Mark

Merriam Webster is the only definition which mentions absence of romance. Oxford says not sexual. Cambridge is much the same. Urban dictionary ditto. vocabulary.com says not sexual or physical. Even in the US that is the regular definition. With using it to primarily mean "not romantic" appearing to originate from the ace community.

To add to this mess the term "queerplatonic attractioon" may also be used. It's odd that there should be a need for a term to describe "lack of interest in QPR" rather than "interest in QPR". Similarly for "squish" The definition of "nonamory" is also rather troublesome. This part "a lifestyle choice or relationship style that does not include intimate, long-term partnerships, whether romantic or platonic." contains the false dichotomy of "romantic or platonic". Consider that terms like "lifestyle (choice)" have in the past been used to erase LGBTQ+ orientations. The next sentence "A nonamorous person does not need or want a boyfriend, girlfriend or partner. They do not need or want a queerplatonic partner, or platonic life-partner, either." implies that this may not involve any "choice" at all.

Looked more like, at least, six... It's far from the only such word. Maybe different words for "experiences platonic attraction", "has squishes" and "desires a QPR". All of these being different things. If "squish" is an analogy with "crush" then there's an implied "intense" adjective.

The same applies to enjoying romantic relationships depicted in fiction. Also worth asking them what they mean by "a relationship", especially anything they think is "obvious". The idea that aros have somehow lost the ability to experience romantic attraction or are, otherwise, "broken allos" is rather toxic. It's effectively a form of arophobia which avoids challenging amantonormativity and romonormativity. With this kind of meme being directed at LGBTQ+ people in general. (As well as other minority groups.)

The only kind of love that Medieval scholars could plausibly link to marriage would be "eros" or "pragma". There is literally no word they could have used to describe "romantic love" anyway. Regardless of if they were using Vulgar Latin, Classical Latin, Koine Greek, Classical Greek, Aramaic, Classical Hebrew or Classical Arabic. The most obvious cultural link between "love"and "marriage" being an American song from 1955. About the time of "peak marriage". Arranged marriages have been around a long time. To the point that their origin is unclear. Even ostensibly romantic marriage cultures can include coercion from parents and peers. One way in which romantic marriage cultures may be more coercive is an expectation that everyone, regardless of social class or profession, should marry. Something especially notable in contemporary Western cultures where married adults are in the minority. If anything matrimania within popular entertainment is inversely correlated with the proportion of married people. If anything that specific example would appear to show women getting the lesser-evil. Though so called Honour killing does appear to have a, strong, connection with arranged marriage culture. Her marriage to Philip the Handsome was definitely arranged. Arranged, even forced, marriages, can consider compatibility. Especially in the cases where a failed marriage could mean a major diplomatic incident (as happened in the 1530s) or even a war. (However nobody, at the time, would have considered "romance" to a factor.) They married in 1496 and he died in 1506. Thus were married for ten, rather than two, years. A large part of the propaganda appears to have been down to her father wanting her out of the way so he could continue to rule Castile. Possibly the story derives from a Castilian (Spanish) novel. Which would, technically, make it "romantic".

It's possible for friendship to be based around sexual, sensual, aesthetic, romantic, etc attraction. Attraction and love are different things. Someone who "loves their friends" could mean in terms of philia, eros, ludus, romance, etc. Allos can use the phrase "more that friends" where there is just romance involved. There is also the way in which QPRs are often placed in this hierarchy. Without considering that at least some aros find non-romantic, including platonic, relationships to be "more than romance". Effectively inverting the hierarchy. Others may question the hierarchy concept.

It's worth asking "how similar" as well as if the False Equivalence fallacy might apply here. The aromantic spectrum is quite diverse as are the asexual and aplatonic spectra. An "aros and aces" a-spectrum is more diverse. With the possibility of conflicting needs between allosexual aromantics and asexual alloromantics. An "aros, aces and aplos" being even more diverse. With more possible conflicting needs.

I'm thinking that similar problems from different causes might require different solutions. I do miss friends. However I associate love for friends more with "philia" ...

This is fairly close to what I've always wanted. Though in my case it would be a mix of platonic and intimate friends. Whilst many other things on this thread, especially cohabitation, are a definite NO for me. I'm very much more people to go out with rather than come home to. I can see quite a lot in common with Solo Polyamory. Subject to the caveats of my not understanding allos. Definitely I want a clear division between residential/domestic and social spaces. When I was younger I might have been more prepared to tolerate such a setup, though preferably non monoganmous. However in the last 10-15 years, no matter how lonely or socially isolated I have felt, even the idea of this has looked like far too much hard work and emotional labour to failo to get my needs met anyway.

The complication is that TERF was coined around 2008 whilst LGBT dates from the 1990's and LGB dates from the 1980's. Thus they would have been called or identify as something else when this happened.

I find "romantic", "sexual", "sensual", "aesthetic", "intellectual", "protective" or "social" to be useful and meaningful attraction concepts. Whilst for "platonic", "alterous", "queerplatonic". They make little sense used in that way. With the term "quoi" being a good description of how I feel about them applied to attraction.(With "emotional attraction" my feelings are more "too vague".) Something I can often struggle with is understanding how QPRs are non-romantic when they are described. Especially when they involve monogamy, co-habitation, financial entanglement, etc. I seems as though there can be a mis-assumption that everyone is using the same set of attraction concepts. As well as conflation between the "quoi" and "a" prefixes.

There's this AVEN thread from 2003 where A meaning ally is mentioned. The term aspec dates, IIRC, from 2015.

Conflation between aromantic and asexual, along with the more general conflation between romantic and sexual orientations, predates any asexual, aromantic or aspec community. The current situation is the ace implies aro meme has been weakened the aro implies ace meme is still going strong. There's far more awareness that asexuals can be of any romantic orientation than there is that aromantics can be of any sexual orientation. This conflation is far more than just about tagging posts on one social media platform. I think that shared history is part of the problem here. Including in relation to vocabulary. as well as "aspec community" idea.

There's this survey I put up last year about squishes and platonic attraction., (Which is also about the only other example of "alloplatonic"...) Like far too many terms "platonic attraction" often seems to lack clear definition. There's this AVEN thread. This LGBTA Wiki page which has, at least, three different definitions and treats it as an umbrella term. This Carnival of Aces piece which questions the linking to friendship. This Typography Central thread. The term "platonic" is likewise, somewhat, ambiguous. Dictionary.com references Plato, "platonic love", spiritual and non sensual. Vocabulary.com also references Plato, spiritual and non physical. Urban Dictionary non sexual. yourdictionaly.com non sexual. Cambridge English Dictionary non sexual. Oxford Learner's Dictionary non sexual. Collins English Dictionary non sexual or related to Plato. Merriam-Webster Dictionary non romantic or non sexual. It's notable that mainstream society uses terms like "platonic friend", "platonic relationship" or "platonic love" without using "platonic attraction" much at all. The term "aplatonic" isn't exactly an antonym to "platonic" or "platonic attraction". LGBTA Wiki Urban Dictionary AVEN

There's a possibility that they could be greysexual or demisexual. Thus have, limited, ability to experience sexual attraction. Though they are also the aromantic in the study. Page 61 (76) of the thesis.

Reading the whole thing I note that you said Which means you probably should have split the analysis into both "version A" and "version B" sections. It is, however, impressive to get 527 responses. Regardless of intent this perpetuates the myth of aro being a subset of ace, About the only one which comes remotely close to having any any allosexual aromantics involved is Stucki's "Compulsory Sexuality and Amatonormativity in Higher Education: A Photovoice Study with Asexual and Aromantic Students." Where one of the subjects identifies as "Asexual, but questioning Aromantic" I notice things like there is a "Pathologizing Asexuality" section, but not "Pathologizing Aromanticism" There's "Asexual Identity Disclosure and Discrimination", but not "Aromantic Identity Disclosure and Discrimination". Which starts "Several researchers have looked at the coming out process for asexual and aromantic people..." (In several places where the heading says "asexual" the text says "asexual and aromantic". It's easier to find examples where "asexual" is used on it's own than where "aromantic" is.too.) "Sexual Coercion" is mentioned, but not "Romantic Coercion".

Romance is highly gender coded. It also forms a significant of expected gender roles, including those of children. Thus it wouldn't be that surprising if all aros can experience social dysphoria in connection with it.

This is a three way conflation. With seven demographics involved here. Unlikely that this will be helpful to more than one of those groups of people. Quite likely to help none of them. This conflation originate from Tumblr. It's likely that conflation between sexual and romantic orientations has existed for as long as the concept of sexual orientation (maybe around 120 years).Doing this seems very much an act of self harm. It undermines the work the asexual community has done in debunking the assumption that asesxuals are also aromantic. It makes debunking the assumption that aromantics are also asexual even harder.More generally it contributes to the invisibility of varioriented people. Who may be, at least, one in nine of the population. An indirect effect of this conflation being to deny that perioriented allo allos can experience only sexual or only romantic attraction. The "a prefix" being used for negation is of Classical Greek origin. It's use in Modern English may be somewhat indirect from Latin and Romance languages.

This is the most obvious flaw with the entire test. There are few parts of it which don't involve a false dichotomy.

Whilst it's good that you have been able to compile this list I can see some issues: This is a very short list. Only nine items. None of these are professional or academic research. Which means they are not citable for Wikipedia (or similar). Going through them: Aromantic Gender Experiences: The survey demographics seems very skewed. With cis people, especially men, underrepresented. Allosexual Aromantic Survey Results: There's a specific bias of only including allosexual people. Again the demographics seem skewed. Both in terms of gender and sexual orientation. Aromantic Friendship Survey: The person performing the survey themselves appears concerned about the age demographic. Aspec PDA Survey: This is specific to "LGBT+ spaces" which could introduce several, indirect, biases. There's nothing in the results to separate the views of aros and allos. Survey on Romantic Attraction: In terms of demographics of sexual orientation and gender this seems very skewed. The Aromantic Spectrum in the Ace Community Survey: This is specifically biased towards asexuals, though did pick up a small proportion of allosexuals. There looks to be some good analysis within those limitations. Romance and Sex Repulsion in the Aro-Spec Community Survey: Results: There's a breakdown by romantic orientation, but not by sexual orientation. There seems little attempt to correlate repulsion with orientation. Or to compare repulsion between the situations of romantic sex, romance free sex or sex free romance. Romantic Ambivalence: This is about about identity labels. Specifically for people such as quoiromantics who may not fit "cleanly" into an "aromantic spectrum". How Many People Are Aromantic?: This is specifically biased towards asexuals. With it being specifically noted that any allosexuals involved are unrepresentative. They conclude that aros are quite common. At one in every twenty three people more common than many recognised minority groups, including any of LGBTQ+.

I've not seen it. Though it is concerning how, according to Wikipedia, "According to many reporters and critics, concerns were expressed regarding the viewers who have positively identified and connected with Penn Badgley's character on multiple social media platforms, despite the transgressive acts that the protagonist displayed and committed over the course of the season"

IIRC it means beloved Mentioned in this article. Which starts by referencing Plato.

The opposite of any normativity is diversity.

There are the Mosuo. Who have something called "walking marriage" which is radically different from either arranged or romantic marriage. Though they may have acquired monogamy from other Chinese cultures recently. Decline in marriage is't specific to Japan. Here's articles about it happening in China, The UK, Australia and The US.

It's on Amazon, but only in paper and audio versions.