Tumgik
#i know i know amatonormativity
ultfreakme · 6 months
Text
Honestly Geto and Gojo having the same death anniversary which happens to be the most romantic day in Japan, with a character in-story stating how romantic it is should be enough evidence to convince anybody that SatoSugu are supposed to be a romance.
On top of that, we hear that JJK0 is about Yuuta and Rika's love but it's also about Geto and Gojo's relationship.
Then Gege Akutami specifically assigning break-up songs to Geto and Gojo.
AND THEN; they each get canon songs made in each other's POV speaking about their feelings specifically for one another. Where Gojo's song contains lyrics like "Even though I’ve come to know the scent of you being different from mine" and "Any prayer, any word Could bring us closer, but they couldn’t reach you Just like a silent love, In the summery colors along my cheeks". And Geto's song has lyrics like "Even trivial conversations are fine. Show me your blushing face once more" and "It exists only here. I want to touch you" and "Though I understand a wounded heart. Why do I end up hurting and leaving the same scars?"
The animation team going out of their way to give these two more soft moments hanging, creating visual parallels through the Betta Fishes, the flowers, the entire OP for Hideen Inventory but especially the part where we are seeing Gojo's vision being filled with Geto looking amazing while he rides Geto's rainbow dragon.
I saw someone say we're just projecting western views of romance onto satosugu but like, LOOK AT ALL THIS. I cannot stress enough the insanity of their death dates. It's like two people dying one after the other on Valentine's Day. This is some Romeo & Juliet bullshit. JJK in general has next to no romance, no one's pining after each other, the few times there are implications, it's very short. The most obvious one is Mechamaru and Miwa. Now imagine if Mechamaru and Miwa were the ones who got Ao No Sumika and Akari. Imagine they got 5 episodes dedicated to their story and Mechamaru dies on December 24th and Miwa's the one forced to put him out of his misery for betraying them to Mahito and Kenjaku.
Okay do you fucking see how ridiculous denying SatoSugu is? If Mechamaru and Miwa got all that even WITHOUT saying an 'I love you' no one would question their romance.
I know people keep making fun of shonen animes for having a stronger 'romance' between the two guy leads than with any other love interest but I've seen that stuff and even there it isn't nearly as deliberately romantic as SatoSugu. I can tell that Kuroko & Kagami, Gon & Killua or Levi & Erwin are supposed to be friends, the shipping thing is based on the established friendship stuff but SatoSugu are so blatant it's hard to think of another explanation.
I saw a point about how people are projecting western perspectives of romance on platonic friendship expression in a different culture, which I do get, I think it's a valid point. Idk much about how people express friendship in Japan but I have heard there's a lot more skinship and openness as compared to western cultures.
But w/ SatoSugu there isn't anything that can be read as purely platonic, there's always an ambiguity or it's directly romantic.
172 notes · View notes
zephyr-heart · 2 years
Text
I love you QPRs, I love you polyamory, I love you relationship anarchy, I love you aromantics with partners, I love you people who don’t want relationships, I love you I admire you loveless community, I love you ignoring amatonormativity <3
24K notes · View notes
redysetdare · 11 months
Text
Everytime I hear someone say "love is what makes us human"I think of that one guy who was trying to describe humanity and said humans were featherless bipedals and another guy responded to that claim by bringing in a plucked chicken saying "BEHOLD A MAN"
Like I could hold up a million animal species and say "BEHOLD A HUMAN" because they feel love. Something that isn't just a human experience.
The point being that describing a group based solely off a few features or emotions makes the definition too broad to claim that it is what makes that species said species.
Saying humans are humans cause they have no fur would include furless animals. Same with saying love is what defines humanity. Like either you think elephants don't feel love or elephants are human. Your dog doesn't actually love you or your dog is human.
You can't use vague overly broad concepts to define humans as a species. So maybe stop trying to dehumanize people for not feeling the same emotion as you in the same way you do?
3K notes · View notes
bloggingboutburgers · 6 months
Text
Tumblr media
I think I'll never stop
1K notes · View notes
it-is-only-a-novel · 1 year
Text
Reminder that it's aphobia if you tell an aspec that they need a partner to be happy.
Yes, even if you told them first that you accept them the way they are, and you're just "expressing concern".
2K notes · View notes
Text
You can't spell amatonormativity without o no
2K notes · View notes
angst-and-fajitas · 11 months
Text
I think loveless aros deserve a thousand dollars for every time someone claims that love is the meaning of everything or love makes us human etc etc
"by love we mean all forms of love, including nonromantic!!1!" You clearly Do Not understand. Return to start, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.
There is no center of the universe, there is no unified meaning of everything, and there is no social or biological trait that "makes us human" besides the literal being humans thing, and any attempt to assert otherwise will other and alienate more people. There is no one emotion that you need to feel in order to be a good person or even a person at all
1K notes · View notes
Text
I remember seeing a post about how being aromantic is akin to being allergic to corn, and like... yeah. Being romance-repulsed, loveless, and aplatonic in addition to being aromantic is like being allergic to olives and corn. And also their common substitutes. Olive oil and cornstarch are used in everything. There is no escape.
You tell someone you can't have a food because olive oil was used, and it's "oh, but surely you aren't allergic to olive oil! That's not a real thing."
You can't have a food because there's cornstarch in it and it's, "oh, but it's such a small amount of corn, surely you'll be fine. I know you can't have corn, but a tiny amount of cornstarch?"
You tell someone that, actually, you are also allergic to a common substitute, and it's "so you just can't eat at all? that's so sad!" or "then what CAN you eat? it's so sad you have such a dislike for food."
"Surely, you aren't actually repulsed by romance! That's so sad! And also, you made that up!"
"I know you're aromantic, but you can't actually be uncomfortable with people using the word 'love' as a blanket for emotions, can you?"
"So you don't feel love for your friends AT ALL? You just don't feel AT ALL? How sad!"
It's exhausting.
140 notes · View notes
mx-misty-eyed · 2 years
Text
that trope where a character doesnt want romance until they find ~the one~ but reverse it. give me a character that centers their life around finding a partner until they realize that amatonormativity is bullshit
4K notes · View notes
starflungwaddledee · 6 months
Text
Tumblr media
kirbytober 2023 21 + 26 : fav characters + ship [ prev || next ]
putting this at the top because it's extremely important but i received a message implying that some folks headcanon these two as drastically different ages. you may headcanon whatever you like of course, but in my work i firmly think that they're both full adults who are at least 25+. this is abundantly clear in my work. i'm not interested in headcanoning any of them as literal children and i would never touch that shit. dni if you think that sort of ship would actually be okay. don't be a freak. thanks.
very typical to take your favs and then also shove them together but isn't that the point. anyway i have literally never seen anybody else ship them (if you're out there... hello... 😭) despite them both being very main characters and i don't know why?? they could be so cute i think...
Tumblr media
they are both industrious adventurers, prolific hard-workers (team task doers), and a little cheekily competitive!
i think that bandee is no stranger to a wide variety of close and intense relationships; he's beloved by many and loves them all equally but distinctly in turn. magolor on the other hand has been sooo isolated and lonely for such a long-ass time, he barely knows how to be friends let alone really care for someone. bandee is smart enough to be suitably wary but kind enough to give him a chance despite that, which i think would knock him off his non-existent feet instantly. in reply, magolor could give him something unique by loving and prioritising him utterly singularly, in a way bandee wouldn't even have realised he was missing
in awtdy (pictured in the sketch page; if you see a tattered looking magolor in my art it's probably this au) in particular they are both thrown into the angst soup together and come out insanely trauma bonded at the hip. their friendship/relationship is central to the plotline; together they're working on a solution to the timeline anomaly, while also hiding that they even really know each other the whole time
179 notes · View notes
anistarrose · 14 days
Text
I think when a lot of queer people who aspire to marriage, and remember (rightly) fighting for the right to marriage, see queer people who don't want marriage, talking about not entering or even reforming or abolishing marriage, there's an assumption I can't fault anyone for having — because it's an assumption borne of trauma — that queers who aren't big on marriage are inadvertently or purposefully going to either foolishly deprive themselves of rights, or dangerously deprive everyone of the rights associated with marriage. But that's markedly untrue. We only want rights to stop being locked behind marriages. We want an end to discrimination against the unmarried.
We want a multitude of rights for polyamorous relationships. We want ways to fully recognize and extend rights to non-romantic and/or non-sexual unions, including but not limited to QPRs, in a setting distinct from the one that (modern) history has spent so long conflating with romance and sex in a way that makes many of us so deeply uncomfortable. And many of us are also disabled queers who are furious about marriage stripping the disabled of all benefits.
We want options to co-parent, and retain legal rights to see children, that extends to more than two people, and by necessity, to non-biological parents (which, by the way, hasn't always automatically followed from same-gender marriage equality even in places where said equality nominally exists. Our struggles are not as different as you think). We would like for (found or biological) family members and siblings to co-habitate as equal members of a household, perhaps even with pooled finances or engaging in aforementioned co-parenting, without anyone trying to fit the dynamic into a "marriage-shaped box" and assume it's incestuous. We want options to leave either marriages, or alternative agreements, that are less onerous than divorce proceedings have historically been.
I can't speak for every person who does not want to marry, but on average, spurning marriage is not a choice we make lightly. We are deeply, deeply aware of the benefits that only marriage can currently provide. And we do not take that information lightly. We demand better.
Now, talking about the benefits of marriage in respective countries' current legal frameworks, so that all people can make choices from an informed place, is all well and good — but is not an appropriate response to someone saying they are uncomfortable with marriage. There are people for whom entering a marriage, with all its associated norms, expectations, and baggage, would feel like a betrayal of one's self and authenticity that would shake them to their core — and every day, I struggle to unpack if I'm one of them or not. If I want to marry for tax benefits, or not. If that's worth the risk of losing disability benefits, in the (very plausible) possibility that I have to apply for them later in life. If that's worth the emotional burden of having to explain over and over, to both well-meaning and deeply conservative family members, that this relationship is not one of romance or sex. (Because, god, trying just to explain aromanticism or asexuality in a world that broadly thinks they're "fake" is emotional labor enough.)
Marriage is a fundamental alteration to who I am, to what rights an ableist government grants me, and to how I am perceived. I don't criticize the institution just because I enjoy a "free spirit" aesthetic or think the wedding industry is annoying, or whatever.
81 notes · View notes
warrioreowynofrohan · 2 months
Text
It’s aro week, and even though I still don’t feel like I fully have a handle on what aromanticism is, I do get the impression that The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings fit well with it? because all the main character’s most important and most central relationships aren’t romantic ones.
Bilbo is considered odd (“queer”, even) in the Shire for being a lifelong bachelor; his close relationships are with dwarven and elven friends, and with his adopted son Frodo. Frodo shows no romantic interest in anyone; his close relationships are with Sam, Merry, Pippin, Gandalf, and later Aragorn. And the later relationship with Frodo, Sam, and Sam’s wife Rosie all living in Bag End - which is specifically proposed by Frodo - seems like it fits the definition of queerplatonic? Whether or not you see Legolas and Gimli as a couple, their closest relationship is clearly with each other. Merry and Pippin also seem pretty clearly the most important people in each others’ lives, and remain close with their friends in Rohan and Gondor even after returning to the Shire. Boromir’s almost canonically aroace, going by the appendices. The close friendships between Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli are prominent, while the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen is relegated to an appendix. Most members of the Fellowship (6/9) do not get married or ‘fall in love’ in any traditional sense (and of the remaining three, one - Pippin - is only noted briefly in an appendix). The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings both have the characters’ relationships with each other - and the importance of valuing and cherishing those, not possessions or power - at their heart, and almost all of those relationships are non-romantic ones.
82 notes · View notes
octever · 27 days
Text
HOLY FUCK HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS
Just because a character you see with aromantic traits doesn't make them aroace. It's fine to have your head cannons, but when ALL that is stated is a distaste for romance, I find it troubling to call them ace. PLEASE let me have this character as just aro.
Not necessarily aroallo, but just the aromantic label. Really made that because someone has aro qualities that it means they are aroace.
AGAIN
Aromantic experience -> aroace experience -/> Asexual experience
Asexual experience -> aroace experience -/> Aromantic experience
BUT if the aroace experience fits both then obviously
Aromantic experience <- aroace experience ->Asexual experience
69 notes · View notes
redysetdare · 5 months
Text
If you're first response to a repulsed person's identity is "As long as you're not sex/romance negative" then you don't ACTUALLY support repulsed people. if you're first response is basically "this is the qualification you have to meet for me to view your identity as valid and it's up to my interpretation on if you reach this unknown criteria" then you don't actually support repulsed people.
you can't go around saying how repulsed people are valid ONLY IF they're the "good ones" that's not how that works buddy.
356 notes · View notes
Photo
Tumblr media
(You know aside from when they’re family or one isn’t legal... But even then hey that doesn’t necessarily stop people does it)
3K notes · View notes
uncanny-tranny · 2 years
Text
The funniest thing is that the stereotype that trans people will become less aromantic/asexual once they transition is false for me. I became even more aroace.
1K notes · View notes