Mark

Notably such children are unlikely to be told they are "too young to know" or "might change their mind". (Ditto for children who identify as cis and/or hetero.) Rarely does anyone ask children what they consider "playing pretend". An interesting irony is that "romance" used to mean "adventure story", in some contexts it still does. Dragons are a good fit in that genre.

I've never understood where the notion of couples being "cute" come from.

An obvious issue is that virtually every article about "attachment theory" assumes an amantonormative like relationship hierarchy.

A combination of couple and romo privilege. Most likely with associated privilege blindness. Would the business be as keen to offer discounts to white people, straight people, Christians, rich people, (cis) men or any other privileged group? Having any kind of "couple's discount' means that other customers are subsidising the coupled lifestyle.

I'd define "romantic" as wanting to be "in a relationship". Wanting to have (at least one) and be "girlfriend", "boyfriend" or similar. Wanting to merge identities with "partner(s)".

This really should be recognised as a problem. At least lack of professionalism or, possible, mental illness. Which would probably be the case were actors playing enemies were to then turn into actual enemies off set.

Marriage is a lifestyle which is highly promoted. With the false premises that everyone wants to do it and it's suitable for everyone.

Society, including the media, treats romance and sex quite differently. Romance being considered appropriate for all ages, "child friendly", "safe for work", etc. Even outside of the ace community non-sexual romantic relationships are understood and acceptable. Whilst non-romantic sexual relationships are taboo. Sex, along with many other things, are romantic coded. But romance is not sex coded. What may be more common is aro spaces assuming ace as a default. Which means that aro allos can find a lot of the content unrelatable and/or invalidating. All too common are pieces of writing with a "not all aros are also ace" right at the end. Also problematic are posts (and memes) condemning kissing,physical affection, dating. Which overlook that there are plenty of aros who like these(and other romantic coded things). Though likely only outside of romantic relationships. Additionally squishes, platonic attraction, QPRs, etc are not universal aro experiences. There's an assumption that everyone is perioriented. Even though varioriented are a fairly sizable, around 11%, minority. In this respect allo aros have more in common with allo aces (along with homo heteros and hetero homos) than aro aces.

I put up a survey a couple of years ago about this. The somewhat surprising result was that only a minority of aros experience "squishes" at all. Most articles on the subject either gloss ever this or imply that "aplatonic" is the exception rather than the rule. (Additionally there's quoplatonic erasure.)

I think the narrative itself is often the false dichotomy of "single and independent" or "coupled and connected". Whilst it may have been co-opted by neoliberalism it predates it. This is an obvious way the narrative fails. With "isolated singles" tending towards having many significant relationships which connect to community/communities. Whilst "connected coupled" tending towards having a a singular relationship with each other. With fewer and weaker relationships with anyone else. Possibly this represents a recent change in the behaviour of coupled people Possibly the term "amantonormative narrative" might be more accurate. Since the assumption here is is only romantic relationships matter at all. This turns out to be what many single people (including allos) actually want. TBH amantomormativity has likely been hugely damaged the field of psychology. With many people who claim to "study relationships" whilst in practice only studying romantic relationships. (Even just those which are hetero, monogamous and marital.) The whole concept of "attachment theory" assumes a singular "primary" relationship. Even in respect of children in societies which are vitriolic about single parent families... Similar things can happen with such leave for family members (other than, minor, children) vs romantic partners.

This can also have assumptions of introversion or, even, misanthropy. Possibly because this is least challenging to the idea of amantonormativity There are several studies showing that single people tend to be more "community minded" than those who are coupled/married.

Is there census data to what proportion of Swedes marry (or follow the cohabiting couple lifestyle)?

Maybe even similar characters played by different actors.

Two possible reasons. Greek Mythology is a well known example of a pre/aromantic culture. The term "platonic" is very much (over) used in aro spaces. Even if not that reflective of Plato's ideas.

Sirens arn't in the official D&D source material. Though there are "home brew" stats. As well as for the rusalka from North Eastern European folklore.Which is in some ways a similar monster.

Possibly "QPR favourable", "QPR indifferent" and "QPR repulsed". Also remember that in a D&D world there might be sexual orientations which do not exist in the real world.. Nor is there any reason such a world need be, universally, amantonormative.

purificatory / cathartic It might be aesthetic or sexual attraction, but romantic attraction does not exist in The Odyssey. This sounds plausible. What does the original, Homeric Greek, text say? According to Plato they are celestial, under Zeus; generative, under Poseidon and purificatory / cathartic under Hades. With those in The Odyssey, obviously, being generative. It's unlikely that anyone in the time of Odysseus (or Homer) would want a (romantic) relationship. Classical Greek has no words to describe one.

I've heard it suggested that the correct context for "platonic" meaning "not sexual" is teacher/student relationships. Apparently Plato was against the, then common, practice of teachers having sex with their students. The term "romantic" has also changed it's meaning substantially. At least until Renaissance times it described only Latin derived languages. With the term "romantic story" originally being associated with the adventure genre. What we'd now call a "romantic subplot" being unusual until the 20th century.

So what did he do before he met you? A related question being how do needs in terms of companionship and life direction wind up so highly romantic coded and centred on a single individual. How come this is considered "cute" rather than "weird", "controlling" or, even "tragic".

The notion of "platonic" meaning "not romantic" appears to be a quirk of US English. Given that the only dictionary to mention this is Merriam-Webster. Whilst every other English dictionary goes with "not sexual" or "not physical". Additionally there's the term "zucchini"... IME allo aces tend to use "romantic", rather than "platonic" or "romoplantonic/platoromantic". To me QPRs tend to look quite romance like. The term "platonic friends" also exists, implying that other forms of friendship are possible. Something which makes platonic/romantic a false dichotomy is that the concept of "soulmates". Strongly associated with romantic relationships whilst being taken from Plato's work. Additionally allos tend to interpret the "friends" part of it as a euphemism.

Ironically this may be fairly close to original meaning of "romance" when it first emerged as a distinct fiction genre.

Perioriented vs varioriented (as well as overlapping vs mutually exclusive varioriention) tends to only be seriously addressed within the ace community. Given that periorientation is a normative assumption and that, at least, 11% of people appear to be varioriented this is an "elephant in the room" type of issue. Rarely does it get mentioned that even perioriented allo allos can experience only sexual or only romantic attraction either. It can sort of work. Where "a-spec" means either "ace-spec" or "aro-spec". Though both at once would require vectors or complex numbers. Even then you have quoi orientations which are Not a Number

In general attempting to apply linear scales to multi-dimensional qualities is both complex and of little use. You'd also need to consider the likes of married monogamous cis heteroromantic homosexuals. An additional complication here is that monogamy repulsion appears to be very rare with alloromantics but fairly common with aromantics. Whilst polyamory spaces tend to assume monogamy favourable. Privilege is intersectional, attempting to apply a one dimension scale easily leading to false equivalences.

I don't want the likes of romance, coupledom or marriage with my characters. Not even as a backstory and certainly not as any kind of plot requirement. Nor would I be comfortable with a party who were mostly coupled. Anything sexual I'm fine with.

I wonder if it's more likely that minority stress is a factor here. Especially given that aros are, typically, an invisible/unrecognised minority group. A big flaw in attachment theory is the assumption of a "dyadic model" which isn't always applicable even to children. When it comes to adults the majority of "relationship research" is about romantic relationships. The typical attachment style test assumes some kind of "primary relationship".