the self imposed social isolation from those in romantic relationships neglecting their other relationships. The romantic coding of emotional support often also comes entangled with gendered expectations. An issue with anything romantic coded, for both allos and aros, is that attempting the whatever outside of a romantic context is taboo. Especially for someone in a romantic relationship. In parts of the world where the concept of Common law marriage exists the state may consider cohabitation as equivalent to marriage when it comes to welfare/benefits payments. Though only for households consisting of a "man" and a "woman". Of course most of the laws surrounding marriage predate romantic marriage and amantonormativity.

Romantic coding applies to any activity or behaviour which is assumed to only take place in a romantic context. Examples include sex, kissing, hand holding, dating, candle lit diners, quality time, emotional support. This creates barriers to aros being able to do (or even attempt) these things. (As well as meaning that allos can feel obliged to do them with their romantic partners.)

The term "Social/platonic orientation" is likely conflating, at least, two different things. Outside of aro (and possibly ace) spaces nobody talks about "platonic attraction". When it is mentioned it's more about squishes, QPRs, etc. Not infrequently lionising romanticising these, as well as assuming that aromantic implies alloplatonic. (The only platonic orientation which tends to ever actually be mentioned is aplatonic, however.) When it comes to mainstream psychology attraction tends to be broken down into Sexual, Romantic, Physical/Sensual, Emotional, Aesthetic and (sometimes) Intellectual. Whilst Emotional might also be described as Social it's applicable to non-platonic relationships, such as romantic and familial, as much as to platonic ones.

This is what "romantic coding" looks like.

There is "too young to know if you are aroamntic". However it's also "too young to know if you are heteroromantic or alloromantic in general" and "(much) too young to be using social media without adult supervision". Something like six or less.

There can also be a lot sex negativity within aro (and aspec) spaces. Other issues include: Assuming aro ace experiences work as general aro experiences. Lionisation and/or romanticisation of (queer) platonic relationships. Whilst failing to even mention sexual friendships or FWB type

How and when (in terms of age) did you discover you experienced romantic attraction? How would you react to someone who was only sexually (or only romantically) attracted to you? Assuming you were both romantically and sexually attracted to them. Do you tend to dump your friends if you get into a romantic relationship? What do you feel about marriage?

Something important is busting myths and stereotypes. Such as: Aros can be of any sexual orientation, rather than just asexual. Maybe specifically mention that this includes (cis) heterosexual women a demographic who are often stereotyped as hyper romantic. Aros have a varied set of attitudes towards romantic coded activities such as hugging, kissing, hand holding, dating, etc. Rather all aros being indifferent and/or repulsed by all of these. Nor do attitudes towards doing romantically coded activities necessarily correlate to "romance repulsion". Not all aros experience "squishes". Some aros even find the concept baffling. Similarly, there's a large variation when it comes to "platonic attraction". Including "what even is that?". Aro opinions towards being in Queer Platonic Relationships and Platonic Life Partnerships vary hugely between highly favourable and highly repulsed. Using the term "platonic" to mean "non romantic", rather than "non sexual", is far from universal amongst aros. (Even those in the USA).