Mark

IME this kind of behaviour is rather more general amongst alloromantics than just from heteroromantic men. Rather that women and homoromantic men may be able to use a little more subtlety. The other side of the coin is that allos seem to also like being on the receiving end of this kind of thing. From my PoV it seems rather the opposite of friendship even borderline abusive. Honestly this kind of behaviour seems more appropriate with a puppy than a fellow human being. Isn't the whole point of friendship to accept someone as they are and respect their autonomy? Teenage me might well have found (if you pardon the pun) some "free-roaming sex kittens" to be close to the perfect kind of partner. If I'd actually encountered any such people... Personally I find it hard to separate romance and monogamy as alien and repulsive concepts. However there are aros who desire some sort exclusivity (including sexual) in relationships. As well as a couple structure and dynamic. Even concepts such as (queer) platonic marriage... Sometimes I'm not sure if I should feel sorry for or laugh at an allo who's been scammed in such a way. A random stranger on the other side of the world asking for money is hardly likely to be anything other than a crook! Instead of being glad about his friend having an enjoyable time at a party.

There also appears to be no obvious way to actually go about it. Both looking for sexual friendships or transitioning existing platonic friendships to allow for also being sexual seem very taboo. IME this can be difficult to even discuss without hostility or assumptions about really wanting romo-sexual stuff. I've even heard of people role playing being in a romantic relationship as part of a ONS. A difficulty I have, including for ONS, is that I'm often misgendered as "male" and thus expected to follow a asker/chaser/seducer type role. Even if there was some way to get rid of all of the romantic language/gestures/etc (which I find rather revolting and even vomit inducing) that kind of role just isn't me.

The people making the decisions in the entertainments industry, not just Moffat, believe that shoehorning romance into everything is the right thing to do. There's a question of how would you find out if this is what fans actually want. Unless we were to have non-romantic characters (and plotlines) as common and varied as romantic ones you can't really compare.

My position is more that I wish more people understood being aro. Or at least that romance isn't the only possible motivation for seeking human companionship and interaction.

Since the definition of cupioromantic is someone who is aromantic and wants a romantic relationship. I'd make a distinction between them and someone who is seeking to do things which are romance like/coded. IME these can very big "ifs"

It seems that supporting (even passively) the status quo is always likely to be easier than challenging or questioning it. Even in a fairly specific way, never mind the meta concept of there being "one twue way". Typically used in the context of sexual attraction being normative. Equally applicable to the idea of romantic attraction being normative.

I'm guessing that 'allo' was originally chosen because 'sinsexual' would confuse too many people.

When was the world due to end?

What about the z/zed/zee alternative?

I agree that they do work rather differently. Romantic relationships without sex are not an unknown concept (especially amongst "no sex before marriage" subcultures). There's also the way in which many things in society assume that people are in couples. Many aromantic people are interested in taking part in social events, but can find it difficult if there's an assumption of people being coupled. Possibly many alloromantic people don't know how to handle someone who isn't interested in being coupled. Nothing stops aros becoming sexually, sensually, aesthetically, etc. to alloromantic people. Especially if these are the only people they ever meet. Not seeking exclusivity is also to be a problem. Due to it being expected in all sorts of ways (not just sexually). Which are often looked down on or considered quite disposable. Seems more likely that they'd want to know "WTF is a QPR?"; "Why does someone want to do only part of a relationship?"; etc. Whilst not as obvious it's certainly present. I've certainly felt pressure to be interested in romance or be assumed to be asexual. Also things like "plus one" invites. Not being invited at all if you are "single". The concept of "two's company three's a crowd".

Yes I Mostly the latter, certainly not "happy". No If they are from others. Unsure Yes, see 6, Attraction seems more complex and varied to me than these terms. At times. Mostly the first two. Especially if there is no sensual or sexual element with it. Not sure I ever had much idea what it's ment to mean. No Lol, yes. Hell yes. Yes Yes It's more not understanding why everyone is expected to be do this. When it's OK not to be a mega fan of just about anything else you can think of. TBH such behaviour appears part of the human condition. I don't understand wanting a romantic or other kind of exclusive relationship. What "committed" means outside those contexts is up for debate. Sort of. I've tried it, even though getting one is hard. Because finding what I actually wanted was much, much harder. Never again. The uncomfortable bit is there from the start. Yes Rather ironically I like things like touch, affection and kissing way more than the average person. I'd have been open to trying it when I was younger. Not any more. More not being into the weird stuff. It's just not the right kind of relationship for me. Yes Sort of Not remotely interested in marriage. Maybe. Depends on the details. Maybe Yes Oblivious No I don't live in such a community. I'm unsure how I do this. Yes Not really. Also I think people rather than person... Yes. But it's rendered unsustainable if there is romance there. Yes Yes Yes, though they get a say in the matter. Preferably more than one and no exclusivity. I feel I'm missing out on plenty. Though a romantic partner would be no help to me at all here. No Plenty of ways to be attracted which do not involve romance. It's the requirement for romance (or romantic relationship) which tends to spoil things for me here. TBH I might be more inclined to go if that seemed likely to happen. I don't especially care if people like story genres I don't. Meh

I Want To Know What Love Is by Foreigner from November 1984. Original Lyrics English -> Russian -> Arabic -> Zulu -> Malay -> Maori -> English Here's where I sent it

Don't find such stories hopeful. At best they are WTF, at worst "How am I ever going to be able to fit in if everyone else just wants to do this kind of thing?" Something I've noticed several times with online forums is that someone posting about how difficult they find social interaction can get several responses along the lines of "me too, before I met my spouse/fiance/etc." With me left thinking that since the OP never mentioned any interest in marriage these are a complete non sequitur.

I typically find them to be annoying and often lacking good reasons in terms of character and plot to be there at all. Whilst I might like to experience some of the feelings of the characters involved I'm not sure that these wouldn't be present had they been in a QPR. What I like about romantic relationships are sensual, sexual and/or companionship aspects. There's also plenty about them I don't like at all. No. I have no interest in being in this kind of relationship. No. I find the concept, at best, kooky. No. That is just something I could not do. No, thank you. No. QPP or other non-romantic. Maybe for curiosity's sake. Actually yes. Since it would be considerably easier to fit into society than as an aro, No. I am who I am, however difficult it can be. Quite likely it would. If I could do it. Because of the way society is set up. It actually does. Just without the romantic cruft or the expectation that I have to do the asking out role.

I'm not convinced that "miserable spinster" and "crazy cat gent bachelor" would be any improvement Kind of depends if you view "miserable" or "crazy" as being the most unflattering adjective. Maybe a condition of calling anyone a "crazy cat person" should be to offer them a kitten.

It can be difficult working out and expressing what you actually want. Especially when that is non normative and lacking in examples and role models. You might change your mind or you might not. The term "solo" dosn't necessarily mean without interpersonal relationships. Though in several contexts it does mean without being "in a couple".

There is something of a correlation here, though it's more with non-normtivity. It's also likely that people who are hyper-romantic, hyper-sexual, strongly hetero, strongly monogamous or strongly vanilla are less likely to be noticed than those who are aromantic, asexual, LGBT+, poly or kinky, It's possible that autism has more of an issue with infantisation than other disabilities because of how strongly it is associated with children. The obvious difference with a regular school would be between being in an environment where such difficulties interracting were rare vs where they were common.

I, still, have mixed feelings. On one hand "aromantic" is a term which describes me well. On the other virtually nobody else has any clue what it means and it describes only what I can't do rather than what I can. Plenty of times I wish I could be "normal". Different sex QP relationships don't tend to be seen as "legitimate" most of the time, either. Not being yourself can also come with a high price. As can doing nothing because there's a possibility that some day you will change and, magically, want too do those normative things which you've never wanted before... I have experimented with romantic relationships, a little. Because that was all I could find, rather than what I actually wanted. About the most I managed was six weeks. I also fear being alone. However being in a romantic co-habiting coupley type thing isn't the sort of company and companionship I actually aspire to anyway. Which is a difficult concept to explain in an amantonormative society.

I was kind of wondering the same thing.

I'm not sure that there is a simple answer here. How do you translate things into "allo speak"? Terms like "non platonic" or "non romantic" are likely to be just as confusing as "queer platonic". Terms like "FWB" or "sexual friend" are likely to be misinterpreted as "sex only".

I've encountered people saying that part of a "one night stand" involves role playing being "in a relationship". To at least some allo/allos romance appears akin to a sexual fetish. The romantic concept of "chatting up" is rather weird and creepy. As well as involving things like hinting, reading between the lines, ambiguious meanings, etc which many people find difficult. On the other hand it's often considered very rude for someone to directly express sexual or sensual interest. (Especially a man to a woman.)

Had their previous experience been with allo aces? Who might have been quite vocal about ensuring they wern't assumed to be aro. It can also happen the other way around. Most obviously the assumption that all aros are aces. It's also possible to have romantic & sexual orientations which "overlap" (varioriented allo/allo). e.g. hetero/bi or pan/homo. For these people the assumption that romantic and sexual orientations are the same can sort of work. It fails in one set of ways for allo/aces; in a different set ways for aro/allo and, most likely, in a different set of ways for homo/hetero & homo/hetero (mutually exclusive allo/allo). Allo/allos are likely to desire a romantic relationship with sex. Allo/aces are likely to desire a romantic relationship without sex. Aro/allos are likely to desire (one or more) non romantic (QP) relationships, with sex. Aro/aces are likely to desire (one or more) non romantic (QP) relationships, without sex. Mutually exclusive allo/allos might desire non-sexual romantic, sexual QP or both. (Most likely the former, since alloromantics often seem to struggle with non romantic or concurrent relationships.) Varioriented allo/allos might desire romantic with sex, romantic without sex, sexual QP, etc.

I've been known to compare alloromantics with squeeing fangirls

For me there's also being expected to show romantic interest. e.g. being asked "why?" when I say I'm uninterested in things like marriage. I find that romantic sub-plots in mainstream movies are annoying since they seem added for their own sake. Doing little or nothing to advance plot or characters, even sometimes getting in the way of it. My feelings towards sexual and sensual PDAs tend to be envy. How can excessive compliments be sincere? I'd call this more "entanglement" or "merger" rather than "intimacy". There's also terms like "other half". It does seem very disturbing how little these people appear to care about their individuality, integrity and identity. Other aspects of this would be co-habitation and co-sleeping.

I've come up with a, somewhat strange, analogy that attraction is a bit like light. With alloromantics being very (by several orders of magnitude) sensitive to "romantic coloured" light. Thus tending to see only bright monochromatic light. With aromantics not being especially sensitive, even insensitive, to this colour of light. Thus seeing a huge variation in colour and intensity.