#The General Wisdom of Aromantic People would've also counted. like clearly this doesn't touch directly much on aroaceness as is relevant

[unproduciblesmackdown]

a post because i saw one that annoyed me:

One of my goals in thinking about redefining the way we view relationships is to try to treat the people I date more like I treat my friends—try to be respectful and thoughtful and have boundaries and reasonable expectations—and to try to treat my friends more like my dates—to give them special attention, honor my commitments to them, be consistent, and invest deeply in our futures together. In the queer communities I'm in valuing friendship is a really big deal, often coming out of the fact that lots of us don't have family support, and build deep supportive structures with other queers. We are interested in resisting the heteronormative family structure in which people are expected to form a dyad, marry, have kids, and get all their needs met within that family structure. A lot of us see that as unhealthy, as a new technology of post-industrial late capitalism that is connected to alienating people from community and training them to think in terms of individuality, to value the smaller unit of the nuclear family rather than the extended family. Thus, questioning how the status and accompanying behavior norms are different for how we treat our friends versus our dates, and trying to bring those into balance, starts to support our work of creating chosen families and resisting the annihilation of community that capitalism seeks.

A lot of the things I'm writing here go to the basic notion of what we think loving other people is about. Is it about possessing them, finding security in them, having all our needs met by them, being able to treat them in any way and still having them stick around? I hope not. What I hope that love is—whether platonic, romantic, familial, or communal—is the sincere wish that another person have what they need to be whole and develop themselves to their best capacity for joy or whatever fulfillment they're seeking.

Monogamy has stopped making sense now that I see it as an implicit agreement with someone to only have certain kinds of relationships with everyone else in your life. This basically means drawing boundaries all over someone else's life...boundaries that don't make much sense to me anymore. Just because someone doesn't have sex with anyone else doesn't mean they aren't going to be attracted to anyone else. Just because they don't label a relationship with someone in a certain way doesn't mean they aren't going to feel love for that person. It seems silly and arbitrary to draw lines in terms of physical affection. Hugging is ok, but not kissing? Cuddling is ok, but not sex? It seems even more impossible to draw lines in terms of love and feelings. 

I had never been very good at drawing lines between the love I felt for my friends and the love I felt for people I was in romantic relationships with, even when I was inhabiting the universe where those lines were made to seem very important. I was perpetually "falling for" my friends in this way that could only ever end in reciprocation or heartbreak, because in that universe I was definitely not allowed to be "in love" with my friends, especially not if I happened to be interested in sleeping with them. But in this new alternate universe I don't need those lines, and it makes perfect, beautiful sense. I can just feel however I feel about people without worrying about the way our relationship is labeled. What really matters is defining that relationship for ourselves, not for other people. What that means is having conversations about what we want, and what we are willing to give.

I've learned that I need to be straight up about how much time I want to spend with someone. I need to be specific about it. I would rather talk about how often we want to see each other and what we want out of our relationship than use labels like "primary partner" or someone I see "casually". Just because I'm not spending a huge amount of time with someone doesn't mean they don't deserve honesty, communication, and clear expectations for our relationship. This goes for friendships as well, and I would like to have way more conversations with my friends about our relationships and expectations. If in this universe I have friends that I'm in love with and lovers that I'm friends with, then why does one relationship deserve more care and attention than another? Why should we have these conversations with people that we fuck, but not with those that we don't? The people in my life that I don't have sex with aren't less important to me, so I don't want to treat them that way.

I want to do this because I want to challenge the frameworks that I am expected to base my relationships on: gender, marriage, the nuclear family. Hetero-monogamy is part of a narrative that I want no place in: the creation of an atomized family unit, whose boundary delineates the space in which I am allowed to care for others, outside of which my relationships are dominated by fear and the logic of my own self-preservation. I want to create families that are based on intentionality, affinity, and support. I don't want a family based on a role that I was born into. I feel like the only way I can really break through my isolation is to build relationships on my own terms, with my own frameworks and beliefs.

I want to resist the commodification of my body by never considering myself the possessor of someone else's, and not needing my body to be given value only through its possession by others. I want to confront ideas of sexual objectification and ownership every time I feel them rise up within myself. Any moment that someone shares their body with me is precarious and fleeting, and that shared moment doesn't give me any say in what else that person wants to do with their body (unless it pertains to my own health and safety). I also don't want to make assumptions about what someone is willing to share today based on what they shared yesterday. I am never entitled to someone else's body.

Saying 'yes' in this context means so much more than agreeing to see each other 'steadily'. At its most severe, going steady gets tied up with the tacit promise of a supposedly long-term and exclusive relationship where Joe and Molly can navigate a blueprint, building happy coupledom. By not explicitly defining what Joe means by going steady, the relationship passively slides onto tracks bound for 'a happy life together'. This slide can happen because we are all well trained in making assumptions about what the structures of a relationship are. These implied structures constitute a hetero-romantic relationship ideal which in turn translates into a minimum level of commitment, sexual exclusivity, long-term investment, nuclear family building, and much more. The overarching ultimatum of living a relationship through undiscussed and rigid relationship conventions is that either the conventions are maintained (the expectations are consistently met, the blueprints are followed) or the relationship will end in, at the very least, a romantic separation—no more affectionate physical contact, no more intimate emotional support. If the relationship does not follow and match the blueprint, Joe and Molly are left with the choice of either getting things back on track or romantic separation. Those who do not want to choose between the happily ever after and a life of romantic solitude, those who cannot or do not want to play out the blueprint, are pushed to find and create other ways of doing relationships.

Often, when rejecting the going steady blueprint we slip a little and end up rejecting monogamy. Once monogamy is unqualifiably bad, it is a pretty quick step to figure out that polyamoury is good: having a sexually exclusive romantic relationship means conforming to an archaic patriarchal and power laden script so, having an anti-patriarchal, politically conscious, and critical relationship means you should have more than one sexual partner. To be clear, I am not trying to rescue or defend monogamy. I am arguing that a preoccupation with a monogamy/polyamoury binary prevents a more useful and more critical analysis of the ends of the political potential for romantic relationships. The locus of the potential for relationships is not a reductive tally of the number of sexual partners a person can juggle at one time. The number of people a person manages to sleep with does not say all that much, however, more revealing are the questions of how relationships are structured, how relationships are political, how individual relationships are affected by norms and the capacity individual relationships have to shape new norms. Reducing relationship politics to a monogamy vs polyamoury manicheanism means dismissing other harmful norms and assumptions that are affecting us as un- or less important.

i have enough love to go around. its not a commodity. i'll make you breakfast at 5pm on a sunday night and when you leave to go to work, i'll go out dancing and make out with someone i've been flirting with for weeks. and its not sneaky and behind your back. and its not taking anything away from how i am when i see you. i might not have a lot of time, but i have a lot of love for the people in my life and i'm willing to think hard about how i distribute my time. and i'm willing to say something when i need you to hold my hand, to have my back. and i trust that you'll do the same.

and if we ever get married, we'll know that it's for immigration purposes. and if we go through periods of time where neither of us are sleeping with anyone else, we'll know it's not because we possess each other. and when we hit rocky patches and it's fucking hard and we're taking turns falling apart, we'll know that at least we've communicated enough in the past to probably deal with it. probably. because even though i'll never promise to love you forever, we've gotten pretty far and i don't have any intention at the moment to stop loving you. and that time qualifier doesn't make it less meaningful. it means that this is a decision i'm making over and over again, every time we schedule a hang out, i'm doing it cause i want to see you. cause i want to be there.

I still think that having multiple sexual and/or romantic partners is do-able, and that I could be someone's "secondary" partner again, but I think this requires hard-core honesty about needs & expectations from the get-go, and really good communication. For example, I'd rather someone say "I like you, but can only see you once every two weeks, because that's how much I'm willing and able to give this relationship" than "I'd love to hang out more but I'm just really busy", which evades responsibility and isn't clear about expectations. Plus, everyone is busy, so you make time for people you prioritize and want to see.

I also think that people need to be very careful about how they treat their "secondary" partners, and any lover, friend, roommate or family for that matter: these are not people you can just call up whenever you're lonely (unless that's your arrangement), and ditch whenever life gets to be too much.

I think it's important to constantly re-educate ourselves on these issues: so we can learn to be better in all our relationships, so we can be honest, non-jealous, and caring partners and friends, and so we can avoid, as best we can, people getting hurt, feeling pushed aside, feeling secondary.

- excerpts from “this is about more than who we fuck (and who fucks us).” zine

#i.e. i see a post abt romance that of course is gonna be annoying to me? a dialogue... #sounded like an interpersonal problem of ''so when you're venting abt wanting a romantic relationship you just want listening rather than #any proffered solutions'' but spun into ''ugh i'm sick of society invalidating / deprioritizing desire for romance'' lmao is it doing that.. #Well I'm About To Be Sickening #and add op's choice to describe suggesting focus on nonromantic relationships as ''infantilizing'' like uh. perhaps dismissive; patronizing #quite a Particular Word Choice....so i'm like well what's enough of the opposite of what's going on here #that is: par for the course vague desire for romance with a perspective that's barely analytical & weirdly so? #i know the queer / relationship anarchist quotes are out there....then i find this zine like fun i'll peruse that. then i make this post. #and here we are today for our fun and enrichment #The General Wisdom of Aromantic People would've also counted. like clearly this doesn't touch directly much on aroaceness as is relevant #to me / my personal wavelength. but it's The Same Matter of autonomy. the autonomy to date someone / have sex? = the autonomy Not To. #anyways just transforming irritation into having some fun collecting quotes #long post ///