Mark

What I think is going on is that it's less taboo for people to be touch adverse in aro spaces. Whereas allos might well avoid mentioning it at all. Possibly only tolerating touch with a romantic partner, whilst seeking to minimise it. Where this can lead to issues is assuming that all aros are touch adverse including insisting that someone very tactile can't be aro. There appear to be similar issues of conflation surrounding philemaphobia. I couldn't find any data on prevalance at all.

I would say that it may be sexual, sensual or romantic. (Including in combination.) Most likely kiss-adverse alloromantics often tolerate it. Similarly for touch-adverse ones and hugging.

That's a lot closer to Saturnalia (or Kronia) than it being some kind of romantic couple thing. Kissing under the mistletoe has similar origins. But again seems to have been appropriated as a romantic thing in recent years, The origin of Valentines day is Lupercalia. Whilst this might include (kinky) sex is not remotely romantic.

To me the biggest stumbling block is normative concept of 'friendship' almost invariably excludes the sexual and sensual. As well as often being secondary to romance, even for many single allos.

Ditto for sensual and/or sexual attraction. Though I'm sure this can happen to allos too.

Even when marriage was most "popular" around the mid 20th century at least 15% of people never did it. Since then census data from around the world shows a massive decline in the marriage demographic. (Until recently somewhat obscured by rising populations and people previously married getting married more than once.) Ironically hyping of marriage in popular media has massively increased at the same time that the proportion of married people has been going down. Something I've noticed is that virtually every online discussion along the lines of "I can't find a date/boyfriend/girlfriend" tends wind up with lots of "I felt like that until I found my spouse/husband/wife" responses. Even if the OP makes it clear that they actually want something fairly casual, more sexual than romantic, etc. Prior to romantic marriages becoming fashionable (prior to the mid 19th century) this was the norm. Actually more common is people not getting married. Even in the face of legal and social discrimination against unmarried people. With even North America soon likely to join Europe and Australasia in having marrieds being a (hugely) privileged minority of the population.

Or maybe that your first reaction to the concept of "the one" is WTF. Dating for it's own sake is the only way it's ever interested me. It meaning a way to end up "going steady", "in a relationship", get married, etc. makes no sense. Since I'm not interested in any of those things.

One of the difficulties with addressing "are men or women more romantic?" is widely differing gender roles and expectations especially when it comes to heteros. For women talking about romance seems to be a big part of these whereas for men there appears more emphasis on doing. e.g. grand romantic gestures. Interestingly even amongst allos it turns out to be only around 15-20% of single people who are desperate to be coupled. IME conflation between romantic attraction and interest in romantic coded things is common place on aro forums.

In some ways "become aromantic" is the more complex situation. Since it requires addressing what someone was before along with how and when that got changed. Another possibility would be that everyone is "born aromantic" and it's alloromantics who have "become that way"... Though it does appear that many people are aware of their romantic (and sexual) orientations from a fairly young age. Which rather implies these are inate. This has similar "What were they before?" issues. In practice so called "conversion therapy" seems only effective for inducing PTSD. Regardless of if the intent is to make LGBT people straight or autistic people neurotypical.

I've had a somilar experienced, which felt very erasing. I felt they didn't understand the experience of not being able to take part in couples/romantic culture being socially excluding.

Well cupioromantics desire romantic relationships. It's also possible that some aros may tolerate romance so as to be able to do romantic coded things.

I think also failing to understand that romance repulsion does not imply being repulsed by romantic coded activities.

For me almost the exact opposite. Like cuddling, find the whole co-sleeping idea a complete WTF.

I've never understood why allos can be so obsessive about wanting to do this.

YMBAI You though it was awesome that a friend had an FWB then they decided to be in a romantic relationship, with the same partner, and it felt anti-climatic. YMBAI You just don't get all the congratulatory messages on social media when someone announces they are "in a relationship", "engaged" or "married".

Something to do with, the cringe worthy, "other half" expression...

Something which makes this rather odd is in many places the "married with children" demographic is a minority of the population. Indeed in the UK and Australia married people generally are less than half the (adult) population. Theoretically there should be as much for single adults as there is for couples. In practice singlism, both direct and indirect is commonplace. Together with a high proportion of singles specific events/organisations assuming a fairly single minded desire to be in a couple. Even though the majority of single people, not just those who are aro, don't have that mindset.

What I find really odd and baffling is the way in which many allos can very quickly, sometimes in a matter of hours, get into a "deep" romantic relationship. Very often marginalising, even ending, pre-existing relationships in the process. The idea of dating being about "getting to know someone" seems reasonable. Though I'm unsure if this is how allos tend to go about it.

There's this thread on AVEN. Though I'd disagree that Die Hard With a Vengeance and Kingsman: The Secret Service are entirely free pf romance.

I never got why it was so important to pick one or the other. Rather than forming a vee or rejecting both.

Adding the word 'yet' makes this a complex question. All of the answers are also complex. With an implied question along the lines of "Would you want to have one?" My actual answer: "Yes, never want to do something like that ever again. Sex-only, friends with benefits (including actual friendship) or something else intimate without romance (or monogamy) sounds good." Sort of a hybrid 1a & 5b My actual answer: "I think it's fun and hot to do, not so much to watch. Whilst feeling envious than I don't have people I can kiss." Sort of 4a definitely not 4b 1b and 5a nowhere near often enough. 2 is about the best answer for me. 4b (don't have a clue how to) really wish I could do 5. Unlikely to say 1,4 or 5. 3 & 5, 2 indirectly. 3 & 5a 2 so long as the state stops privileging marrieds. My actual answer is "I want something differently from (just) being in a couple. Seems virtually everyone else seems to think along the lines of a 'single' or 'couple' (false) dichotomy. Finding people who even understand that is hard." My actual is "That sounds good good, were there anyone who'd be interested in me that way. My experience is I'm either ;seen purely platonically or with an exepecation of my being interested in amantonormativity". Kind of maybe 2, without the lack of commitment aspect. 3

The idea that you'd 'let' a romantic partner do anything sounds quite awful. Why would anyone want to be in such a dysfunctional relationship?

I found much the same. By picking the 'least bad' options I ended up with a rather strange result. I found something similar. Wonder if there was some conflation of romance and interested in romantic coded activities.

The former seems to explain what I've previously described as "bundling" when it comes to romantic relationships. Including less obvious 'intimacies' such as co-habitation, entangling personal finances, identity merger. The latter seems a good explanation for hierarchy. Be it between partner(s) and friends or primary/secondary/tertiary 'partners'. This sounds like a good description of 'relationship anarchy'. There definitely are alloromantic relationship anarchists. Though possibly not including the 'strongly romantic'.

In which case the most important question would be "Red, white or rosé?" followed by "Sparkling?" in some cases.