#or made you question amatonormativity

[redysetdare]

If you're first response to a repulsed person's identity is "As long as you're not sex/romance negative" then you don't ACTUALLY support repulsed people. if you're first response is basically "this is the qualification you have to meet for me to view your identity as valid and it's up to my interpretation on if you reach this unknown criteria" then you don't actually support repulsed people.

you can't go around saying how repulsed people are valid ONLY IF they're the "good ones" that's not how that works buddy.

[silverirony]

i need all the aromantic allies to go as hard as moses sumney. harder even

[saebaragi]

i have thoughts about friendship and amatonormativity. they're not very organized but they are here. I just wanted to warn anyone that might randomly see my posts sometimes that sometime I might show up with a long post about friendship and amatonormativity.

[lexalovesbooks]

Soulmate AUs are the number one way to make me insufferable ngl

[sualne]

found back this thing from 2021

putting the addition directly onto the og post since nobody reblogs the full version:

'about this i feel a few people have misunderstood what i drew it for, my tags didnt help at all for sure and it is just one doodle, but i didnt made it as 'i'm questioning my sexuality and need to know what specific labels i am'. i've been well aware of what my whole deal is for years.

this was a silly doodle i drew as a recreation of all the thoughts and questions i had that went 'what is attraction? what is romance and sexual and platonic and friendship and something else entirely? how and why do we need to define feelings and relationships so much? why do people act the way they do, date the way they do, marry the way they do, live the way they do? how much does your own culture and time influence the way you do those things, the way you think you should act and feel? how much does amatonormativity influence and impact all of us? and why are some people so resistant against the idea of questioning and living out of these norms?' among many others things.

again, i drew years ago. i didnt want to post it because it felt unnecessarily personal and because people are insufferable about queerness.

EDIT: pls for the love of my sanity reblog the full post instead.'

[theenbyroiderer]

allo~ newbie question for ya, if u don't mind: on your amatonormativity project with all those fishies, how do you get them so thicc? Is the core a different material, a base, or did you really wrap a pound of thread on each side of the canvas?

P.S. the way you mix techniques (crochet & embroidery & beading etc) is very cool https://www.tumblr.com/theenbyroiderer/742927691538448384/just-a-reminder-from-the-archives-in-honor-of-aro?source=share

No problem, always happy to answer questions! And thank you! Those thicc fishies are made by first filling the outline with bullion stitch, then satin stitching over that.

[shmaroace]

howdy! just saw your post ("are you normal about loveless people") and i just. wanted to know what being a loveless person means? this question comes from a place of curiosity and wanting to understand!! not any ill will or anything :3

so i don't know that i'll define this as well as other people might be able to, but i'll do my best!

loveless aromantics are aros who have decided to basically reject all forms of love, especially as a response to the overarching idea that aros "can still love" even if we don't experience romantic attraction. in general, loveless people are disconnected or don't identify with the idea of love in any forms, or they consider themselves unable to feel love, or they've rejected the concept of love.

the post i made was about how in the aro community there's a growing dislike towards the idea of amatonormativity (the idea that all people pursue a long-term monogamous romantic and sexual relationship), but often that dislike is filled with "well if we don't love romantically we can still love in other ways!" which excludes loveless aros (who reject love in all forms)

anyone else who's loveless feel free to add stuff !!

[thricedead]

"AMATONORMATIVITY" MAY BE REAL IN A WAY, BUT ITS PRIMARY TARGETS ARE NOT AROMANTIC PEOPLE

* Do not call me, the writer of this post, "allo" or "an allo" in any manner. I am a gay victim of CSA and repeated relationship abuse, and my relationship to romance and sex is shaped by a lifetime of trauma. If you trivialize me into your "allo boogeyman", my response will not be kind

I spent hours upon hours yesterday in the "amatonormativity" tag, reading blog posts from over a hundred individuals as well as longer entries structured as articles and even excerpts from published books - you can't accuse me of pulling a definition of "amatonormativity" out of my ass, because I approached it with great attention and made detailed notes to identify those characteristics of "amatonormativity" that are universally considered to be present and harmful, and to discard the personal opinions of more extreme individuals. It is not my intention to engage with people whose revulsion towards romance comes from a place of personal trauma, but to challenge and refute the seemingly VERY popular idea that there is a societal construct/axis of power present in *all of society* that forces *all people* to couple romantically, and that romantically coupled people hold innate power over lifelong singles.

...every single trait of "amatonormativity" that aro bloggers universally bring up can be attributed to a different, pre-existing oppressive construct. Mainly "amatonormativity" is a jumbled mix of patriarchal/misogynistic ideals, consumerism and white supremacy. Also, the supposed equation of amatonormativity falls completely into trash when you try to include mentally and physically disabled people, homosexual and transgender people, mainly.

Familial/peer pressure to find a partner is cited as a form of amatonormative abuse most often. However, this is plainly a patriarchal standard. People perceived as women and men alike are expected to pander to the patriarchy by partnering - women, because they are still valued mainly as objects of beauty and belonging, which is to say, romantic partners. Lifelong single women are not harassed because they are single, but because they are unavailible to men. You can see this being true because lesbians are pressured by their families to partner with men in the same vein acearo women are - if amatonormativity were real, f/f relationships would be generally seen as an acceptable happy end for a woman... but partnered gay and bisexual (in f/f relationships) women still face abuse ranging from pressure to turn to dating men, invasive questions about their relationships, conversion therapy, corrective rape, forced marriages, violence and murder. Don't try to say "but my family would rather I date a woman than no-one at all!". If it's so, you are one in a million, and even then you surely have relatives and friends who think the opposite. Believing that a woman needs a (male) partner to be fulfilled is not "amatonormativity". It is misogyny.

As for men, they are pressured to find (female) partners in order to take their "rightful" place within the patriarchy. This is not "misandry" by the way - this is an extension of women being perceived as a man's right. A man who does not have a woman is perceived as lesser because of patriarchal standards, and is seen as emasculated and unable to wield patriarchal power. Likewise, homosexual and bisexual (in m/m relationships) men are not accepted by society just because they are partnered. They face violence, vitriol and mockery on a worldwide scale. Your parents are not asking you if your friend of the opposite gender is your partner & "who do you have a crush on" because of "amatonormativity" - they are doing so because of patriarchal expectations.

The idea of a nuclear family and monetary benefits to having one is also often cited as amatonormativity. But *the concept of a nuclear family was pushed as an antiblack political move, primarily to target Black single mothers and families that do not fit a white western ideal*. It is a racialized construct, and first and foremost a tool of white supremacy. Though nonblack singles also suffer the unfair tax brackets and marital expectations, they are not its primary targets, and if anything are proof that white people are willing to sacrifice even the more misfortunate of their own for a sliver of a chance to hurt and control Black citizens. This is antiblackness, not "amatonormativity".

The third problem, the one i see cited alongside the first two even though I do not consider them to hold equal weight, is the oversaturation of media with themes of romance and sex, celebration of Valentine's day, couples' merchandise and so on. *This is just consumerism*. Romance and sex sell so they will produce more romance and sex to sell more. It's lame, and I am against the trivialization of love in order to sell it as a cheap product. I empathize with the fact that the media you love is filled with cheap romance, because I'm not a huge fan of the genre and am especially uninterested in m/f romance. But this is not an unique struggle. You can argue that m/m and f/f relationships have been gaining more representation in media, but this is largely because companies figured out that they can make money off of them. Gay media largely does not exist because gay love is celebrated and valued. *It is a product to sell*. Gay couples in media are not "amatonormative" - they are facets of consumerism or gay artists' yearnings (and those aren't aimed at hurting you, and aren't the real issue).

Lastly... how can you claim that the pressure to partner is universal, when eugenics and marriage inequality exist? Mentally disabled people - autistic people with support needs, people with learning disabilities, speech impediments, personality disorders - we are all purposefully desexualized and deromanticized as well as demonized or infantilized for the sake of preventing us from partnering and reproducing. *This is ableism, and its goal is to isolate and exterminate disabled people from society.* Physically disabled people are desexualized and infantilized to an even higher degree, people whose appearances reflect their disability are demonized *and most prominently, people lose their disability benefits if they get married. This is eugenicist violence, and its goal is to weed out disabled people from society.* Where is "amatonormativity" now? Disabled people are not even allowed to dream of partnering.

And the gays you blame for reinforcing amatonormativity and forcing their love upon you? *In many places, gay and bisexual people are systemically encouraged to be celibate through religious abuse*. A gay person remaining celibate is deemed as virtuous! When I came out to my mother, she told me that she could accept my inclinations "so long as I don't commit physical sin". Gay people are not encouraged to partner. Never have been, never will be. Gay people also face medicalization of our orientation, conversion therapy, forced marriage and corrective rape. Gay people also have straight standards shoved down our throats. But we are not your oppressors. Gay love is encouraged exclusively in gay circles, and if you condemn our expression of our love that has always been repressed and demonized, don't cry when you make enemies here.

What about transgender people? Transgender people - especially transgender woman - are painted by cisheteropatriarchy as sexual deviants, as predators looking to corrupt. They are not encouraged to partner - no, not even transhets. They are deemed unloveable. They are wanted alone, miserable, and then dead. Where is "amatonormativity"?

In conclusion, the idea of "amatonormativity" stands on legs so shaky they can't be called legs. What you are trying to isolate is actially an intersection of the cisheteropatriarchy, white supremacy and capitalist consimerism. I understand that aromantic people face difficulties, I do. I understand you feel frustrated and want a simple construct to make an enemy of. But you can't dismantle "amatonormativity" alone because it is a delicate net of far more complex axes of power. Focus your strength on dismantling the patriarchy, white supremacy, ableism and capitalism. When women, gay and trans people, Black people and other people of color and disabled people are free, no one will turn on you so long as you don't shoot stray bullets in your pointless war on romantic love.

Feel free to respectfully comment and offer your differing opinions, because I really want this discussed.

[our-arospec-experience]

I have always thought of myself as allo since I didn't know the word allo. But now I think I might be an aro.

I honestly thought I had been romantically attracted to many people. I even admitted to myself that I was "too quick to fall in love with someone."

But after learning a lot about queerness, I questioned whether the "attraction" I felt for someone could really be described as romantic. I reconsidered whether I had been lumping anything that made me feel good about someone into the romantic category (which is why I had labeled myself panromantic for a while). That is how powerful amatonormativity is. It is so powerful that it sucks in all the "attractiveness" in the world. However, I don't hear about these types of aros very often, so I sometimes feel alone because I feel like my feelings aren't valid.

Your feelings are always valid, and no one should make you feel otherwise!

amatonormativity is truly a destructive force, and I hope one day we as a community can break it down.

I hope you can accept how you feel anon, and that others can do the same :)

For everyone else (and anon) if you want to know more about amatonormativity, check out this post.

[udaberriwrites]

I'm going to try to put my thoughts into some semblance of order, but will most likely fail. I have been thinking about this for a while. It's not a new viewpoint by any means and anyone is welcome to disagree of course, but as an asexual person, I was so happy with how Lower Decks approached the character of Billups.

By this I don't only mean the fact that he was never treated like a joke. That is, of course a big point in LD's favor: The situation in the S2 episode was funny, yes, but no one pointed and laughed at him, and no one (except his mother) insinuated that he was anything less than an accomplished officer. But what I liked the most was actually the fact that the episode refused to give a straightforward answer regarding his sexuality.

Tw for discussion of aphobia ahead

Let me give some context first. I was listening to the radio earlier today and in a lovely display of amatonormativity the punchline to a joke was, and I quote: "if someone reaches middle age and is still single, you should question it because something isn't right with them."

This was infuriating but so commonplace one can't really complain without being berated for it. "Lighten up, it's just a joke," but it isn't funny. Coming out as ace can quickly become an interrogation as to what prompted you to be this way. Why? Is it trauma? Were you in a bad relationship before? Is it hormonal? Are you really sure? You can so rarely just be, without having to deliver a presentation whenever the question comes up, all the while knowing you're most likely going to get a failing grade in the impromptu exam anyway.

Which brings me back to Billups and his limelight episode: ultimately, why he's a middle-aged virgin doesn't matter. The episode doesn't explain his exact reasoning beyond not wanting to inherit, and that is fine. Whether he's a sex-repulsed aroace man and that is what drove him to engineering, or an allosexual man who has chosen celibacy to pursue his goals shouldn't have to matter. It's his life, and there isn't a wrong way to live it, not when it comes to this.

And what we are told is that in the Federation, it truly doesn't matter. At no point is he asked to stop what he's doing in order to justify himself. He doesn't have to reassure Rutherford that he knows what he wants. He doesn't get a grudging pass only because he's ace, like we are some kind of weird, unknowable being: whether he has ever had sex or not and why is just irrelevant to the bonds he has made and the skills he has cultivated, as it should be today.

Hopefully we'll also get there, someday.

[tabby-shieldmaiden]

Living an Aromantic Life

This is my submission for the September 2023 Carnival of Aros prompt: Visions of Aromantic History, hosted by arotechno this month. I hope you enjoy it, and thank you for taking the time to read this.

Some time earlier this year, I had decided that I would like to go out and live an aromantic life. Mentally, I had made up a distinction between simply ‘identifying’ under aromanticism as a concept, and actively living a life which is notably aromantic in character. 

Of course, that begs the question: what exactly does it mean to live as an aromantic?

As a concept, being ‘aromantic’ is rather new, evolved from modern ideas of romance, marriage, and relationships. As such, I often feel like I could see myself in a varied multitude of situations. Perhaps I would have been in an arranged marriage, running a shop with a husband I saw more as a business partner than as a lover. Maybe I would have been a nun, unpartnered with anyone. Or maybe I would have been a Golden Orchid Society member, either partnered with another woman, or living independently. All these set-ups and situations are formed inherently by their time and place in history. And I can see bits and pieces of who I am in all these hypotheticals. 

And well, it’s nice to know that there was likely a past for people like me. But what does it say about the present? And how would one like to be remembered in the future? That’s the eternal question. After living my life and meditating on that question, I think… I still don’t quite have a perfect answer. But I do still have an answer, based entirely on where I am presently in my life. 

Society is heteronormative and amatonormative. As it is, marriage to one partner of the opposite sex, followed by the birth of children, is seen as a crucial life goal that everyone should aspire towards. Even if people say that one doesn’t need to be married or have children in order to have a happy life, society is still very much structured with this form of family in mind. Our ideas, laws and systems around housing, elder and childcare, education, healthcare and more are set up with this assumption in mind. It is a societal problem. And it screws over countless individuals who do not lead lives in accordance to this societal ideal, among them including many aromantics. 

For that reason, I feel like with where I am now, ‘living an aromantic life’ would mean trying to fight against these systems. 

I am trying to engage in activist work in my country. Trying to learn some useful skills. Things related to healthcare (my area of work) sure, but also things like learning and improving in different languages, learning to transcribe. All things which will be useful should such a skill be needed. They’re all baby steps now. And someday, I hope that we can abolish all oppressive systems within our societies. Including the heteronormative and the amatonormative. 

And under a society like that, no doubt our ideas on romance and love and aromance would transform as well. I, for one, would love to bring about that future. And I hope that, whatever I do now, I will do it well, do it proudly, and do it such that in the future, if there is someone like me. Someone who internally feels similarly around feelings of romantic love. I hope that this hypothetical person can look back on what I do now, and feel some pride at seeing themselves. 

[yardsards]

I hear you and I agree with you but also I raise you: queerplatonic the spares?

assuming you're talking about this post that i made a while back but blew up again recently?

i got a very similar ask back when i first made the post (which is buried somewhere in the depths of my blog bc tumblr search sucks) and i'll say now approximately what i said back then:

that kind of sucks too, actually.

the main problem with the "pair the spares" and "everyone must be paired" tropes is that they generally imply that it's not a happy ending unless everyone is in a committed monogamous romantic relationship. that characters (and real people, by extension) are somehow incomplete without a romantic partner, just like a sad single sock.

and removing the word "romantic" (or even any of the other adjectives as well) from those sentences and allowing them to include queerplatonic partnerships too doesn't really make the idea that much better. doing that doesn't break down the walls, just widens them a bit so that more people can be allowed in.

like yeah, one of the problems with the "you're incomplete without a romantic partner" idea is that it excludes people who can't feel romance. but that's far from the ONLY problem with it (in fact, the term "amatonormativity" wasn't even coined with aromantics specifically in mind, iirc).

it tells single people that they're not good enough, that they're incomplete. it tells single people who want a relationship that this isn't just a matter of "aw bummer, you want this thing but don't have it yet" but is rather a massive fundamental issue in their life that must take priority and be solved posthaste. it tells people who are happily single (including happily single alloromantics. because yes, they exist. not everyone who feels romantic attraction necessarily thinks that getting into a traditional romantic relationship about those feelings is right for them) that they're just deluding themselves and that they truly would be happiest in a partnership. it tells people who are in unhappy relationships that it would be better to stay than to become single. it says that relationships must look a certain way. it says that friendship is insufficient and is always inherently lesser than a partnership.

and allowing "partnership" and "relationship" to include queerplatonic as well as romantic doesn't fix a lot of those

amatonormativity is a cage that hurts those who can fit themselves in it as well as those who can't. widening the cage to allow more people in won't fix that. and there will always be people who don't fit inside the cage no matter how much you widen it. for example, non-partnering aros exist and would still be excluded here.

(and on another note: "pair the spares" and "everyone must be paired" generally are used derisively to refer to like. when characters are shoddily shoved together last minute because the writers couldn't figure out what else to do with them. it's generally just like, bad writing. and while i would LOVE more queerplatonic relationships, i want them to actually be GOOD, not just be some sloppy seconds leftover from a romantic ship.)

anyway i got rambly and possibly confusing there, and went Way Too Deep about what was almost definitely just a silly lighthearted ask. but i have so many Thoughts on the matter

there's just like. this mindset i notice (primarily in newer/younger aromantics who have just begun to question amatonormativity). where they see queerplatonic relationships and just think "ah, so this is just our version of a romantic relationship?" and don't really think about the complexities. ignoring the fact that some social constructs around romance are simply Not Good and that they will not become good if you separate them from romance. and ignoring that queerplatonic relationships are not always just "like a romantic relationship but minus the romance".

like it's a mindset that i understand (and i think was a lot like how i thought when i was younger and first figuring out these concepts). because this shit is CONFUSING and hard to explain and complicated to think about and so hard to unpack. so i hope i'm not coming across as rude to anon or anyone like that. it's just kinda something that's on my mind a good bit so i went off on a ramble, y'know?

edit: dug up the old post with a similar ask

[aroaceconfessions]

TW: cursing, discussion of sex, kissing (graphic), romance and attractions

Man, I'm so fucking done with all this attractions, I can't anymore. What the hell is supposed to be romantic attraction?? What distinguish it from platonic attraction? If we remove amatonormativity from the world and kissing and holding hands aren't necessarily romantic, what is the difference then??

I can understand sexual attraction based on the primal need to have offspring. Yet, there are so many exceptions of this, in so many ways. It doesn't make sense.

At this point, the only attraction that makes ANY SENSE is the aesthetic attraction because it's the only one that doesn't involve "I want to do ZYX thing with them". Or maybe is the only attraction I feel, therefore understand.

I have tried to google these. But the poetic description of romance and sex don't help, and the "if you want to cuddle them, it's physical attraction" types of explanation are completely useless - I don't know what I want, thank you very much.

I can't help but think this all are just silly little labels we made up in order to put ourselves in boxes because humanity has ALWAYS done that. We love to put ourselves and, worse, others in categories and label them stuff - religious, race, you name it. (And yes, sorry to break it to you but race is a social construct, you can google it.) Hell, we even came up with countries and borders and shit because we need these boxes so bad. We need someone to call "the other" and "they"and someone to call "my people/mine" and to have a "we" for ourselves. I'm sick of this shit.

I label myself as grey aroace and I am comfortable in this. But I start to question if I'm on the grey area at all. For example, I want to try kissing and sex like I would want to try food. Yet, every time I imagine kissing someone (friends, strangers, doesn't matter) all I can think about is how we touch tongues and exchange saliva, and I'm disgusted. Like you would feel sick of a food's scent. Same go for sex (plus, it requires some sort of trust to let someone touch your private parts like that and I'm not the most trusting person) It's not that I want to feel this attractions. I just want to try them. Just once, to see what all the fuss is about. If it was something you can switch on and off, I would leave it off lmao. But I would turn it on once purely out of curiosity.

Recently, I found what lovepunk is and it resonates heavily with me. I think I'll start describing myself as lovepunk aroace because honestly, fuck it. Fuck society. Fuck amatonormativity. Fuck their brainwashing. Fuck the boxes. Fuck the whole concept that the most important person in your life should be a romantic partner you must marry. Fuck the complicated romantic relationship that are complicated for the whole purpose of just being complicated. That's total bullshit.

What matters is that you have connection and respect for each other. Everything else is society's brainwashing how certain relationship should look like. Just labels we came up with. Which is not something necessary bad - I do use some and I love them. But it's so tiring to mix labels with boxes. I am a huge believer these two are different and "boxes" is synonym of "stereotypes".

I want to free myself of this. I don't want to worry what attention I feel. I feel good vibes form someone and we connect? They have basic human respect towards me and other? That's more than enough for me. I don't need any more words to describe our bond. We can determine what we will do or won't do if we have to. Any more things are just unnecessary complications.

[xceanlynx]

hey so I saw your post about allos and 'love is what makes us human' and I agree with you but I also never know how to respond when someone uses this phrase with me. maybe I'm stuck in the amatonormativity because I really don't know what makes us human outside of the love answer. what makes us human to you?

Hi! First of all, don't feel bad if you still see life through a love lens even within the aro/ace/aroace (assuming you're aspec) community. We all still live in a society that values the emotion of love more than other emotions, so it is a long journey of unlearning.

What made me understand that the ability/will to love isn't what makes us humans was, not so much surprisingly, animals. We tend to think we are so different than them, but in reality, all we differ in is that we crossed the threshold of consciousness and rationality. Animals do love, some species more than others. We can't say someone is human just based on that.

I already said that consciousness and rationality are concepts to consider when defining humankind, but they still aren't enough. That would assume people who lost consciousness or their rationality (people in comas or people with neurodegenerative disorders, for example) have lost their humanity, which is obviously false. Some may say our intelligence and our curiosity makes us human, but again, animals are smart and curious too.

I like to think that one of the things that might makes us human is our ability to make, give and search for purpose. It's our drive, what makes us go forward. Many things in our universe do not have a reason to be, and by themselves they'll never have. Why do we get sad? Why do we engage in wars? Why do we laugh when we see someone fall? Animals can also do all of these (in their appropriate proportions), but they don't ask themselves these questions, they just do what's innate of them. We do what's innate of us too, but we aren't satisfied with just that. We ask, and we need the answers. Why are we so stubborn? Why we live the way we live? Where do we go when we die? What are we doing here, even?

See, maybe we don't know the answers to all of these questions, but we sure do try to find them. Some even have them — they found their purpose within religion, community, militancy, philanthropy, nihilism and so on. I'm not saying the purpose needs to be collective, nor that it has to be a good thing. People give bad purposes to their lives and actions all the time. Greed. Ire. Boredom. The belief of being superior. That still makes them human (human as in human being, not as in person that inherently deserves sympathy — some people tend to convolute these definitions).

In the end, it's not just a simple concept that will answer the question of what gives us our humanity. I've said three but I am certain there are many others. I don't know if you will agree with me, and maybe in a few months I won't agree with myself either — as I said, long journey of unlearning (and also learning). But I hope I could make you a little bit inspired to search for your own answer.

btw I'm not aro (as far as I know for now), so I encourage you to also ask aro people from all sides of the spectrum for their own views on the "love is what makes us human" argument. And I'd also encourage you to not engage with people (specially online) if they give you "arguments" like this. Avoid all types of aphobia at all costs. Have a great day!

[nantokanarusaa]

AroAce (Subject to change)

Well after putting it off for ages just to avoid facing questions and introspect within myself, I finally finised Koisenu Futari and I’m just....blown away. The ending of ep1 literally made me curl up into a ball and scream internally. 

The small "?" face Sakuko makes whenever topic of romance and relationships are brought up, always just going with the flow of things, slowly coming to the realization that there is an answer to what was going on just hit like a ton of bricks. Then Takahashi-san stole my heart and soul, standing his ground and so matter of factly saying that people who dont love do exist, something i cant say myself to people... not yet.

And from then on the episodes kept giving and giving, taking turns that I was not expecting due to *vaguly points at Amatonormativity*

While watching I was always like they’re going to pull the rug for sure but was very plesently surprised. Never did they betray the core theme of the story, or its characters. I was also worried about how they were going to end the series and even here the creators outdid themselves. I sobbed my eyes out it was so unexpected yet perfect. Seeing Takahashi-san smile so wide and finally be at peace brought me such joy.

I’ll dearly miss this safe space of a world and am very happy it exists.

I have been questioning my identity for over a year now and I have never been confident in it. Almost every single day my brain is like  “am I actually aro ace or do I just want to fit in somewhere” “maybe you indeed haven't met the right person yet”  “are you sure its not all in your head?” etc etc and I’m not sure if that will change anytime soon. I relate to stuff but end up questioning that relatability and its something I’m working on. 

Then this J-Drama, this beauty of a story made me realise something. It’s ok to be yourself irrespective of what others may judge right or wrong and for things to adapt and change. It’s ok if everything is considered as subject to change. It’s ok for me to change lables. 

So I’ll think of my identity as Aro Ace (Subject to change) and for now it fits. 🌈

Anyways please do appreciate Takahashi-san showing off his crabs. 🦀

[arotechno]

hey so i saw your post about the concept of soul mates being an inherently bad one and i wanted to ask if like... what if a version of it existed but could be about friends?

not qprs, not friends you live with, just friends?

normally i don't answer these questions anymore (which you seemed to realize, so genuinely thank you for that!), but since you asked nicely and i haven't talked about it in a while i think i will, briefly! this topic hasn't shown up on my blog in a long time so it might be worth rehashing a little.

so my issues with the idea of soulmates are partly about the inherent arophobia and amatonormativity embedded within it (which is the aspect i refuse to argue about), and partly about my own philosophical beliefs and the implications of that.

i'll start with the latter, since it's mostly my own opinion: i don't believe in the idea of fate and i don't like the idea of people's place in our lives being predetermined. i do believe that human connection is a very powerful force, but i also believe that those connections are more meaningful when you consider them to be something you chose for yourself, often almost on accident, and deliberately decided to maintain. for other people things like fate and destiny are an important part of their belief system, and while i don't agree, more power to them, so long as they don't force that belief onto me. so on this front, your mileage may vary.

the other side of this is the amatonormativity and arophobia. i don't really like repeating myself on this anymore lol so i will start by pointing you toward this post that i feel sums up my feelings most strongly (i want to note that my tone in that post is kind of terse and exasperated, but i'm not directing that at you. when i wrote that post at the time i was being harassed constantly by people willfully misinterpreting my posts and making me repeat the same points over and over, and then saying i was mean when i inevitably grew tired of it and snapped).

i think the conversation gets muddied when it's unclear whether people are talking about the portrayal of soulmates as a fictional device vs whether they believe soulmates exist in real life. obviously those are different conversations, but i also believe that the prevalence of soulmates as a fictional trope that many people swoon over and fantasize about reflects cultural ideas of amatonormativity that are harmful to everyone. i'm not sure which you're asking about here, so i'll answer in both ways.

in the fictional sense. i don't think there's anything inherently "bad" or evil about portraying friends as soulmates. i especially don't mind aro people doing it in a reclamatory or exploratory way (hello i have done it! on this blog!). the context of the portrayal really matters and i think the reason me and so many other aros have just decided to blanket-statement disavow the concept entirely is because most people don't know how to portray soulmates in a way that doesn't throw some flavor of aro person under the bus. i would really encourage you to seek out aplatonic and/or loveless perspectives on this, as while i think we reach similar conclusions, they are approaching this issue from a different angle than i am.

in the real life sense... well i've already made clear how i feel about soulmates in general lol. if people want to think of their real life friends or whoever as soulmates i don't really mind that, people are entitled to call their relationships whatever they would like. i just don't want that concept pushed onto me, and i think everyone could do with a little healthy examination of the idea of soulmates and ask themselves whether they are holding some ideal of a perfect person or people that will drop into their life by miracle. because that person does not exist. you have to put in the work.

in a broader sense, and this is something i discuss in the post i linked, constantly broadening the definition of soulmates just muddies the waters. like, if you have to stretch the concept so far that it's barely even recognizable as the same idea that you see in like, plato's symposium, then maybe it's because the concept is bad. people are always like "soulmates are bad? what if [fifteen qualifiers and stipulations]?" and it's just like... just relinquish the word! just get over the need to call everything soulmates! you know? like, you may be saying, "what if friends as soulmates aren't predestined, but chosen?" to which i would say "then that's not soulmates." that's not what the word has, historically and literarily, meant. you can just call it something else. or call your friends your soulmates if you really want to, it doesn't matter to me how you live your life. but what aro people mean when we say it's bad is that it's bad to suggest that everyone has or needs some other person or people who completes them in some way or who is a predetermined part of their life. it throws aros on the bus in general, and nonpartnering/nonamorous, aplatonic, and loveless aros especially so in various ways. and a fictional portrayal of soulmates that defines not having a soulmate as a tragedy on par with death (yes i have seen this with my own eyes) or not reciprocating the feelings of one's soulmate as evil is deeply arophobic and i shouldn't have to explain why.

maybe we don't have to keep changing what "soulmate" means. maybe we can just acknowledge that it's an inherently amatonormative concept. maybe aro people are just allowed to be right about this one!