Orchidsexual is not an Allosexual orientation, it's just... not an orientation at all?

Hear me out. I have heard a lot that orchidsexual is essentially an allo microlabel, as it involves not wanting to have a sexual relationship but still having sexual attraction. I almost disagree in the sense that orchidsexual just isn't an orientation to begin with?

I don't mean to be a hater, I think it's fine to be a sex-repulsed allo, but "whether or not you want to have sex" is highly dependent on many factors: society, trauma, medication, religious regions, and personal preference over time. The whole point of the attraction-based model of sexuality is that it provides something a little more concrete that doesn't change over time. Your attraction to women or men won't change the way "desire to have sex with women or men" might. (Though obviously there is something of a causal relationship between attraction and desire.)

If an orientation is "a person's enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attraction to other people" then orchidsexual is just not an orientation at all. (The only sexual orientation that "orchidsexual" directly precludes you from being is asexual.)

There are a few other terms that I feel similarly about. I myself could be described as cupioromantic but I just call myself aro, since it feels like I am aro + unrealistic dreamer, not that wanting romance is inherent to my romantic orientation. Perhaps it is useful in order to quickly identify other aromantic people who feel similarly to you so I'm not completely against the term. And it is kind of cute. On the other token, I have an aro friend who no longer desires romance after some bad dates, was she "converted" from her orientation?

Thoughts??