Mark

I wonder if an possible factor is that these make extensive use of social learning. With autistic people often experiencing social exclusion form an early age and/or this just isn't a good learning style for us.

It was difficult to pick options which seemed reasonable whilst avoiding having a huge list. I think that wanting friendships which different from the socially normative is fairly common amongst aros. Though there might be huge variation in terms of what those differences are. Something I can find difficult to get across to allos is that waning some friendships to be "purely platonic" is not the same as wanting all of them to be that way... What I was intending to get over was something along the lines of "Doing things where there's a social assumption that they only (should) happen in a romantic relationship without there being any romance being involved."

I found these to be interesting reads. Is this what you meant about personal narratives rather than lists of labels?

Whilst it can seem like every aro wants a QPR this, self evidently, isn't the case. So I think it's important to find out what people actually do want.

Maybe also like a specific word for "being uninterested in becoming a Cheondoist". Curiously something can be both normative and a minority pursuit. Such as marriage and nuclear families in many industrialised countries currently. There do appear to be people who believe (or want to believe) that this is a thing. I think partly due to respectability politics and partly wanting an "aros are/do this" type definition. Which goes back to the original post about the "default aro". Along with how many want/desire/pursue them. The "don't worry..." bit most definitely looks like Respectability Politics. Though even beyond that QPRs seem lionised or (ironically) romanticised over and above other kinds of non-romantic relationships. I was quite surprised when a ran a poll about squishes how few of those who responded experience them. As with QPRs you can get the impression that they are something which applies to most aros. With sexual, sensual, aesthetic, etc "crush analogs" being mentioned a lot less often. I think it depends. If QPRs and squishes are things experienced by a minority of aros there might be little need for a word to describe people who don't.

I found a few references to kalossexual. Many of which describe it in similar ways to cupiosexual, such as Urban Dictionary. Though few of them also mention cupiosexual. There was this tumblr post, with dead links unfortunately, which suggests that the coiner of the term might have misunderstood the meaning of "kalos" (καλός). (Maybe it's another reference to Plato.) Another possibly related term on the second list is "Iculasexual/Icularomantic". Here the Urban Dictionary entry does link the former with sex positivity. As well as the other obscure term "pothisexuality". Something which would definitely help here would be indicating that cupio is a Latin term which can be translated as desire/want/wish for/favour/crave/etc. As well as commentary about many of the other prefixes used for terms on these lists, including why they were chosen.

I'm wondering if an alloromantic cupiosexual (or sex favourable ace in general) might be rather "invisible". In the sense that a normative romosexual relationship might work well for them, even though their motivation differs from that of an alloromantic allosexual. Similarly a cupioromantic (or romance favourable aro) allosexual could find a normative relationship to be "good enough" for them. Ditto for someone who's cupioromantic and cupiosexual. Whilst an aromantic cupiosexual might seek relationships which are sexual and non-romantic. Especially if they are romance repulsed. Maybe similar to an aromantic allosexual. (Where there's, also, a lack of suitable resources.) With a cupiroromantic asexual seeking something romantic and non-sexual. Especially if they are sex repulsed. Maybe similar to an alloromantic asexual. In looking up the Primary vs. secondary sexual attraction model, falsely attributed to Rabger, I found the radar chart model of attraction. With, yet another, definition of "platonic attraction". The definitions of several of the terms being different from those common now. Then it gets changed to add "sexual desire". Also changing the definitions of "Sexual Attraction" to those which are more familiar. (They probably should have done the same with "romantic attraction".) This is a rather complicated model without considering the following: Where does "quoi" fit on the 0-7 scale? (Maybe -1 or i.) Is "Physical" the same as "Sensual".? Can "Aesthetic", "Platonic","Physical", etc. be meaningfully divided into "Primary" and "Secondary"? Are the categories comprehensive, mutually exclusive and exhaustive? Is there consensus about the definitions? Obvious difficulty is thinking up a good set of appropriate options. I may have a go later. No obvious response exactly "Well that sucks!". I'm wondering if this "reinvention" is, in some ways, the result of lack of good first person narratives and communities.

Looking at this I'm wondering if the issue isn't about the labels. Though some of them are very messy. So much as the "default assumption" itself or maybe that there is one. I feel there's also a "squish problem" along with a "platonic attraction problem", possibly a few others. It's meaning "sexual" is the regular meaning. With using it to mean "romantic" being either neologism or jargon. Which needs to be a neologism. Since terms like celibacy and chastity do exclude sexual relationships. Possibly what's needed is a term (or several) for non-romantic sexual relationships... There does appear to be an overfocus on QPRs. There's also questions of what do aros actually want in terms of relationships. Even non sexual touching can be highly romantic coded.

A fair point. On the other hand there are few, if any, humans currently living in the "wilderness of nature". The question being if there are forms of society where the social model is not applicable? It's certainly possible for nomadic hunter gatherers to include the physically disabled.

There would be a big difference to a society which was against pair bonding vs one which was indifferent to it. With the former being just as oppressive as those which expect everyone to do it.

There might be issues which apply only to aros or which affect aros and allos differently. Additionally there's the complication that not all aros are single or childfree. Something I noticed about this Are You Single at Heart? questionnaire is that the first question is effectively asking "Extrovert or introvert" and some of the other questions look to contain logical fallacies.

It sounds like you are experiencing infantilisation, thus ableism, as well as arophobia. As you have correctly concluded autistic people are not "behind" NTs in terms of development of romantic orientation. (Ditto for sexual orientation and gender identity.) It isn't everyone. So much as those who are saying are most noticeable. These people would be best ignored. If you follow the Social model of disability it's not the case that disabled people wanting to be "fixed" so much as disabled people wanting to be treated as equal with the abled. Not all people without, functional, legs would want to have a cloned or bionic limbs. Similarly for blind, deaf or paraplegic people. Also the case for the idea of changing autistic people into neurotypicals; aromantics into allo(hetero)romantics; homo/bi/asexuals into heterosexuals; trans people into cis people; etc.

It can even happen that young people who identify as cis, straight, marriage minded, etc. get praised as "mature". Similarly such people are rarely asked questions like "What do you think caused your heterosexuality, alloromanticism or cis identity?" or " When and how did you first decide you were a heterosexual, alloromantic or cis gender?". (Typically when this does happen they are being asked by a queer person to illustrate the double standard.)

It's possible for homophobes to use similar reasoning... There are also related issues of romantic consent (including if romance should have an "age of consent") and romantic content warnings/ratings.

One of the ways in which arophobia can manifest is as singlism. As this kind of study shows many people remain oblivious to (or justify/excuse) it even when directly contrasted with other forms of discrimination. This, undoubtedly, includes those who are on the receiving end of it. Along with "debates" if aros (especially those who are heterosexual) are "queer enough". In the case of marriage I feel that what's often been overlooked in political advocacy is the "expectation"/"obligation" side of amantonormativity. Many therapists appear to be strongly of the view of everything being "personal". So possibly unlikely to even recognise something like Minority stress especially in connection to an "invisible minority". Though there is some recognition of society in relation to mental health. The curious thing is that often romantic things are quite public very much so in comparison with sex. This can also apply to religion. Since aromanticism is defined by an absence of something (romantic attraction) the result is a fairly diverse group of people. The "loudest" narrative, especially online, may not be the most representative. There seem be very few of these... I do feel oppressed. With virtually all off the discrimination being indirect. Which is often the hardest to challenge, especially when institutionalised, since it looks like treating everybody equally. My experience include being assumed to be ace; being disbelieved when I say that I like various romantic coded things; being seen as unreasonable/irrational expressing frustration about amantonormativity.

There might be some useful information on the Unmarried Equality website. These issues are becoming more obvious as marriage declines. These can include the less obvious things like lack of promotion. It might be phrased as "not being a team player". e.g. the likes of failing to turn up to a workplace social as a couple. Also romantic relationships are very much public. Education needs to be a lot broader than just schools (and children). Something which can be an issue here is Skin Hunger which I'm not sure that highly platonic "community/resource centres" are going to be able to address. For many aros their social needs can include romantic coded activities. Thus there needs to be inclusion in respect of these. The other problem is that alloromantics frequently seek romantic partners everywhere they go. Which could mean that aros will still be at disadvantage, especially romance repulsed ones. Also why the "alcohol free" bit?

Looking for "definition of aplatonic" only returns definitions for "platonic". Looking for "platonic" gives various definitions. Urban Dictionary LGBTA Wiki Asexuality Blog (tumblr) The term appears to have a third, rather misanthropic, usage. Apparently related to using "platonic" as a synonym for "friendship". Even with different antonyms to "platonic attraction" and "queerplatonic attraction" there's still the problem of huge ambiguity.

Searching for "definion of aplatonic" returns only definitions of "platonic", which isn't useful at all. Searching for "definition of platonic attraction" returns Which comes from this Quora post. Also found are the Wikipedia entry on Platonic love; the Urban Dictionary definition of platonic love and and AVEN forum post on the distinction between platonic and romantic attraction. There appears to be little consensus when it comes to the meaning of the term. As well as conflation between "attraction" and "love". Searching for "definition of queerplatonic attraction" returns Which is the AVEN wiki definition of a QPR. Also found are an AVEN forum post on the distinction between alterous and queerplatonic attractions along with the Urban Dictionary definition of queerplatonic. Again there appears a lack of consensus about meaning and conflation of "attraction" with other things. Searching for "definition of alterous attraction" returns This from AVEN This, subtely different version, from Urban Dictionary And this from the previously mentioned AVEN forum Searching for "definition of nonamory" returns. (Strangely few people appear to realise that it means "asexual" in Latin.) From this tumblr post with it's specific "no QPR" definition here. This term appears to have at least two different meanings.

I don't think this approach is likely to work. Especially with LGBT+ who've worked hard to promote "marriage equality". Which has had the effect of separating amantonormativity from heteronormativity. If anything amantonormativity (along with mononormativity) has been bolstered. The difficulty is that people who are used to seeing marriage, including the tax breaks, as a right historically denied to not hetero(romantics) are likely have difficulty understanding social obligation and expectations of marriage being normative. Though this article on Marriage fundamentalism suggests that "just like you" respectability politics might have been a major factor. Any normativity effectively says "Everyone should do this". Which will invariably mean that anyone who doesn't will encounter indirect discrimination. (Direct discrimination often requires "Toxic normativity": "Anyone who dosn't do X is defective or needs fixing". Though people facing indirect discrimination can, easily, internalise such a belief.)

One situation you can find sex positive aces possible over represented is in "sex work". AFAIK this is applicable to both allo and aro sex positive aces, Something I also wonder is how often allo aces who arn't sex repulsed have sex (with their romo partners) because it's romantic coded.

It would be worth reading the The "& Aro's" bandaid. As it stands the group is alienating to allo aros. Both due to the name and the use of the ace of spades as a logo. Changing the name of the group is unlikely to help. Especially if it's in any way obvious this is what's happened. An alternative would be to start up a specifically aro group. Ideally with someone who wasn't asexual as an organiser.

As a circular/recursive definition this is not that useful I think @Coyote's suggestion here is a good one. Thus you have "An aromantic person is a person who does not experience romantic attraction." With "romantic attraction" being defined something like "An unconscious desire to be in an amantonormative type relationship with someone". There's also the Mustard Pickles thread. Or "straight girl in a place full of girls"; "gay boy in a place full of girls"; "lesbian girl in a place full of boys". Another option would be "Like being a Harry Potter fan at a Buffy convention or vice versa"

I think the vegan analogy could work. However I think your conclusion is flawed. Asexual aromantics exist. Non romantic sexual relationships exist. Not all allosexual aromantics are going to make regular sex (for whatever meaning of "regular") a priority in their lives.

A situation I've encountered is many events are only around two hours long. Which in practice can be closer to 90 minutes "topic time". Thus four hours travelling is very disproportionate.

I think that the term more describes having a desire, similar to that of alloromantics, to be in a romantic relationship. Rather than an absence of romance repulsion. Non being repulsed by something does not automatically mean you want to do it. Certainly it does not imply having any kind of desire or motivation to do the whatever. An aro might not be romance repulsed and indifferent to being in a romantic relationship. I'm also not convinced that cupioromantics can't, also, be romance repulsed. Especially given that it's possible for alloromantics to be romance repulsed. Since romance is so normative it can, often, be the case that someone who's not into it is expected to justify their position. (Which is a case of the Shifting of the Burden of Proof When it comes to normative assumptions often Moving the Goalposts and No True Scotsman are also extensively used.)