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.
@HornyPosadist
Gonna respond to this comment and others all in one go.
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.
(Just hilarious commentary on how an aromantic person would perceive a loving relationship to be. Moving forward.)
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
Removed by mod
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.
We most certainly do not all have gender :hexbear-agender:
Removed by mod
Please disengage from this. The conversation is no longer productive.