[compulsory sexuality, grooming, sexual violence mention]
Painting sexual attraction as “rare” creates a scarcity model and increases pressure to act.
It plays into social grooming for sexual violence so hard.
I’ve been trying to articulate this for so long, and I was situating the problem in me. No.
(This is amplified if accompanied by the concept of “fleeting” or time-limited or fluctuating. While all these and rareness are real experiences, the way we talk about them — and expect sexual attraction to lead to sex — is so damaging.)
epochryphal 
Ohhhhh maaaaan. A scarcity model of sexual attraction. Why didn’t I think of that?
You’re right though — that would certainly help explain anti-gray junk like this — but more related to your point, I agree, there’s this undercurrent of “this may be your only chance!” and rare opportunities and fear of loss, mixed with the unfounded assumption that the people gray-as are sexually-ish attracted to will necessarily be an overlapping circle with the people that they seek to date/partner with.
I think this also has a role in what’s so uncomfortable about seeking/thinking about gray-a/gray-aro representation because, in a way, you could find a lot of that — it’s just that it’s always those narratives weaponized against absolute aces, about not caring for anyone until you met The One who is right for you, and that relationship magically works out because red string and destiny but also the rareness of the attraction making it more Special and valued. Whereas, a gray-ace who ignores/doesn’t value an instance of sexual attraction? Incoherent. Unthinkable. That has to go hand-in-hand with normative abundance and oversupply/surplus.
But, yes. Scarcity. Thank you for another word.
LikeLiked by 1 person