#also amatonormativity also affects polyamorous people

[ihateliterature]

Not many people know what amatonormativity is and I think that's a shame because it's a very useful concept to keep in mind

So let's do a crash course

What is amatonormativity?

A term coined by Elisabeth Brake in 2011 in her book Minimizing Marriage: Marriage, Morality, and the Law, used to explain the societal assumption that all people seek romantic relationships in the form of long term monogamous relationships. Easy, right? No

Nothing in life is so easy, especially not something like an idea taken as absolute truth by most people for as long as we can remember

Let's take it from the top

Amatonormativity intersects with cisnormativity, heteronormativity and patriarchal gender norms. What amatonormativity tells us is that EVERYONE wants and needs a committed heterosexual monogamous romantic relationship that usually ends in children. The American 50's ideal is a good example of that

The reason why the other terms I mentioned are not enough to talk about these issues is that they don't target specifically the nature of relationships under patriarchy. They are obviously talked about (especially in discussions about gender norms) but they are not the focus. There is also the problem that many don't recognize the insistence of love as a measure for one's humanity as a problem at all

We live in a world where love is considered to be the very proof of humanity. This is obviously a problem because there is no universally accepted definition of love outside amatonormativity, which claims that only romantic and familial love exist. There is no acknowledgement of alternative ways to love or of humanity existing apart from this concept

What is love? This is what I want to ask you, and I want everyone to think seriously about this question. Is it the idea of a soulmate, of finding your "other half"? Because then comes the 'why?'. Why should anyone find their 'other half'? Why can't people be whole on their own? Is there any weight to this idea at all?

But wait! Some will say! That's not all there is to love. Love is the affection and care you hold for other people. And that is a fair answer. But now I want to ask you, why should that be the measure for someone's humanity?

This conversation goes in circles. Philosophers have tried to find a way to define humanity since Ancient Greece and probably longer, and I'm not here to attempt to answer this question

But there is another question I can answer: why is it important? Why is amatonormativity and being aware of it important? Several reasons. Not only does it affect the lives of aspecs, polyamorous people, childfree and infertile people by making them feel less human for not participating in it's rituals, it also implicitly supports cisnormativity and heteronormativity

The model proposed by amatonormativity is ripe for exploitation, manipulation and abuse. It cuts off people's support networks by devaluing all other kinds of connections, it keeps people from leaving abusive relationships by eliminating all kinds of alternatives to happiness and fulfillment, it makes people enter relationships they don't want because it makes it seem like there is no other alternative, it blinds people to potential or ongoing abuse because it makes us believe that love can only be good and pure

Amatonormativity is often talked about in aspec and polyamorous spaces, but many others are unaware of its influence, and I think this is a mistake and another example of amatonormativity (blinding people to the flaws and alternatives to the ideal it proposes is another way amatonormativity works). And this is a shame, because the queer and feminist movements (along with all the other progressive movements) can't ever attain their goals without addressing amatonormativity

#aromantic #asexual #aspec #arospec #acespec #polyamourous #relationship anarchy #amatonormativity

[fiercestpurpose]

Amatonormativity: What It Means

Happy February! Since we’re apparently still having the same conversations we’ve been having for the past five years, let’s talk about amatonormativity.

Elizabeth Brake, who studies feminist philosophy, coined the term “to describe the widespread assumption that everyone is better off in an exclusive, romantic, long-term coupled relationship, and that everyone is seeking such a relationship.” [x]

So this means that if your grandmother asks about your love life even though you’ve told her you don’t want her to ask about that anymore bc it’s not important to you… that’s amatonormativity.

We all recognize that interpersonal interactions are important to reinforcing societal norms (misogyny, for example), but amatonormativity has consequences outside of that as well. These don’t get talked about as much on tumblr, because this is the fandoms and personal life website so people tend to talk about amatornomativity in their fandoms or personal life, but they do exist.

Specifically, amatonormativity has legal consequences, including consequences for access to housing, inheritance law, and custody of children. [x]

(Interestingly, the blog post linked above notes that disabled people, for example, can lose benefits when getting married. This suggests that in this instance, other societal forces conflict with amatonormativity and their interests win out. It’s more important to control disabled people or to not be socialist (or both) than to push romantic relationships.)

There’s also the argument that amatonormativity is already described by the word heteronormativity. Brake addresses that on her website, and says yes, there is significant overlap: “To the extent that exclusive, dyadic relationships are a heterosexual ideal, amatonormativity overlaps with heteronormativity. Like heteronormativity, it can be found throughout social life, and it can be understood in relation to other systems of oppression, for example in its relation to gender roles (e.g., the stereotype of the single male differs from that of the single female, and men and women are understood as needing marriage for different reasons).” [x]

However, it is important to note that many of the legal consequences above privilege married same-sex couples over unmarried couples. The UC Law Review blog also discusses specifically how amatonormativity is reaffirmed by the Obergefell decision, even as it strikes a blow to heteronormativity.

(The relation between the two terms is complicated, since some scholars (legal and philosophical) might consider Obergefell and the same-sex marriage fight to be fundamentally heteronormative in their replication of heterosexual marriages. The term “amatonormativity” is a useful one for avoiding that particular question of definition and bringing clarity to the conversation.)

Heteronormativity and amatonormativity are fundamentally related, as are homophobia and biphobia or homophobia and misogyny, but we still recognize the utility of having different terms that speak to specific parts of our experience.

Who’s affected by amatonormativity? Everyone, obviously, since it describes a belief that tries to apply itself to everyone. If you know a woman who has been expected to put her friendships to the side after she got a boyfriend, you’ve seen the effects of amatonormativity (and heteronormativity, and misogyny. I told you they were all related).

Amatonormativity especially affects asexual/aromantic people and polyamorous people, since these types of people are often not in an “exclusive, dyadic relationship,” to use Brake’s terminology.

tldr: amatonormativity is an academic term used to describe the social and legal situation in which everyone is expected to have or desire to have a single romantic partner; the term overlaps with but is not identical to heteronormativity.

#amatonormativity #aromanticism

[spidey-bie]

Ansi & Hobie

–Part 2

Here we go again. Y'all are so irritating.

(Actually loves them both with her whole heart)

I'm not going to @ them again but these questions are by @/the-cat-and-the-birdie

Meeting:

How did they meet Hobie? What was their first meeting like?

A long time ago when Ansi was a wee lass her father accidentally opened a portal to a neighboring dimension and low and behold a young boy. It wasn't the greatest first meeting (lots of tears from both sides). But over time it got better. They were together for 2 years before Hobie went back to his world.

Did they like each other right away?

Nope. Ansi thought Hobie was weird. Hobie thought Ansi was stuck up. (Little did they know they were both autistic.)

What was their first impression of each other?

Refer back to the previous question.

Romance:

Why am I answering this section when I've already established that they're not in a romantic relationship. For fun 🤭. I'm gonna answer the sex one too. Let's irritate some allos today.

Are they 'together', committed, in a relationship, etc? Or label-less?

They're in a committed QPR.

Do they say I love you? (Or something else)

I don't know actually. I know they say they adore one another but it's not....like if asked they'll say they respect or admire the other but idk if they ever claim to love one another in public or in private.

Do they kiss? In public or private?

Yes. Everywhere but the lips. Honestly it's almost entirely on the hands. The hands thing started out with Ansi ironically kissing Hobie's hand. (It's not ironic anymore.) Lips are too much of a romantic thing for both of them.

Are they more likely to steal kisses, or make-out?

Neither. It's funny though because Ansi will run up and scale Hobie to give him a forehead kiss whenever he so desires.

What are their love languages?

Ansi's is quality time and physical touch.

Hobie's is physical touch and acts of service.

Emotional vulnerability should be a love language too but oh well.

Are they monogamous or polyamorous?

Ansi you ha- *giggle* I'm sorry but do y- *pffft* just answer the question Ansi. I can't.

Its not even that funny but, whatever. I barely have mental stability to manage one relationship in my life. You think I could handle more? IDC what Hobie does tho.

If they're poly - Do they have other partners

Thinking about marriage, or no?

Ansi laughed.

Kids, or no?

Ladies and gentlemen, enbys and everything outside and in between, Ansi is on the floor. She is not breathing. He's cracking up so badly that the air has left his lungs. And oh look, what do we have here? In a crazy turn of events seems Hobie has joined her. It looks like they're engaging in what the kids call, "Rolling on the floor laughing their butts off." Wow. What a show folks. They're definitely both gonna feel that later tonight.

Do other people know about their situation?

Close friends only. Everyone else can ask questions but they aren't gonna get answers.

Favorite date spot?

They don't call them dates. But they do chill out on Hobie's boat or Ansi's Aunt's house most of the time. If they're going out they're most likely going to the library or a record shop.

Who liked who first?

Hobie. Definitely Hobie. Ansi was like oh yeah he's cool but feelings didn't grow until they reunited again.

Who made the first move?

Ansi. Immediately realized their feelings and went, hey I kinda wanna have a deeper emotional relationship with you because you're really cool and I adore you.

Hobie could only nod because he was in shock.

Do they consider each other soulmates?

And further support amatonormativity and the idea that everyone must be connected to someone in some way in order to gain true happiness? I think not and also,

*Queue Ansi giving a whole spiel on amatonormativity and how it negatively affects society*

Your OC and Hobie are obviously on a date somewhere - someone begins aggressively flirting with him, and being rude to your OC - what do they do?

Ah yes let's piss off the pyromaniac. Jokes aside he'd be upset over the unplanned interruption. He'll just pick Hobie up and move the both of them somewhere else. However if that "unplanned interruption" tries to follow them that's when she starts to get really irritated. Now he's gonna act absolute fool.

A: "Bart the baby. I THINK THE BABY'S COMING."

Cue lamaze breathing

Unplanned Interruption: It seems like you're busy so imma just go.

After the person walks away he'll either claim it was a false labor or they book it outta there.

She's done this, a fake engagement, pretended to faint, pretended to almost throw up, etc. Once she did a whole scene from her favorite telenovela where he accused the guy flirting with Hobie of being his long lost cousin. (They were in Ansi's world.) He's a con artist. He does stuff like this everyday.

(A/N: This is so much fun to do. I come up with lore while writing these answers it's really nice.)

Prev | Current | Next | Four | Five

#Ansi and her Bie #ansiniya taratella #ansi taratella #my spidersona #spidersonas #spidersona #hobie x oc #hobie brown x oc #jay and the spiders #atsv

[aroaceconfessions]

I just wanna rant about amatonormativity because it's really getting on my nerves. I definitely won't be able to touch on ALL the ways that amatonormativity is harmful (there's way too many) but I still gotta get a lot of this off my chest.

It's really crazy just how harmful amatonormativity is. Not just to aspec people, but also to allo people. Not just to polyamorous people but also to monogamous people. It's harmful to all of us. Of course, it can affect different groups in different ways and certain groups can be more negatively impacted by it, but at the end of the day, it's a really stupid set of ideas/expectations that can harm everyone.

I'm aroace and I know amatonormativity has made things confusing and uncomfortable for me and other people in our community. I also know that it can make things hard for polyamorous people in similar and different ways. Additionally, I've also seen it making even allo and monogamous feel bad about themselves and pushing themselves into situations they aren't truly comfortable with.

Why? All for the sake of this dumb little fairy-tale idea of True Love™ and that we're "nothing" or "incomplete" until we find The One™, our Soulmate™. And this idea that we should be embarrassed if we're a virgin, haven't gone on any dates, haven't even had our First Kiss, etc. Because all that is apparently supposed to be some kind of accomplishment that EVERYONE is supposed to achieve and that you gain respect/maturity once you do.

All this bullshit about how it's better to "settle for a mediocre partner" rather than be single and this pressure that often makes people feel like they should stay in toxic/bad relationships just so that they don't have to be single and so that they can feel like they've got something going for them just for simply having a partner. And this bullshit about how getting a partner or marrying your partner will suddenly solve all the problems in your life/relationship(s).

Like, no. It's stupid! All ridiculous nonsense! There is SO much more to life than romance/sex/relationships! And there are SO many different ways people can experience and have romance/sex/relationships!

Some people may feel that love is their purpose and that it brings meaning to their life and that's perfectly fine, it only becomes a problem when they try to push that on EVERYONE ELSE. Just because they have these (amatonormative) ideas and views, doesn't mean every other human on this planet will. Like, we are not the same people. We are not one person. We are different. We are human. We all think differently, act differently, speak differently, express ourselves differently and even do the same stuff differently. We can do whatever the fuck we want with our lives because we're all just a bunch of creatures on a floating rock in space. There is no real meaning to life, every individual person can make and/or choose what the meaning (if any) to their life will be for themselves.

In conclusion amatonormativity is ridiculous bullshit and you don't have to listen to it. You can live your life however you want. If you don't want a relationship, you're valid. If you have never been in one, you're valid. If you want a relationship (of any kind), you're valid. If you want a relationship/s that stray from the ideas of amatonormativity, you're valid. If you want a relationship that does not stray from the idea amatonormativity, you're valid. You are valid whether your experiences and wants tie into amatonormativity or not.

Like why get mad at someone or brush them off like "you'll find The Right Person someday" when they say they're not interested/looking for a relationship. How the fuck does that impact anyone other than the disinterested person? Why is someone else getting pressed over it? It's their life, let them live it however they want!

#amatonormativity #aromantic #asexual #aroace #arospec #acespec #aspec #aroacespec #arose

[shmaroace]

amatonormativity

(ah-MAT-oh-NOR-muh-TIV-ih-TEA)

what is it? the assumption that a monogamous, married relationship where two parties live together and have children is normal, a shared ideal, and the most satisfying type of relationship. origin story? amatonormativity was coined by Dr. Elizabeth Brake in 2014 in her book Minimizing Marriage. how is it harmful? it forces people to believe that they will be happier in a romantic relationship such as this. it mainly affects polyamorous and aspec people, but affects every person, whether LGBTQ or not. it makes romantic relationships the norm and places it above other types of relationships, which is just not right. examples? the classic "when will you settle down with a nice boy/girl?". to people in a relationship, it could be more like "when will you get married?". how can i combat amatonormativity? well, for starters, fuck amatonormativity. there's not much you can do to combat the idea, except to basically change up relationships enough that this type of relationship no longer becomes normal. (unfortunately, i don't see this happening any time soon.) other info? here's some links to webpages about amatonormativity! you can also just look up "amatonormativity" and there's a bunch of other articles and resources! 1 | 2 | 3 cisnormativity | heteronormativity | allonormativity

#tw: swearing #aro #ace #aroace #aspec #polyamorous #amatonormativity #fuck amatonormativity #lgbtq #lgbtq+ #lgbta #long post #-normativity series

[polyamorouscultureis]

hi ok so hi! i'm really confused right now, and i was hoping to maybe get some feedback? (totally ok for other people to reblog with their thoughts and experiences btw) anyway i'm queer nonbinary and polyamorous, and those are all labels that i'm comfortable with. but i've been questioning whether i might be aspec for a long time and i just can't figure this out. (sorry i know this seems like a weird thing to ask a polyam blog but bear with me)

the thing is that i feel a lot of confusion surrounding romantic/sexual attraction. i know that i feel romantic attraction, because i have crushes pretty often. i think? that i feel sexual attraction, but it could just be aesthetic attraction? but specifically i'm just really indifferent towards sex in general. and the lines between romantic and platonic feelings is so blurry to me. like. so blurry.

and i think the easiest, most concise way to describe all of this (well, most of it) is that i'm intensely uncomfortable with amatonormativity and the boxes that relationships are put into. i view everyone differently, but trying to fit them into the established boxes of 'friend', 'romantic partner', etc. makes me so uncomfortable and causes me a lot of distress.

so i guess i was just wondering if any other polyamorous people experienced any/all of this kind of thing, since (along with aspec people) we're some of the most affected by amatonormativity and all that. and if not, then i guess just if anyone has any idea where i should try looking next?

Thank you for reaching out, my friend.

I think this is extraordinarily common among non-monogamous people. And I also think that getting caught up on labels for everything holds us back sometimes.

I definitely used to try to figure out which people I was romantically vs platonically attracted to, then romantically vs sexually, then sexually vs sensually, romantically vs aesthetically, (and as a fellow nonbinary person, sometimes it's attraction vs gender envy too). And honestly, it's all a mess. Some people find value in being able to point at a person and say "this one I am platonically and sensually attracted to, but not sexually," and it's awesome that they can do that. But for me, those things change too often for me to pin down. I could be platonically friends with someone, and as I get to know them better, find myself sexually attracted to them. On the other side of things, some of my exes I look back on and wonder how I was ever romantically attracted to them to begin with. Does that mean I never was? Who knows. But I wonder, does it really matter?

I say that not to invalidate your confusion, but just to invite you to take a step back and see how important these labels are to you. You mentioned how you don't like to stick people in boxes like "friend" or "partner" so concretely, and I'm very much with you on that. What I love about polyamory is that you don't really have to know what type of attraction is where. It gives you the freedom to do whatever you want to do with however many people you like. Kiss people you're not romantically into, have sex with people you're just friends with, hold hands with a stranger you'll never see again - so long as everyone is consenting and comfortable, you can try a bunch of things out and explore what feels right to you. And even then, sometimes things are never settled into a set definition - I have one person I consider "half an ex" because neither of us know if we were ever dating or not!

So TL;DR, it's normal to feel this way and feelings can be fluid, and sometimes the label is the least important part. Polyamory is your window to explore and find out what feels best to you and what different types of attractions mean to you.

I also invite any a-spec followers to add to this post, as neither I nor any of my partners are a-spec so I don't have much experience to speak to on that end! I can also refer you to @ace-culture-is @aro-culture-is @aroacecultureis

Sorry this got so long - I hope this is helpful for you! <3

#polyam asks #split attraction model #polyamory #polyam #polyamorous #polyamourous #aspec #aromantic #asexual #labels

[pentowrite-wingstofly]

Amatonormativity is not a thing because it IS normal AND HEALTHY for humans to experience romantic and sexual attraction. Just like all animals, it is GOOD that humans NORMALLY experience these things. It's fine if you don't, but don't pretend that it's bad to "normalize" very normal behaviors. Asexuality is a non-oppressed minority that does not require representation in every single post. Trying to take away joy from people who are healthy, normal functioning humans is evil and you need to stop being so narcissistic.

Hello, Anon! Thank you for sharing your opinion. :)

You are right in that it is "normal" for humans for experience romantic and sexual attraction. Around 99% of the population is allosexual and alloromantic.

However, the insinuation that asexuals and aromantics are nonfunctioning and unhealthy is both incorrect and impolite.

Amatonormativity is not the belief that romantic attraction is wrong, it is a term referring to societal assumptions and pressures concerning romance and marriage. To quote Elizabeth Brake, the first person to use this term, amatonormativity refers to "the assumptions that a central, exclusive, amorous relationship is normal for humans, in that it is a universally shared goal, and that such a relationship is normative, in that it should be aimed at in preference to other relationship types."

Skimming over your statement about animals and romantic love, amatonormativity is both real and harmful. Singles researcher Bella DePaulo says, "It’s hurting single people because they’re led to believe that there’s something wrong with them, something wrong with their lives, even if they recognize at some level that they want to be single, and it also hurts married people, and people who want to be coupled, because if they’re in a bad relationship, they still think, If I become single, maybe I’m going to be even more unhappy.”

Amatonormativity affects people who are single, aromantic, polyamorous, or prioritize platonic/familial relationships in their lives.

"It's hard for these categories, because the world around them assumes they will want one type of love and may discriminate against them or make them feel weird or isolated for being 'different,'” says Dr Meg-John Barker, who is a psychotherapist and specialist in gender, sexual, and relationship diversity.

I am not referring to amatonormativity as "'[normalizing]' very normal behaviors," I am referring to it as unhealthy pressures concerning romantic and platonic love.

You are correct, asexuality is a minority. We are not by any means non-oppressed. If you like some more information you can read this post.

I'm not sure where you're getting what the rest of what you're saying. Requiring representation in every post? Feel free to search my blog for the tag "asexual." You know how many posts show up? 6. I have more than 175 posts.

I am not in any way trying to take away joy from alloromantics. Most alloromantics are beautiful, amazing people. What I was doing in saying there was amatonormativity in that post was pointing out exactly how ingrained amatonormativity is in our culture. It's impossible to escape, whether you stay in a fandom or post memes or have a writing blog. There's no way around amatonormativity.

I'm sorry if pointing out things you don't want to know makes me seem evil.

Narcissistic? That seems a bit strong, don't you think? Being involved in issues pertaining to myself is absolutely normal.

I am being no more narcissistic than a gay person indicating heteronormativity in a post.

I am being no more narcissistic than the time I educated my male friend on women's safety.

I am being no more narcissistic than my friends who are not white-passing talking about racism.

It is important to educate society on the issues it has. These issues are real. And we need to address them.

For more information on amatonormativity, see here, here, and here. (These are articles from The Washington Post, BBC, and Psychology Today, respectively.)

#anon asks #answered asks #Em answers #tw negativity #serious post #ace #asexual #aro #aromantic #amatonormativity #tw amatonormativity #asexuality #aromanticism

[rabbitindisguise]

The amatonormativity that polyamorous people face is just as bonkers as monosexism

Like it's both:

You'll never have "true" romance because it's not One Person

And

Why can't you just settle down with (randomly and arbitrarily picked partner)

If I can Settle Down with one of the partners and call it good, doesn't that directly contradict the idea that they're all lesser because there's multiple partners??

This is especially bad for people who are aspec because oftentimes I see aspec people in non-traditional relationship patterns.

A common example are aces who will only have romance with one or more people, and the people they're involved with will have other partners. It doesn't help that oftentimes those partners are sexual partners. So depending on how allosexist someone is, the responses are usually either "just settle down with The Ace if you Really love them" (with the implication that they won't choose the ace because no allo would give up sex) or "just settle down with the Normal Person."

Not only is this invasive, but also this setup works for plenty of aces. Arbitrarily taking away the option for aces to have these kinds of relationships by enforcing monogamy often leaves other people of their own exact orientation as the only potential partners.

There should be a word for the assumption that having a monogamous relationship that's both sexual and romantic in nature as your personal ideal is the only way to have a healthy relationship. This affects aces, aros, all other aspecs, and polyamorous people. Just having a word for amatonormativity in a broadest form isn't cutting it because people devalue these pressures as not legitimate issues for all of these groups within the LGBTQ+ community all the damn time. Monosexism, allosexism, and the targeted oppression of polyamorous people are all tied up in one another. Dismantling any of them is going to mean recognizing these shared struggles without waiting around for other people to do that for us.

#activism #intersectionality #allosexism #relationships #elitism #cringe culture #queer history #amatonormativity #monosexism

[graces-of-luck]

My Aro “Happily Ever After” (Carnival of Aros, December 2020)

The past two years or so, I’ve been thinking a lot more seriously about my future and what I want it to look like. While I’ve had a rough idea for some years now, it’s been much more concrete and salient lately. Perhaps it’s because I’m nearing my 30th birthday and I realize that for the first time I’m not sure what comes next. I’ve always been focused on school and education, but I’ll be finishing up my PhD in two years… and then what? I’ve also spent most of my life in survival mode, but I’ve been fortunate enough to slow down and dream more freely the last couple of years. So what comes next? What kind of life do I want to build for myself?

Theme: Happily Ever After

My aro “happily ever after” consists of a having a web of meaningful relationships and activities in my life. My dream is to share a home with one or two friends who are my family or with a (queer)platonic partner. My most ideal living situation is that I would have my own little space, such as a half-studio or bedroom with kitchenette, within a larger home. That way I can have alone time, necessary for my introvertedness, while also sharing a space with people I love. I desire domestic intimacy: making a home, cooking, cleaning, running errands together. I also require daily, regular physical affection and one of my preferred ways of interacting is “spending time alone together” rather than having full on conversations all the time, so having people in close proximity is necessary for that. Living together also means to me more spontaneity, more readily receiving support and intimacy, and enjoying the small unplanned things in life.

Found family is very important to me. Whether it be with one or two partners or a couple of friends, I want my found family to consist of individuals who are committed to me and would prioritize me. They would be my foundational support group and we would plan our lives with each other in mind. If such a thing were possible, they’d be the ones I’d share healthcare and financial benefits with. I don’t want my own children, but if they want to have children, I’d like to be an aunt or parent-like figure.

I also want to be involved in my community, such as helping grow a local in-person aromantic community, participating in community service, and engaging in grassroots movements. I would like to have the time and resources for hobbies old and new, such as fencing, archery, or growing mushrooms. It’s been some time since I’ve been part of a local orchestra, so I’d hope to find a nice one and join. I personally don’t find a job or career as something meant to give purpose or meaning, but it would be nice to have a job that I tolerate and can derive some basic enjoyment from. Something that allows me to have good work-life balance and can challenge me positively without emotionally and/or physically draining me. I’d be excited to do research in social psychiatry and perhaps work on mental health in community care and policy.

I must admit that trying to imagine a future as an aro can be difficult at times. There are no roadmaps for the kind of relationships I want, and sometimes I feel like I may never have my “happily ever after.” I’m nearing my 30s and I feel that my life is a big blank after I finish my PhD. I know what I want, but amatonormativity makes it so that I feel like I cannot ever breathe it to life. I’m not in a rush to reach certain “milestones” by a certain age, but I find myself craving more and more a different life, and I worry that I won’t be able to have it. Forming committed and stable platonic relationship with allo people is a challenge. Those who are in romantic relationships will most likely prioritize their romantic partners (even if they deny it) and those who aren’t in romantic relationships may end up dumping our friendship when they enter a romantic relationship. There aren’t many aros out there, though. Infrastructure, institutions, and legal systems are also often amatonormative, which presents challenges around things, such as sharing healthcare benefits or who is legally considered family. It can be liberating to be a relationship-anarchist polyamorous aroqueer person. It opens up a different world of possibilities. I find that I think about my relationships more deliberately rather than following pre-scripted narratives. But it can also be incredibly challenging, suffocating, isolating, and lonely when most of society prescribes to the pre-scripted narratives and ideas of different types of relationships as neat boxes with concrete boundaries. I don’t know what the future will bring. But I can still hope for my “happily ever after.”

#carnival of aros #actually aromantic #aro #aromantic #happily ever after #aromanticism #future #found family #gracedwithluck

[autismserenity]

I was trying, yet again, to figure out what romantic attraction is. My partner describes it as a feeling of passion, so I looked that up and came across this article in Psychology Today that made it a little clearer to me.  The author at first describes it, at the beginning of a relationship, as "the throes of all-consuming love fires." This makes some sense to me -- as in, this dovetails with what alloromantics describe, and is something that I don’t experience. It’s that thing people talk about, where those fires die down eventually, into more of a background burn. And then you get all sorts of books and articles telling you about how, in long-term relationships, you have to keep feeding those fires and keep the passion alive.  But then it went on and included this picture: a triangle of “consummate love: intimacy + passion + commitment.” I think it should really be a venn diagram, but okay. The three angles of the triangle are “liking (intimacy),” “infatuation (passion),” and “empty love (commitment).” (that is: if you ONLY have commitment, and none of the rest of these things, you have “empty love.”) The sides are combinations: passion + commitment = “fatuous love” (i think they mean when people are maybe very physically attracted to each other, and commit to a relationship, without actually liking each other as people??) Passion + intimacy = “romantic love.” And intimacy + commitment = “companionate” love.  (Obviously, I’m not fond of adding these things up into a hierarchy, such that it’s BEST to have all of them, or it’s a REAL relationship if you have all of them. Just to deconstruct that real fast: that makes the assumption that those three things are the only things that a relationship can be made out of. Which automatically shuts down any exploration of what other components might be important, and how those components interact with these ones, and what other types of relationships might be important, and what those are made out of. It also unquestioningly supports the idea that this is the ONE kind of really important relationship in your life, which is a very American idea. (It’s not exclusively an American idea, but we take it to a very isolating extreme. Lots of people have a lot of interesting stuff to say about how our tendency to isolate people into pairs -- not extended families, not friend groups, etc. -- feeds our extreme capitalism by limiting people’s resources. BUT ANYWAY)  What’s interesting about this triangle, actually, is that “romantic love” was always presented to me, I think, as the whole triangle. Like, that you only experience these things with your partner(s). (Other than “liking” -- but even then, there’s that question people ask: “do you like them, or do you LIKE like them?” Where there’s a sort of “hierarchy of like.”)  And part of the reason that I didn’t realize that I was aro was that I’ve been married for nine years, to someone who I have deep intimacy with and deep commitment with. I didn’t realize that I didn’t experience “passion,” because I’ve always just assumed that squishes/friend crushes were passion. I thought, I guess, that the way rom-coms talked about romantic and sexual attraction was an exaggeration or a rarity. And my partner didn’t realize we didn’t have “passion,” because for both of us this was our first relationship after getting into recovery, and our first healthy relationship; and when our relationship felt different, he assumed that that stuff he experienced with people in the past was just some kind of addict thing.  The way he would put it is that we’re not in love. I can’t think of it that way; that intimacy+commitment IS love for me. It’s partnered love. It’s what I assumed was romantic love, because it’s what I experience with a partner. It’s having this person be “my person,” loving them with my whole heart, having the deepest possible emotional intimacy with them. It’s centering them in my life -- doing nice things for them, thinking about how things in my life will affect them, sharing my experiences and special interests with them, tracking what’s going on with them and thinking about what they might be experiencing, wanting to spend a lot of my time with them.  The way he did put it, when he figured it out, was that he’s not in love with me. That was a real challenge to hear. (I gasped incredibly loudly and blurted out, “WHAT? WHY WOULD YOU EVEN SAY THAT?!” Then the toddler, across the room, unrelatedly fell over and started crying, and my partner panicked trying to reach both of us at once. It was slapstick comedy gold, but only in retrospect.)  We’ve had a lot of conversations about that since then. The short version is that facing that he needs to transition, accepting this part of himself that he’s been trying to stifle for years, meant accepting his sexuality in a way that he hadn’t been, which meant realizing this stuff, and that he needed to be able to explore it. So we’re polyamorous now -- so far, only in theory, but still. I was afraid that he would go off, and meet some hottie, and have all of the above stuff with them -- like being with me, but better! and just, like, abandon me to be in A Real Relationship or whatever. But he’s very emphatic that he wants what we have; that he’s not interested in abandoning the relationship we’ve built, that he loves it and it’s important to him. (When I type that out, it’s like, of course that’s true, but I have huge abandonment issues and it was a really rough summer!!)  Last night he went to Target and came home with a mug for me that says, in gold, “you’re my person <3″. I cried a lot. I don’t think he realized how much I feared not being his person anymore -- and especially, not being his person because of something I can’t change about myself.  That’s a little bit of a tangent, but it’s important to me to share. Because, regardless of what this triangle says, the “companionate love” we have, the queerplatonic partnership we didn’t have a name for all those years ago, is what we want together, and what we love having with each other.  Regardless of what our amatonormative society tends to claim - and despite my desire to have “my person” with someone whose “person” I am -- life isn’t a hike to the supposed pinnacle of love. Where you have one person who you get all your needs from, where your friends and family and other relationships become unnecessary, or are just occasional blips on the radar, or are sort of fallback relationships to have in case the “real” one ends. Life is like a walk around the park, or the neighborhood, where you can have deep connections to a lot of different people, and share your lives with each other in a lot of different and crucial and awesome ways. 

#amatonormativity #actuallyaroace #actuallyace #actuallyaro #what is romantic attraction #queer theory #aro theory #wall of words

[a-polite-melody]

Apparently exclusionists are under the assumption that the term amatonormativity is a word that aro people invented in the discourse to make themselves “seem oppressed”?

Yeah, no. Ace discourse started... what, in 2015? Maybe 2014 if you want to be generous? (Edit: I’ve been further educated on this. While more mainstream and widespread ace discourse may not have been on people’s radars before around 2014, ace discourse has been around in some form since around 2010.)

Well, yeah, the term amatonormativity was coined by Associate Professor of Philosophy at Arizona State University, and Associate Editor of the Journal of Applied Philosophy, Elizabeth Brake [x] for a book she wrote titled Minimizing Marriage [x] in 2012.

Yeah, that’s right. The year 2012. Not 2014, or 2015, or 2016, or -17 or -18. At least two years before (edit: mainstream, widespread) ace discourse started, and certainly long before aros became a more prominent target of the “discourse” mid- to late-2017. (Edit: And even if some discourse existed before the coining of amatonormativity, it is unlikely to have been within the consciousness of academics.)

To quote Elizabeth Brake in her definition of amatonormativity [x]:

The belief that marriage and companionate romantic love have special value leads to overlooking the value of other caring relationships. I call this disproportionate focus on marital and amorous love relationships as special sites of value, and the assumption that romantic love is a universal goal, ‘amatonormativity’: This consists in the assumptions that a central, exclusive, amorous relationship is normal for humans, in that it is a universally shared goal, and that such a relationship is normative, in that it should be aimed at in preference to other relationship types. The assumption that valuable relationships must be marital or amorous devalues friendships and other caring relationships, as recent manifestos by urban tribalists [x], quirkyalones [x], polyamorists, and asexuals have insisted. Amatonormativity prompts the sacrifice of other relationships to romantic love and marriage and relegates friendship and solitudinousness to cultural invisibility.

Elizabeth Brake, Minimizing Marriage (OUP, 2012), Chapter 4.iii

----

(Definitions of terms linked with [x] are my addition. It is also worth noting that at this point asexuality and aromanticism were not as separate of concepts as they are now.)

So no, amatonormativity wasn’t made up by aros to try to appear oppressed. Amatonormativity was coined by a philosopher who specializes her research on marriage, relationships, sexuality, and the like, as an academic term to discuss the assumption that everyone desires an exclusive and romantic relationship and how that affects society - particularly polyamorous people, asexual (and aromantic) people, and those desiring non-romantic and/or multiple “primary-level” relationships.

Believe it or not, people study this stuff. Thoroughly. And these concepts are discussed in not just Tumblr “““discourse””” but real, constructive academic discourse.

Feel free to disagree that it’s a useful term, but I’m inclined to believe that there is some merit to the existence of this normative assumption within - at least Western - society if philosophers have been actively writing on the topic.

#ace discourse #my post

[aroaceconfessions]

one thing that have been keeping me (cis woman) from being able to identify as aroace is the way i feel towards men. i'm not attracted to anyone i'm not close to, i'm sure of that, so i can confirm i'm somewhere on the aspec. and the ace part i'm also pretty sure because even if i do have libido and isn't sex repulsed, i don't think i ever see someone and think about fucking them. it's more the aro part that i'm not sure about, i guess? whenever i become close friends with a man, i tend to start having this... awkward air around them. there's a part of me that absolutely don't want for people to assume that we're dating, or that one of us has a crush on the other, or anything romance related. so, i tend to unconciously distance myself from these guys to prevent assumptions from happening. even one offhanded comment inisuating that someone assumes that about me and a friend is enough to set off this awkward air and make me go into avoiding mode. that said, another part of me do still consider them my friend and wants to be able to show them my full affection without holding back, so... in a glance, it seems very similar to how you would see a girl who's too shy to admit that she wants to get closer to a guy because of a romantic crush. during this pandemic, i've been able to push down that instinct of distancing myself from my friend, because... i can hide it better? like, in irl setting, i can't hide my awkwardness, and that usually results to me unconciously avoiding my friend, while when messaging, i can pretend i don't feel that awkwardness. as i said, i've been suspecting that maybe i do indeed have a crush on my friend, but it happens with almost every men i become close friends with, so i'm just thinking that rather than me having a crush, it might be a side effect of amatonormativity. or yknow, maybe i'm demiromantic, but the idea of dating any one of my friend doesn't seem appealing, so i'm not sure. i've considered whether i am polyamorous, but i really don't think so. yeah, so... does anyone else experience this awkwardness? i want to read more about this kind of feeling, but i'm not sure what keyword to use to find discussions about this exact experience, so yeah here i am

#aromantic #asexual #aroace