Aroallo is not an "adult" sexuality
[plain text: Aroallo is not an "adult" sexuality]
I am aromantic and allosexual. I am also (as of writing this) a minor. TLDR at the end because I rambled on a bit.
There's a view in society that sexuality and sex are topics that are entirely irrelevant to children and should not be discussed around/with children because it is inappropriate/predatory. And to an extent, there is a point to that, and any discussions of sex and sexuality should be age-appropriate (e.g. an eleven year old would not receive the same sex ed as a sixteen year old because there is a vast difference in experience)
However, thinking like this leads to teenagers not being given proper sex education because they are "too young", which is wildly ignorant of the fact that a decent proportion of teenagers older than sixteen are sexually active. I live in the UK where the age of consent is 16, and I know plenty of people who were in relationships aged 14/15 were having sex. (Whether they weer mature enough to is another matter, but it's important to acknowledge that it does happen so there is no point ignoring this).
This rhetoric also leads to the belief that teens (and younger kids) shouldn't be coming out as gay/lesbian/bisexual/asexual/aromantic/etc. because they are too young to be thinking about sexuality and sexual attractiveness, which just.... isn't true. Many young people have crushes, and as the majority of people are allosexual, this does often involve sexual attraction as people mature through puberty.
Within the queer community, people have said that it is perfectly fine and normal and common for teenagers to come out as gay, lesbian, bisexual, asexual - Because if a teen can be straight, they can also be queer. These arguments are all set out beautifully and the points well made.
Some people exclude aroallo people from that. They say that teens can be asexual, because they can know they aren't experience sexual attraction like their peers, and teens can be aromantic as well as asexual because they can realise they also aren't experiencing romantic attraction. But when a teenager says they are on the aromantic spectrum but still allosexual, often the same people who defend teens' rights to be (for example) bisexual turn around and say "you're too young for that".
Honestly, it comes down to sex-negative views that sex is inherently impure/disgusting, and of course children are the perfect example of purity and innocence, so they shouldn't be thinking about such "dirty" topics.
Of course a teenager can be asexual, that distances them from icky gross sex & means they would likely to be only engaging in chaste, pure, wonderful romance. Of course a teenager can be aroace, that makes them little cinnamon infantile babies, safe from all sexuality. (/sarcasm) (Also completely ignores the existence of sex-favourable aces and aroaces)
It comes off as very hypocritical though, because a teenager identifying as bisexual but not aromantic (so biromantic, but that distinction isn't typically made) is seen as acceptable, when they are expressing the same sexual desires as a teenager who is bisexual and aromantic. The only difference is that the first teenagers' sexuality is seen to be "balanced out" by the presence of nice wholesome romance.
tldr: if teenagers can identify as bisexual/gay/lesbian/pansexual/etc. whilst being alloromantic, it is hypocritical to say a teenager cannot identify as one of the above sexualities whilst being aromantic, because romance is not inherently more pure than sex and sex is not inherently impure.
