Mark

Quite similar for me. Physical touch, hugging, kissing, cuddling, nibbling, stroking, etc is something I very much enjoy. It's also something I'd ideally want to be able to do with trusted friends. That's just ewwwgh!. As well as "Why are you talking and not kissing?" Though I'd be fine with "This is fun." or "I enjoy spending time with you." The romantic and/or exclusivity thing is a hard limit for me though. Bored is not as bad as feeling repulsed or that something good has become tainted. Or maybe they are less into kissing than you. Even seeing it as a step towards something else, rather than enjoyable for it's own sake. (Why is it "foreplay" rather than just "play"?)

I was trying to find out how much influence she might have had outside of the British Empire. Especially mainland Europe and The USA.

All of these appear to be too early given that the shift towards the romantic marriage becoming normative appears to have started in the 19th century. I'm going to guess that the "something else" is a person. Queen Victoria.

A tribal group seems a sensible social construct to me. Whereas a couple dosn't.

Without considering that social isolation is often harmful to people's mental health. Including specific examples of physical contact such as kissing or hand holding. But an allo who will abandon friends for a (new) romantic interest or turn down a QPP with someone they have known for years, apparently, has no such issues. It's the idea that everyone who dosn't fit with social expectations must have somehow become that way. Related to this is pathologising minorities, even to the point of quack cures. With there being no such assumptions if someone is allo (or heterosexual, monogamous, cis, NT, etc.)

I'm similar in terms of being AMAB, masucline-presenting, though genderqueer. Can also see some similar experiences. I'm not tall, IME, cis women as much as cis men tend to assume this about me. I find this too Even to the point of feeing quite excluded, more often with women's than men's rituals. I found it difficult to relate to the label "trans" due to not experiencing physical dysphoria. Even with a high degree of social and emotional dysphoria.

Some reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they https://www.npr.org/2016/01/13/462906419/everyone-uses-singular-they-whether-they-realize-it-or-not https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbinary-they

I wouldn't file kissing under "romantic". For me it's sensual. I would class marriage, along with even couple's stuff generally, as "romantic". As for dating it would be "romantic" if it was being undertaken as a means to get into a romantic relationship but not if it was being done for it's own sake or "casually".

Both versions?

I'm 48, often assumed to be younger. Really wish I was younger or the words had existed when I was younger. My experience is that people over 25-30 rarely get the idea of being aromantic at all. Thus I can often feel very much "born too soon".

I kind of wonder if you are looking at this backwards. Given that romance and romanticism havn't been a big part of human society until very recently.

Guess if you're going to enuguage in alien behaviour it makes sense to do so with an actual behaviour.

I like plenty of romantic coded activities, including hand holding and kissing. However I have very similar reasons for finding romance repulsive. It's the whole thing about identifying as "a couple". The whole "merger" idea comes across to me as the antithesis of being human. Also I see "partnership" as being distinct from merger... I don't always find it "fine" if others just want romance. It can make it impossible for me to have much to do with people I like. Also seen people putting themselves through awful things trying to find "the one".

LOL! Or you can't tell the difference between 'romantic' and 'creepy' in a book, movie, play or TV drama. Or they freak out if you try to touch them (never mind kiss them) because they "don't do that with friends".

But not "That was fun", "That was sexy", "That was intense" or "We should definitely do that again".

Which might be more an issue to the romantic person if they don't experience reciprocation of anything romantic. It could also be a problem if the aromantic person feels non-romantic/QP/etc attraction towards the romantic person.

When you are 20 it's likely to be "... when you are 25 or 30 ..." When you are 25 it's likely to be "... when you are 30 or 35 ..." When you are 30 it's likely to be "... when you are 35 or 40 ..." and so on. Odds on if you were identifying as heterosexual and heteromantic. All of those same people would be saying how "mature" and "grown up" you were. Which is very hurtful. It also means that they are devaluing and missing out on the vast amount of human experience which isn't this very specific thing called "romantic love". It seems rather beyond repression as much as being expected to be someone you are not. Similar to expecting a homosexual person to embrace heterosexuality. How would you deal with a friend (or family member) who was a rabid fangirl about something when you were "meh" about the sport, music, anime, etc?

IMHO the idea of merging is a distinctive sign of the romantic couple relationship and lifestyle. With "others" including corporate entities such as businesses and the state. Hence the co-option of marriage and its associated industries With the individuals involved typically not seeing this loss of other relationships as being a problem. Often showing enormous faith that a romantic relationship with someone they hardly know will be an effective replacement for friends (and family).

What I find rather disturbing here is the time scale over which allos make this "connection". Even those who have a history of being taken advantage of by romantic partners and/or struggle with trusting friends can do this kind of thing.

It's especially odd when you consider that "asking out" and marriage proposals tend to be expected of men rather than women.

In 1989 someone called Tim Berners-Lee will invent a system for publishing and sharing information whilst working at CERN. It might be worthwhile using what will become known as "The Web" to talk about the lack of romantic attraction even though bringing this information to the world around a quarter of a century "early" may create a temporal paradox. Creating a world where touch, affection and sex is acceptable between friends as it within (romantic) couples is worth that risk. Of course it does depend exactly which younger self is involved. Utterly pointless telling my 13 year old self to "Look up 'aromantic' on The Web".

There's also the lack of non-verbal communication. Which many autistic people find helpful.

Romantic memes, even blatant amantonormative propaganda, can be found in fiction aimed at very young children. I started to question why couples, rather than people, were such an important concept around 8. As well as not understanding the point of marriage.

There's also the way in which alloromantics can be hugely against doing anything romantic coded with friends, even friends they have known for a long time. Yet can, literally, leap into bed with a complete stranger. At the same time they might be saying how important "getting to know someone" is... Even now I kind of understand it this still seems kind of creepy and squicky... It seems backwards and upside down from my PoV.