Tumgik
#amanormativity
kiwinatorwaffles · 23 hours
Text
i pity people who say “yeah it’s nice to see these two characters as friends but their relationship becomes so much more meaningful if you see them as romantic.” how has the dredges of the amanormative world poisoned you this bad? have you never had a friend or wanted a friend who changed your life for the better? or if you do i feel bad for them because of so obviously little you value them
Tumblr media
242 notes · View notes
abhainn35 · 5 months
Text
I was going through my health textbook and someone wrote "fuck that" under the lines about ending friendships because dating is more important and if that is not the most aromantic/aroace thing ever, I don't know what is.
5K notes · View notes
mrsfrecklesmarauders · 10 months
Text
No, love. Not every single character has to have a romantic partner to be interesting. It is okay for characters to end up alone. Or not have romantic experiences at all. No matter their sexuality. Aromantic and Asexual characters can exist and be a good representation of the queer community. Not only gay couples represent queer struggle.
That's all. Thanks.
3K notes · View notes
jax-likes-snax · 9 months
Text
I hate the way other queer people disregard that human relationships are more complicated than how amatonormativity portrays it, like seeing other queer people disregard the ace, aro, and/or poly experiences because it doesn't fit in their neat little box, even though you'd think they more than anyone else would also understand how complicated human relationships can be and the multiple different ways we can experience attraction, and the way everyone tries to shove every experience into a neat little box, I hate amatonormativity and wish we could all just experience relationships of every kind however comes natural to us instead of needing to fit them all into neat little boxes like society pushes
2K notes · View notes
scretladyspider · 9 months
Text
Asexual and aromantic are not “spicy straight trying to be special LGBT”.
This argument, much like “you’re not really bi/pan if you are with someone of the opposite gender”, asks for visibly performative queerness then ignores the inherent queerness in these experiences.
If being straight is being allosexual, heterosexual, heteroromantic, alloromantic, and cisgender, all at once, then a person only needs to not be one of these to call themselves queer if they want to.
This always ruffles feathers, but..cishet isn’t the inherent opposite of queer.
Allosexual — not ace or under its umbrella
Alloromantic — not aro or under its umbrella
cisgender — aligning with your gender assigned/designated at birth
Heterosexual— sexual attraction to the opposite gender
Heteroromantic — romantic attraction to the opposite gender
If all aces and aros were cishet, which we’re not but just for the sake of this example, how would this detract from the queerness inherent in asexuality and aromanticism? Each are complex spectrums of a fundamentally different experience than the world teaches us we should have.
Aces, aros, and bi/pan people in “straight passing” relationships are often lumped into cishet as a way of delineating “not queer”, regardless of other factors. But this dismisses queerness and asks for specific, unnamed perimeters to be met for it to be recognized.
When presented with ways that experiencing little to no sexual attraction, or little to no romantic attraction, are in fact in opposition with the expectation for everyone to have both (allonormativity and amatanormativity or amanormativity respectively), people don’t accept it. Or rather, they don’t accept it as a thing on its own. Sometimes this means getting treated as if you’re just trying to be edgy, as if proclaiming you’re part of a marginalized group gives social media clout or something. Other times it’s just not treated as enough on its own by other queer people.
This happens in ace and aro spaces too. Cishet is used often as shorthand for “not queer”, directly pushing away aspecs who may be cishet and also ace and/or aro. It doesn’t seem intentionally exclusionary, but unintended exclusion is still exclusion.
This reflects, also, the expectation of performative queerness that is thrown at bi and pan persons both in and out of queer spaces. There are also many aces and aros who are bi and pan, and who may or may not be cisgender.
The reality however is there is no way to “perform” queerness that is satisfactory to all who demand it. The result this odd sort of existence where when one appears queer “enough”, that is used as weaponry against them, but when it isn’t, it’s used to exclude queer people from queerness.
And the real kicker is asexual and aromantic are enough. Bi/pan folks are still their orientation regardless of what their relationship looks like. Gender is it’s own thing, separate from the others, but related because this all ends up being a pile of queer identity spaghetti.
Regardless of how queer a person appears to you, or if you understand their individual experience… Ace is enough. Aro is enough.
The demand for performative queerness is used to try to defend from harm, but it ends up attacking anyone not visibly queer enough to the beholder.
We need to be more explicitly inclusive — especially in our own spaces, but also outside of them when talking about how queerness operates. If someone else’s queerness makes your idea of queerness more complicated, that’s not a bad thing. Learn from that, and let them be.
If you see someone is ace or aro and then see they’re more like you than you thought they could be, or that they don’t engage with it how you expected, that’s not a reason to be exclusionary. It’s a reason to try to expand what you include in your idea of queer.
Once, you needed someone to include you to feel comfortable in your queerness.
Set your ego aside and extend a hand to those you don’t quite understand. Be inclusive. Especially if someone’s relationship to their queerness challenges what you thought was possible.
thank you for reading if you like this please consider contributing to my moving expenses, there’s $425 to go and anything and everything helps
you can also find my blog, my links, my socials, read/listen to interviews, or just say hi here on my linktree
thank you again for reading and remember to be inclusive! Other queer people are not your enemy. have a nice day!
666 notes · View notes
Text
Amazing aromantic representation.
It's called I Want to be a Wall by Honami Shirono. A story about a platonic marriage between a gay man and an aromantic asexual woman.
Interesting side fact: in Japan "asexuality" is commonly defined as a lack of romantic attraction as well as a lack of sexual attraction. Whereas in English, a lack of romantic attraction is given it's own definition of aromanticism.
Tumblr media
1K notes · View notes
aroaceinthestreets · 3 months
Text
As much as I want more aro representation in media, I find more and more, that what I really want is characters who just aren't in relationships without this ever being commented on.
Because yeah, aros are great and we absolutely deserve rep, but if the only time it's okay to not be in a relationship is if you're aro then what kind of message does that send? That's not doing anything to challenge amatnormativity
I want more characters who just don't date, and maybe they're aro and maybe they're not. Because no matter how you identify, some people just don't want to date, or aren't interested, or don't want a committed relationship. And we need to live in a world where that's okay.
94 notes · View notes
meowzet · 2 months
Text
“it’s okay if you don’t want that now!”
is it okay if i don’t want that ever? is it okay if i never desire sexual relationships, or engage in romance? am i only ‘redeemable’ if i entertain YOUR ideals of sex and/or romance? will you still view me as human?
64 notes · View notes
lilyginnyblackv2 · 1 year
Text
Queerplatonic Partners, Platonic Life Partners, even friends can all get married. Like, marriage doesn't automatically equal romance.
I've seen people seemingly equate the two a lot in the Buddy Daddies fandom with Kazuki and Rei. They could be married (though, realistically in Japan they currently can't, they can do a Partnership at best), and still be queerplatonic or friends, etc.
Amanormativity is so ingrained in our society nowadays that I think we forget that marriage has been a contract based agreement that has provided various protections, wealth accurement, safety, and so forth for most of history, and still serves those functions now.
195 notes · View notes
thatnerdyqueer · 11 months
Text
ok so I know that the terms lovequeer, loveloose, and lovepunk all refer less to an 'orientation' as such, but a way of viewing the concept of 'love'.
For example, you could have a romantic partner, but choose to prioritise or at least equate platonic relationships with an equivalent or higher level of commitment.
With that said. I have never seen any alloromantic people using these terms! So, humour me, and vote
163 notes · View notes
intersectionalpraxis · 4 months
Text
women coming 'into' their queerness -especially our bisexual and lesbian women in the lgbtqia+ community -are not any 'less' queer just because they were 30 and above when they realized they are part of the rainbow. there are SO many factors that can influence human beings and their identification with/understanding of their attractions and sexual/romantic desires and interests -including the impact of living in heteronormative/amanormative societies -or there being a lack of security and safe spaces/communities to feel comfortable exploring or reflecting -these are just a fraction of the nuances -the bottom line is LEAVE WOMEN ALONE.
i cannot emphasize this enough because it's just not fair to challenge the 'validity' of her sexuality EVER because apart from not knowing her at all -it's just wrong. stop doing this.
for context, i see this without fail in comment sections of women talking about their experiences about realizing they were queer/gay/bi when they were in their late twenties/thirties, and the people berating them for it among other problematic elements (especially the biphobia specifically) is beyond awful. stop it -stop.
51 notes · View notes
jax-likes-snax · 8 months
Text
Dude it's so weird how monogamous people will take personal offense to your open or polyam relationships, as if it's their personal business how your relationship works and they try to make up the rules of your relationship for you. I'm perfectly happy with the idea of my boyfriend sleeping with other people, yet one of his online friends took offense to that today and told me I was just encouraging him to cheat, and when I tried to explain to him that cheating means boundaries have been crossed and the rules of what loyalty means to your personal relationship means to your were broken he got so mad at me on my behalf and tried saying shit like "This new generation just wants to normalize cheating" as if he isn't the same generation as me and my boyfriend. Like it's our relationship and we agreed that it's alright for him to sleep with others, but this monogamous guy got so offended by it because of his past experiences with cheating. And I know damn well that this is a common occurrence for non monogamous people to deal with. Why do monogamous people feel so entitled to make the rules of our relationships for us?
214 notes · View notes
feelingthedisaster · 24 days
Text
what alloroms poets whine about romantic love, i whine in amanormativity
20 notes · View notes
fandomcat2930 · 2 months
Text
AMATONORMATIVITY
A matnormativity-
M y life isn't less for not desiring
A
T o be wanted,
O bjectively
N ormal" relationship.
O ther things, loves, are just as important as
R omance;
M y friendships, hobbies, passions,
A re not worthless;
T o say they are is wrong. Other kinds of love can be
I ncredible, beautiful things. It is
V ery naive to say otherwise.
I n any case,
T his is not
Y our business or place. My life is my own, to live how I wish.
30 notes · View notes
foopyboopy · 3 months
Text
i hate valentine's day so much. i hate the narrative of needing a partner for valentine's day and i hate how much emphasis is put on romance. and like i get that it is important to some people but i lost so many friends when i was younger just because they got a partner and decided they were more important than everyone else in their life and having a holiday whose message is "if you don't have a partner you're worthless and a failure!!!" really fucking stung in combination with that. and at this point i don't even know if i want it to keep being a thing at all, even if platonic love was included, because i just know that the alloromantics would just make it about romance and partnerships again.
i just wish i could live in a world where romance and partnerships weren't a thing. it's so fucking hard to be excluded from what everyone says is the best thing they've ever experienced just because i don't want that. like are friends not enough??? why is me having a bunch of people who i all really love somehow less than having 1 person who i love more????
i'm sorry to anyone for whom valentine's is important but i really don't know how long i can take it being this fucking pervasive and prominent. everyone says "oh no you're friends are included in valentine's!!" but they aren't. that argument both directly excludes aplatonic people and comes across as a hand-wavey excuse. i have never heard any partnered alloromantic friends ever acknowledge me even slightly as much as their partner on valentine's day.
i guess i don't really have a point here. i just don't want to deal with this anymore and i wish there was a way to avoid it. i know (specifically monoamorous) partners are important to people, and i respect that, but i still wish it wasn't so assumed for everyone. i recognize that i am in the minority for either not wanting a partner or wanting multiple, but i don't want to be forgotten.
22 notes · View notes
Text
Part of me wants to stay pissed at her, and the other part wants to let it go because she didn't go through with the threat.
Today my sister threatened to out me to our mother if I didn't tell her what my sexuality was. So I told her I was aroace (aromantic asexual) and she was like "why can't you have a normal identity, like gay or bi or pan" and I asked her jokingly if I should change my identity to make others feel more comfortable, and she responded with "yes because that's what they're for", and the fact that I had to do research to find out what I was just proved her point. I then told her that it was because everyone just assumes you feel romantic attraction and they act like everyone experiences it or wants a romantic relationship, even though some people don't. She said that that's because it's normal and because people need, and want, to be in a romantic relationship. She also told me that I can't know that I don't like sex until I tried it (I told her I find it boring and kind of gross), because who you're doing it with can make a big difference and because it's not that boring once you start. The conversation quickly ended after that.
She was the only person who I live with who I felt like I could be open with, but now I feel like I can't even do that. I just feel so alone right now and this only made it worse.
39 notes · View notes