#loveless writing

[redysetdare]

enough stories about how someone learns to truely be happy through love. i want a story where someone is desperately seeking out love thinking it's the only way to be happy only for them to learn by the end that happiness is what they make of it and they don't need love at all to make it.

[shmaroace]

hey so i aro-ed your boyfriend. yeah he's rejected the concept of love and amatonormativity. no, no he's still your boyfriend, he's just aro now

[privateolives]

This is probably because I grew up watching 24/7 animal planet, but what finally made the allo/aplatonic thing click for me were the nature's of big cats.

Lions are powerful, regal creatures who are uniquely adapted to pack life. They need these connections to live a healthy life; A lonely lion is a miserable creature indeed.

Jaguars are solitary, beautiful creatures who live happily solitary. They prowl their lush world with self-sufficient majesty. A jaguar is not lonely without a pack. In fact, forcing jaguars to share space with others they do not enjoy is just as damaging as forcing a lion to live alone.

A lion may choose to head out on it's own for the most part, but in the end must return to the pack to thrive. A jaguar can choose to trust and enjoy the company of others, but they never feel the need to form a pack.

Is a jaguar selfish for this? A psychopath, a narcissist or any other such horrid assumptions? Is it a less moral creature than a lion, who seeks others like it to thrive?

Is a lion pathetic, or needy, or selfish for wanting community? For requiring contact with others like they require water? For their inherent need to string complicated webs of relationships that may seem silly or dramatic to others?

Of course not. These are ridiculous questions to even ask.

They are simply lions and jaguars.

In fact, is a jaguar that chooses to spend time with you not as magical as a lion's love? For a creature that needs no bond to thrive to still enjoy your presence enough to share it a time? Is a lion who can prowl the night alone not impressive in its strength and resilience? Is it not awe-inspiring in its ability to conquer a life it was never wired for and reign still?

Are they not both beautiful and awe-inspiring in their own ways, without being wrong?

Alloplatonics. Aplatonics. Are we not both special and beautiful in both our bonds and self-confident happiness equal, in each our ways? Is there not unique beauty in lifelong bonded packs and magical encounters that need no perpetuity to carry life forward?

Are we not but lions and jaguars? Neither wrong, neither selfish, but just different and beautiful creatures in each our ways?

That's how I've come to see it, anyway.

[rosy-crow]

Please Square, don’t fuck this up, you HAVE to include the entire Firsts trio in TFS part 2. GIVE US SMOL GENESIS!!!

I HAVE TO COMPLETE THE MEME!!!

[that-disabled-princess]

Was inspired by this post and made my first ever zine!! Ignore the crochet hook, that's because I needed both hands to take the photos and didn't have anything else to hold the zine flat.

[fallenrain40]

"aroace people can still have relationships-" NOT ALL OF THEM CAN. YOU KNOW THAT RIGHT. WHY DO YOU WORD IT AS "aroaces can still be in relationships" AND NOT "some can have relationships, and others cannot."? WHY MUST YOU INSIST THAT WE STILL CAN LOVE IN SOME WAY. WHY DOES IT MATTER. WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO LOVE. WHY, WHEN TALKING ABOUT AROACES, DO YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO IMPLY THAT IT'S OUR OTHER WAYS OF LOVING THAT MAKES US ACCEPTABLE? WHY CAN'T THE FACT WE DON'T LOVE MAKE US GOOD PEOPLE? WHY IS THERE ALWAYS AN EMPHASIS ON THE OTHER WAYS WE LOVE, OR THE AROACES THAT CAN STILL DATE, AND NOT ON OUR LACK OF LOVE? IT FEELS TO ME, LIKE YOU ARE TRYING TO PUSH ASIDE THAT ASPECT OF OUR IDENTITY, BECUASE IT'S TOO STRANGE TO YOU. YOU MAY NOT SAY IT OUTLOUD, BUT THERE'S STILL A STIGMA AROUND LOVELESSNESS. IN YOUR MIND, YOU STILL ARE VIEWING LOVELESS PEOPLE AS LESS MORAL OR GOOD, AREN'T YOU? OTHERWISE, YOU WOULD CELEBRATE OUR LOVELESSNESS, NOT SHOVE IT ASIDE BECUASE "THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO LOVE"

[purpletrashcans]

I am so fucking annoyed and here is why

I recently made the discovery that i'm probably aromantic and i would like to do what i did when i discoverd that i'm trans which is go and watch/read everything that even has the tiniest bit of trans representation in it, but i can't because there is no aromantic representation

now obviously that's nothing new, i was aware of this problem before and it pissed me right off then as much as it does now

it’s honestly just such bullshit that whenever there is an asexual character in media, basically the first thing they say after coming out as ace is that "they still want to fall in love" like not wanting, not being able to feel romantic love, would make them less human or something like that and of course there are ace people who are not aro, i'm not saying that and i'm not trying to shit on anybodys identity, if you are ace and not aro you are just as valid as anybody else and this lack of aro rep is obviously not your fault, we also need more ace rep while we're on it, that's not the point i'm trying to make, what i mean is that media always tells us that romance makes us human and if you don’t experience that you are either immature, unstable or not human and that's just bullshit

also it is no wonder that when i told my grandma about Loveless by Alice Oseman and how much i love this book, she was worried that i was like Georgia because i never like anyone romantically, she has never heard of aromanticism before, when she thinks of adult people that have never been in a relationship and don't have children she thinks of lonely, sad people and she doesn't want that for me

it is no wonder that when i see my greataunt and -uncle once a year they ask if i have a partner and when i say that no, i don't have a partner, they tell me that i have time and i'll meet someone eventually

and it is no wonder that so, so many people think that they're broken, that they enter relationships and situations that they don't want to be in, that fucking therapist try to cure people, that it took me 21 years, almost losing my friends, actually losing 8 kg in two months do to disordered eating and reading Loveless two times to figure out that i might just be aro, when there is barely any representation whatsoever, when most people haven't even heard of aromanticism

we need more representation and we need it desperately, that way not only will aro people discover their identity sooner and safe themselves a whole lot of trouble, but allo people can also learn how to react to someone being aro and we can all learn that being aro isn't sad or inhumane or weird or lonely

and because i'm a fancy-schmancy college student (who wrote "collage" instead of "college" first because i can not spell)(and have watched too much criminal minds) i would like to end this with a quote by Mariah Wright Edelman (tho the quotes are the worst part of criminal minds, they are so cringe istg):

“You can’t be what you can’t see”

[lovelessrage]

Loveless Characters: A Starter Guide and FAQ

[PT: Loveless Characters: A Starter Guide and FAQ]

Sometimes I feel like those Youtubers that only upload twice a year. Anyway, onto some disclaimers.

I am one person. Please assure you are gathering from multiple sources when writing ANY character from a perspective you’re not familiar with. Even if you’re confident, everybody has blind spots, and that’s okay, it’s just a fact. Second, I am not a proofreader by trade or by hobby; I can answer questions, I can go over scenarios, but I cannot go through your manuscript or Google Doc. I live with chronic fatigue and pain, so it’s just not feasible; I’ll do my best but you have to give me some leniency here. Seek out other loveless folks for that, and make sure you pay them. Third, I can’t cover everything; there will be stuff I miss that other people will point out, hence why you shouldn’t ever look to exactly one source.

With that out of the way, let’s get the ball rolling. We’ll start with definitions, plural, and explain these various experiences briefly.

Loveless has been commonly defined, although not limited to, one of four major definitions; we can label these with these shorthands.

Unloving (entirely or partially)

Disconnected

Rejection

Politically/Socially

There’s nuances between all four and beyond them, but I feel these categories are easiest for our explanation - we’ll get into some of those nuances below.

The Unloving (entirely or partial)

[PT: The Unloving (entirely or partial)]

This person uses the label because they, wholly or partially, do not feel love. While identifying as loveless because you don’t feel love seems straightforward, why do so if it’s partial? There’s a few primary reasons I tend to see. Sometimes, the attractions someone does not feel love in are more significant to their identity or experiences than the ones they do feel love in. This can be because of societal pressures, such as not feeling romantic love alienating someone due to its prevalence, or someone who does not feel familial love seeking to reclaim and find pride in the absence of that feeling. Regardless of how little love someone feels, from only one spectrum to all of them, anyone using it because of a literal lack of love falls in this category. Individuals who are riding the partiality line may also use the label loveless-spec, or use spec- labels alongside the loveless umbrella.

Disconnected

[PT: Disconnected]

This person uses the label because they either feel disconnected from love due to societal pressure, indifference to the emotion, or because of a mental disorder/illness or other disability. Disconnection that is societally caused can, for example, be a loveless asexual disconnected from the idea of love due to having it be so heavily associated with sex that they no longer feel attached to it. Indifference is self-explanatory, but also has its own nuances; someone can be indifferent because it has never mattered to them, or because experience has shaped their opinion in the present, such as not finding much enjoyment in being loving, or having mixed feelings after a toxic relationship.

Mental illness and disability is its own can of worms, due to how many there are, as well as the limitations that come with not being able to discuss every comorbidity. I can only speak from certain angles, but overall, if you do not have the disorders you are trying to represent and/or aren’t loveless yourself, if you plan to go this route, proofreading is not a luxury, it is a must. Get that second opinion before moving further.

Rejection

[PT: Rejection]

This person uses the label because they are rejecting love, or feel rejected by love. There are plenty of reasons that someone may reject love as a concept, many of which overlap with reasons for disconnect. The expectation can be too heavy, the societal implications can be unsavoury, or someone is radically indifferent and wants nothing to do with it. Rejection by love is immensely common, especially within various marginalised communities. Several groups, such as the disabled, people of colour, trans and GNC individuals, and aspec individuals have their unique love experiences devalued, othered, or otherwise made out to be less than and evil for not fitting into eurocentric, white, ablebodied, cis, etc. ideals of what love is. Because of this, rejecting the complex of love, especially one used specifically to villainise things you cannot change or communities you are a part of, can lead someone to use this label.

Politically/Socially

[PT: Politically/Socially]

What is being politically loveless? What’s that mean? It’s much more simple than it can seem, and many people will agree with these principles, even if they don’t choose to use the label to identify those are their stances. The people that use this label do see identifying with this label as a declaration of their political opinions and goals. These goals include love neutrality, which refers to making love as an emotion completely neutral and not necessarily a force of good, and decentering of love in society, meaning removing it as a necessity for all and dismantling the idea that it is what makes us human.

While I’m on this topic, I should say that if you are representing characters coming from this perspective, you should do actual readings on the kind of discussions around these topics and various loveless perspectives on these ideas. If you’re going to write about a political movement, read about those politics; ask people their opinions if they’re willing to give them.

Now that we’ve defined lovelessness in a basic sense, there’s even more variation in between all of these because of the fact that people often identify as loveless (something). This does not only have to be loveless aro, and can extend to loveless aces, apls, afams, asensuals, aqps, loveless allos (this one gets passed over a lot, unfortunately), and many, many more. Of course, there are also people that identify solely as loveless in the same way someone who is non-SAM would. All of these are important experiences and deserve their time in your writing or artwork.

Common Questions and Hypotheticals

[PT: Common Questions and Hypotheticals]

Q: How do I write a loveless character without making a manifesto’s worth of explanations?

[PT: Q: How do I write a loveless character without making a manifesto’s worth of explanations?]

You should write a person first is the simple answer! Your character has opinions, experiences, and a way of speaking I can’t predict for the purposes of this post. How they interact with the world and their unique perspective will influence how they describe their own identity, or how little they talk about it in general. Although, I can throw a bit of a bone, and bring up two of my own loveless characters for examples of what this can look like:

X Goldfinch is a teenager, someone who is relatively online, and due to their angel status has the language to describe their experiences.They are a person who identifies as loveless because they do not feel any love whatsoever. They would directly call themself a loveless aroace, and describe this as an emotion they’re just never experienced or felt. It is very direct, succinct, and uses modern language to do this.

O’Leary is an alien that is entirely emotionless, with no attachments whatsoever and no concept of human standards of emotions or their identity labels. Due to this, he would describe himself simply as detached, as this is what most species would view him as. He would not give further information, nor would he use the labels a person would recognise, but the experience is identifiable through similarity.

These are two different experiences within the same realm (not feeling any love at all), with two different ways of describing or identifying with those feelings. These are some of the considerations to keep in mind. As for how to describe it in a narrative sense, simple!

Trust your audience gets it. You can explain, simply, why this character is loveless if you like, or simply mention they are loveless as part of a character introduction. Cut the justification, just let it be and explain as much as is narratively cohesive. Sometimes, that is just saying the word and reinforcing it later. Other times, it’s a first person exploration that can go on for a few paragraphs. It’s situational, but I promise, cutting the fat of needing to assure your audience understands this doesn’t make them a hideous monster (if it isn’t plot relevant) will make for much less to chew on.

Q: What about social connections for my characters? What can I use?

[PT: Q: What about social connections for my characters? What can I use?]

Anything. Everything. Social tolerance and relationship tolerance varies immensely. However, do want to note this is not an excuse to see this question as ignorable. Think about what your character would prefer, and remember a solitary lifestyle is not necessarily a tragic one. We don’t tolerate discrediting any loveless experience as “too loving to count”, but we also don’t tolerate using this as an excuse to avoid writing social repulsion. Nuance, nuance.

Q: Writing a loveless person in a relationship is okay, sure, but how do I actually do that respectfully? What about a loveless parent?

[PT: Q: Writing a loveless person in a relationship is okay, sure, but how do I actually do that respectfully? What about a loveless parent?]

I include this because I have been asked in the past about what a loveless parent would do for a child, and the simple answer is to kill the idea in your head that lack of love necessitates a worse relationship. There are plenty of reasons someone may enter or exit a relationship, loving that person or otherwise. Overall, keep in mind that love is not the only emotion a person can feel, and neither is care. You may feel positively toward someone or simply want to keep them around because you enjoy them. You may have just always wanted a partner, and have found one that is accepting of your love being one sided, or potentially have a loveless partner that is interested in a loveless relationship of some kind (we need more of these, honestly). While most people can get behind this concept from other aspec dynamics, there is still the question of the major sticking point: parenthood.

While not easy to answer, I see it as this: love is taught. It, as a concept, is not innate. The emotion is, the feeling is, but not love as a word, as an expectation. If you teach a child love is their value solely to deprive them of it, that is abject cruelty. However, assuming a loveless parent would introduce love simply to take it away from their child is anti-loveless rhetoric. It’s assuming an immediate abuse situation where there does not need to be one. The simple fact is, if you want a healthy child as a loveless person, you simply raise them that they have more value outside of being loved, that you are invested in their wellbeing, hobbies, and feelings, and that you will be there for them regardless. Love discussions can come when the child is older, but there is no harm in being a no love household if that child is aware they are safe, supported, and able to rely on you as any child should be able to.

Simple answer, you can work around love pretty easily, it’s just that most people have no interest in teaching this to you, especially for innate loves. There’s pathways through all of this that are, again, just fine. However, this isn’t to say you can only write a character that has it all figured out. A loveless parent struggling at first with their plan of action for a new baby or adopted family member, or a loveless partner trying to express their feelings without setting off their love repulsion, are all interesting facets to explore. The solution is not sanitization, but thoughtfulness and sincerity, as well as not demonising this confusion or testing period.

Q: What about nonhuman characters, I hear a lot of people are tired of those?

[PT: Q: What about nonhuman characters, I hear a lot of people are tired of those?]

Some, yes! I, personally, relate most to nonhuman characters, mostly because someone is always trying to force love normativity onto them and if that isn’t my day to day life, I don’t know what is. Is it okay to do, as in, is it morally right to only make human loveless characters? Personally, as long as you are conscious, getting second opinions along the way, and watching your bias (as well as not making all your loveless characters nonhumans), I don’t see an issue with the concept itself. It is often the execution, with the undercurrent that these other species are backwards, limited, or never measuring up to humans due to their lovelessness (see: every tragic robot character ever) that will create controversy at your door. If you are solely focused on the nonhuman part, and not the messaging, you’re missing the point by a mile.

Q: What should I not do? What should be avoided?

[PT: Q: What should I not do? What should be avoided?]

The least easy to answer question, which is why I have dedicated an entire section to tired tropes, salvageable stereotypes, and the impact of a limited scope. Of course, all of this is subject to debate, and you are unlikely to get the same answer twice when asking opinions on some of these things. Personally, I think you should ask anyway. Not to get the answer you like best, but to understand why opinion varies so much. If you understand the roots, you can form a consensus much easier than tallying your responses for yes and no.

Let’s get into the divisive section!

The Stereotype Shuffle: Reoccuring Cast Members and Their Issues

[PT: The Stereotype Shuffle: Reoccuring Cast Members and Their Issues]

#1: The Mean Hermit

The hermit is so pissed off by society and all their snuggling, cuddling, loving, and singing, he has decided to isolate himself from the world at large, and retreat to his barren cave, wooden cabin, or otherwise sullen hovel to bask in his hate and misery for all eternity. The love grinch, as one could call him, is a staple of the friendship is magic or love triumph all storyline, where he either must be remedied and healed from what has broken him so he may love again, or be defeated and driven away further. He may serve to steer the protagonist wrong, or make him question his beliefs and their foundations.

Do I have a soft spot for this blatant stereotype? Perhaps. It does not diffuse the harm it is capable of, however. While I think the idea of a loveless character living alone in a swamp is conceptually awesome, what follows is a discussion of the politics surrounding the lonely hermit. He is often billed as broken, or a figure that should not be listened to; he is a corruptor, an agent of doubt and tragedy. If you plan on making your loveless character as detached as he is, there’s a few ways to go about tackling this.

Is he angry because he is annoyed, or because of some innate jealousy and hatred of joy? It’s not necessarily bad to indulge in the hater lifestyle, but as a loving writer, you should question why your thoughts lead you to a loveless person existing to create misery and discord for others. Why must he be an agitator, or one that needs to be so heavily silenced? What critiques could he actually be making beyond hating ponies and cupcakes and birthday hats? If you plan to write a plain, hateful guy, he better not be the only representation in your story, and the other representation better not be looking to the camera to say “hey, at least I’m not like this guy!”. Using the mean hermit to push how your other characters are more normal or acceptable because they are more accepting of the status quo is lazy at best and anti-loveless at worst. Let a guy hate, or make him into an actual important character beyond the test of faith; after all, if he’s testing faith, does that faith happen to be love normative?

There is also the Occam’s Razor of simply having a character be happy to be alone, or exploring the nuance between jealousy and what a person can and cannot have. Personally, I would never recommend the latter for your first outing. Loving people too often ride the line and fall on the side of a trope I will get into later. There’s a difference between a loveless person writing from experience of their shame journey, and a loving person doing so because it is the only way they can think of making a character sympathetic.

#2: The Villain, or Big Bad

She’s evil, she’s a terror, and she’s a loveless aplatonic! Shock and terror course over the crowd as they slowly realise she is childless, partnerless, and prefers a nonfriending lifestyle! But, what’s this on the horizon? It is the writer, coming with an editorial note, specifying her lovelessness is separate from her awesome, evil abilities! All good then, right?

Well, maybe! It depends on your narrative and your placement of loveless characters overall. Even if it has nothing to do with her villainy at hand, perhaps she is seeking to destroy all apples or something because she cannot stand them, for example, is her villainy still rooted in loveless antagonism? Is her heart of coal listed as a reason she cannot be redeemed, her separation from the world a sign of her wickedness? Or, does this make up a regular facet of her life that the heroes don’t really have an interest in? Perhaps the main characters are loveless as well, or part of their adventuring crew is. Perhaps, she is a commentary on how society drives the loveless to anger and then recoils when they lash out, representing a loveless person embracing the monster they are made into. Perhaps, she is as redeemable as any other villain, with her lovelessness not impeding this process. Perhaps you are writing a comedy, and her loveless life comes up in a side gag about her continuing to live while she waits for the arrival of the hero at her castle.

Overall, the loveless villain is overplayed, yes, but I don’t think it’s doomed to be a dud when put in the right hands. With this particular situation, I would recommend asking plenty of questions, assuring you understand your narratives and themes, and watching for undercurrents that can shape your intentions. Take any advice or criticism you get in stride; while some may be perfectly fine with this setup, many other loveless people are bracing for the worst, or may not trust you to execute. Go forward with this in mind.

#3: The Sympathy Vehicle, aka the Loveless Pain Parade

God, this one. I hate this one. There’s your bias disclaimer; there is nothing I hate more, no trope I detest seeing more in the manuscript of a loveless person, than the disaster that is the sopping pile of wet loveless antagonism within the Sympathy Vehicle.

This character is sad. This character is really, really sad. They hate being loveless, they hate themself, and they want you to know this every time the topic is brought up. They exist to be a repentant figure, something for loving characters to feel good about saving, or inspiration porn for the loving consumer about how even the loveless can beat the odds.

This is, unfortunately, one of the most common, unintentionally bigoted takes I see all the time from well-meaning loving creators who think they are doing us a favour with this being their only representation. To clarify, this experience of heartbreak is real, it should be represented, but it should also be done respectfully, delicately, and with a loveless person on board. None of this is present in the Sympathy Vehicle. They exist to be saved from themself, to cry to the audience about how horrid being loveless is, and to act as an unrelenting expression of loveless pain only solvable by a doting, loving character. The Sympathy Vehicle does not find community, go on a journey of self acceptance, or even truly get through their crisis. All of it relies on a loving society counting them as an exception, as fitting within the loving mould, and all so a loving audience can feel better at the end. None of this is done in the service of catharsis for a loveless audience, or truly exploring what causes these experiences in the first place. In fact, the Sympathy vehicle often exists in settings, dynamics, or societies where other nuances of love are completely acceptable or normalised, even encouraged to explore. So, here is my question.

Why does your fictional society hate loveless people? Why does your fictional small circle, your fictional small neighbourhood, your fictional forum or internet community? Who is teaching the Sympathy Vehicle they are wrong or monstrous, and why is nobody challenging this in your accepting circle? Why does nobody discuss it? Why are they left to wallow alone and forgotten? Why, in your utopic scenarios, must the loveless still suffer? Why was your first thought writing a loveless character to put them in a world that has taught them only hatred, rejection, and malice, when all your other characters can find peace?

There’s a reason I solely trust loveless people to write about this, or to draw from their own experiences. Sorry if you don’t like this take, but it’s where I lie on it after seeing dozens after dozens of loveless headcanons, original characters, and narratives solely centred on selling lovelessness to be gawked at and never comforted.

#4: The Apathetic/The Snarker

Ah, the gay best friend of the aspec community, it’s good to see you again. Hopefully I do not need to explain why making your loveless character a sidekick to subject the main romance or friendship to while solely making quippy remarks or giving relationship advice is a bad idea. Ultimately, having a snarky, sassy loveless character is not the issue, but reducing them to essentially be a windup doll for the loving cast is. We’re more than a punchline or cutaway gag to do your “get a load of them!” bits with.

#5: The ‘Stereotype Defier’

Annoying, but brief, this character solely exists to be the counterbalance. They have no character outside of being perfect, acceptable, and enjoyable. Palatable is the Defier’s middle name, albeit one of many, the others being “don’t cancel me, I made a good one”. If you see the advice to not limit your loveless characters to stereotypes, and your first response is to make this guy, scrap the whole thing/ You’ve severely misunderstood. The problem is not the presence, but the standard. Making a character solely so you won’t get a callout post does not make you accepting, it just shows you took away the wrong message and did not understand what you were taking in. Please, please write a character to be a character, not “another one” to stand around do-gooding.

#6: The Under-researched Cultural Experience

This one will upset certain people, but I’m here to tell you this with no frills: why are all your loveless characters so American, specifically white American? This character has only ever looked at it from a USAmerican perspective, all of their experiences line up with those norms, but the written character is from a country or culture where these norms are entirely different or just nonexistent. What gives?

Well, in my opinion anyway, at least coming from a Canadian, you tend to notice that aspecs from regions such as SWANA, Latin America, South Asia, and even from certain communities in the US, such as diaspora and African American communities, entirely have their necks stepped on. There is plenty you can find on experiences with romance, family and friendship normativity, how the expectations change, and how culture will impact those experiences online. I, personally, can't speak on them; it’s not my story to tell. It’s my task for you to seek out alternative voices so you actually write accurate characters. Do your research before you slap on broad strokes.

Loveless POC and loveless people from around the globe deserve good representation that actually takes cultural considerations in mind.

#7: The Serial Abuser

I’m not entertaining this one. Not happening.

If you make this, do not expect people to take your word or hear you out. If your story is actually a tragic tale of the cycle of abuse, I honestly do not care. This should never be your first outing, and even past this, loving people, do not use this trope. Not for headcanons, not for OCs; there is a level of trust going on, and an expectation of good faith that comes with allowing certain stereotypes to be used. This, however, no matter how smothered in nuance, disclaimers, and loveless pride hashtags, will end poorly. I am not going anti-nuance, or anti-loveless villain, but I am anti-”blatantly bad idea”. Avoid. Do not attempt.

Whuff. Over the controversy hill, onto bigger and better, right? Well, we’re at least into the part that is more discussion-oriented, going over concepts to keep in mind, the main debates around loveless character creation, and why it causes such hesitation.

A Loveless Life: Reality into Fiction

[PT: A Loveless Life: Reality into Fiction]

So, past all the other discussion, really… What IS it like to be loveless? This is not easy to answer succinctly, let alone entirely. While I can lend my own experiences and observations, I cannot speak on behalf of others. There will always be someone who agrees, someone who disagrees, and someone in the middle. However, for the benefit of this post, I will share some personal thoughts, as much as I am comfortable with, anyway.

Lovelessness is often, although not always, living a double life, online and offline. You do not always know who you can trust, who will or who will not judge, and what they will do if they discover this about you. I have known people who have lost friends, had relationships dissolve, or otherwise seen the negative impacts of an unaccepting society meeting a non-conforming individual. However, I have also seen endless grace, patience, and willingness to learn. I have seen people come together as a community to support each other, protect and uplift our own, and speak up for each other. I have seen allies hold the line and refuse to leave us behind in their conversations. For every antagonistic anon, every anti-loveless post, every argument over the status of your identity, and every lost relationship, there is opportunity for growth, betterment, and change.

Loveless life is complicated. In current society, no matter where you go or who you talk to, it will not be easy. There are expectations everywhere, and the world wide web makes people especially vulnerable to attacks they cannot defend or insulate from. Many loveless people from a young age are learning to be defensive first and foremost, or to stay in the closet from their peers. At the same time, many more people are finding the label and their peace with it. Many are willing to fight for that acceptance.

With all this in mind, do I necessarily want this to be emulated in media? Not really. Handling it accurately would be a treat for sure, but at the same time, it is upsetting how in settings for escapist fantasies, the loveless cannot escape these standards. I would like a mix of both, with both accepting situations and the realities of loveless life. This necessitates creating more loveless stories overall, which I am all for. I hope someday I will be able to point every loveless person to a book or TV show with their experience or label in it, proud and happy, even if circumstances are not.

Changing The Narrative: Who’s the Real Inflexible One?

[PT: Changing the Narrative: Who's the Real Inflexible One?]

I think to myself, or talk about it with others pretty often, why are loveless characters so hard to write for loving people? However, it’s my recent thought that this question is flawed, because of one principle component carried with it: the onus is put on the loveless identity for its difficulty. Realising this, I proposed to myself a new question: why do loving people have such a hard time adapting? Why do loving writers and artists struggle to understand so often?

Again, Occam's razor: loveless antagonism, anti-loveless rhetoric, and all other names it goes by, is everywhere. Including, and almost especially, in the aspec community, as well as the loveless community itself. These principle beliefs of what it is to be human, what is normal, what is just and moral, are so ingrained and tied to love, they aren’t even questioned or thought of as ideology. It’s almost as innate as breathing. So, the question of how not to be loveless antagonistic is proposed, seemingly simple and straightforward, but oftentimes never shared in detail. People will reblog posts about spreading kindness, not hate, or appreciating loveless voices, but rarely will they actually take the steps towards not being anti-loveless. So, how do you become flexible? How do you become the solution? I can give you my answer, based on what I would like to see, but there is endless possibility in this question. Recognition of the issue is only step one.

What I would like to see is further reading of loveless perspectives, ideas, theories, and broader acceptance and discussion of these principles. If you want to sit at the adult table, you need to leave your cutlery at the kid’s table. You can’t pick and choose what parts of loveless antagonism still suit you just fine, such as platonormativity, and then agree the rest of it should go. You need to fully let go and embrace that you can be wrong, and you can change. You are not beholden to old opinions, even if they are “community consensus”. This includes, even if it is important to you, recognising love is not necessary, love is not inherently moral, loveless people are all around you, and loveless people are complete as is. And, for all that is holy, stop remixing the question of “what makes us human?” unless it’s for your anthropology final; it’s a silly question, no, it is not love, and trying to find this grand singular answer will lead you in circles. If I hear it one more time the next instance is getting met with a punch.

As well, accept loveless people as peers, not zoo animals. We are not your research project or knowledge dispensary. We are people with lives, and people who get tired. While answering questions isn’t bad, and neither is asking them, respect you are not owed an answer or the time of strangers. We do not need to explain ourselves to you, and if we do, it is a favour. Do not force yourself on people, do not request personal details, do not become one of those people who tags vent posts as “writing reference”.

Overall, show respect, open your ears and eyes, prepare to be wrong. Prepare to screw up and get corrected. Prepare to try again anyways. Prepare for research and put yourself out there. Prepare to let go of the anti-loveless safety blankets.

A Final Disclaimer: “Care” and the Acceptability Crisis

[PT: A Final Disclaimer: "Care" and the Acceptability Crisis]

Care does not equal love.

You’ve likely heard this line a million times, and while it is true, it’s important to remember care isn’t an inherent human trait either, and it should not be treated as a redeeming catalyst for your feel-good twist. Care, just like anything else, is simply an emotion, a way of relating to people. You do not have to care to do good, to be good, or make a positive impact. You do not need anything in you but the want to do a good thing, for whatever reason, to do a good thing.

Breaking the barriers of what makes people inherently worthy, human, and moral, includes removing all emotions as an inherent human qualifier or moral superiority mound, and recognising them as impulses and reactions like anything else. Care is not necessary. Don’t come into my notes with it, last time I’ll talk on it, putting it on the table. Up to you to internalise.

Loveless people need no disclaimers, no frills, no appeasement compromises for loving comfort.

So, What Next?

[PT: So, What's Next?]

I’d recommend reading a few things before you go. It’s a short list, I promise. First off is the principle writing on lovelessness, I Am Not Voldemort by K.A. Cook. You’ll see this essay cited 6 times over for good reason; it's the blueprint of loveless writing. As well, you can check out this post by @loveless-arobee on the same topic as this post for a second opinion discussing a few things I did not cover here/did not go in depth on. As well, check out blogs like his for loveless discussions and thoughts. There's always learning opportunities and ongoing discussions to be found when you look to loveless bloggers.

With all that said, write. Draw. create. Find a passion and use it, and recognise care and love do not make or break an individual. What makes an individual is them being on this Earth, or on your fictional little planet, making their impacts as they go along in life.

What makes humans human? I don’t care.

Thanks for reading!

[loveless-arobee]

Writing Loveless Characters

(Pt: Writing loveless characters)

Because I want to see more of them but non-loveless people often don’t have any idea where to start, or how to write them respectfully.

Loveless / heartless people are welcome to add their opinions! This is by no means a complete post, I'm just trying to give a starting point.

I’ll also discuss the decentering of love in stories a bit, even if there’s no explicitly loveless characters present. So if you’re interested in that, read on!

Definition

(Pt: Definition)

Let’s start with the simplest bit. What does it mean to be loveless (or heartless)?

Being loveless means not experiencing anything that could be described as love, feeling a disconnection from the entire concept of love, and/or it refers to the rejection of the idea that people need to experience love.

A lot of people who use the loveless/heartless labels are also neurodivergent and may feel a connection to this label because of that, but not all.

Being loveless can mean multiple things for one person, too. If you want to read more about the meaning of being loveless from a loveless person (me) you can read this post (link), or scroll a bit through the loveless aro and heartless aro tags.

What is love?

(Pt: What is love?)

Because we can’t go on without clearing up what this word actually means.

Love is just a label for an emotion. Nothing more. Love is not an action, actions are actions. Love is not a choice to care for some one, that is simply the choice to care for someone. This choice can be made completely without love, for example out of compassion, or because of a feeling of responsibility.

So, in short, "love" is just a label that a lot of people have decided to use for a specific emotion, and that label might not fit everyone.

Building a character

(Pt: getting started)

For this, I can’t give a 100% conclusive answer, obviously, because all loveless people are different. Here’s just some things to keep in mind:

To respectfully write a loveless character, you should just throw out the idea that feeling love is necessary to be a good human, to care for other people or animals, or that not feeling love makes one immediately an asshole who doesn’t care for other people’s feelings.

Being loveless, in and off itself, says nothing about how a person acts. It only means that they don’t experience love (or any other part of the definitions above).

Things to avoid:

I can only think of two things you should definitely avoid doing, and that is connection lovelessness to being evil in any way, shape, or form. Also, avoid making your loveless character non-human if the rest of you cast is human (if all your characters are fantasy-races, that’s fine, probably just have a character, even just a minor one, of that same race who isn’t loveless, just to show that this isn’t a trait of this species that differentiates them from others, or make that very clear in the narrative.)

Yes, your loveless character can be evil, or morally complex, but you shouldn’t explain their villainy with them being loveless.

Yes, your loveless character can be emotionally distant, cold, or un-empathetic. Those words mostly describe me in some way. But again, you should decouple all of those things from being evil. Empathy doesn’t make a good human, and not experiencing empathy doesn’t make a bad person. Same with having shallow emotions.

But with all of this, you should still think about why you want to write them in this way. For example, do you want to write a loveless character with low empathy because you want to represent people like me, who are neurodivergent and don’t experience much empathy, and are also loveless? Or do you want to write them because those are things that make them more unlikable, or show their villainy?

Do you want them to experience shallow emotions to represent people who feel that way, or to explain away their lovelessness with "no normal person would feel this way"?

Do you want to write a loveless villain because it makes them more complex, and allows you to explore their emotions to a deeper level, or because you equate not feeling love with being evil and being evil with not feeling love?

Because there’s a very big difference, and your intentions matter a lot here, because the way you think about your character influences the way you write them.

Things I’d like to see / ideas to include

Besides "really, any loveless person who isn’t demonised" ofc.

- characters being open about not experiencing love, and not being judged or "fixed" for it.

- The narrative not treating lovelessness as a bad thing, and other characters just simply respecting their boundaries.

- A character with boundaries around the word love in general, doesn’t have to be loveless, and them being respected. Some people just don’t like hearing "I love you"s all the time.

- Just generally decentering love from the narrative (see more below)

- ND loveless people who fit the "bad stereotypes", turning them on their head (like me, hi.)

- not repeating respectability politics ("I might not feel love but I still care for people, I’m just like you!") This is not to say that loveless people don’t care for other people, just that it shouldn’t be shoe-horned in as a way of "showing that they’re still a good human being, despite not feeling love". They can just care for other people normally, without making it seem like something special or strange because they don’t feel love.

Questions to ask

To get a better understanding of your character:

- Why does this character identify as loveless, or could be identified as loveless? What does it mean to them, personally?

- How does being loveless affect their relationships?

- How does being loveless affect their view of the world, and other people?

- How important is their lovelessness to them? Is it something they’re proud of and show openly, or just something that’s a part of them that comes up when it gets important, but is otherwise just "background noise" for them?

- How do they feel about being the "target" of different kinds of love? Does love in general make them uncomfortable, just specific kinds, or do they not mind other people’s feelings towards them?

- Adding to the point above: Do the other characters respect their boundaries? If not, why? Does it add something important to the story?

That’s the most important points I can think of rn.

Decentering love

(Pt: decentering love)

Even if you don’t have a specific loveless character, this can still be done and often times make for some more interesting stories and characters that mostly haven’t been told before.

What do I mean by that?

Well, first off all, almost everything in most modern books is about love, contains love, or centers love in some way. There’s barely any new books coming out that don’t put the main characters in romantic relationships, even if they’re not in the romance genre, and if they don’t, these books are usually about the importance of platonic (or familial) love instead.

Im not saying these books shouldn’t exist. What I mean is that not everything has to center around love when there’s so many more emotions and experiences that could be written about, but instead we have millions of books that basically have the moral "You’re only worthy of humanity in the context of you relationships to other people, your only importance comes from finding people who love you / who you love, or character finds happiness through love (either their ~one true romantic love~ or platonic love)", because they obviously couldn’t learn to be happy with themselves, or that they didn’t need to center other people in their life constantly, or that they can be a complete and happy human on their own, too.

People can exist without basing their whole self worth on other people’s emotions towards them, and their emotions to other people.

To decenter love, you need to take the concepts, and ask "Why?" Why does this character need to be taught to accept themselves by falling in love? Why does this character need love to be happy, why can’t they just be happy as they are? Why should not loving make their life miserable, and why is the only way to fix it to find love, possibly even change themselves to finally be accepted by other people, instead of accepting themselves as they are, and finding community, if that’s important to them, as that?

You can even write about human connection without centering love, or about love without centering it, and portraying love as this universal, perfect good thing that makes us human and that everyone experiences. That is completely possible!

It can be just simply making sure that the narrative makes clear that this is these characters experience, and not a universal one. That there’s people who don’t feel this way. People who don’t love, don’t need love, and feel happy as they are, without relying on other people to make them happy.

Decentering love can also be about finding other ways to explore human connection. Relationship that are deep and emotional, but the characters don’t use the word love do define it; characters who are looking for community, for support, and giving community and support to others even if they don’t love them, maybe just because it’s the right thing to do, or because it’s the way they’d want to be treated, or because they have a deep seated care for humanity as a whole that they don’t describe as love.

There’s so many more emotions, so many more types of relationships, that deserve to be explored. Don’t limit yourself to just love and romance, or just (queer)platonic relationships as an aspec writer. You can write about sexual relationships, or about completely non-typical relationships that don’t really have a good term to describe them.

Write about relationships based on compassion, on sexual attraction, on mutual interest in the same topic, on what ever other emotion you can think off. I’ve once read a fantasy book where two off the main characters were different species, and mostly interested in each other to find out more about these species, and that was interesting; wonderfully written and it’d be awesome to have something that focussed on such an absolutely non-normative bond.

Don’t limit yourself to just "love", to just what society has put on a pedestal as the best and solely most important thing that connects everything and everyone. Think of all the other things that exist. Be creative.

Have fun creating!

(pt: Have fun creating!)

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me.

Thank you for reading this. Have a good day, and happy writing!

[tricoufamily]

a current day nils and a 90s college student nils who's way too intense about his internship walk into a bar

[musingsofanaroace]

Being an AroAce Writer

As an AroAce writer, I feel this pressure to write aro or ace characters. Like it's my responsibility to give fellow aros and aces the representation they so desperately deserve and need. To create an aro or ace protagonist who simultaneously represents our community yet doesn't follow too many of the stereotypes. To create a story not about an aro or ace discovering their sexual identity, but to create a story that just happens to have an aro or ace protagonist. In addition, this aro or ace character should have a sexual orientation that isn't AroAce because alloromantic asexuals and aromantic allosexuals hardly get any representation at all.

Phew! That sounds like way too much for me to tackle at the moment, and I'd definitely screw it up! Not to mention the stress and pressure to create the perfect aro or ace character. And if you add into the mix the pressures of my daily life, I'd have an AuDHD burnout before I ever began.

That being said, you can probably guess by now that I have yet to write a novel where the protagonist is aro or ace. In my previous novels, Secrets Within has two gay protagonists, Heartbeats of Home has a lesbian protagonist, and Gentle Comes the Night has a gay protagonist. Some of it has to do with the pressures described above and some of it has to do with escapism. I want to escape my life for a little bit and explore a character who is different than I am. A character who has a different life experience.

But that's not to say that I'll never write a protagonist who is aro or ace. After all, it would be nice to create a character that represents an integral part of my identity. An identity hardwired into my circuitry since conception.

However, if I did write such a character, many aro and aces would feel disappointed and hurt. For this character would be AroAce and follow many of the stereotypes. Perhaps all of the stereotypes. And why would I subject my readers to such a stereotypical AroAce? The answer is a simple one. If I wrote an AroAce character, their experiences of being AroAce would mirror my own, and my experiences of being AroAce just happen to align with many if not all of the stereotypes. Readers would then probably accuse me of writing an inauthentic AroAce character despite the fact than I'm also AroAce.

I saw this happen a bit when Alice Oseman released Loveless. Many felt that the protagonist Georgia Warr didn't accurately represent the AroAce community. Many felt that it painted AroAces in a negative light. That it made them seem duplicitous towards others and insecure in their identity. And while it's true that the novel didn't represent every AroAce experience, it's also true that it did represent a fair few.

But I digress. Readers need to keep in mind that an aro or ace character can't encompass everyone's experience. It can only encompass one. And whether you like it or not, some of these experiences may follow the stereotype to the letter. Like mine and so my others do.

And given everything I've told you, maybe now you can see why I'm a bit hesitant to write an aro or ace character at this present moment. I need a bit of time to muster the bravery to face the firing squad and criticism from not only aphobes but my own aspec community as well.

Well, that's all I have for today. Until next time, take care and stay curious.

[everythingwasnormalhere]

never getting over princess kenny being the greatest style shipper ever

dude she's literally letting a guy sleep on her husband's bed she slays so hard

[fountainpenguin]

Things that happened in Martyn & Cleo Double Life canon:

Cleo hoping to find her soulmate and start a life with them

Cleo dumping Martyn without giving him a chance to explain his side of the story, but hearing him out when he comes to her later

Martyn watching Cleo through his spyglass and telling the audience she seems safe and happy even though he thinks it's weird she's outside at night

Martyn, after he's had time to consider how he wants to play this, spinning a story about trying to be a provider for her and Cleo explaining that she wanted him, not things

Cleo not being remotely impressed by the "I was providing" sob story, lol

Martyn calling Cleo selfish for choosing to be with Scott because she's supposed to be HIS soulmate and he wants a partner

Cleo willing to forgive Martyn if he meets them halfway

Martyn refusing to meet them halfway because he doesn't think he did anything wrong

Martyn screaming about how Cleo's building bridges with Scott but "When will she think about mending our bridges???"

Martyn explaining to Cleo that he doesn't understand why his Session 1 actions bothered them

Martyn centering his character arc and roleplay on trying to win Cleo back without actually apologizing

Cleo giving Martyn a flower and stating that if he loses it, she'll be real cross with him

Cleo chasing Martyn out of her yard because he tried to put an HOA sign on her base and she wanted to make it clear that she wasn't associated with them and their hate for his base (even though she does think his heart base is strange)

Martyn attacking Cleo after she said attacking is a form of affection to her

Cleo setting boundaries with Martyn and explaining what he can do to get her back

Cleo sighing when Scar set her up on a date with Martyn, but taking the chance to talk to him instead of walking out

Cleo genuinely wanting Martyn in her alliance

Martyn and Cleo giggling constantly when they chat

Scar asking if Martyn wanted him to play a romantic music disc for him and Cleo (and Martyn getting excited and saying yes)

Martyn offering to take Cleo's armor and weapons to the deep dark so he can enchant them and bring them back while she stays safe

Cleo gifting Martyn diamonds, expecting nothing in return but not wanting him to die from lack of a good sword

Martyn and Cleo forming a secret alliance that allows Cleo to live with Scott while being on good terms with Martyn

Martyn expressing frustration that Cleo wants to keep this alliance secret because he wants them to be public allies; Cleo softly shushes him when people approach and might overhear

Martyn telling Cleo that she's putting out a lot of mixed signals because she keeps reeling him in and then pushing him away, claiming he is very confused about where he stands with her

Martyn teasing Cleo by punching her off a cliff and accidentally killing her and feeling so bad about it that he apologizes profusely despite roleplaying as someone who refused to apologize for Session 1

Martyn and Cleo immediately threatening Bdubs together when he said hi to them while they were hanging out, sdkfj

Martyn genuinely apologizing to Pearl for dumping her after Session 1

Martyn hiding under Cleo's bed while she defends him from an enderman attack

Cleo offering to let Martyn move into her house after Etho and Joel grief his base; Martyn saying he might take her up on that

Cleo and Martyn agreeing to move out and base together at Box

Cleo trusting Martyn with the location and resources of her red life base

Martyn rushing to Cleo's aid in the deep dark and trying to turn everyone against him instead

Cleo responding to Martyn's panicked shouts for her to eat by opening her inventory to get food (and drowning because she forgot she was in water)

Cleo hanging back and letting Martyn attack Scott while she does nothing to stop him from doing so, implying as much as she likes Scott, she won't kill Martyn (and herself) for him (and/or she trusted Scott to handle himself even though he ran away while Martyn was shooting at him)

Things that did not happen:

Cleo unwilling to forgive Martyn or consider being his friend and partner

Martyn and Cleo hating each other

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk

[justmelookingbackatme]

Error

I know some aros find it painful to say I love you, but it doesn't feel that way for me. I lie so effortlessly that it doesn't hurt. I'm very aware that it's false, but the words still slip past my lips with ease.

I love you doesn't hurt, it just feels inauthentic. I say it, and I feel nothing, and a little error message pops up in the corner of my brain to say this statement is factually incorrect. I don't mind the error messages. I click on the little X in the top right corner. It's another part of my routine; I say I love you, I see the error message, I X out of it.

It's a mild inconvenience. It's nothing I can't handle.

When I say I love you, I don't feel like a person. I feel like a machine whose creator wanted it to love, but they fucked up the programming, and every time they try to run the code they get that goddamn error message. I say I love you, and I become very aware of the fact that I'm a robot who doesn't work the way it's supposed to.

And then I click the little X, and I'm a human again. The feeling is gone. I'm alright. A little error message is far from the worst thing I have to manage. I can live this lie for the rest of my life, no problem.

I'm not in any pain. I can easily survive this inconvenience. But sometimes I wonder what it would be like to say the word love and not have an error message take over the screen of my life. Sometimes I wonder if whoever programmed me fixed their mistake, and maybe this time when they run the code, I'll work.

So I try again. I love you.

ERROR: this statement is factually incorrect.

ERROR: you are incapable of love. stop lying.

ERROR: you are a broken machine.

[batsarebetterthanpeople]

David Jenkins: Lets give Blackbeard daddy issues

The writers room: Ok lets have him watch his dad slap him mom and then have him kill his dad as a kid and that's his tragic backstory.

David Jenkins: More!

The Writers: uhhh ok what if he had an abusive captain as a young pirate, we'll even bring that motherfucker back in season 2 and we'll have him do a "open up for the airplane" bit just to drive it home how daddy he is.

David Jenkins: MORE!

The Writers: Uh...... When he quits piracy he offends the family he's gone fishing with and gets beaten up by the dad? have him call him poppop just for fun

David Jenkins:

The Writers:

Lemme sight my sources here

[wavesoutbeingtossed]

Having late night thoughts about how in the TSCU the faithless love and betrayal of hoax flows right into the loveless marriage allegory in Fortnight