Mark

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).

Because of what's known as the "relationship escalator". Normative romantic relationships are expected to follow a somewhat specific pattern of "progression" and "milestones".

Your explanation of "lithromantic" sounds quite clear. I'm had a similar response to saying I'm uninterested in marriage. Where being asked "why?" does not even make much sense. For me it's more tricky because I do desire relating to people in various ways, which dosn't include romance, exclusivity or "bundling".

Being lonely does not make me desire a romantic relationship. Even where the human interaction and company I might desire is, culturally, virtually impossible to find outside such a relationship.

Things like marriage, monogamy, being a couple, living together, co-sleeping, doing everything together, etc. I have always seen as uninteresting, unappealing and burdensome. Whilst everyone around me seems to enthusiastically want to do these kind of things. Whilst apparently oblivious that there are 101 other ways to go about things. At times the world can feel like a giant romance convention complete with rabid fangirls/boys.

At a wild guess I'd say this is about putting you "in your place" in terms of their romantic relationship being at the top of the hierarchy. Where as you who are "just talking" is a very long way down. With the optimal group size always being two people? Sounds not unlike religious faith to me.

I don't get exclusivity in the first place. Though I do see a certain irony in this senario. Given how common it is for people getting into romantic relationships to dump friends even if their partner does not demand it. Agree that someone demanding this is creepy, controlling and potentially abusive. It certainly isn't in anyway "cute"! IMHO it's a possible "red flag". I've never got why anyone would want monogamy. Interestingly "cheating" is not confined to monogamy, though seems crazy for someone to ask for something they don't actually want. To me partners having other partners feels the most natural thing in the world. Whereas someone wanting me as their only partner seems somewhat immature, clingy and creepy.

One interesting thing, which was recently pointed out to me on another forum, is that there are personality traits these tests are not even intended to measure. In that case those connected to relationship orientation. But they may also not address sexual or romantic orientation.

Exactly "benefits" does not equate to "sex", it could mean affection, D/s or something else not generally expected in a (platonic) friendship. IME many people do make the assumption that FWB implies sex. It almost appears to be the case that alloromantic people will tend to equate FWB with FB (Fuck Buddy: a relationship which is mostly/entirely about sex). Whereas aromantic people will tend to view FWB as being more akin to QueerPlatonic and consider the "friends" part to be of primary importance.

IMHO society and culture are hugely important when it comes to both both how romance is expressed and how it can be treated as such an important (and expected) form of behaviour.

Unless the TV show is something like Seven Days or Tru Calling my first question would be "What's the worst that can happen if X and Y don't get in a romantic relationship?" I'd also ask if a romantic relationship was an absolute requirement to defat Skynet; shoot down the alien mothership; banish Cthulhu; prevent a major war; etc. (Have a missed any apocalyptic movie plots here?) More seriously it shows that alloromantic asexuals and aromantic allosexuals can have very different points of view.

It's almost like movie producers have to check a "romantic relationship" box. Regardless of if it makes the slightest sense.