Yes I will elaborate.
Read Kollontai you nerds. Standardized expressions of love and sexuality are a superstructural product of the economic mode of production, but they are not constructed out of whole cloth. Yes romantic attraction is heavily commodified and alienating in our late capitalist hell, but no it is not a fiction designed to sell valentines cards. Like all things capital exploits, there’s a natural resource there being stolen and sold back to you
Edit: in re-reading this comment I'd like to make an addendum because I feel like it could be misconstrued that I'm not being supportive of aromantic comrades. The normalization of romance as a need is an outcropping of the capitalist mode of production, it justifies the nuclear family as a vehicle of property inheritance and it punishes those who try to exist outside of it. There very well are people who do not experience the need of romantic relationships just as there are people who never experience the need of sexual relationships, etc. I can see the argument that because modern conceptualizations of romance are a construct of the capitalist material reality they're therefore invalid and should be abolished, but abolition rarely means destruction rather than liberation. A liberated 'sex love' dynamic (to use Kollontai's term) would be in the freedom to pursue the relationships that fulfill your needs without the coercion of economic factors like whether a given partner could help you afford a mortgage (because god forbid any given partner isn't your business partner, I mean soulmate). This means freedom to pursue partners who fulfill the needs you do have whether they're sexual, romantic, or just in terms of emotional support, possibly even from multiple partners. So no I wouldn't say romantic feelings are a fabrication of whoever makes those chalk hearts that say "luv u" on them, but aromantic comrades are completely valid in feeling that bourgeois notions of sexual and romantic relationships are completely fucking alienating and even outright hostile. Support your comrades folks :flag-aromantic-pride:
Will always love a comment starting with "read kollontai you nerds"
Here's an archive of her writings. They're pretty much all bangers but Make Way for Winged Eros has a special place in my heart for situating love/sex as a construct of political economy and tracking its role through history and because it was the thing that got me into her writings. Theses on Communist Morality in the Sphere of Marital Relations is also very good.
For those who would like to learn more but don't have time for reading check out A.K. 47, a podcast by Kristen Ghodsee that goes through Kollontai's writings. Ghodsee also wrote the book "Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism: And Other Arguments for Economic Independence." Total comrade
Awesome thanks. Have you read her novel Love for Worker Bees? That was the first thing that popped up when I see her her and I thought it looked good
"Your feelings are invalid and made up for marketing" is a little beyond hot take and kind just verging on :PIGPOOPBALLS: territory.
If you don't feel romantic attraction that's fine, but fuck off if you think you can tell me I don't/shouldn't.
In a society that heavily promotes amatonormativity, my very existence as an aromantic person "smashes" those ideas. The "new contexts" are literally the thoughts and ideas I'm expressing. To me it's all bogus and there is nothing to really "fix" on my end, but that doesn't mean there isn't truth or insight to be gained from at least some of the outside perspective. To dismiss a critique of capital's very clear and drastic role in shaping our perception of romanticism and the roles we take through amatonormativity with "you might be right but the truth is that we can’t really fix this stuff by just saying it’s fake" feels very insecure and insincere.
I won't morally judge you for this, and please don't take this as a rant or monologue for why you're being aphobic, but this comment is riddled with aphobia and inflicting more suffering than the topic has ever inflicted on me. Aro people exist and I think that jumping to the conclusion that us reflecting on our position in society relative to the extreme emphasis placed on our modern interpretation of romanticism will cause us "pain and suffering" is stinky stinky stinky. Aromanticism isn't a concept that causes me "pain and suffering", it's as second nature as being bi to me - it's just who I am.
If anything this, frankly, reads with a degree of bias that screams "I know aro people exist and you're valid, but you must be so angry that you don't get to feel love the way I get to experience it. Being aro and stewing in anger like this can't be healthy."
Yeah, again, I'm not angry. No where in here have I been overtly asstier or put people down. I could call you a "stinky allo" if you want to buy me dinner first, though. A critique of toxic components of modern romance is not taking away other people's agency to experience it and should certainly not be an attack on your world view the way it is now. It especially does not necessitate believing I have "justified anger" or that the thoughts and ideas of an aromantic person could only could come from a place of anger - I hope you reflect on that alone.
Please explain to me why me being non-aro isn’t the same. Why do you think your own identity is more important than other’s?
Yeah, I guess let me just never speak on trans issues or critique cisheteronormativity while I'm at it. I mean, what do you want me to say here? If the general attitude weren't to immediately dismiss these thoughts outright like has been done in this thread, there would be no need to be so forceful, don't you think?
i have some holes in my heart that would beg to differ
I mean, same, but I think so much of that pain comes from the crumbling of our indoctrination into modern romanticism. We've all been sold a particular vision of what romance is that "just so happens to be" the most profitable, all while teaching us to severely devalue the bonds we have with literally everyone else. There are legitimately people who believe that you have to give up friendships, family, etc. to find "the one". What if a lot of hurt comes from us realizing that the way we bond with people isn't as mystical as we've been told it would be?
Maybe we as a society focus too much on creating guarantees for long-term connection because we feel good in the moment instead of living in that moment with that person. Nothing is forever, like we want it to be in that moment, and maybe that realization comes with a loss of relational innocence. People will always come and go, maybe it's best to catch and release.
I can keep word vomiting these thoughts all day, babyyyyy.
I guess that's where we differ because I don't think that's true at all. I think we put so much pressure on the notions of "compromise" and someone's desires being "less important" than the other instead of learning to healthily communicate and navigate each other's boundaries.
I could put someone's desire over my own and consolidate my needs, desires, and dreams into a relational unit with someone or I could radically support that person's individuality and ability to pursue their desires themselves instead.
I think being able to look at each other and truly lay it all on the table to say "hey, this is who I am, this is who I want to be, this is where I'm comfortable existing, these are my boundaries." and still respecting and supporting one another's individuality, boundaries, desires, and goals is just as deep, loving, and difficult to accomplish as any "romantic" connection. To grow alongside someone rather than with them as a relational unit is just as rewarding, in my opinion.
being able to look at each other and truly lay it all on the table to say “hey, this is who I am, this is who I want to be, this is where I’m comfortable existing, these are my boundaries.” and still respecting and supporting one another’s individuality, boundaries, desires, and goals is just as deep, loving, and difficult to accomplish as any “romantic” connection
Is this not how romantic love is defined? I always understood it to be the intimacy and mutual respect of a good friendship with the addition of an active commitment to the success and wellbeing of your partner(s), which sounds like exactly what you describe here.
…what the fuck do other people think romance is?
Do you not actively commit to the success and well-being of your friends? If your friends were struggling and you weren't there to support them, would they still be your friends?
“Active” is probably a poor word. Providing aid and support (material or non-material) is the default for any intimate relationship, so I consider that “passive”. Providing housing, food, emotional support, etc. to a struggling friend is completely expected and within “passive” support.
“Active” in the way I’m using it would be something like personal sacrifice or idk, raising a child. I’d buy my partner a car but for a friend I’ll drive them around. I hardly have the kind of money to have my own car but that’s an example that I think illustrates the difference for me.
Edit: additionally I sort of think there’s a level of platonic relationship above “friend”. I usually think of this relationship as “comrade/sister/brother” and it receives the same active support as a partner, the only difference being that the relationship is nonsexual. Codifying this thought makes me realize that I actually have no definition of romance.
This supposition is meaningless though, “it’s all chemicals bro none of it is real” is an ideological cop-out in the same vein as “what if we live in a simulation”. If these things are “fake” and therefore less legitimate or worthwhile, it should stand to reason that the entirety of experience, every emotion, every thought, every sound or sight or smell or taste or touch is equally chemical and equally illegitimate. An atheistic denial of reality itself, a philosophical dead-end that answers the question of “how can I prove that I exist?” with a flat “you can’t”.
Ah, I follow.
So I think a huge part of the disconnect here is due to the wildly different concepts of love, romance, affection, and companionship - I mentioned in my other comments that I completely lack a framework from which to understand the concept of romance. When other people use the word they’re probably referring to something other than what I’m referring to, and that difference in understanding probably extends far beyond me and into much of the rest of the conversation around aromanticism. I think we, culturally, lack a shared understanding of romanticism (I’m sure there is a wealth of theory available but it has not yet filtered into the common consciousness) and as a result find it more difficult to discuss than gender and sexuality. People tell me I’m very romantic, but I don’t know that I experience romance as an emotion? I definitely experience affection, and that’s separate from sexuality, but it expresses similarly in platonic and sexual relationships (to different levels based on the intimacy of the relationship and if it’s sexual or not - I’ve kissed many of my friends, but not erotically). I experience infatuation, but that’s just sexual to me. I have no drive to give my partner “traditional” romantic gifts like chocolate and roses, but I do want to give them things that will delight them - but I also want to do the same for my friends. I have no interest in marriage, but that’s because it’s an institution rooted in all manner of evil. So what the fuck is romance? Does it exist as a separate thing that I simply don’t experience? Is my understanding or classification incomplete or incorrect? Am I romantically interested in my friends? How could one tell?
That was a long rambling tangent but the conclusion I’m trying to reach is that it’s possible for two things which at first appear mutually exclusive to be true at the same time. TC69 being right doesn’t completely invalidate you. There is going to be a real gulf between your experience and conceptualization and her’s because you’re different people and have internalized different ideas.
Currently waving my aro flag for the massive W I walked away with in this thread.
The number of people who identify as aro would be a lot higher if society didn’t try to push everyone into monogamous romantic relationships. I’ve experienced romantic attraction, but I definitely know some people who haven’t too
The way that which our feelings are expressed and experienced is certainly affected by our surroundings, but I don't think that makes romantic feelings a "fabrication".
But there's certainly is an issue where many people believe that intimate connections are impossible without some form of romance or sexual aspect.
All fax. No printer. But it definitely goes beyond that. People damn near bankrupt themselves for that "picture perfect" wedding they've been sold to believe signifies the highest form of love. Coupling is economically inventivized by both corporations and our own government - tax incentive, family discounts, couple discounts, etc. Books on relationship advice that perpetuate the most toxic aspects of modern romanticism have massive amounts of capital dumped into them because gullible incels will eat that shit up. The list goes on.
Gonna respond to this comment and others all in one go.
You’re going to be able to tear anything to shreds with this mindset. You’re right that the concept of monogamy as the only mode of relationship is really bad, but the idea that it’s somehow wrong to want to snuggle with and have sex with a specific person multiple times is really iffy
Yeah, I just want to start out by addressing that sex (or any physical intimacy) and romance are not intrinsically tied. Ace people exist and they're welcome to critique sex culture to their heart's content, but for the second time in this thread I'm seeing conflation of aromanticism and asexuality. To clear the air of confusion, they're two separate things. I'm aromantic and have a very active and healthy sex life, but without romantic involvement. I'm not repulsed by doing traditionally romantically coded things, but I do generally find them to uncozy. An asexual person would be on the opposite end of the spectrum but with sexual involvement instead of romantic. Furthermore, there are toxic components of all relationships that should be deconstructed and analyzed, not just monogamous ones.
The issues with romance do not suddenly disappear because the relationship is not non-monogamous. For example, sexual relations while in relationships has an aura of coercion to it being told by society that "sex is a healthy part of a relationship", implying that sex is upkeep for a functioning and healthy relationship. Having had arguments in past relationships about my low libido and feeling like sex was a necessary component to the health of the relationship, do you not see how that could be coercive and blurs the line of consent? I feel uneasy consolidating my social relations with other people into one person. Our society expects that romantic relationships encapsulate all of our social relations into one person and in a way that's inherently better than other friends could offer in those relations individually - I don't want a swimming buddy, band member, sous chef, travel buddy, house mate wombo combo at the expense of my relationships with other friends. In fact, I think that's outright unhealthy. I hate the dissolution of the self when becoming a couple and operating as such even outside situations where the other isn't present.
I feel like you’ve watched a bunch of valentine’s day and wedding ring ads and thought that those two things made up one-on-one intimacy in it’s entirety
(Just hilarious commentary on how an aromantic person would perceive a loving relationship to be. Moving forward.)
It should just be about appreciating a single other person and them doing the same. If you don’t need that in your life, that’s probably a good thing. But shitting on people who do gets “the progressive project” nowhere.
Edit: It’s obviously a big part of it for people nowadays (fucking hellworld), but there’s at least a crumb of value in appreciating the existence of specific people in your life. It’s just like having a friend, but instead of playing cards or drinking beer with them you say mushy stuff
At least i feel like it should be that way
I mean i guess we can try and deconstruct friendship as a concept too but that just seems kinda sad
Why can't we deconstruct friendship as a concept? What about analyzing the line between "romance" and friendship is "sad"? Why can't you say mushy stuff to your friends? Why can't you make out with your friends? Through the existence of asexual and aromantic people alone, we can establish that physical intimacy is not the factor that defines a relationship as romantic. I appreciate all my friends equally - there are friends that I have sexual relations with, those who I don't with anymore, and those who I never pursued in that way. But that doesn't mean I don't equally distribute crumbs and appreciation to my friendships.
The fact that you "feel like it should be that way" is the problem you're saying that can't be fixed through critique. But moreover, why do you feel it should be that way? Saying that should be forces everyone into a box that inherently excludes people.
Edit: Sex AND romance are entirely situation based. My anxiety can literally make it impossible for me to get aroused, because I overanalyze the sources of attractions and concepts. Literally all of these attractions are based in nothing completely solid, BUT are proof that cultural contexts can have a material impact.
Sexual attraction and romantic attraction are not situation based. There are situations where I am comfortable expressing certain traditional aspects of romanticism, but there is no situation where I will be comfortable and involved in a romantic relationship. There are aspects that are situational, but to describe them both as entirely situation based greatly lacks whatever level of nuance you'd even be able to offer for an assertion like that.
"literally taking away the self-identity of entire groups of people” , “phobic of literally anyone who feels any amount of romantic attraction”
Romance and sexuality are tied up in my head, and while that’s definitely because of problematic social norms, it isn’t something that’s going to go away. That’s part of my identity now, and while I can express those attractions and attempt to manage it in a healthy way saying they don’t exist doesn’t help. I don’t want to take anything away from you, and your identity is valid. Just please respect mine and understand that it’s real even though it’s based in made up concepts.
Alright, so those are brain worms you need to work through instead of acknowledging and forming an identity around them to then claim that I'm attempting to attack and dethrone your entire identity as a romantic attraction experiencer.
"I have some brainworms about gender but those are part of my identity now. You just have to acknowledge and respect that my identity as a Removed Hater is valid too. Please respect my beliefs." See how this sounds?
You're literally victimizing yourself over an aromantic person existing and challenging your amatonormative beliefs, going as far as to claim that I'm being "allophobic", which is about the same as a trans person being "cisphobic". You're the majority. If you're so confident romantic attraction exists, this should be nothing for you. It shouldn't be this. You should just be able to look at me, laugh and maybe shrug, then go about your day.
Leslie Feinberg called gender "the poetry each of us makes out of the language we are taught." Gender isn't "d+mb", we all have gender. This is another example of the above where it's not gender that is inherently bad or needs abolishing but its toxic roles and aspects in our society, that is what we critique. But maybe this is a conversation for a different time.
mod you're in the wrong here. deconstructing romantique on some bullshit pseudomarxist class hallucination is egregious and should be firmly opposed
I'm not a mod anymore. I stepped down because you specifically are a :LIB:
Theres a lot of words in your comment and yet none of them seem to mean anything
what is there to say? "intimate love is subject to the mode of production" is some dumb fucking parenting in the commons hippie shit. never read too much engels on the family
I disagree and am happy to allow all LGBTQ+ identifying people post their various perspectives here.
For a second there I thought you were doing a French accent and then I realized I was a moron
