Mark

I once encountered someone who insisted that all bisexuals must be biromantic. But, curiously, not that all biromantics must be bisexual. Effectively claiming that sexual attraction must be associated with romantic attraction.

It would also be possible for someone to have corresponding sexual and romantic orientations whilst not experiencing both towards the same person. Kind of wondering how often it would happen for an alloromantic allosexual to start a romo-sexual relationship in the hope that sexual attraction would develop...

I gave this a try but couldn't get it to produce results due to no suitable gender option.

I'm an ambivet, something like 60:40 E:I. Though Myers Briggs tests only ever show me as an I. I'm also very shy, with shyness being frequently confused with introverstion, including by many so called experts.

The difficulty for allos is that romantic flirting may well be repulsive. Possibly even more so when it's purely romantic. From either a receiving or giving POV. It also seems to work the other way around. Since for at least some allos sex can be very romantically coded. I'd be very wary about linking this to anything older than around 500 years. Since the concept of romance is very modern. With the idea of it being the basis for sexual relationships only having been around for about a century. I think it's something best with friends. To have the emotional connection there... Also something which I, being on the autistic spectrum, struggle with especially. Both because I hate ambiguity and find these forms of "communication" to often be invisible anyway.

This is something I find quite irritating. How it can be put in to tick some random box, rather than for sound reasons of character or plot.

To me romance does seem of have some commonality with friendship. Like a degraded multi-generational copy with strange additions. With those additions such as exclusivity, escalation and merger weakening any similarity to friendship. Maybe it's because romantic relationships can be quite standardised. So individuals matter less than being able to follow the script. Certainly the aim of the whole thing appears to be to merge into a couple...

I've always felt, very, limited by what others were interested in doing with me. Always wanted what could be described as "network poly", even before the term was coined. Not so much no commitment as different commitment. My experience is that just about everyone will straight away consider me as exclusively (neo) platonic. With the rare exceptions being "let's have a (romantic) relationship right now!". From my POV something like a "hook up" or "first date" looks like a vast improvement. Especially if it were to happen reasonably often. It's something I'd still consider if the offer was there. But it never has been... IME It can be just as bad as the het scene when it comes wanting non romantic relationships.

This seems a very aro way to want to go about relationships. I also suspect that it is incomprehensible to most allos (even those who say they want "friends first"). It's also virtually impossible to find any sort of "role model" within popular culture. IME social situations where this is not the case are few and far between. When people don't understand the rules, can't see where the lines and boundries are they tend to either be very cautious or very reckless. (Sometimes a mixture of the two depending on if they feel in a safe environment or not.) You sound very much the former, including being frightened of being seen as the latter. It undoubtedly does make a huge contribution. I'm guessing that without support it's difficult to have any idea of what things you could do. Especially given that support and advice aimed at allos is likely to be inappropriate for you, even repulsive. Personally I often find "low pressure" (as well as "informal" and "casual") social situations to be intrinsically anxiety inducing. Even though the majority of people appear to be the opposite.

It does appear that there are socially acceptable ways to be uninterested in sexual relationships which do not have romantic equivalents. IME talking about lack of romantic attraction is not at all OK with most people. There are also plenty of ways in which the world is specifically set up with the assumption that everyone is (or wants to be) in a couple.

The most obvious problem with this person's argument is the idea that romance is somehow "turbocharged friendship". Whereas I'd say it is a different kind of relationship from friendship. It would make more sense to claim that QP friendships are "more than", "further than" (neo) platonic friendships. Many allos could even be considered "handicapped" when it comes to relationships. Not only do they typically appear only capable of one romantic relationship at once when they are "in a relationship" they can struggle to maintain friendships. Sometimes even family relationships. You could even look at it as some allos being incapable of non platonic friendships, so they have to do the romantic thing in order to be able to have sensual and sexual interactions

It can rather depend on their reactions to how you answer "Why?". As well as what happens if you ask them why they are alloromantic or what their, personal, motivations for wanting romance are.

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

Not sure how I missed this thread six months ago. Some of the BDSM questionnaires are rather more detailed than yes/maybe/no. Including such concepts as "impossible", "must have", "soft limit", "hard limit", etc. There's also "want/will/won't" lists. Whilst the examples I could find tend to be sexual there's no reason they couldn't include these. I'd separate the invite from the act of buying/paying for. Similarly I'd separate the ask/askee role from the organising. Some such questionnaires use things like 1-5, 1-7 or 1-9 Possibly with '0' or 'X' to indicate "never" or "hard limit".