#amatonormativity

[peach-pot]

conversations of amatonormativity and consent overlap a lot and should be discussed side by side more frequently. because when you live in a society that teaches you that you’re supposed to want sex and romance, that you may want to say no in the moment but you shouldn’t say no forever, any statements about consent get muddied. you cannot at once preach that consent is vital and “you can always say no” and also insist that people should give sex and romance a try, even when they express disinterest, telling them “eventually you’ll find the right person.”

[specialagentartemis]

#FINALLY A GOOD FUCKING TAKE #I’d like to highlight that even ‘not having any humans be aspec’ (or trans etc) is not *necessarily* the problem here #(altho of course it would always be great to have more canonically aspec or trans or autistic humans in sci-fi) #the problem is when being aspec or nonbinary is treated as CONFUSING AND ALIEN AND STRANGE #sometimes the robot is ace coded and that’s like. An actual allegory for queerness and asexuality and it’s On Purpose #sometimes the robot is ace coded and that’s just cuz it’s an ace robot and it’s chill #sometimes the robot is ace coded and everyone points at the robot and goes ‘isn’t it so weird and inhuman that you don’t want sex’ #(and then the robot probably learns to want sex and/or romance by the end to prove its humanity) #THE LAST ONE is the bad one #the other ones when handled well are fine #robots and aliens are cool and honestly in many cases quite relatable as an aroace person #the Otherness of not getting this thing that everyone else seems to care about so much is like. A big aspec mood #and I LOVE when creators engage with that thematically #I think this is another one of those things that people decided was a Rule of Bad Representation #and frankly we should always be unpacking those bc that’s not how it works #anyway it’s midnight and I have many thoughts but I shall save any further rambling for another time (tags via @ilovedthestars)

You Get It!!

(and tbh when robots or aliens do inherently have the same idea of romantic love and binary gender… that is Worse to me! The idea that amatonormativity and sexnormativity and the gender binary are SO inherent, so self-evident, so universal, that even an alien culture or a robot whose whole existence was set apart from humanity would independently come up with it themselves too? That has WAY worse implications!)

We need to clear something up: nonbinary or agender aliens and robots aren’t problematic. Neither are ace or aro ones. These are normal traits that you’d expect of robots and would not be surprising in aliens.

I’m bringing this up because I’ve seen some really weird criticisms lately that take the stance that if you make a robot that has no gender or sexuality, that’s somehow… bad? That a single sex alien race, or a trisexed alien race, or a hermaphroditic alien race, is somehow inherently insulting to trans people? And this take is fucking baffling to me! These are exactly the traits you would expect in robots and aliens! (This applies to robots that seem to act autistic, too; many common autism traits also happen to be traits that you might expect in artificial intelligences.)

I can see the logic. At some point, we noticed all the stories with human cis men and human cis women who were almost entirely heterosexual, and some robot who doesn’t have a gender and explains this to someone at some point, and some people went “woo, agender representation!” and then everyone had to be like “that’s not agender representation, it’s a robot.” Which is correct; the robot happens to be agender, but if none of the humans are then having all the robots be agender isn’t agender representation. So some people started thinking that the robot was the problem. The robot isn’t the problem. The robot is fine. The problem is the humans. The robot’s existence isn’t some insult to the agender community, or the nonbinary community, or the ace or aro or autistic communities, depending on what traits it was given. It’s not representation, but it’s not an insult.

“Oh, but making all the robots asexual is saying that being asexual makes someone a robot!” No. It doesn’t. Making none of the humans asexual and making them all confused by it and having them treat it like some big division is what says that. “Making aliens that don’t have genders gives the impression that genderless people – ” NO. IT DOESN’T. Making all the humans cis people who treat the absence of gender as a weird alien thing is what does that.

The aliens and the robots are fine. They’re not the problem. The lack of diversity among human characters is the problem.

[specialagentartemis]

"marriage is the ONLY way to get these protections" "there is NO WAY to hack a legal arrangement to cover everything that marriage grants" "kiddos you don't remember what it was like before we could get married, we finally got rights because we could get married" Okay But You Recognize Why That's Bad, Right. Like that is really, really bad that you have to enter a specific type of relationship to get legal rights. That is A Problem. You recognize that that is Not A Good Thing, Right

[infiniteorangethethird]

"aros can still date!!": boring. tired. overused. frequently used to make aros look more palatable and acceptable to amatonormative society.

"alloros can still stay single!!": fresh. new. exciting. hearing it could change many people's lives for the better regardless of romantic orientation

[leikeliscomet]

When it comes to asexual allyship a lot of people wanna have their cake and eat it too (pun unintended). People like a lil 'aces are valid' moment but don't actually unpack compulsory sexuality. People see sexless queer representation and always clock puritanism before they ever clock asexuality. No one's actually reading the ace theory and texts coming out. Everyone keeps doing surprised Pikachu faces whenever a conservative or TERF says they're against asexuality despite the fact ace activists have been saying since day conservatives are not anti sex but anti sexual autonomy. 'Aces are queer' until we actually are. Even ace support posts keep ending with some expectation or condition that asexuality is #valid as long as asexuals still perform a small quota of sex/sexual activity. I'm so over 'Aces still have sex!' 'Aces are hot' Aces are sexy' 'Aces aren't virgin vanilla prude sexless puritans!' disguised as support.

Like no. Sorry. Until you accept that some asexual people's no is permanent, that some asexual's singleness is permanent, that some asexual's childless-ness is permanent, that some asexuals are the 'no' in little to no sexual attraction and i'd say most importantly, that queer sexlessness isn't a biological, social or moral failing, I don't believe you'll ever genuinely support asexuality. (In reverse, I also feel similar about aromanticism and romance).

Like a lot of u haven't gone beyond 'the a isn't for ally' and it shows. I don't want people to support asexuals just because we're soooo hot or because we write the best smut apparently or because we could have hypothetical sex or because we could do hypothetical kink or because our minds are soooo dirty actually or because we'd do romance reallllyyyy well or because we can still have kids or because asexuals hand out water bottles at the orgy or some shit. I want people to support asexuality because no sexuality is deviant and it's basic human decency.

EDIT: U lot really like this post huh. Well it's blown up again and the point's been lost so let's wrap that up:

'But op, some asexuals DO have sex/I'm an acespec that has sex/I'm a non asexual person what about meeee :(' pt 2, pt 3

'There's asexual studies OP??/Where's the asexual studies OP?'

EDIT 2: Yeah I'm locking this one up until u lot get better reading comprehension. If you genuinely, unironically, deadass believe this post is anti-sex favourable, anti-demi, anti-grey, pro-gold star/black stripe ace or even TERF rhetoric for saying asexuals don't need to have sex to be supported as human beings then compulsory sexuality has a done an absolute number one you. Read asexual theory. Look at the follow up posts I'm so tired of repeating myself.

[greatwyrmgold]

Part of the problem is that there's no way to indicate that a character DGAF about romance.

Every* sign and signifier that could communicate that has been used primarily to indicate that a character is not currently in a relationship, and that their love interest will have to work extra hard to earn their heart. The aloof action hero who needs to learn to love life by having sex, the naive young lady who needs a real man to teach her what true love is, the tsundere who just needs to meet the right guy.

There aren't a lot of fictional characters who earnestly DGAF about romance because they're written in a culture which, by and large, assumes everyone gives a fuck about romance. And vise versa.

*Well, you could have them wave an aromantic pride flag. But it's only a matter of time until some Hollywood hack decides to use that as a signifier of the romantic lead being hard to get...

we need 2 normalize characters who dgaf about romance

[cecenyss]

‘There’s no platonic explanation for this’ and it’s just two people caring about each other’s wellbeing

[foenixed]

I've come to the conclusion that the way asexuality (and by extension aromanticism if we're being real) are pathologized now is similar to how homosexuality was pathologized in the 80s.

Because, if you don't know, when homosexuality was taken out of the DSM in 1974 it was immediately replaced by a new disorder called ego dsystonic homosexuality. This "condition" basically stipulated that homosexual desire was a disorder, but only if the patient was distressed by their sexuality. This compromise disorder was obviously introduced because while they couldn't go on pretending homosexuality was intrinsicly disordered, they couldn't let go of that idea completely and it wasn't removed until over a decade later in 1987. But asexuality and aromanticism are still seen this way. Asexuality is still in the DSM under the name hypoactive sexual desire disorder, which stipulates that lack of sexual desire is a disorder, but only if the patient is distressed by their sexuality.

Both disorders' diagnostic criteria warn that people who are happy in their sexuality should not be considered disordered, but this only serves as tacit admission that it was never a disorder in the first place. A true disorder is a disorder regardless of how the patient feels about it. Anorexia is a disorder even if the patient is adamant that they're happy and healthy. Chronic depression is a disorder even if the patient says they're fine. And while this has been acknowledged with regards to homosexuality, it still hasn't been acknowledged with regards to asexuality.

And this perception of asexuality is imbedded within the wider culture as well. When people hear someone, be it a fictional character or a real goddamn person, say they're not attracted to anyone or interested in sex or romance, often their immediate thought is "Oh, there must be something wrong with you." Some of them will back off if you say "Actually I'm aro/ace" but some of them won't, and even for the ones who do, their first thought was still that there's something wrong with you that needs fixing. And they only thought your lack of interest was acceptable with the excuse of labelling yourself asexual/aromantic like it's a necessary hall pass.

Because fundamentally people can't let go of the idea that asexuality and aromanticism are disordered, even if they nominally support aro/aces, so they have all these excuses, like "Well maybe they're just repressed maybe they're just traumatized maybe-" yadayadayada. Because they can't simply associate lack of attraction with being aro/ace, they can only think of being aro/ace as one possible explanation. We're literally just stuck in "Oh you say you're into the same gender not into anyone? Well maybe you're traumatized or were abused as a kid or you're going through a phase or a late bloomer and you'll find the right person someday." But it's fine because if you use your hall pass then maybe they'll back off but if you don't have it because you don't know or accept you're aro/ace yet, tough luck. It's no surprise that asexuals have the same conversion therapy rate as gay people.

[platoniromantic-feelings]

Exactly!

have you ever thought about how amatonormativity is so prevalent that it twisted the word "relationship" to generally mean "a romantic relationship" in normal conversation. saying "I'm in a relationship" should be an inane statement. everyone is in relationships dipshit it came free with your membership card to a social species. but alas

[confused-canid]

Btw, being aro, ace, aroace, or another identity that falls under the a umbrella is one of the most queerest experiences I've ever heard of. Like, society has ingrained into pretty much everyone that you need to be in a romantic relationship and have sex? And you go AGAINST that??? That's fucking AWESOME!

Loveless aros, you have everyone, even the aro, ace, and aroaces communities talking about how "B-but, aros can still love!! We love our friends!! Not like those monsters who don't!!" and you're still you, and continue to be awesome??? Amazing!!

Moral of the story: aros, aces, aplatonics, afaimials, and others that fall under the a umbrella are queer as hell and are awesome and fuck aphobes

[ilovedthestars]

I wish it wasn’t a hot take that a story in which two characters of any gender prioritize their purely platonic relationship over any other romantic or sexual interests they might have is a textually queer story

[fourohfourlifenotfound]

I think we as an aspec community dont talk enough about how not wanting a partner forces you into the vicious cycle of independence, at least for those of in western cultures thay value self-reliance

Like amatonormativity demands we have a partner to be the one person we "rely" on. It's frowned upon to be dependent upon on your parents past young adulthood and there's varying levels of acceptability to rely upon your friends (see the whole helping your friends move debate posts from a while back)

It goes double when you're disabled. Like, I was worried about possibly not being able to drive to a diagnostic appointment, because I didn't feel comfortable asking a friend to drive me because at least where I am / how I was raised that's more something to expect from a partner. And there's all this extra pressure at play with disability, like not being able to do some things independently but being infantalizied for needing help

And I can only imagine how it is for people who are aplatonic

But it's just this constant vicious cycle where you either adapt enough to do things independently when it would be easier to have help or you defy a cultural norm to ask someone other than a partner for help with a task that's more of a "partner's job". A cycle that hurts all single people, not just the ones who don't want a partner

It's something to consider as ae tear down amatonormativity. How do we build a community and culture where people are not forced to be independent and can get the assistance they need?

[massiveharmonytiger]

People thinking that Hannigram aren't in love is a severe symptom of amatonormativity.

And I'm not saying amatonormativity in the sense that their relationship isn't sexual or romantic. It very much is both. It's all that and so much more.

For the romance aspect, kindly compare Hannigram's behavior to both neurotypical and autistic love languages. They check every single box and then some.

In terms of the sexual, well, that certainly seemed to be Hannibal that Will was fantasizing about when he slept with Margot. We'll just let her connection with Hannibal hang in the air. Will is all about inner worlds and souls where Hannibal is about visuals and aesthetics. Margot, like Hannibal is scarred both inside and out. Margot by her brother, Hannibal by his sister. That's why Hannibal takes out their baby. Margot is a lesbian, but she's also a genuine threat. He has to make sure there's nothing tying them together. That's why him deciding to cut ties with Will later on follows a similar vein, with him killing Abigail.

Molly on the other hand, is literally the anti-Hannibal. Hannibal is all darkness and weirdness and height and sharp angles. Molly is short and soft and about as normal, naive, lighthearted and vanilla as anyone can get. Why does he marry her? Because love, Eros in particular is fucking scary, your honor.

And while we're talking sexual fantasies, that was also Will that Hannibal was bringing up in every post-coital conversation with Alana. Who suspiciously both has the same coloring as Will as well as a connection with him, in that she's the last person he kissed - like, I'm not saying Hannibal sleeps with her to keep her the fuck away from Will, but that's exactly what I'm saying. And then he runs away with Bedelia because love, Eros in particular is fucking scary, your honor. Bedelia is closer to his coloring, but she has eyes like Will's and a heart like Hannibal's. I bring up coloring because that's Hannibal - visuals and aesthetics. Bedelia is Hannibal's desperate attempt to get some of himself back because he's losing himself in Will too. Bedelia is Hannibal's Molly. But oh no, those eyes. He never can.

Anyways, my point is that people with an amatonormative mindset will never grasp what they are to each other. They are every conceivable type of relationship to each other. Friends, enemies, lovers, spouses, killers, creators, destroyers, husbands, wives, mother and son, father and daughter, psychiatrist and patient, criminal and profiler, angel and demon, master and pet, celebrity and fan. All the characters parallel their relationship.

They're in each other's bones and DNA. It's just a shame that popular culture has Pavloved everyone into some generic idea of what romance is. I find it disturbing. Get some help.

I’ve had a few people ask me over the past week if Hannibal is an explicitly gay show. I have told each of them yes, but that’s not the point. I absolutely think that Hannibal and Will are in love with each other, but the relationship is so psychological. They aren’t giggling boyfriends holding hands; they’re obsessed with each other. Hannibal wants to live in Will’s skin, and Will wants to understand Hannibal beyond his person suit. They feel as though they’re the only two people on the planet who can understand the other.

More importantly, it’s true. Serial killers are drawn to Will because of his empathy, and Will detests them for it. But not Hannibal. He could never detest someone who understands him so deeply. People who deal with strong empathy (of admittedly much lower class both emphatically and intellectually) are drawn to Hannibal just the same. It doesn’t matter to him in the slightest.

That’s why Franklin and Tobias are so integral to the show. It establishes that, while this empath + sociopath dynamic is common, Hannibal and Will are in the upper echelons. Franklin would replace Tobias with Hannibal in a heartbeat, and Tobias acknowledges Will’s excellence even as he vies for Hannibal’s attention.

[aroace-ed]

i will never understand the emphasis society places on romantic relationships. why is the ideal future always portrayed as living with your significant other in a happy, committed, romantic relationship? why is there a whole holiday dedicated towards romantic love? i've heard so many people i know say that they're so lonely because they aren't in a romantic relationship, and i can't help but wonder how are they lonely with so many friends around them? so many things have become romanticized to the point where people no longer think it's socially acceptable to do them with friends. maybe people would feel less lonely then if it was normal to hold hands with people, to give them your sweaters, to lay together on the couch while watching a show. human connection is so so so important. i will never understand how is it that in a world full of love, we only seem to idolize one part of it.

[specialagentartemis]

There’s also a thing that people who think they’re being accepting do where they go “Not wanting romance is SO SAD AND LONELY! Not wanting to read romance novels is SEXIST! Not wanting a partner makes you a FREAK! Not having sex with your partner is BAD and ABUSIVE! Not feeling sexual attraction to your partner means there is SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU!… unless you’re aromantic or asexual, of course! Then you get a pass.” The only acceptable reason to deviate from the amatonormative and sexnormative societal norm is to claim an identity label that exempts you. The actual thing you’re doing is still bad… but don’t worry it’s OK for you to do it! It feels like, we haven’t actually challenged any norms at all, you just get a pass on them because you can’t help it, poor thing. If you have the capacity to feel these, you have the obligation to; you are only exempt if you claim an identity that says that you are unable to. It implies that we would if we could, but we can’t, and it’s merely unfair to punish us for our shortcomings. Romance and sex are still social requirements, that hasn’t changed, we just are allowed a pass on it because we are unable to meet them. (And we’re still expected to reassure everyone that of course we recognize that their romance and sex is far more important than anything we will ever be able to have!)

I don’t want aros and aces to get special exemption from the requirement to have romance and sex and romantic attraction and sexual attraction; I want that to not be a requirement for anyone.