Mark

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".

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.

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.