This Is How It Actually Works:

Aroallos are often treated as inherently "more sexual" than other allosexuals. Here's why that assumption happens, and why it's bullshit.

Relationships are often treated as inherently hierarchical and strictly defined, due to amatonormativity and a-spec erasure. It usually goes something like this:

You can't have sex without romance. Sex is "dirty" and needs to be "balanced out" or "justified" with romance. Sex is exclusively physically stimulating, and therefore shallow, unless done in emotional service to romance.

Wanting to have sex with people outside of a romantic context is seen as "using" people, inherently. You're "using" them for their body, because you "don't care enough" to love them romantically. Your desires are deemed to be inherently predatory.

You can't have romance without sex. Romance needs to be "justified" with sex, otherwise it's "just platonic."

Wanting romance without sex is seen as "failing" your partner.

Sex and romance are to happen exclusively between two people.

Romantic relationships are more important than all other relationships, except for maybe family. And remember, sex is strictly confined to romance, which therefore means that sex is also more important than nonsexual/nonromantic connection.

Friendships are always less important than romance, and therefore, less important than sex as well. They exist at the bottom of the hierarchy. That's why we have phrases like "more than friends" to describe romance.

In other words, sex = romance, and sex/romance > friendship.

When you take away the romantic elements, you're left with this:

Romance is no longer there to "balance out/justify" the sex, making the sex apparently "more sexual" and "more dirty" and "less emotional" than it would be if it were romantic.

Your sexual desires are deemed inherently predatory.

Sex takes precedent over friendship and nonromantic emotional intimacy in the original hierarchy. Therefore, sex must take precedent over all forms of emotional connection if you're interested in sex without romance, and sex also cannot spark emotional stimulation or connection on its own.

Due to the previous points, you get reduced to a largely "physical" creature, with few or no emotional needs or desires. You are also assumed to disregard the emotional needs and desires of others.

Friendships are still less important than sex. So, even if your friends are the people you're having sex with, it's implied that you don't care about your friends, and you only value them for their bodies. Sex is an insult to your friendships.

Of course, this is bullshit. All of these "rules" are bullshit.

This is how it actually works:

You can have sex without romance. Sex is not "dirty" does not need to be "balanced out" or "justified" by romance. Sex can be emotionally stimulating and fulfilling without romance (though it doesn't have to be, and that's also fine).

There is nothing predatory about having sexual desires/intent without romantic desires/intent. There is nothing predatory about having sex outside of romance, so long as everyone consents.

You can have romance without sex. Romance does not need to be "justified" via sex.

You are not "failing" your partner by not wanting to have sex. You might be sexually incompatible if sex is something they want, but that is not "failure" on anyone's part.

Sex and romance can happen between as many people as you like, as long as everyone is on the same page about things.

Romantic relationships, as well as familial relationships, are not inherently more important than any other type of relationship.

Friendships are not inherently less important than other types of relationships. There is no inherent hierarchy.

Sex is not an insult to friendship. Having sex with your friends does not mean you only value them for their body.

Wanting sex without romance does not inherently mean that sex takes precedent over everything else. For some people, it does, and that's fine. But that's not usually the case, and it should not be assumed to be the case.

Quoting some stuff from myself and others:

People tend to assume that aroallos are always hypersexual, or always loveless, or always prioritize sex above all else when it comes to their relationships with people. And all of those things are valid experiences, but they don't apply to me personally. I've been trying to put it into words... People think that a lack of romantic attraction necessitates an amplified sexual attraction. Like just because I'm aro, I must be "more sexual" than other allosexual people. It seems like people think sexuality has to be "balanced out" with romance. But I'm not particularly sexual; I'm just not ace. [...] there's nothing wrong with prioritizing or emphasizing sexuality. But that's not an inherent aspect of being aroallo, and it doesn't describe me personally. The primary purpose of my relationships is emotional connection. Sex is just a cool thing that I may or may not do with people.

- Myself [Feb. 1, 2024]

I hate that when I announce that I'm aro, but not ace, people are like "yes fuck nasty I respect it 😏😏" like okay girl sure I do that but do you think I don't experience longing for human connection ? You heard non/aromantic and thought "wow, you must be so good with one night stands no emotional attachment whatsoever". Like no, I still (and you're not gonna believe this guys) care about the people I may or may not sleep with ?? Hello ??

- max-nicoxposts [June 4, 2024]

Alloaro culture is always being expected to either be asexual or hypersexual; nuance was something meant for others I suppose.

- Anon [May 28, 2024]

Aroalo culture is someone assuming I'm ace when I say I'm aro, and when I say I'm actually aro and bi they react with "so you're just a predator"

- Anon [May 27, 2024]

there's nothing wrong with being a man and wanting to sleep with men and not date them. it doesn't make you proof queer men are sex-crazed. there's nothing wrong with being a woman and wanting to sleep with women and not date them. it doesn't make you proof queer women are predatory. being alloaro doesn't make you a derogatory stereotype. you deserve respect, no matter what

- pansyboybloom [Jan. 16, 2024]

So much of the arophobia directed towards aromantic heterosexual men seems to be rooted in willful ignorance about what aromanticism actually is and how allosexual aromanticism differs from sexual objectification. Aromanticism is experiencing little to no romantic attraction towards others. That’s it. It isn’t the same as sending unsolicited dick picks to strangers or reducing women to their bodies. When a misogynistic man disregards a woman’s personhood in favor of treating her as a sexual object, it isn’t because he doesn’t experience romantic attraction to women. It’s because he chooses not to value women as people.

- heartless-aro [Dec. 30, 2023] [I highly recommend reading the full post. I only included one section here due to length.]

and if you're aromantic, you also have to be asexual. because sex without romance is immoral and dirty and abusive. and every aroallo is an invader who's trying to destroy your perfect, pure, sex-negative aspec community. if an aromantic is not asexual, they are not a valid aromantic. if you've ever found yourself wondering why aplatonics and aroallos alike have their own small communities instead of just being a part of the wider aspec community, this is why. you drove us away. and your acceptence of aromanticism is still entirely conditional.

- thermodynamic-comedian [May 29, 2024] [also recommend reading the full post]