Mark

34 minutes ago, eOrion said:

Additionally; there are higher percentages of LGBT+ autistic people and autistic LGBT+ people! Some theories I have - Concepts like gender may have less hold on us, or, it may be that if you're already deemed a social outcast you may be more willing to explore other aspects of yourself that are also not socially accepted. And with more LGBT+ people being open with our autistic identity in LGBT+ spaces it may lead other LGBT+ to recognise shared experiences and begin to question whether they're autistic too   

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.

9 hours ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

This poll doesn't really cover what I want at all...

It was difficult to pick options which seemed reasonable whilst avoiding having a huge list.

9 hours ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

I want "purely platonic friendship", yes, but the views I have on friendship/what I want from a friendship generally are a bit different from how allo society conceptualizes friendships. 

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...

10 hours ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

 I would also be interested in a sexual relationship, but I do not consider it "romantic coded" and am not comfortable with checking of an option that implies that I want anything of the sort, given that I'm very romance repulsed.

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."

12 hours ago, Coyote said:

No, it does not mean being on the aromantic spectrum. When I wrote "people without romantic orientations," I was thinking of personal narratives like this one, this one, or this one, where the authors talk about not wanting to apply the concept of romantic orientation or romantic attraction to themselves, one way or the other.

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.

17 hours ago, Coyote said:

 don't know, it's like have a word specifically for "not being a Cheondoist." It's just so niche and specific to even know what queerplatonic means anyway.

Maybe also like a specific word for "being uninterested in becoming a Cheondoist".

17 hours ago, Coyote said:

The way I think about it, we have words like aromantic and asexual because of amatonormativity and sexnormativity.

Curiously something can be both normative and a minority pursuit.
Such as marriage and nuclear families in many industrialised countries currently.

18 hours ago, Coyote said:

Is their a comparable.... queerplatonicnormativity?

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".
 

18 hours ago, Coyote said:

Like I asked before -- how many people even have QP relationships?

Along with how many want/desire/pursue them.

16 hours ago, nonmerci said:

Maybe talking about queerplatonicnormativity is too much (and too long to wrote lol), but yeah, something like that. One of the first thing you saw everytime you go on a page about aromanticism is something along the line "don't worry, we can have QPR's". I remember that it kinda calm me at first, and I ended up thinking about a QPR the way I think before about romantic couple. The way I see it, QPR is using the same was as romantic love by asexuals, as a way to justify their humanity.

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.

17 hours ago, nonmerci said:

Same for squishes.

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.

17 hours ago, nonmerci said:

Now I'm not saying we should not talk about QPR and squishes, because some people want one and a lot of aros seem to feel it. But having a term to describe those who haven't would be useful I think.

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.

14 hours ago, Coyote said:

The example that Siggy used was cupiosexual. Here are two lists which list cupiosexuality. The first one also adds "also known as kalossexual." I don't know how much help "kalossexual" is supposed to be, given that I've seen that word even less frequently than cupiosexual. What's missing here isn't just another synonym, generally, but specifically the synonym that would help connect a newbie to actual relevant discussions.

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.

11 hours ago, Coyote said:

Going back to the original post, what about the hypothetical person that Siggy described in the first place, who encounters a technically-fitting word in the form of cupiosexual and goes to look up related resources or communities, and can't find a thing? What about the disappointment and pain of isolation that they feel? Why is their experience not worth being taken into account?

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.

13 hours ago, Coyote said:

Every time somebody assumes that everyone uses the "platonic attraction" concept (either "experiencing" it frequently or not), I die a little more on the inside.

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".

Quote

Platonic - wanting to communicate, share ideas, be friends. You don't have to experience platonic attraction to enjoy having friends; in this context it measures a directed desire to get to know a particular person.

The definitions of several of the terms being different from those common now.

Quote

Primary Sexual - wanting to do something sexual because it'll feel good.

Secondary Sexual - wanting to do something sexual to express love or to enjoy the other person's sexual pleasure.

Primary Romantic - wanting to be in a romantic relationship with someone in particular, "falling in love".

Secondary Romantic - wanting to be in a romantic relationship in general, being open to options should someone pursue you romantically.

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".)

Quote

Primary Sexual Attraction: Sexual attraction to someone based on information you get instantly, like their looks or smell.

Secondary Sexual Attraction: Sexual attraction to someone based on the relationship you have with them.

Primary Sexual Desire: Wanting to do something sexual because it'll feel good to you (physically or emotionally).

Secondary Sexual Desire: Wanting to do something sexual because of your partner's pleasure, or for some other motivation such as conceiving a child.

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? 
 

14 hours ago, Coyote said:

What do aros actually want in terms of relationships? Sounds like a decent premise for a poll.

Obvious difficulty is thinking up a good set of appropriate options.
I may have a go later.

14 hours ago, Coyote said:

What about the real, not hypothetical, experiences that I myself and others have had, finding something on a list that looks promising and then not being able to track down zilch in the way of further writing and personal narratives, let alone an active community?

No obvious response exactly "Well that sucks!".
 

14 hours ago, Coyote said:

What about the reinvention treadmill & how many terms are cousins to others but are never being indicated as such in a way that would help bridge those paths, for those seeking them? Why isn't it worthwhile, for instance, to include a note about cupiosexual also being similar to sex-favorable asexuality, for which there is far more in the way of use and application? Why aren't people bothering to help each other in a way that's as simple as inserting a few lines of text and a hyperlink or two? Why are the people who want that, the people who need that, not worth prioritizing?

I'm wondering if this "reinvention" is, in some ways, the result of lack of good first person narratives and communities.

On 7/12/2019 at 11:17 PM, Coyote said:

Ohhh, we're back to the queerplatonic problem again.

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.

On 7/14/2019 at 4:31 AM, Coyote said:

Is this something that could be addressed by using "nonamorous" more, or is this something that can only be addressed by proliferating more personal narratives?

23 hours ago, NullVector said:

Not such a fan of that, as 'amorous' can refer to sexual as well as romantic.

It's meaning "sexual" is the regular meaning.
With using it to mean "romantic" being either neologism or jargon.

21 hours ago, Coyote said:

Problem being, you're concerned about wanting to state specifically-romantic-singlehood without precluding sexual partnership?

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...

  

24 minutes ago, Lokiana said:

It's relatively easy to figure out. On one hand, many aromantic people enjoy sexual relationships, committed or nah. Many others are involved in romantic relationships, and still more are involved in queerplatonic relationships. These relationships, per societal norms, are considered "beyond" or "more complex" than typical friendship, and thus, merit a lot of discussion on how to approach and deal with them within our community. And we do! We talk a lot about how to function in relationships, how to approach our partners, etc etc so on and so forth until the end of time.

 

What I've found is that we don't talk as much about how to deal with friendships, or touch starvation due to no relationships/friends reading it as romo, how to do life when you're not going on dates and don't necessarily have a partner and that kind of thing. When we do, we don't talk about it as much - I've seen a couple glancing posts that touch on it, but in comparison to the vast amount of content available on QPRs alone, it can feel kind of overwhelming.

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.

2 minutes ago, DeltaV said:

In the wilderness of nature, having no functional legs puts you at a disadvantage. Autism probably not. I think that‘s an important difference, which the social model of disability as described in the Wikipedia article, does not address.

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.

56 minutes ago, NullVector said:

I think I'd prefer the political discussions to happen at a lower level of resolution e.g. focusing on social issues that impact all single or all childless people, rather than just aromantic ones. Or, going even lower level, social issues that impact all people lacking in informal support networks, for example.

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.

On 6/16/2019 at 7:11 AM, mookins said:

Im 15 and are told that i havent got one because im autistic (i searched and we romantically develop the same as allistics)

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.)

On 6/16/2019 at 7:11 AM, mookins said:

Am I aro or just too young like everyone says???

It isn't everyone. So much as those who are saying are most noticeable. These people would be best ignored.

48 minutes ago, Spacenik86 said:

It's a form of disability. Social disability to be precise. If people with a physical disability could buy a healthy leg, wouldn't they do it? Us transhumanists say: the same applies to mental and emotional disabilities.

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. 

On 6/17/2019 at 2:40 AM, Coyote said:

Getting told "you're too young to know that" is a common experience to all sorts of people who aren't straight (or cisgender, for that matter). It's a double standard, because those same people probably wouldn't have told you "you're too young to know that, maybe it'll change" if what you had said was "I'm straight."

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.)

19 hours ago, nonmerci said:

The show Riverdale is a perfect example of that. It is prise for his representation of LGBT people... but completely erase Jughead's aroaceness. And if you point it out, there will always be someone to say "what his aromanticism would bring to the show" (because apparantly,  you should justifier yourself for not changing something), or "Jughead wasn't aro, he was gay, that was how gay people was portraits before, by a non interest in girls!" (even if gis asexuality (meaning aro ace I guess) was confirmed; plus how are you suppose to portray a character that assume his aroaceness without making him not interesting in girls???).

It's possible for homophobes to use similar reasoning...
 

On 7/12/2019 at 10:34 AM, Holmbo said:

I'd add awareness about romantic harassment to the work place category (and maybe to education in general) If someone is making romantic gestures at you, like asking you out or bringing romantic gifts even though you've made clear you're not interested in a romantic relationship, that shouldn't be allowed.

Could have a lot of common ground with feminism and organizations that seeks to question gender roles and dynamics.

There are also related issues of romantic consent (including if romance should have an "age of consent") and romantic content warnings/ratings.

21 hours ago, Cristal Gris said:

Good list, i can't think of anything to add.

This is true that peoples may know (sometime) about homophobia, transphobia, etc... aromantism and arophobia are never mentionned and just ignored. I never see it classified as "oppression" outside of some part of the queer/lgbt+ community (again, sometime. And mostly in aro space).

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.
 

22 hours ago, nonmerci said:

And sometimes, even in lgbt+ place, there is debates ro know if we are oppressed or not.

Along with "debates" if aros (especially those who are heterosexual) are "queer enough".

12 hours ago, Coyote said:

In any case, I think the previous posts here in this very thread demonstrate a couple of things already -- in order to get anywhere with "aro activism," or more generally, a movement against amatonormativity, you will face at least two cognitive hurdles: one in the form of "private sphere" individualism, & another in the form of the "legal rights" framework. People may be generally inclined to think of activism & advocacy in terms of gaining the "right" to something (like the right to marry),

In the case of marriage I feel that what's often been overlooked in political advocacy is the "expectation"/"obligation" side of amantonormativity.

12 hours ago, Coyote said:

which doesn't really apply to well to something like, say, dealing with mistreatment by a therapist who views romance as inherently healthy.

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.

13 hours ago, Coyote said:

Then, like I said, you've also got people used to thinking in terms of a divide between "public" and "private" life, where (a)romanticism is something to be relegated to the private sphere, alongside sex and religion.

The curious thing is that often romantic things are quite public very much so in comparison with sex. This can also apply to religion. 

4 hours ago, NullVector said:

But my experience of aromanticism is kind of the opposite! My inner experience of relationships doesn't seem to be shared by others (at least, others not on this forum!) and does therefore seem attributable to personal 'quirks' and idiosyncracies! So my aromanticism is not a 'personal' that I experience as 'political' (emphasis on 'my' and 'I' here, as I am some of the things you mentioned: able-bodied, young(ish), financially independent(ish))

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.

4 hours ago, NullVector said:

Perhaps this perception would change though if I met and interacted with an IRL aro community?

There seem be very few of these...

4 hours ago, Holmbo said:

I totally get what you mean. I also don't feel oppressed in any way by my romantic orientation and I'd hesitate to lump myself in with other LGBT+ categories that faces hostility or discrimination.

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.

3 hours ago, nonmerci said:

But I still think they are thing we are alone to face, and can be consider as oppression. Like, therapists trying to "fix" your orientation because it consider it part of your disease. People assuming you're ill because of your orientation (I hear it more about aces though), or that you are heartless (in particular to allo aro who want sex without romance).

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.

On 7/11/2019 at 7:44 AM, Magni said:

(Inspired by this tumblr thread)
 

We tend to focus a lot on spreading awareness and community building, which are important, but it's also useful to consider other aspects of aro activism, including more political issues.  Here are some issues which occurred to me:

 

1. Marriage: The legal benefits of marriage and lack of alternate options….having some way to declare someone as “family” for purposes of medical leave and such without requiring marriage/romance. Also, partnering with the polyamory community on this because they also face issues with the current system of marriage.

There might be some useful information on the Unmarried Equality website.
These issues are becoming more obvious as marriage declines.

On 7/11/2019 at 7:44 AM, Magni said:

3. Workplace Protections: the queer community in general still needs protections against discrimination, but it does affect us too, and it would be important to include not only that they can’t discriminate against people for their sexual orientation, but also their romantic orientation. (This is the issue I personally would be most concerned about tbh)

These can include the less obvious things like lack of promotion.

On 7/11/2019 at 9:10 AM, Spacenik86 said:

Workplace - I don't think anybody was ever sacked for not being in a romantic relationship. Anyway, people should not advertise their private life at work.

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. 

On 7/11/2019 at 7:44 AM, Magni said:

4. Education: along with wanting schools to teach about queer identities in general, making sure Aromantic is included.

Education needs to be a lot broader than just schools (and children).

On 7/11/2019 at 7:44 AM, Magni said:

6. Support Networks: most adults seem to get their social needs met via their romantic partnerships, or find community via religious groups. There’s generally a need for non-denominational groups to provide support and community, because people generally need that sort of thing, and feeling isolated can be detrimental to people’s health. One form of this might be lgbtqa+ community centers in general, ones that are alcohol-free community resource centers (which other parts of the queer community want too).

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?

20 hours ago, Coyote said:

 

I can't tell if you're saying "yes, it is too confusing" or if you're saying something else.

Looking for "definition of aplatonic" only returns definitions for "platonic".
Looking for "platonic" gives various definitions.

Urban Dictionary

Quote

aplatonic
not experiencing platonic attraction; having no desire for friendships.

Quote

aplatonic
Having no intimate feelings for others, especially those one has sexual relations with. Many would describe being aplatonic as stupid and often cruel. Aplatonic people typically lack a common moral compass and truly believe it to be a sexual orientation. Anyone they have sex with is purely for their own personal pleasure.

LGBTA Wiki

Quote

Aplatonic
.

Aplatonic is an term used by a-spec individuals that do experience platonic attraction.

Despite the first impressions of the word aplatonic people can still have friends and still desire friends. Aplatonic is a term used to describe aromantics who do not get squishes (platonic crushes) like some a-spec people do.

 

Aplatonic can also be used by a-spec people with a schizophrenia-spectrum disorder. It is used to describe how some people with a schizophrenia-spectrum disorder do not desire friendship, or do not feel like friendships bring them emotional satisfaction.

Asexuality Blog (tumblr)

Quote

The term aplatonic does not mean someone who doesn’t want friends. It does not mean someone who doesn’t have friends, or someone who is antisocial. It is not ‘uwu I don’t have any friends I’m so queeeeeer’. No, stop spreading that information. Aplatonic is simply a descriptor used by some aro people to explain that they do not experience squishes nor desire to be in qpps/qprs. 

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.

10 hours ago, Coyote said:

New month, same stuff.

 

"the fact that this word has two definitions - no platonic attraction vs. no queerplatonic attraction - makes any discussion very confusing."

Does it? Does it really?

Searching for "definion of aplatonic" returns only definitions of "platonic", which isn't useful at all.

Searching for "definition of platonic attraction" returns 

Quote

Platonic attraction is more of a spiritual and emotional attraction to someone you like. It is above sexual or physical needs of an individual. You usually have platonic relationship with your best friend even if he or she is of opposite sex . ... First teen crushes are often platonic.

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

Quote

A queerplatonic (or quasiplatonic) relationship is a relationship that is not romantic but involves a close emotional connection (platonic) beyond what most people consider friendship. The commitment level in a queerplatonic relationship is often considered to be similar to that of a romantic relationship.

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

Quote

For those who haven't heard of it, alterous attraction is a sort of gray area between platonic and romantic attraction. It's defined as "described as wanting emotional closeness without necessarily being (at all or entirely) platonic &/or romantic". You can have a romantic or platonic orientation and be alterous.

This, subtely different version, from Urban Dictionary

Quote

Alterous Attraction is normally used in the asexual/aromantic community. It describes feelings you have for someone that is neither strictly platonic or romantic; It's somewhere in the middle

And this from the previously mentioned AVEN forum

Quote

According to its vague creator given definition, alterous can mean 5 things; all of which already have titles. Here’s a link to that definition.

Creator’s definition slightly reworded for better clarity:

Alterous is desiring emotional closeness with someone specific; nothing more, but the person feeling so is not comfortable with calling the feeling romantic or platonic for whatever reason.

(So it's not necessarily being between the two; it may be between the two, or they may feel romantically/ platonically but not want to use those words, or they may feel something they associate with romance because they don't know about the following words or other attractions. And the creator never mentions that any other attractions can be felt under it. The other definitions you see of alterous are not the creator's definition and exist through the grapevine effect.)

1) a desire to further know/befriend someone; this desired bond can vary from friends, to close friends, to best friends, and can include nervousness

(a squish)

2) desiring or having closeness/importance stronger than the best friend norm

(a type of QPR or queerplatonic squish aka queerplatonic crush)

3) not being comfortable with calling things romantic or platonic

(a relationship anarchist)

4) having romantic attraction, but either the desires for the relationship are close to platonic/sparsely romantic, the feelings aren't intense, or involve no sensual desires

(hyporomantic, gray-romantic, or asensual alloromantic)

5) someone who can't tell the difference between romantic attraction and platonic attraction; which can possibly be fixed by better explanations

(quoiromantic aka wtfromantic)

Searching for "definition of nonamory" returns. (Strangely few people appear to realise that it means "asexual" in Latin.)

Quote

Nonamory means the person wouldn't want to have a partner. ... It was my impression that nonamory could also refer to the lifestyle of an alloromantic person who chooses not to seek romantic relationships, in the same way an allosexual person can still be celibate.

From this tumblr post  with it's specific "no QPR" definition here.
This term appears to have at least two different meanings.

On 7/1/2019 at 6:04 PM, Coyote said:

I ask because I wonder what would happen if, for instance, you started off with something more [social context -> group], like "Because of amatonormativity, which is the romantic part of heteronormativity, a lot of people grow up with the expectation that they're supposed to fall in love and get married.

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.

On 7/1/2019 at 6:04 PM, Coyote said:

We grow up hearing about weddings and romantic love and soulmates and love stories, hearing about crushes in middle school and high school, seeing advertising for online dating sites, watching movies and reading books with romantic subplots no matter how forced they are -- it's enough to really compound the stress for queer people who have very slim chances of finding a romantic partner. It's also especially bad for people who don't like romance or feel romantic feelings at all, who are sometimes even told that they're heartless monsters. And the way that our society expects marriage, including with tax benefits and everything, means it can be especially hard for people who can't authentically live that way.

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.) 

13 hours ago, Cristal Gris said:

Please tell me if I derail the topic, but it can happen to sex positive aro aces too. Some of them want sexual connections without romance, i mean. But i can't tell if it's exactly the same thing. Probably not (well, we're not judged just for being aro allo, that's for sure)

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.

On 7/3/2019 at 11:54 AM, LizBri said:

I wanted to gauge people's thoughts on here. I organise a local A-spec social group for both aros and aces. Some members are both aro and ace, others or one but not the other, and overall I refuse to gatekeep and accept anyone who will "benefit from an A-spec social group whatever related queer orientation they are". At the moment the name is Liverpool and Wirral Asexuality Social Group, and I mention aromantic in the description. I want the name to be searchable by anyone local who could benefit from the group, which is why the name is so important. I have thought about adding aromantic into the name but then wonder if it then suggests that it's for those who are aromantic AND asexual, which is not the case. I haven't been able to think up a solution so I thought I'd post on here to see if anyone else has any better ideas. I have to bear in mind what people will search for, so I would call it Liverpool and Wirral A-Spec social group but that doesn't help anyone searching (and potentially could be mixed up with autism spectrum). I already say Liverpool and Wirral instead of Merseyside due to searchability, but I am aware that aromantic isn't mentioned in the name. If anyone has any helpful suggestions I'll be very grateful! Thanks. Liverpool and Wirral Asexual and Aromantic Social is the best I've thought of but I am concerned with being "both only" implicated.

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.
 

On 6/19/2019 at 3:29 PM, nonmerci said:

I thought aromantic as "someone who fits in the aromantic spectrum"

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".

4 hours ago, Herbe de provence said:

Did you try explaining aromanticism with allegory ? Often time I find people understand that kind of things better if you explain it using concrete things. Like for exemple : a lot of people like chocolate but some are allergic to chocolat or just Don't like it. If you imagine that romantic attraction is chocolate, it works !
I explain it like that to a lot of people who didn't know what aromanticism was and even to a friend who had an aphobic reaction. The friend understood better and were less confused after I explained using allegory.

There's also the Mustard Pickles thread.

4 hours ago, nonmerci said:

Yeah allegory works. Something that can be used is "it's like being a straight boy in a place full of boys".

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"

On 6/27/2019 at 5:32 PM, Spacenik86 said:

The aromantic community might have another problem: it's hard to build a community around not doing something. Aromantics don't fall in love. Once one overcomes the anger at amatonormative upbringing, what is left? One thinks about not falling in love no more than about not believing in Leprechauns. However, vegans show such a community is possible. They are based on not eating meat, and what binds them is meatless cuisine. Similarly, aromantics should be interested in finding about the best way to have regular sex without being in a relationship, or reconciling yourself to living without sex.

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.

13 hours ago, astriiformes said:

I eventually had to abandon the idea of getting more involved with queer groups because my chronic illness made it possible to make the four hour round trip there on public transportation, which was my only option as assorted issues related to neurodivergency have made it so that I still don't have a driver's license (and wouldn't have had a car, anyways).

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.

On 6/25/2019 at 10:27 PM, Star Lion said:

Cupioromantics are just aromantics who aren’t romance repulsed.

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.)