Mark

I don't think that there is a simple answer to this.. At least some allos are capable of being in Queer Platonic Relationships. (Even multiple concurrent QPRs.) Some obvious issues include: The allo trying to push romance on the aro. The aro might think that they need to accept romance or try to "act romantic" in order for relationship to happen/continue. The allo needing to understand that whilst the aro might like some romantic coded things they may dislike (or be repulsed) by others. The allo might feel they are not with the aro or doing things together enough. The aro might feel that they are with the allo or doing things together too much. The allo might abandon the aro for a romantic relationship or the aro might fear this happening. Things may be more difficult if the allo has lots of experience with dating other allos There's also likely to be social and peer pressures on both the allo and aro. With the nature of these pressures depending on their (assumed) gender and sexual orientation. To add a further complication someone's sensual, aesthetic, platonic and queer platonic orientations need not coincide with either their sexual or romantic orientation. (A somewhat contrived example would be someone who will cuddle with anyone; only kiss cis gendered people and only have sex with women.) Both of them would need to be clear about what they actually want from the relationship.

Attraction does not equate to romantic attraction. Many other forms of attraction exist, no matter that many societies downplay them and put romantic attraction on a pedestal.

The primary focus of AVEN is asexuality. With aromantic asexuals being in a minority within the asexual community. Similarly aromantics are a minority within the LGBT+ and straight communities. Or happier than if they are doing the amantonormative thing. There often can be an attitude of "how can you know it's not for you if you've never tried it?"

There is the obvious complication of differing social attitudes towards coupledom and/or marriage. Along with arranged (even forced) marriage.

Somewhat understandable to confuse the two, given that mononormativity and amantonormativity are closely intertwined. (With polynormativity also seeming to be related to amantonormative ideas.) Whilst I feel that being aro plays a part in my being disinterested and to some extent repulsed by monogamy it is certainly not the only factor. The presence of absence of romantic repulsion, which is in itself quite complex and multifaceted, does not imply if someone will want relationship(s) or a single life. Someone could be highly romantically repulsed whilst desiring (non romantic) relationships. Similarly it would be possible to be romantic repulsed whilst also being into things which are romantic coded.

I've never encountered this concept before.

I've never really got why people would want to do it. As for the wedding if you want to hold a party then why not just call it a party? Or i'd have gone insane! Maybe some kind of arranged marriage, to someone rich... You could try this test. http://www.rdos.net/eng/Aspie-quiz.php

Or possibly the Bynars, who do everything in pairs. Whereas the Borg understand the concept of teams of more than two. Hence Seven of Nine.

I'm not sure this applies to all aro aces. No reason why they cannot be social or desire "relationships", just ones which are free of romance and sex... Many romantic coded things are not sexual and it seems fairly random what aros might like in this respect. On this platform it's usually fairly obvious what someone's romantic and sexual orientations are. Whereas with tumblr and facebook this tends not to be the case.

Possibly also finding out their orientations before hand too. There isn't really a good term for (queer) platonic "date". Certainly not that most people would understand. Also many aros are interested in romantic coded things (including sexual relationships)...

As well as how these people refer to themselves. Even to the point of no longer appearing to lose individual identities. I've never been able to see this as anything other than a negative thing. Yet just about everyone else appears to desire and enjoy this. Neurotypical Emulation Software is a good way to put it. It's also worth remembering that being aro is considerably more common amongst NDs than NTs. Possibly "romance OS" runs better given an NT neurology. What I find is in addition to requiring "alone time" (also known as "space") when I desire "people time" it it can specifically be with a group of people. Even when I desire one to one interaction it would not always be with the same individual. Indeed I've always found the idea of wanting all human interaction from one individual quite baffling. Something I would never seek myself or expect to be treated like myself. This behaviour of dropping interests not shared by a partner, only doing things together, appears fairly recent. Nor is it quite universal. Even as recently as 50 years ago it seemed fairly common for married people to continue with individual hobbies and interests. Even to retain pre-existing friends (especially same gender). Hence people often describing a different pattern of behaviour from their parents and/or grandparents. I'd also find it difficult to be on the receiving end of this kind of behaviour. A "partner" abandoning aspects of their personal identity would make themselves less attractive to me.

Cohabitation is part of what is known as the "relationship escalator". Which the vast majority of alloromantics appear to follow as a kind of script. Interestingly I did see this article this morning. http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/08/whoopi-goldberg-is-done-with-marriage.html?mid=fb-share-thecut

You might find this useful.

The term "partner" need not imply "romantic partner". Even some regular dictionaries say it can also be about sexual partnerships. There are also terms like "friend date", "mate date", even "masturdate". The vast majority of dating is more romantic coded than romantic anyway. Maybe a "Queer Platonic date" should be called a "coconut"...

With there also being theories that these hormone exposures somehow determine sexual orientation. So it's a sort of C causes A and B, thus there is a correlation between A & B. In the process ignoring that "gender" is not a binary of "man" or "woman" nor is it the same thing as "sex". Sexual orientation is not binary either. With polysexual and asexual people typically being ignored.

Considering some of the things I've heard about being studied I can believe that this is real "research".

Interesting. No men with equal index and ring fingers or women with longer index than ring fingers? Looks like a study of monosexuals only. As well as it being very unclear if this is ment to apply to sexual or romantic orientation. I'm male bodied, aromantic, pansexual (my sensual, aesthetic and platonic attractions also "pan") with ring fingers longer than index fingers.

I suspect that many alloromantics can do themselves harm by denying that they need space. Wanting to ride the relationship escalator is seen as a sign of "maturity". As is also implied by terms like "settling down". With sexual friendships (even non-monogamous ones) sort of tolerated, but discouraged, amongst young people. To allo aro people these kind of relationships are far superior to any romantic relationship. (Even for aros who can tolerate being in a romantic relationship.)

I think I know what you mean. I commented elsewhere recently that most literature about aromance appears to have been written from an aro ace (possibly also touch repulsed) POV. AVEN is intended primarily as an ace resource. Never heard of frayromantic. Guessing you want is at least one sexual friendship. Being aro is often a problem here, even if you are not heterosexual... I have heard of allosexuals describing that part of "casual sex" can be a role play of being in a relationship. Which is an obvious complication for aros. In terms of active members aro aces appear most common here. Though I suspect that aro heteros are the most common aros... There is the term "nesting behaviour" which rather more concisely describes this. A part of this you didn't mention would be merging/entangling personal finances. The whole "becoming half of a pair" isn't always slow. Personally I very much dislike the term "other half", who'd want to be half a person?

Or just not have the sexual exclusivity requirement in the first place. Though that would require negotiation rather than just following the amantonormative "script". (Allo)romantics do seem to have a big thing about (all sorts of) exclusivity, regardless of if they actually want it...

This can still make sense if you are aro. Because they may well spend all of their time with their spouse and thus you no longer have a friend. Even if they still want you as a friend they might refuse to do certain things with you (because you are married) or insist of telling you how wonderful being married is.

Unhealthy to the point of self harm. Both by rejecting your existing support network and assuming that one person can replace several. I just find this baffling since I instinctively look for a "team" to meet my needs and don't expect to be able to meet anyone else's needs on my own. Similarly why could they not spend the time with their friends? Is not the major reason for wanting to spend time with someone mutual benefit?

I have just never got this, it's seems weird. Also how do they choose which interests to keep and which to not? Plenty of things where the ideal group size isn't two. (Maybe it's those which tend to get dropped.) This seems to relate back to "We-Must-Do-Everything-Together". But why one person rather than a "team" of people?

I've always though of flirting as being about sexual attraction. Though it's not something I can do in most situations. Which I suspect has more to do with being on the autistic spectrum than being aro.

Along with a whole lot of other behaviours being "romance coded". Thus making them very difficult to find without the romance bit. Which can be very difficult and frustrating. A bit like if all the food you could buy was covered in a sauce you didn't like (even were allergic to).