Mark

Brings to mind this thread.

Couple culture in general. Small talk. Stereotyping. Assumptions.

Whilst such commonalities exist overstating them can lead to False Equivalence. Both allo aces and allo aros might both be seen as "immature" there is a large difference between "innocent" and "predatory. A way this may show up in "aspec" spaces is the idea of needing to "protect" aces from unwanted sexual content whilst aros are expected to just put up with romantic content. Whilst promoting that asexual does not imply aromantic is a major part of AVEN there isn't really anywhere doing the same with aromantic does not imply asexual.

I suspect it's a part of the way in which omantic and sexual are often packaged and conflated. If anything the concept of "aspec" is part of the problem here.

Something like that might work for me. Alternatively having regular partners. I like kissing, along with many other romantic coded things, whilst finding both romance and (any sort of) monogamy quite repulsive.

Asexual sex workers exist. Libido, sexual interest and sexual attraction are different things. It's perfectly possible that alloromantic aces may have sex only because of it being romantic coded and thus "part of the package". Just as aros can enjoy and/or wish to do romantic (coded) activities whilst being uninterested in or even, extremely, repulsed by romantic relationships there can be aces with similar attitudes towards sexual activities.

This is a classical example of the appeal to nature logical fallacy. A rather questionable one since the vast majority of mammals don't "pair down" in the first place. There's this recently released study. Which shows it's only a minority (14%) of single people who conform to the amantonormative stereotype of single mindedly seeking to be coupled. Also notable that 10% are exclusively interested in casual dating.

Professor Brake is your friend.

Which leads to people questioning if the are aro (enough) if they don't want a Queer Platonic Relationship or Platonic Life Partner. (Similarly for aros who don't do squishes.) It potentially works for allo aces. Since romantic relationships look very similar regardless of if they are sexual or not. There are also aros who want relationships which are neither romantic nor QPRs.

There are non-romantic relationships, such as "Platonic Life Partners", which can can be similar to romantic relationships in terms of structure, dynamics, hierarchy, etc. Not sure that this applies. Since non-sexual romantic relationships are little different from sexual romantic relationships. Indeed Professor Brake's definition makes no direct mention of such relationships being sexual.

Very often alloromantics conflate "committed", "meaningful" and so on with "romantic."

Maybe have allo(romantic) characters who are portrayed as shallow, manipulative, abusive or creepy towards an aro lead.

What matters to me is that so many activities are romantic coded.

A great way to put it.

They might be "between relationships". There are also allos for whom promiscuity is their method to "find the one(TM)". It's a fictional cliché, maybe one which only makes sense in an amantonormative culture. Leaving aside the (cis) hetero stereotypes of this both of the characters involved have to be allo. Even allos tend to see romantic behaviour from people they are not romantically attracted to as creepy.

There is also self perpetuation involved here. Something is unusual about the ace community is recognition of variorientation. Whilst in straight, LGBTQ+ and even many aro (and aspec) communities periorientation is assumed as a default. With it even being possible to find LGBTQ+ and aspec communities which variorientation is somehow an "ace thing". (It's also commonly the case with kink, polyamory, relationship anarchy, etc communities are "perinormative.) It's very hard to find information about aro-allos even when you know the right terms to look for. Even then it's still easier to turn up aro-ace and (even) allo-ace writings.

Even assuming five types of attraction that still gives, at least. thirty one possibilities.

Discussing romance can even be an expectation. In contexts such as celebrity gossip or "shipping" fictional characters. It's very much a normative to conflate sexual and romantic. With aro aces being just as likely to do this as other perioriented people. A part of this is that even with issues such as "marriage equality" the language used tends to be "sexual orientation". The experiences of aro aces are likely to differ, substantially, from those of either allo aces or aro allos. That we tend to have "ace communities" which tend to favour allo aces and "aro communities" which very much favour aro aces is another possible reason for greater asexual visibility and awareness.

Periorientation both describes the majority of people as well as being the default assumption. You can even find "-sexual" used where "-romantic" could be a better description as well as being used to effectively mean "-romosexual". It's possible that someone who was "overlapping varioriented" may not even realise they had differing sexual and romantic orientations. It also must happen that peri-allos experience split attraction... The effects of non-compliance with amantonormativity differ between allo aces, aro allos, aro aces and allo allos who choose to remain single. Infantilisation (along with pathologisation, including dehumanisation) is common way to avoid questioning social normativities. There might also be a difference between "you'll grow out of it..." aimed at allo aces to "you need to grown out of it" aimed at aro allos. A likely related issue is that Infantilisation often comes with desexualisation included. Which may well be a non-issue to asexuals whilst being a huge one to allosexuals.

Some of these ways include "being safe for work", acceptable to any age along with a general lack of concern in respect of appropriateness or consent in terms of romance. There's also ways in which romance is more "public" than sex such as getting "in a relationship", engaged or married being announced and celebrated. There are situations, such as religion, where non-sexual romantic relationships amongst adults can be considered acceptable. Which is not the case with non-romantic sexual relationships. Thus the situation of aros being dehumanised can be more extreme for allosexual aros, (Assuming aro aces don't get lumped with other aces and infantised.) It can be the case that queer communities are more interested in questioning heteronormativity than amantonormativity. Similarly kink and non-monogamous communities can question sexual norms whilst endorsing romantic norms. The effect of this "package deal" is to assume that all aces are also aro and that all aros are also ace., IME the ace community is better at challenging and debunking the former than the aro community is with the latter. I've even a fair few "relationship anarchists" conflate sex and romance.

Having assumed default for a noun can make it important to use adjective (including prefixing "non-" to the assumed one) in order to avoid that assumption being made., It's also the case with "relationship" where "romantic" can be an assumed adjective.

I see platonic friendship as being a subset, rather than entirety, of friendship. I'm very open to doing romantically coed things with friends or having non-platonic friendships. I don't see romantic relationships as more than. (If I had to rank rank them as less then.)

Whilst this is something of a Bard stereotype it's not, at least IME, that common. In settings such as Barovia it's unliklely to be of much use at all. D&D does not have a specific seduction mechanic. Most common would be to use Persuasion, sometimes Performance. Other Charisma based characters such as Paladin, Sorcerer or Warlock can also easily have a high Persuasion modifier. Persuasion can also be used to rebuff another character's interest. Similarly for Intimidation, which is also Charisma based. Something I find more obviously indirectly arophobic in D&D is the Marriage option. Spells which, directly, change the behaviour of other player characters can easily result in Player Vs Player (PVP) situations. A possible counter to this would the Calm Emotions spell. One option is for your character to treat that as an attack. Though DMs should respect players' limits.

IME perioriented people tend to conflate romance and sex. Often without being aware of it. There can also be conflation between romance and interest in other romantic coded activities. In theory allo-aces get this. Though practice not so much. Also worth noting that someone's feelings towards performative romance can differ from how they view romance in fiction or popular culture. Often "relationship" and "romantic relationship" are seen as synonyms. Thus there's little cultural context in terms of what a non romantic relationship (sexual or not) might look like. These don't work for everyone. I'm not sure any relationship is "no-strings-attached" more "no-romantic-strings-attached". Even for a non romance repulsed aro that "more" could equate to "less". This is where romantic privilege comes into play. Part of this is likely to be that whoever ended the relationship it's likely to be seen as the aro's fault. This assumes that a) all aros want casual sex. b) all aros can easily find people who they find attractive and are interested in casual sex with them. Which can also be expressed as "aros are satisfied with (platonic) friends". There's a lot of social interaction which is romantic coded. Someone being a romance-favourable aro does not mean that they know how to role play being an allo. It's not that hard to find existing examples of non-sexual romantic relationships. Even involving allo allos Whilst it's hard to find examples of non-romantic sexual relationships.

I'm not sure it's that much of a standard. There's also the issue that a lot of aro jargon originates from the ace community.and thus tends to assume a lack of sexual attraction. This definition appears to be from the Renaissance Conflation with friendship also appears to be misunderstanding of Plato. It also makes a nonsense of the term "platonic friend".