uselessaro:

arosnowflake:

arosnowflake:

you know replacing blind reverence of romantic love with blind reverence of platonic love really Not It

okay elaborating on this a bit: this post is specifically about the aro community’s tendency to go “We can still love! Just not romantically!”, and the assumption that all aros have/want meaningful platonic relationships (be they in the form of friendship, a queerplatonic relationship, or something else) and that we will always place more importance on those platonic relationships than alloromantics do. Which is just… Not It.

For the record, I’m not saying that you can’t bring trends like this up: aros, in general, definitely prioritize platonic relationships in a way alloromantics usually don’t. We can talk about that without constantly adding disclaimers for the aros that do not feel this way. We can generalize a bit. That’s fine.

It becomes a problem when this idea, the idea that we all place an extremely meaningful priority on our platonic relationships, becomes one central to the aro community, to the point where it’s assumed to be universal. When it’s not. It’s just not.

And then there’s the “we can still love!” attitude that the community tends to have. A lot of ‘mainstream’ (as mainstream as you can get with aro identities, anyway) arospec content focuses on our abilities to love platonically; comics, stories, etc. are all about how much we love our friends ‘despite’ being aromantic, about how we love our family, about all the forms of platonic love we can still feel. There is rarely any mention of aros who have a complicated relationship with ‘love’ in general, of aros who struggle to form and maintain relationships, of aplatonic aros, of everything in between and beyond that. There are a million and one ways to be arospec, and yet, we are so focused on dispelling the stereotype that we can’t love, that we’re heartless monsters, that we’ve been pushing the same one narrative over and over and over again, to the point where we’ve started to forget that it’s not the only one.

Even in the aro community, love is romanticized to the point of reaching a mythical status, when in reality, it’s nothing more than an emotion. That’s it. Love is not the arbiter of humanity. And I think that a lot of the aro community has unconsciously internalized the idea from an amatonormative society that love is, in fact, what makes us human, and that, since we cannot love romantically, we need to be able to love platonically in order to fill that ‘hole’ left in our humanity. (Or at least the hole left in our lives by the absence of a romantic partner.) When the truth is that we don’t need to justify our humanity to anyone: we are human by virtue of being born human. We have nothing to prove to anyone.

This overwhelming focus on platonic love is not a new problem by any means, but during and post-Valentine’s Day it’s become prominent enough that it’s really starting to leave a very bad taste in my mouth, so I had to get this off my chest.

“Love is not the arbiter of humanity.”

heartfeltvoid:

Story: A person can’t find their soulmate in a universe where thats a thing. At first they are sad, but then realize that they already are receiving love in their life from their friends and family, who are just as important. That you shouldn’t rely your happiness on being in a relationship with your soulmate and put one relationship on a pedestal above all others.

Me: wow this is really nice

Story: but! It turns out one if their friends was actually their soulmate so all that character development is thrown out the window. And being in a relationship is the best thing that ever happened to them!

Me:

rivermayne:

[From Daniel Sloss’ show on Netflix

Transcript:
We have romanticized the idea of romance, and it is cancerous. And when you raise children in that world, where everything points towards love and everything’s perfect on the outside, when we become an adult for the first time in our late teens and our early 20s, we’re so terrified. We’re so trying to be an adult that some of us will take the wrong person, the wrong jigsaw piece and just fucking jam them into our jigsaws anyway, denying that they clearly don’t fit. I’m gonna force this fucking person into our lives because we’d much rather have something thant nothing. People are more in love with the idea of love than the person they are with. 55% of marraiges end in divorce. 90. Nine Zero. Percent of relationships that started before they are 30 end. If those were the stats for surgery, none of us would fucking risk it. But because it’s love and we’re stupid, we just lie on the operating table like, “Maybe this time I don’t die inside.” There’s nothing wrong with being alone. There’s nothing wrong with taking time to work out who you are because how can you offer who you are if you don’t know who you are? There’s nothing wrong with being selfish for a bit, because you’ve got the rest of your life to be selfless. If you only love yourself at 20%, that  means somebody can come along and love you 30%. You’re like, “Wow, that’s so much.” It’s literally less than half. Whereas if you love yourself 100%, a person that falls in love with you has to go above and beyond the call of duty to make you feel special.
End transcript]

I don’t know where I stand on a particular romance cliché. Specifically, when you have A in romance with their friend B, but A knows B will not reciprocate. In media like in real life, A will either, still want to confess, or will be encouraged to. The official logic is generally something about honesty, but let’s get real, a lot of the time, it’s because A’s still expecting somehow. Which is human, even when you know something won’t happen, there’s often some amount of unconscious expectation/hope.

And honestly, I just don’t know how I feel about this culture of always giving the burden of knowledge to B. I mean, it’s useless knowledge for B at best, and it’s harmful at worst. By harmful I mean, either, it’ll ruin the friendship (given there’s a lack of friendship on A’s part) or, worse, it could pressure B. 

And on the other hand, I…think I can understand the desire to be honest with the people in your life? Not that I think not confessing is being dishonest but yeah. One could feel like they’re hiding the truth and feel uncomfortable with that. 

So I understand the feeling, but imposing those on B really rubs me the wrong way. Depending on the actual intent it could result in terrible consequences, but even with good intents, it doesn’t really bring B anything (maybe some people get an ego boost out of this, but I don’t really get it so I’m not qualified to talk about it).

aroace-avenue:

graces-of-luck:

As aros, we tend to be quite aware of amatonormativity, but it might be hard to explain or give concrete examples of it, especially when explaining it to alloromantics. This guide and workbook aims to explain what amatonormativity is by giving examples of how it manifests and how it can be harmful. Through a series of exercises and reflections, people can learn to better identify and challenge amatornomativity. There are also a number of sources and narratives to help people understand its impact and learn from lived experiences. The worbook is aimed at (monogamous) alloromantic folks, but could be useful for aros who are struggling with internalized amatonormativity. 

There are currently five versions of the guide/workbook:

1. Digital workbook (fillable PDF)
2. Printer-friendly workbook (printable PDF)
3. Google Docs version
4. Youtube (audio with CC)
5. Downloable MP3

The workbook can be found on here on my WordPress. Feel free to share it, especially with people in your life who could benefit from learning about amatonormativity. 

A thanks and a shout-out to those who helped, including @aroace-avenue.

This is an amazing guide written by an amazing person! Finding ways to introduce alloromantics to amatonormativity and to have them actually spend time thinking about it deeply is really hard. This is a starting point to get them going!

arotechno:

i really do feel like people who don’t get why soulmates are bad are just missing the point. like i really do.

that’s why people try so hard to change the definition. because for them it’s a matter of being inclusive so they don’t feel like they are “bad” for assigning any sort of value to the concept, either in a real or literary sense. and that’s not what it’s about! at all!

it’s not “i am excluded by this idea, please expand it to include me” it’s “this idea is built upon and popularized by a cultural hegemony that prioritizes amatonormative expectations, and those ideals are directly harmful to me as an aromantic person. rather than try to change and redefine the idea of soulmates, or even rather than just immediately drop it, we should examine the cultural beliefs baked into it that we take for granted and challenge them.”

it’s not about what you individually call your relationships. it’s about the beliefs reflected in the concept itself. and consistently trying to “widen” the definition (to encompass bonds that you subconsciously see as lesser or as weaker, or else they would have been included to begin with) just says “i am trying to fill the void that lack of romance left behind with whatever you’ll let me fill it with, so that i can feel better about myself and my choices, rather than admit that there was never a void that needed filling at all.”

arotechno:

ALT

this is the eternal torment to which i condemned myself the moment i created this blog

[ID: An image of man laboriously rolling a giant boulder up a rocky mountain. Text over the man reads “me” and text over the boulder reads “explaining why soulmates are amatonormative”. End ID]

Any other aromantics read a story that has such a rancid core message about love that afterwards its like. Well I’m evil now.

aegipan-omnicorn:

aroacepagans:

23andmeme:

af447:

aroacepagans:

aroacepagans:

Hot take but amatonormativity should be considered a feminist issue and was in fact eluded to in a lot of early feminist writing, and the fact that we don’t widely regard it as a feminist issue today indicates either a loss of knowledge or an acceptance of harmful social norms on the part of modern feminists

Amatonormativity:

-Teaches young women and girls that you must be in a romantic relationship to be happy, and therefore insinuates that they should prioritize making themselves romanticly available (usually to men) over all other things

- Validates straight men’s feeling of entitlement towards women by equating the right to happiness with a right to women’s bodies and emotional labor

- Helps justify the act of isolating your romantic partner from their friends by promoting the idea that your romantic relationships should be prioritized over all other social relationships, resulting in a climate where it’s easier for domestic abusers to socially isolate their victims

-Promotes negative views of older single women such as “hags”, “spinsters” and “crazy cat ladies”

And all of these things are directly tied to frequently discussed feminist issues, so I really don’t know why no one ever talks about amatonormativity in feminist spaces.  These norms don’t just hurt aros and poly people they hurt everyone, and it would greatly benefit y’all to actually listen to us when we discuss these issues.  

Hello yes this is important

amatonormativity? all of these examples are of compulsory heterosexuality/heteronormativity under patriarchy

????

So a few people have made this comment, but almost all the rest of them have been terfs, so I’m only gonna be replying to this one.

Amatonormativity does have a lot of overlap with compulsory heterosexuality, and in fact, Elizabeth Brake, the woman who coined the term even talks about that in her explanation of it, but they are not the same thing. 

I’m gonna be honest, most of my posts about amatonormativity never actually get popular outside of the aro and poly communities so I didn’t bother to define terms but this one is popular enough that it’s probably worth doing.

Amatonormativity: The widespread assumption that everyone is better off in an exclusive, romantic, long-term coupled relationship, and that everyone is seeking such a relationship.

Compulsory heterosexuality: The idea that heterosexuality is assumed and enforced by a patriarchal and heteronormative society.

While you can see from the definition where these two ideas intersect (and there has actually been a fair amount of discussion about whether or not one is a subset of the other) they do have some differences. While the examples I was giving were specific to feminism, and as a result, fit into that intersection more than some other examples would, those aren’t the only ways amatonormativity can express itself. It can also look like: 

• People saying that open relationships aren’t healthy 
• A relative who’s always saying you need to “meet somebody and settle down”
• Only being able to legally marry one person 
• The assumption that all long term legal partnerships (aka: marriage) are romantic 
• A stigma against living with friends or family after a certain age 
• etc etc 

None of these things are especially gender-specific, they can be applied to both straight and LGBTQIA+ people, and they don’t necessarily enforce compulsory heterosexuality. Similarly, there are other things that might be considered  compulsory heterosexuality but not amatonormativity.

It’s fair, and maybe even necessary, to view compulsory heterosexuality and amatonormativity as a Venn diagram, and I don’t think it’s inaccurate to say that any of the things in my original bullet list also fall under the concept of  compulsory heterosexuality. That said, my examples falling into the middle of the Venn diagram doesn’t make them any less relevant to a discussion about amatonormativity, and I think examining these issues through the lenses of both  compulsory heterosexuality and amatonormativity is important if you want to fully understand the problem. Only looking at these topics through one lens or the other isn’t going to give you a clear picture.

Amatonormativity also affects me as a disabled-from-birth person, since it frames norms of desirability and who is “fit” to be part of a committed “real” relationship.  

To quote Jay Timothy Dolmage quoting Margrit Shildrick:

[D]isability’s “exclusion from the very notion of sexual subjectivity is so under-problematized that it is taken almost as a natural fact” (2009b, 116).

Dolmage, Jay Timothy. Disability Rhetoric (Critical Perspectives on Disability) . Syracuse University Press. Kindle Edition.

Besides that – or maybe because of that – the whole ritual of going out on dates, and courtship, and all the othertrappings of amatonormativity are also just inaccessible to me as a disabled person.

(I also happen to be aroace, and polyamorous, but I didn’t figure that out until ten years after the events I’m relating,  so let’s all assume – as I did – that I’m talking about a 100% cis/het woman)

My father died when I was 42. Because of my disability, I had relied far more on my parents for emotional and practical support than most able-bodied people.

I wanted to find a grief support group to help me deal with this drastic change in my life circumstance. I’m also atheist, and my father was – if not exactly atheist –  at least not religious (he was more interested in talking about quantum physics than God). So the last thing I needed was a grief support group that was run by any particular church – talk of angels and Heaven (I live in a very Christian part of the Country) would have only made me feel worse.

But the only secular / nondemoninational grief support groups for people who’d lost a parent, or other close family member, were for kids 18 and younger.

For people over 18, general grief support groups were either restricted to members of a certain congregation, or they were restricted to widows and widowers.

That’s amatonormativity: the assumption that everyone will be married (in a monogamous relationship), or on the path to marriage, as soon as they reach adulthood – whether that’s a same-sex marriage or not.

(And no – I never did find a support group, and I went through a very dark time, and it was only the love and support I got from online friends that gave me something to hold on to, to pull myself through. And yes, I will die bitter about it)

aroacepagans:

actuallyaro:

The term ‘amatonormativity’ enables aromantic people to discuss the unique ways in which their identities are disadvantaged in a romantic-centric society. It does not mean that all forms or romantic love are equally valued, or that all forms of romantic love are privileged over aromanticism.

Amatonormativity is a piece of heteronormativity, and it’s norms are based off of ideals given to bonds that are heteroromantic heterosexual, especially among cisgendermale/femalepairs. The concept does not deny the unique way non-aromantics are disadvantaged re: romantic love.

The term is also used in academic contexts. It is not an invention of bloggers on social media. This would not necessarily invalidate the term, either, but it is important to acknowledge that this has an academic precedence, with multiple applications in research communities.

I think it’s important to note here that ‘amatonormativity’ is also used to discuss the norm ofmonogamy. Elizabeth Brake, who coined the term, was very explicit about how amatonormativity includes the enforcement of monogamy and that this norm has a high level of impact on polyamorous people in particular. The idea that ‘amatonormativity’ is just a word aro bloggers made up takes the term out of its original context and pushes aside any poly community discussions about amatonormativity in the process. 

Also Elizabeth Brake actually talks about the distinction and overlap between heteronormativity, amatonormativity, and compulsory heterosexuality here on her website, so maybe people can listen to the actual academic who created the term before jumping to conclusions. 

Yep, the term is useful to aromantic people for obvious reasons. However, people assume the term is an attempt on the part of aromantic people to position themselves as oppressed by people whose romantic experiences are also marginalized.

The term is relevant to multiple communities, and it addresses how heteronormativity impacts all individuals from the angle of relationship norms and the prioritization of romantic love within these norms, which disadvantages others.

I’ve seen posts expressing sentiments like “the aromantic community is tricking you into thinking amatonormativity is real!” but it does not even originate in our community and the term is useful to most marginalized communities.

The emphasis on marriage between monogamous pairs is an especially important part we can’t ignore re: amatonormativity. A lot of people tend to think polyamorous and aromantic issues are so far from each other, but they’re really not.

The term ‘amatonormativity’ enables aromantic people to discuss the unique ways in which their identities are disadvantaged in a romantic-centric society. It does not mean that all forms or romantic love are equally valued, or that all forms of romantic love are privileged over aromanticism.

Amatonormativity is a piece of heteronormativity, and it’s norms are based off of ideals given to bonds that are heteroromantic heterosexual, especially among cisgendermale/femalepairs. The concept does not deny the unique way non-aromantics are disadvantaged re: romantic love.

The term is also used in academic contexts. It is not an invention of bloggers on social media. This would not necessarily invalidate the term, either, but it is important to acknowledge that this has an academic precedence, with multiple applications in research communities.

As much as we talk about how sex / sexual intimacy should not be a reward for being nice / friendly to someone, I don’t think we discuss enough that the same applies to romance.

A lot of the time sex and romance are intertwined in these discussions, but in a way that positions sex as more crude and implies romance to be less of a problem when it comes to entitled attitudes.

But.

Being sexually intimate with another person does not mean that you are entitled to romantic affection from that person, as well as being nice / friendly to someone doesn’t entitle you to that either.

There is a tendency I have noticed, even among those that are vocal against sexual entitlement, to view lack of romance especially in the context of sex as cruel or toxic or abusive. Why?

…because romance is a more ‘tender’ experience and an unwillingness to participate in it will do real harm to another person’s “heart”? Like it is our responsibility not to hurt your feelings?

Sex requires consent, not romantic love. Friendship amongst other non-romantic relationships, do not naturally “blossom” into romantic love the more effort you put into it.

Effort doesn’t entitle you to that.

I don’t know. I grew up being told not to break any one’s heart moreso than I was ever told that it’s only fair to reward a dedicated relationship with sex. I think this message is fairly prevalent.

I “broke a lot of hearts” as they say, but I don’t feel bad about it. I don’t think I should. I don’t think that makes me cruel or toxic or abusive. How can that be when I’m just being… me?

Those people just assumed they would be rewarded for being friendly / nice to me with my romantic affection. It’s not my fault society tricked them into thinking that. That’s what’s toxic.

I don’t know if this is making sense but my point is that in any kind of non-romantic relationship, no one is entitled or guaranteed romantic affection as a reward for effort.

cate-r:

any fellow aros feel like their cynicism/pessimism is intrinsically tied to their aroness because your existence is constantly being rendered second rate by amatonormativity

Personally, I find that amatonormativity puts the label of “cynicism” on aromantic experiences. Perhaps this is why I actually don’t love that song “I Won’t say I’m in Love” in Hercules. But, there’s a tendency to view aromantic people and our way of not experiencing romance as a refusal to embrace the positivity of “love.” We are the anti-love pessimists who just need to be proven wrong! That’s, at least, one way I believe amatonormativity shapes how other people view us.

However, I think you bring up a good point about how aromantics view themselves and the world around them. There may be pervasive feelings of cynicism or pessimism that some aromantics do feel because of how they are positioned in society by amatonormativity. I do find it hard sometimes to feel positive about everything from social interaction to the idea of partnership due to the way amatonormativity belittles aromantic people and our experiences.

arolizard:

Being blocked by aroace people for not liking “orientated aroace” or people that are interested in romantic relationships being accepted into aro spaces sure does suck. I don’t understand why even aroace people are fine with amatonormativity being shoved in our direction, I shouldn’t be treated like an asshole for not wanting people to identify as aroace when they clearly aren’t.

People who find these terms useful aren’t shoving amatonormativity in our direction. Rather, you’re allowing amatonormativity to impact your interpretation of these concepts in the aromantic asexual community. You are misinterpreting their relationships and preferences re: relationships, as sexual-romantic, which you are in turn using to argue that people like this aren’t actually aroace. 

Here’s the issue - if you can’t conceive of non-sexual / non-romantic relationships and gendered preferences regarding those relationships as being anything other than sexually and/or romantically motivated, then you are directly feeding into amatonormativity, which is a concept that is not exclusive to us. It’s a term that identifies romantic norms that hurt all people. 

Amatonormativity restricts the kinds of partner(s) people can have and what their relationships can look like. It determines that monogamous relationships that are romantic, marriages especially, are the most valued and central. This doesn’t just hurt aroace people who can’t form romantic relationships, but literally anyone who does not fit that norm - especially polyamorous people. 

Terms like “orientated aroace” allows aroace people to determine for themselves what kinds of relationships they preference, if in fact they do want to have one. This gives agency back to aroace people, when previously we were not allowed to explore what relationships mean to us. If done right, this can also give us the room to talk about those of us who don’t want to engage in any of this.

You may believe that the assumption that relationships are a requirement for everyone stems from amatonormativity, and it may in fact play a part in that. You may personally feel like aroace people are trying to approximate norms in order to be more socially acceptable. However, by denying aroace people the ability and the language to explore this, you’re shoving amatonormativity on us all.

Critically thinking about how aroace people talk about relationships is a good thing. Telling people how to identify and taking out personal sufferings under amatonormativity on other people is not a good thing. It’s lateral aggression, which only serves as a distraction from our biggest problems as well as it gate-keeps people from spaces they need to understand themselves. 

amatopunk:

Happy pride month!!!! Here’s some amatopunk symbols <3

Cane | Holding hands

Flower | LIOMmoon

akumaii:

apomíromantic

anarospec orientation in which one does not experience romantic attraction, but occasionally feels as if they do. One can be perfectly aware that the attraction is fake, non-romantic or being misunderstood, but the feelings stay there. This fake attraction feels like what one imagines a crush feels like, and may consume one’s thoughts despite one not wanting to be attracted to the person in question. It may be caused by or related to neurodivergence or amatonormativity, but it doesn’t have to be.

Etymology: apomí coming from the Greek word “απομίμηση” (pronounced as “apomímisi”) meaning fake + romantic

requested by: anon

↩︎request info

(If any terms I’ve posted are already a thing please tell me.)

My DNI list↩︎ — (last updated: 05/05/2022)

Allos, stop feeling personally attacked when people don’t aspire to have romantic and/or sexual relationships in their lives!

zorimi:

leoriowithaknife:

don’t make me tap the sign…

[Open ID:

Image of the “The Simpsons” meme where the bus driver taps the sign. The bus driver is taping the bottom left of the sign in the both images. The first one reads “Asexuality and aromanticism are inherently queer experiences. Even if an ace person is heteromantic or an aro person is heterosexual, they are still queer by the virtue of their aspec experience.”

The next image says, “Our heteronormative society is both allonormative and amatonormative and, therein, expects all people to experience sexual and romantic attraction exclusively to someone of the ‘opposite’ gender by default. Asexuality and aromanticism undoubtedly queer those rigid standards.”

End Id.]

kidrat:

Think the worst thing about arophobia is that you can explain to someone, very politely and intelligently, over and over and over and over again, why their opinion is deeply amatonormative, and they’ll just continue to repeat their same original argument which always just boils down to ‘but those are my emotional support unexamined societal norms!!’

overcaffeinated-aro:

not to be aro on main or anything but I just think so many things would be better if we told kids “oh that’s ok, not everyone likes that kind of relationship” or “not everyone likes doing that” instead of “oh how silly, you’ll understand when you’re older~” when they express disgust or confusion around romantic and/or sexual relationships

rosecrystal:

it’s so funny when couples are like despite cheating on each other and lying and absolutely despising each other we’re still going strong ❤️ like ok sorry to hear that

aroace-avenue:

graces-of-luck:

As aros, we tend to be quite aware of amatonormativity, but it might be hard to explain or give concrete examples of it, especially when explaining it to alloromantics. This guide and workbook aims to explain what amatonormativity is by giving examples of how it manifests and how it can be harmful. Through a series of exercises and reflections, people can learn to better identify and challenge amatornomativity. There are also a number of sources and narratives to help people understand its impact and learn from lived experiences. The worbook is aimed at (monogamous) alloromantic folks, but could be useful for aros who are struggling with internalized amatonormativity. 

There are currently five versions of the guide/workbook:

1. Digital workbook (fillable PDF)
2. Printer-friendly workbook (printable PDF)
3. Google Docs version
4. Youtube (audio with CC)
5. Downloable MP3

The workbook can be found on here on my WordPress. Feel free to share it, especially with people in your life who could benefit from learning about amatonormativity. 

A thanks and a shout-out to those who helped, including @aroace-avenue.

This is an amazing guide written by an amazing person! Finding ways to introduce alloromantics to amatonormativity and to have them actually spend time thinking about it deeply is really hard. This is a starting point to get them going!