#mononormativity

[love-me-love-my-weirdness]

I was repulsed by the idea of marriage until I realised I wanted to marry a woman.

I felt suffocated by the idea of only having the option of romantic and sexual committed relationships until I learned about qprs.

I felt wrong when I got excited about my partner having a crush or when I thought about being so tightly bound to one person until I found out about polyamory.

I felt empty searching for what made me feel like my agab until I discovered I was agender.

These standards and pressures exist even when we don’t know what they are. Pushing a hetero/allo/monogamous/cis agenda onto kids hurts them even if they aren’t in an actively intolerant area. Ignorance does the most damage. Nobody deserves to feel broken.

[alpaca-clouds]

Worldbuild Differently: Unthink Patriarchy

This week I want to talk a bit about one thing I see in both fantasy and scifi worldbuilding: Certain things about our world that we live in right now are assumed to be natural, and hence just adapted in the fantasy world. With just one tiny problem: They are not natural, and there were more than enough societies historically that avoided those pitfalls.

You know what i hate in fantasy and science fiction media?

When it is patriarchal, even though it says it isn't. Because the people writing it have not really looked into the many ways that patriarchy has influenced out world.

Let me explain this once again.

Patriarchy per se in not about the subjugation of women, though this is a logical outcome of it. But in general patriarchy is just about one thing: Ownership is a thing, and whatever you own (both in terms of physical stuff, and stuff like power and influence) gets inherited down the patrial line. So from father to son or from father to sons. Women cannot inherit stuff or can only inherit when there is not a male heir to begin with.

But this brings a problem of course: Until fairly recently in human history we did not have DNA tests. As such the only way to make sure that the patrichal line of inheritence could be ensured was to make sure that every woman only ever had sex with one man. Now, a man did not necessarily only have one woman to ensure this, but the other way around it needed to be ensured. So, women and their sexuality needed to be heavily controlled.

And because it turned out that if you allowed men to have multiple women, and women only to ever sleep with one men, it created a situation where some men never got a wife... Well, enforced monogamy was born. And of course also heteronormativity, because sexuality suddenly was always just about procreation.

Why do we know that? Well for once, because logic, but also because we thankfully got to observe other cultures (before we fucking destroyed most of them), in which we did not have patriarchy, and in which hence all those other things were way, way lessened. Close to none heteronormativity, no mononormativity. And yes, also: In societies that are matriarchal, men are not as controlled as women are in patriachal societiies. Which makes sense, of course, because the matriarchal society has inheritance from mother to daughter, and a mother will always know who her daughter is. It does not matter whether the father has only slept with the mother or with ten other women.

And as I said: No, patriarchy is not the natural way of being. The reason why it is more common in human cultures in the real world is again simple from a logical perspective: Men in a matriarchal society are fairly free, and do have some incentive to try and establish a patriarchy. Some do. While women under patriarchy are less free and hence have less abilities to try and establish matriarchy.

However, we also have to see that patriarchy is very much a result of certain real world effects. And a fantasy world with magic and dragons and what not, will not necessarily develop the same kind of stuff.

Hells, even if we had a patriarchal fantasy world... If there was a spell available to quickly check whether a man and a kid were blood-related, that patriachy might not develop the kind of control over women that developed in the real world.

But yeah... I am personally sick of writers (often white cis women), who wanna write a world without patriarchy and then still will write a world with mononormativity and heteronormativity. Two things that are a direct result of the patriarchy.

Also: Folks really should keep in mind, that "but in the real middle ages" and stuff like that are actually not that good of arguments. One, because of the holes we have in the primary materials, and two, because of the fact that if you write high fantasy, you are writing in a world that are explicitly not the real middle ages, but a world with magic, and dragons and what not. Don't assume that everything is gonna be the same. Part of worldbuilding is to actually think about how the culture your world is set in has developed.

And yes, this is something I am often annoyed with. There is some amazing worldbuilding in the works of Tolkien. But fuck Tolkien in this regard: There is absolutely no valid reason within the worldbuilding on why the world is patriarchal in every way. It does not make any sense for some of the cultures we see.

[polyamzeal]

do u have any advice on how to deal with and work through internalised monogamy-standards and like related jealousy and selfesteem issues? i also take recs for literature or something if it's too much.

thanks, i appreciate ya <3

I did a small polyam book recommendation list recently.

Unlearning internalized behaviors and beliefs is always hard and never happens overnight. It takes time and even long after you will slip up from time to time. Have patience and be gentle with yourself.

I honestly don't know if it works for everyone so take with a lot of salt. But to me a lot of mono-normativity and jealousy stems from toxic competition. The inverse of this is constructive cooperation. For example if a partner shows an interest in someone else you might feel like that person will 'steal' away your partner but instead try thinking about how that person might be a fun person to work together with to plan a gift for your partner. Or even from a more parallel sense maybe that person would be interested in going with your partner to that event that you really didn't want to go anyways. Look for ways to realize that a potential "enemy" could actually be a helpful ally that you can get along with.

[im-okay-unless-im-not]

somebody should make a polyamorous/non-monogamous parody of Lay All Your Love On Me

just sayin'

[jocolatemousse]

There was this guy from UPB that I always admired. I always wanted to get to know him on a deeper level. I wanted to connect with him. Sadly, I was in a relationship when we talked, so I never got the chance to form any deep connection with him. I knew he liked some games I've never played, and I never got to play them with him. I knew he loved music, but I didn't get to learn what songs could make him cry. He died at the start of the pandemic. He died before I could even tell him how cool I thought he was.

[en--dear]

@antimononormative

Reply to @cinnachoopy anti-mononormativity ≠ anti-monogamy #anticolonialism #anticapitalism #monogamy #nonmonogamy #polyamory #polyam #polyamorous

♬ original sound - Nayeli

Just found Nayeli’s account on tiktok but I love them so much - they articulate many of my thoughts around mononormativity so well <3 <3 

[direct link to video] [Nayeli’s tiktok]

[redheadedfailgirl]

It's wild that some people's response to the simple existence of polyamory is anger. 'if I had a polyamorous relationship I'd kill somebody' is an absurd response to a problem you don't even face. Simply don't have one then. If your partner asks for one? Say no! If someone you meet wants one? Find someone else! It is so easy to find a monogamous relationship in this world, I don't understand how the minority of people who want someone else elicits this response.

[probablynotsamantha]

Dammit heart why are you like this ik she's like the exact damn girl you would've thought up to be as attractive and friend as humanly possible to me but you still don't have to be this whiny about it.

[dollfairy]

feel like the stereotypical negative image of poly ppl is based largely on highly coupled cis unicorn hunters (usually a straight dude and his bi/biflexible wife/gf) and like....you don't need to drag all poly ppl down, we hate those kinds of "poly" ppl too

[matadorofheart]

dumb pet peeve but why do ppl call polycules "couples" like. two people in an open relationship can be a couple sure but i've seen people calling triads+ couples and i'm. so confused. there's 3 of them

[alpaca-clouds]

About Mononormativity, YA, and Shipping

Let me talk about mononormativity again, because it is such a big issue still. Especially given that while in left queer circles people will by now agree that heteronormativity is shitty. Yet, even in those circles we still struggle with mononormativity in more than one way.

Of course there is this one way - the obvious way - that people will talk about polyamorous relationships as less valuable in some way. As if the people in question do not love their partners or as if their love is somehow less because they love more people at once.

But there is also the other way: This idea that a relationship is less valuable or less "good" because it ends. And with that I am not talking about a relationship that ends because it is toxic, but just because people just grew apart. Yet, the idea keeps being kept around that you "failed" at a relationship and at romance, because it ends.

And that outlook is just so god darn toxic. Because it keeps people in relationships that are hurting them.

Yet, it is just so pervasive. You know, if I look at YA literature you often enough have their epilogues where those teenagers as adults then marry their highschool sweetheart. Because this is then made to proof that the relationship is good and perfect.

It is kinda why I also do not like romance books a lot. Because those require a "Happily Ever After" in terms of "the couple is together", as if two people cannot be happy together, even if they realize that at some point they are better as friends.

It also is so common in shipping, that people will just be so obsessive on "they are together forever" (in some cases quite literally, given immortality might be a thing).

And it is just... relax people. Relax about it. Relationships can fail and still be a good experience while they lasted. And teenagers do not need to end up marrying their highschool sweetheart and then have kids together. And no, just because someone has several romantic partners at once does not mean, they love anyone less.

I beg you to overthink this entire stuff. Because it is hurting so many people. And stop judging people for breaking up with someone.

[lilies-of-the-fields]

haven't seen much made about the new legislation protecting same sex marriage -- maybe because it doesn't do much more than ensuring federal recognition if loving v virginia gets overturned, rather than being like "actually, you can't discriminate against queer people like this"

And granted I only spent a little time digging for info on the protections for interracial marriage before I had to start work again, but I couldn't find specific info about how those protections work. I hope they're stronger than the ones for same sex marriage at least

[museumofferedophelia]

A lot of "queer" culture is deeply intertwined with the emergent "what about me?" culture, which is centred around people believing that every single conversation and post on the internet has to relate to them or reflect them in some measure- and if something doesn't, it's exclusionist, or exposes some deep-seeded issue in society.

I'll give you some examples:

There'll be a post talking about enjoying intimacy with a partner, how sex can be so special and sensual. And it'll get flooded with asexuals talking about "allonormativity" and asking why society "revolves around icky sex," and how "we need to cultivate a culture that isn't so centred around sex, asexuals exist too."

Someone will post about how special it is to find "the one" and share your life with them. And a bunch of "polyamorous" people will insert themselves, complaining about how "you can share your life with more than one person," and "just people forgetting polyam people exist," and "mononormativity and polyam ersaure."

A lesbian will post about how she's happy that she'll never have a pregnancy scare, and will jokingly talk about how doctors are always confused when she tells them that. And a bunch of "trans lesbians" or women dating "trans lesbians" chime in being like "well, about that..." or "trans lesbians are valid" or "cisnormative terf, lesbians like girldick."

I think people are too immature and narcissistic to realise that people are talking about their own experiences. Not everything is meant FOR YOU. If it doesn't reflect you, ignore it and move on.

And if you want to see more representation that reflects you, go create your own rather than harassing people whose life experiences are vastly different to yours.

Not everything has to be about you.

[freckliedan]

could you expand on your thoughts why you think dan and phil havent always been monogamous? super curious! i kind of get the same vibe.

i'm happy to expand on it tbh! it's something i think and talk a lot about with my friends.

i'm hesitant about going in depth because i've found that's when people find it okay to say deeply shitty things to me, a polyamorous person, under the guise of academic debate/it just being a difference of opinion. but i'm also not going to let the possibility of that stop me?

ANYWAYS.

quite honestly the biggest thing for me is just. taking dan and phil at their word? even when parsing something true through them saying things in silly ways that's the easiest way to be right about them.

we noticed and believed in the underlying truth in their gay jokes before they were out. people are willing to entertain the bondage and mpreg and various other horny jokes as containing some kernel of truth. more people than literally any point in time are willing to believe there's some substance to dan's career-long mentions of gender.

but for whatever reason (mononormativity) the comments about them being attracted to/flirting with/being interested in other people get written off as 100% joking and funny because they're the most monogamous people ever & because they get jealous easily. and that just? sucks.

i think they've always been committed. like, phil brought dan home to meet his parents at their very first christmas together type committed. planning to spend the rest of their lives together from 3 months into the relationship committed.

but also like? that coexists with the fact that dan wasn't able to come out to himself as gay until the lead up to basically i'm gay. 2018 or maybe 2017, i think. @freckliephil or @phulge has brought up the idea to me before that part of why they didn't label their relationship to us in 2019 may have been because they were still in flux with labeling it for themselves.

dan has also always had commitment issues due to how he saw his parents' relationship function/due to his home life growing up and i'm NOT going to elaborate on this one but it is so obvious.

(consider this whole post informed by conversations with aries and roper btw).

i think the idea that dan and phil were secure in their connection but not in a place where they had to (or could, on dan's part) ascribe labels to it in the early years is realistic?

and i think their commitment and security can coexist with the idea of like. "i think it's hot seeing you kiss other people for attention at parties and come home with me". + i genuinely think the fantastic foursome explored each other's bodies on the italy trip. etc.

i definitely think there would've been huge stretches of monogamy, and i do think that there was jealousy before they found their footing and felt comfortable in their commitment. (different rant, but i think most of what gets read as jealousy these days is them dong a bit/possessiveness).

but i think there's also always been points in time where they were either theoretically or in practice fine with having sexual experiences with other people. that wouldn't've really been possible during their deep closet era, and i don't think it was COMMON beforehand.

but i also think that it's definitely something possible after they came out.

i think people hear me say this and assume i'm degrading the incredible and beautiful love and commitment dan and phil share. that i'm reducing queer men's relationships down to sex only.

but like. i'm not fucking doing that! the people making those assumptions are doing that! and saying a lot about how they view non monogamy too!

i'm saying i think they're so secure in their love and relationship that they're literally completely unbothered and not threatened by potentially having an open relationship. devotion is not only present in monogamous relationships.

WAD makes sense as a point of post coming out timing for another open period in their relationship to me. quite honestly i could see phil being the one to suggest it to dan? 2019 thru the close of WAD was dan's self actualization era.

growing up in the context of a single committed relationship does things to you psychologically. your identity formation happens side by side with another person and even if the relationship isn't controlling and toxic you can really lose sight of your individuality, if you're not careful. this is even easier to have happen if you share all of your friends, live together, AND work together. ESPECIALLY if you're significantly closeted in some way.

i know this because i've also lived it. believe me when i say dan NEEDED to figure out who he was as an individual. we saw him do that in several iterations artistically/careerwise. but we also saw his interest in experiencing queer culture in ways he missed out on when he was young and closeted.

so i think dan actually WAS on the apps, when he was touring WAD. i wouldn't be surprised if that was phil's idea, even. a "don't worry, go see the world, we've been open before, i'm not worried you won't want to come home to me, nobody's gonna match your freak like i do". i think phil would've had the option too but probably would've taken it less.

and i think it's like. like they're best friends! it's something they would've been talking about with each other. i think it could've been foreplay to them sometimes. i think it could've been what catapaulted dan into his top era. (this is a seperate essay from drs. frecklie, frecklie and phulge as well).

most importantly we think dan came back from the first leg of WAD having completely exorcised his fear of commitment and. wait i have to find a specific message. nevermind you're getting 3 screenshots without any further context

anyways. i can't find the specific point where we said this so it was maybe an in person conversation but the rest of the idea is that experiencing other options resulted in dan coming back from WAD and proposing. and phil proposing the gaming channel return right back. we 1000% said this before phil mentioned that he's the one who suggested the gaming channel return i just can NOT fucking find receipts on that because we largely voice message.

this has been an entire ramble that touched on a lot of different subjects but. yeah. dan and phil aren't polyamorous in the "both dating another person as a couple/other people as individuals" sense nor will they ever be. but there's sooo much room between that and strict monogamy.

and a lot of that in between is in perfect alignment with the ways they've talked about their lives over the years and is yet another extension of them having a level of trust love and intimacy in their relationship that most people will never experience. so

thank you for coming to my ted talk.

[aropride]

honestly if you're queer and left leaning and claim to be for queer liberation and dismantling the family unit or whatever, but you can't even handle polyamory or aro people being in queer spaces, i don't think you've done nearly enough deconstruction of the cisheteropatriarchal family unit or the societal relationship hierarchy . like if you can't see how cissexism & homophobia & amatonormativity & mononormativity & the family unit all tie together... are you really rocking with the destruction of those things or have you just added "2 men" and "2 women" into your accepted relationship/family structures