#not because it an amatonormative way to view those relationships

[kiwisandpearls]

the statements “platonic relationships should not be undervalued” and “it’s ok to ship wlw ships and mlm ships even if the characters involved have no canonical romantic interest in each other” are not mutual exclusive.

[aceing-on-the-cake]

Compulsory Heterosexuality Info Dump

So because a friend of mine didn't know what comp het was and their internet history is monitored by their parents so they can't just use google, I'm doing a very quick research dive and giving you guys the results in case there are others out there who are in the same situation. I'll also be tagging blogs bigger than me because again, there might be fellow queers out their who are in the same boat as my friend and I want them to have access to this information.

So what is compulsory heterosexuality (or comp het)?

Comp het is in essence the societal belief and enforcement of being straight.

What does this mean?

In basic form it means that the only options presented to everyone, from the moment of birth, is that of a cis, amatonormative, heterosexual lifestyle.

You are given two gender options, these gender options determine the two roles you're allowed to fulfill, husband and wife, and you are told that these two roles are what will make you happy and are what you are supposed to strive for.

Meaning society, if you are born AFAB, tells you you're going to one day get married, it's going to be a boy, and this is what will make you happy. Almost everything in life is then seen through this lens. How attractive your are, how you are supposed to talk, how you're supposed to behave, etc is all considered through the lens of if a man will be attracted to you.

On the flip side, if you are born AMAB society tells you there are roles you have to fulfill as well. You are told you will one day want a wife, that you have to be able to have a job to provide for her, that you have to behave in a certain emotional way to be strong for her, that if the things you like are too feminine well then you're gay or a girl which is a problem because at the end of the day you're supposed to want the girl-fiance-wife.

This literally just sounds like the patriarchy.

Yes, it does, because it's caused by it. Nowadays people commonly know about compulsory heterosexuality from the Lesbian Masterdoc, but the term actually originated by Adrienne Rich in 1980.

Adrienne Rich in her article Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence put forward three ideas, 1) that heterosexuality and lesbianism were institutions themselves/possible political ideologies, 2) that heterosexuality as a system if not constantly maintained and upheld would eventually crumble and 3) that heterosexuality as a system could be opted out of and actively fought against whether or not you were actually attracted to women/non-women.

This is very different from the way we currently think of and define those terms, I am aware of that, but her point does still stand to some degrees that comp het, cisnormativity and amatonormativity all crumble when we stop rigidly enforcing the structures that uphold them, i.e., the patriarchy, misogyny, classism, and racism.

Ok but like what does that actually look like?

It can look like a lot of things, for a lot of different people. In the Lesbian Masterdoc you see comp het presented from a straightforward lesbian lens (of a 19 year old figuring out and defining their own sexuality guys, I'm not gonna sit here and critique it and rip it to death, go do that somewhere else).

This is therefore presented through things like women/non-women who were raised/socialized as women possibly having crushes on men, but they're always unattainable in some way (celebrities, fictional, someone real but they wouldn't actually ever be able to truly be in a relationship with, etc). It might also show up for lesbians as liking the idea of a man but being uncomfortable when one actually wants to move forward in the process. Or even sometimes it might show up as sexual fantasies with men but they're faceless, they're more an idea, or you're actually viewing another woman sleeping with him.

This presentation of comp het has made a lot of bi/pan/mspec people uncomfortable because they feel they too have experiencing comp het and when reading the Lesbian Masterdoc it's presented as if experiencing this is a straight shot towards being a lesbian.

And they're right that comp het isn't experienced by just lesbians. For mspecs who present feminine/as women this could be in the feeling that they have to dress a certain way to be presentable, but presentable is based on appealing to men. This can mean something as simple as women are expected to wear makeup, always, regardless of if they're looking to seek men's attention or not, because that's the base standard.

For mspecs who present masculine this can look like the inability to express themselves in an overly emotional manner because that doesn't make them "strong" and if they're not "strong" then they won't attract women, and that's what they're supposed to be doing.

For mspecs in general that can look like their queer looking relationships to be seen as a phase even if their mspec-ness is respected because of course they're eventually going to get married to a man/woman.

This can affect polyamorous cishet people in that they're seen as doing heterosexuality wrong because you're supposed to have the one partner and the 2.5 kids.

This can affect aspecs because they're told they'll never truly feel fulfilled if they don't have that boyfriend/girlfriend/partner to love them in a way that's so special nothing else could match up.

This affects all of us guys is my point.

How is this helpful to me?

Well for sapphics and lesbians (or sapphics/mspecs confused on if they are actually lesbians) this can be a helpful concept to consider because it can help you determine what relationships you truly want to pursue, which is the main point I feel is to be gained from the Lesbian Masterdoc. As she's put it "it's way more important to ask yourself if you can be truthfully happy with a man than if you’re attracted to them"

So if you're a sapphic who experiences attraction to men but you honestly can't ever see yourself willingly entering into a relationship with them, consider the idea of comp het.

If you're Achillean the opposite of this can be true, if you've been attracted to women before but honestly can't ever see yourself willingly entering into a relationship with them, consider whether comp het is working on you.

For mspecs this can be a helpful term to throw over the table back at your parents when they ask when you're going to get a "real relationship".

This can be a helpful term to consider when asking "am I forcing myself to wear mascara because I feel this is the only way I look presentable or do I actually like mascara."

Or it can be a helpful concept to look back on when undermining our internalized ideals of misogyny, towards ourselves and others.

This is a helpful term to put in our tool boxes to talk about the harm the systems of patriarchy, classism, and racism impose upon us.

Comp het can help us to understand why so many people look down on polyamory as a legitimate way of life.

It can be a helpful term for aspecs who are trying to figure out if they really want to date/have sex, or if they just believe these are the only things that will make you happy.

In general

Compulsory heterosexuality is just another term to describe a system we are all intimately familiar with. But by giving us the words to describe our experiences, it gives us the power to communicate those experiences more effectively, and to possibly understand why we're experiencing them.

This is just a bare basic knowledge post.

Honestly if you have the ability to, as in your internet history is not monitored in the way my friend's is, I encourage you to go on the deep dive through the sources listed below. Many of them are honestly only 30 pages long, that's a relatively short read, and understanding queer theory like this not only helps you to understand your own identity, but the ways in which you are connected to the rest of the fellow queer community.

Sources

Lesbian Masterdoc

Queer Theory 101: Compulsory Heterosexuality

Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence

Normativities Defined

Taglist

I'm tagging blogs bigger than me so that this has an easier time getting passed around as I mainly talk about aspec issues because I am aspec, but as stated above, I wanted to make sure that queer people who's internet histories are monitored and are only able to find information through tumblr safely could do so.

@our-queer-experience @our-sapphic-experience @our-lesbian-experience @our-aspec-experience @our-polyamorous-experience @our-pansexual-experience @our-unlabelled-experience @our-aroace-experience @our-mspec-experience @our-questioning-experience @our-bisexual-experience

[bloggingboutburgers]

Am gonna miss the kinda content you had before. I know you’re v happy and good for you! But this blog used to be a rare piece of internet haven that wasn’t about relationships and dating and marriage. Now it is. That’s obviously my problem. I get it - your blog, your life. Am just sad is all.

Sorry if my recent life news made things scary – but I assure you, I don't plan to make my stuff about dating and marriage from now on! (Relationships in itself is a tricky one, since technically "relationships" is every single type of rapport a human being can have with another imo, but I don't plan to start talking about romantic relationships either, I have no idea how those work.)

Yeah, I'm planning to get married – but not with a romantic partner, with my queerplatonic partner. Considering the nature of our relationship I myself sometimes have trouble even saying we're "dating" because it's something different (though we do call our video call "dates", I'll give ya that). But even if they're not "my whole life" in a romantic sense, I really like spending time with them, we're oceans apart so we don't get to do so very often, and during and after the pandemic, the US placed a ban on my country that made it near-impossible for me to visit them for almost 2 years, and being scared of never being able to spend time with them again broke my brain really bad, so I vowed to take measures so this never happens again. So yeah, i'm planning to get married, but it's more out of necessity, as this is seemingly the only way we could stay in the same area permanently and the only way we could counter a travel ban like that if it happens again for any reason (as only spouses or direct relatives were allowed to visit each other back then). I hate that it means doing the thing© amatonormativity and archaic socail rules seem to push people to do all the time, but international rules are a bitch like that, so we don't have many more other options.

That said – my content already included stuff I do with my partner before, and our relationship isn't changing because we're engaged – we're still never gonna have sex, and I'm still not romantically attracted to them nor have I ever been. But I do like them a lot as a queerplatonic partner, and I wanna vibe the way I show us vibing and get to do so on a daily basis, not every 6 to 9 months and breaking bank every time I do.

So... Yeah, despite the surface value of the whole thing, I don't think being engaged makes me a counter-example. If anything I guess we'll be rep for a queerplatonic relationship that involves marriage, and we'll see how that works (if our respective governments even LET us get married at all). My views on my sexual and romantic orientations haven't changed and I don't intend to change my content any time soon. I'll keep being annoying to everyone about how the world doesn't need sex and romance for a long time if people will have me, cus I have way too much of a chip on my shoulder not to.

[anatomical-anomaly]

When you live life as a woman, society teaches you that your worth stems from how attractive you are to others.

If you’re sapphic - if your identity is based around being a woman who is primarily attracted to other women - it makes sense for your ideal world to be one without men. You might not consider men to be an important or necessary part of your life because, at the end of the day, your community and relationships are centered around women.

Being transmasc and suddenly losing the community that you had as a woman can be painful. Suddenly, because you are now viewed as a man, you are no longer seen as desirable, and thus lose your worth in the eyes of those people. Suddenly, because you are a man, you are viewed as someone dangerous, someone who cannot be trusted.

People of all kinds back off from you: straight men, because you are no longer a potential object of attraction; straight women, because they think there is a risk of you being attracted to them and so you are viewed as a potential perpetrator; lesbians, for both reasons.

Amatonormativity and heteronormativity play a role in this because it is both assumed that everyone desires a relationship, and that everyone is straight. Being aromantic and asexual, it’s frustrating to be placed into a role that doesn’t even apply to you. When you’re even remotely friendly to someone of the opposite gender, your actions are misinterpreted to be romantic by people who view you through the lens of being cis and allo. Others see you as a creep when you don’t even think of them or their bodies in the way that they think you do.

People who know nothing about you will ignore your sexuality and lived experiences to focus on the fact that in this moment, you are a man.

If you’re someone who thinks, “all men are shit except for my trans friends/gay friends/my current partner,” you still have some work to do. Because there are men you will come across who are trans, and you’ll have no idea. There are people who will look like men but are actually transfem or nonbinary or masculine women, and you’ll have no idea.

It’s unfair to determine whether you will treat someone with respect or not based on their gender alone. You cannot know someone’s personality or experiences just by looking at them. It’s unfair to treat someone as if they’re some sort of insentient creature who can only ever act a certain way, just because they’re a different gender than you.

[fairypowerful]

Before I begin, I just wanna throw these out:

• “ ‘Missing out on love’ isn't something that matters as much when your society isn't amatonormative.”

• “When the world around you doesn't emphasize marriage and romance and all that, then wouldn't you view cultures that do as a tad odd? Not weird in a bad way, just different.”

• “[…] People cannot fathom the concept that other people might experience romantic attraction, and do so intensely, and yet value something else above romance.”

• You just don’t have those feelings of “I need romance, I need marriage” when your society isn’t broken by being amatonormativity. You just don’t have those feelings when you’re already fulfilled in a community. You just don’t have those feelings when you have a purpose in life.

• “Call me crazy, but I know for a fact that I would not want a romantic relationship if I was a Jedi […] […] […] I honestly don't understand the assumption that ‘the Jedi are miserable because they can't get married,’ I really don't.”

• There’s romance and marriage in every single media and literature, so why should it be inserted into a fictional monastic culture? If you don’t think entire groups of people could choose to have no romantic commitments their entire life, then there’s over a thousand-year nonfictional accounts of monks and nuns and priests choosing to live a single life in an environment that, too, forbids them from romantic commitments, and they lived in contentment and peace.

————————————————

I wanted to show all that first, like a little preview, because this post is not only about why the Jedi are not wrong for disallowing romantic commitments and marriage, but it’s also about amatonormativity which has always been an enormous problem in the real world, and it clearly impacts how people view communities like the Jedi within fiction.

———

“So why can't Jedi marry? The Jedi believe that children and spouses deserve complete attention. They believe that people deserve present parents and involved partners. Being a Jedi isn't a job. It's a lifestyle. How dare they preach compassion and fairness and justice whilst leaving some abandoned child somewhere? How dare they teach kindness and love and self sacrifice while having a neglected spouse?” — @popupguidetothegalaxy (original post here)

This right here! It wouldn’t stop the criticisms within that part of the fandom, it’d just redirect it to a different one.

Even if the Jedi did marry and have families, y’all (Jedi antis) would then criticize the Jedi for prioritizing the galaxy (which is literally their vocation, their aspiration, and their lifestyle) over their spouses and children.

On top of their daily galactic duties that « take them away from the temple on assignments or missions, away from the planet that temple is located on, and always on the move interstellar-wise » ,,, antis think the Jedi should/could be able to marry and raise a family properly with zero neglect of either spouse and child?

Forget about being burnt out like a nurse in a severely understaffed hospital, it’s just simply an impossible commitment!

———

I watched “Tiger Cruise” rather recently, because it’s one of those Disney movies I never watched growing up, and one conversation in the movie puts this into even more perspective – because the teenaged main character is sick & tired of always only seeing her Navy commander father for a few weeks every few months, begging him to quit the Navy and come home for good.

Maddie: Dad, when are you coming home?

Commander Dolan: What do you mean? We're gonna be docking on Friday.

Maddie: No, I mean… When are you coming home for good?

Commander Dolan: Is that why you came on board? To ask me that? [pause] Look, this is my job.

Maddie: Then get a new one. You've got the degrees, you can do like anything you want.

Commander Dolan: This is what I do.

Maddie: [pause] Must be nice .. travel all over the world, no responsibilities.

Commander Dolan: I'm responsible to a lot of people.

Maddie: To strangers, Dad. What about us? [pause] We’re strangers too. We move all over the place, see you for a few weeks every four or five months, or whenever the Navy says it's okay.

Commander Dolan: The Navy is a way of life. I mean, you go into it and you know the sacrifices you have to make.

Maddie: Well, you’ve done it for my entire life.

Seriously, is this what Jedi antis want? It’s misery, and not necessarily on the parent’s part — he’s HAPPY and LOVES his job. He has the degrees to do anything he wants, as Maddie pointed out, but he doesn’t leave the Navy. It’s the same with the Jedi, as they have the best education and biggest library in the galaxies. And yet…

(some Jedi-Critical) and Anti-Jedi fans think the Jedi are miserable and why the Order is “wrong” for disallowing it [which is just projecting their subjective view of “what a fulfilling life is supposed to look like” onto a monastic people who value and find fulfillment in something other than romance], but it would actually be miserable if they did have families.

Pushing aside the fact that the Jedi are a monastic (and not only martial) organization, there’s a legit reason for disallowing marriage and committed relationships. It’s not fun and games. You can’t combine two enormous commitments and think you can handle it without neglecting the other. There’s no such thing as a part-time Jedi, it’s not a job title!

Jedi are able to leave the Order peacefully, they aren’t forced to stay, but on this specific topic, you just don’t have those feelings of « I need romance, I need marriage » when your society isn’t broken by being amatonormativity. You just don’t have those feelings when you’re already fulfilled in a community. You just don’t have those feelings when you have a purpose in life.

How dare they be happy and fulfilled by being Jedi? How dare they show their commitment to the Order by making the active and daily choice to be Jedi, when they could leave any time? How dare they stick their middle finger up at the no-romance/no-marriage rule? How dare the Jedi not conform to the “education → graduation → relationship → engagement → wedding → 2 kids and a dog” trajectory that only an amatonormative society expects of you? How dare the Jedi be monastic and live like it too?

———

(Words belong to @phoenixyfriend)

• “ ‘Missing out on love’ isn't something that matters as much when your society isn't amatonormative”

• “When your culture is one that emphasizes compassion for all [...] Don't you think that people might just not think of marriage as something worth striving for?”

• “When the world around you doesn't emphasize marriage and romance and all that, then wouldn't you view cultures that do as a tad odd? Not weird in a bad way, just different.”

I just keep thinking about the real world and how so much of the obsession with marriage and so on is a sociocultural thing. You don't want a big white dress because it's a big white dress: you want it because it is the symbol that your culture has been pushing on you since you were two. Girls are taught to fantasize about weddings and marriage and to like A Certain Look for it, sometimes to such a degree that they can spend decades in denial about things like their sexualities.

And we're unlearning that as a society, people are being more critical of the institution and how they engage with it, are starting to question what it is that our media teaches us, asking 'why is marriage the most important thing in a girl's life, or in anyone's life' and generally moving towards a world where marriage exists but is not treated as a universal life goal.

But the Jedi are just. Already doing that.”

• “Marriage is not an inherent human/sapient want. Companionship is! We are biologically wired to be social creatures! […] But marriage? A signed sheet of paper? That's not...inherent. Fidelity and monamory? Sure, maybe. Plenty of species mate for life. But... humans have been proving that's a choice for most of history.”

— (original post, here)

Even without the galactic scale of their lifestyle and duties, is it really so hard to understand or believe that people wouldn’t be miserable in a society where romance is not considered an important thing at all?

If you don’t think entire groups of people could choose to have no romantic commitments their entire life, then there’s over a thousand-years history of monks and nuns choosing to live a single life in an environment that, too, forbids them from romantic commitments, and they lived in contentment and peace.

They’re not only connected to other Jedi through the Force, they are connected to the rest of the universe through the Force; they find joy in their selflessness, in helping people, in trying their best to do good in a universe permeated with corruption. They love being a Jedi, there’s nothing a romantic relationship can give them that’s as fulfilling as being Jedi.

Just…stop projecting your amatonormative misery onto the Jedi.

———

If millions of people around the world in real-life can choose not to ever get married and have children (without even being a part of a close-knit community like the Jedi), despite being bombarded with amatonormativity in media and literature almost everyday, then what’s so weird about a fictional group (who are literally warrior-monks and whom have all of their companionship needs met within their non-amatonormative community) choosing to be single in favor of a higher calling and lifestyle that’s far more valuable and fulfilling than having a romantic relationship?

———

(Words belong to @jedi-enthusiast)

• “Call me crazy, but I know for a fact that I would not want a romantic relationship if I was a Jedi.

If I lived somewhere where I was a part of a community of people that I considered my mentors, my friends, my family; if I lived somewhere where I was encouraged to learn, to travel, to help people, to enjoy life as it is, and better myself; if I lived somewhere where I was supported and loved and cared for by the community, and I did the supporting, the loving, the caring for other people in the community as well; if I lived somewhere where it wasn't constantly implied, or sometimes outright stated, that my worth was tied to me marrying a man, popping out children, and making money...

...if I was a Jedi, I can honestly say that the thought of pursuing a romantic relationship probably wouldn't cross my mind at all---not unless I met someone specific whom I felt that sort of connection with, but even then, I probably wouldn't give up being a Jedi to be with them because I'd feel more fulfilled as a Jedi than I would in a romantic relationship.

I honestly don't understand the assumption that the Jedi are miserable because they can't get married, I really don't.

If you feel like you wouldn't be able to be fulfilled without a romantic partner, then that's fine! Everyone's different! We all have different wants and needs! But just accept that you wouldn't be fulfilled without a romantic relationship and stop acting like it's impossible for anyone else to feel differently.

The Jedi all seem perfectly happy as they are.”

— (original post, here)

I also wanna add, because I don’t know where to put this statement … there’s romance and marriage in every single media and literature, so why should it be inserted into a fictional monastic culture? They’re not only warriors, they’re monks too.

It’s a rhetorical question…but I think either they’re so marriage-obsessed that they hadn’t thought of this. Or they are consciously aware of the over-saturation of romance within media when they talk about how the Jedi Order are wrong for disallowing romantic relationships, but they don’t care because they think higher callings are stupid and anything else is inferior to a romance/marriage.

———

(Words belong to @tookas-have-teeth) (original post here)

• “There is a difference between people saying that everyone feels romantic attraction and that it is necessary to being human [arophobia] and the comments a lot of people make about the Jedi.

Oftentimes, when I see complaints about the Jedi, it's because people are angry that people who DO feel romantic attraction might not choose to act on it, or might be part of an organization that requires its members to give up romantic relationships and marriage. People cannot fathom the concept that other people might experience romantic attraction, and do so intensely, and yet value something else above romance.

People consider this to be a cruel denial and repression of one's feelings, rather than seeing it as a choice people are making to prioritize things they value. People have SO bought into the idea that romance is the Ultimate Form of Love, that romance is necessary to live a fulfilled life, that they cannot imagine folks finding other forms of love more fulfilling, especially if those folks experience romantic attraction.”

—

[a comment within the post linked immediately above] “By claiming that people who experience romantic attraction *must* act on it or else they are oppressed, one is functionally insulting every priest, monk, nun, or any number of members of a religious order who choose, of their own free will, not to pursue romance in favor of a higher calling.” — @supersaiyanjedi14

———

There’s only two other fictional worlds that I can think of off the top of my head, that are non-amatonormative. Blissfully fulfilled and happy …

… Equestria (My Little Pony) and Pixie Hollow (Disney Fairies).

After learning the word, I could now put a name to why these two worlds are my top favorites: It’s a non-amatonormative society where everyone’s happy with just a community and a purpose in their life, where romance is 100% not an important factor.

“But in Pixie Hollow, there’s no reproduction, so of course there wouldn’t be any relationships.”

There’s still love and attraction.

Rosetta gets a crush on Sled in Secret of the Wings, Queen Clarion and Lord Milori reveal they fell in love in the distant past. And Terrence has a crush on TinkerBell (although that might just be the printed media, ‘cause I don’t remember it being obvious in the movies).

Is it really so hard to understand or believe that in a society where romance is not considered an important thing at all, and people have (literal) power and a job that they love and a whole damn community for companionship, then those people wouldn’t be miserable?

So, again, stop projecting your allonormative and amatonormative misery onto the Jedi. ‘Cause that’s all it is: your projection.

It’s so sad that the real world can’t be like the aforementioned worlds. Our world makes it so hard for people; a majority don’t have jobs they love, or they don’t have time or money to pursue and grow their talents, and there’s no true community among us. It’s literally dystopian, and we only see it as “this is normal, it’s real life” because we don’t know any other way. But that’s quite a different topic, so…

—

I just wanted to add these, unrelated to Star Wars and fandoms, to point out how destructive it [amatonormativity and allonormativity] is in the real world. ‘Cause I do see tweets on my timeline, from time to time, where a user will be torn over not having a relationship at a certain age or their life not following the ‘right’ trajectory.

[posts by people outside of the Star Wars fandom]

— @uncanny-tranny (original post here)

• Amatonormativity has destroyed so many people's understanding and acceptance of themselves, and it's heartbreaking.

Yes, it is normal to be in your 20s, 30s, or older and not have lost your virginity, had a first kiss, or a partner. It is normal to say that you aren't ready for those things, too! It is normal if your life doesn't follow the "college graduate -> engagement -> buying a home -> 2.5 kids and a dog" trajectory that so many people have idealized.

So many people associate maturity with losing your virginity, or having a first kiss, or a serious relationship, and I think that's a dangerous association. Maturity isn't gained through those things, and you don't have to have those experiences to be considered "mature" or "grown." It is not a bad thing to go at your pace. Nobody else can live your life but you. If you end up having those experiences, that's great! But it should be done because you want to experience them, not because you feel "broken" and "immature" without them.

— @/acegirleatscake on Twitter

• Allonormativity and amatonormativity normalizes ableism: the “you must be cold, sick, delusional” or “there’s something wrong with you” if you don’t have sexual or romantic attractions or don’t want those types of relationships. Being single is seen as “being unwell.”

@/0p4l3sc3nt for this one (below)

• […] single people are constantly questioned about the legitimacy of our happiness […] In an Amatonormative society, our romantic relationships will always have ulterior motives (often subconscious) – which arise from us being conditioned to see romantic relationships as the means to achieve personhood, happiness, and TRUE purpose.

———

Sincerely, everyone in the Anti-Jedi circle needs to go outside, touch grass, and reflect on it.

If our society wasn’t amatonormative (if there was no such thing as our idealization of romance and marriage, if romantic relationships weren’t seen as the most important thing at all in our society), then nobody would have an issue with the Jedi Order disallowing it — for many legit reasons, might I again remind you! Their reasons make so much sense, yet your amatonormativity floods in and turns your brain into worms.

• “Fiction doesn't necessarily map onto people's real life opinions, but the statements people make about this topic are often very broad "the Jedi are bad for forbidding marriage, because people NEED romance" type statements that definitely sound like they're general worldviews rather than just opinions on fictional characters.” — @tookas-have-teeth (again)

This post was left in my drafts from a month ago (early August 2023), but seeing the topic come up again just made me kinda snap; and I don’t want to just scream into the void, so I’m posting it.

And I don’t care how repetitive some of it is, because that was very intentional. They’re like little reminders, so you don’t miss the point and might actually reflect on it.

HAVE A GOOD DAY!

[asexual-society]

This might be a stupid question but what exactly is "internalised gay-/bi-/ace- etc. phobia"? Is it only called that if I'm ace and wish I wasn't for example? Or is it also internalised phobia if someone claims to be accepting of a sexuality but secretly isn't?

And how do I know if I have internalised phobia and how do I get over that? I'm aroace and I'm fine with the ace part but the aro part troubles me sometimes. I can't help but see it as a huge personal loss. I know about qprs but I want the romance, I want the feeling and I'm not capable of it. And that bothers me. And yes, it makes me feel broken.

So. We live in a society. Most of us live in a society that is misogynistic, that is racist, that is homophobic, that is ableist, etc. Everyone who lives in a society like this will spend their life internalising these messages, so even if they are a part of one of these groups, they may still hold bigoted views towards other people of their same group (or towards themselves). I'm going to explain to the best of my understanding but people are free to correct any mistakes I might have made.

A common example of internalised homophobia might be if a gay man is distrustful of other gay people who are especially over the top in expressing their queerness, or has a dislike for effeminate gay men, or a lesbian who thinks gender nonconforming or butch lesbians are ugly. Internalised -phobias and -isms can also be self-directed having been enforced for many years by others, such as a woman who shaves her whole body because she views having body hair as being "unhygenic" for women, or a woman who genuinely believes that she, and all women, are less intelligent and more emotional than men.

A person with internalised acephobia may have learnt from society that being a virgin or not having sex, or specifically being asexual, is weird or embarrassing or cringe, and feel the need to have sex just so as not to be one of "those people".

Crucially in order for some form of bigotry to be called "internalised", the person has to be a member of that group, so if an Asian person is racist towards a black person, that isn't internalised racism, it's just regular racism (or specifically anti-black racism). If an alloromantic asexual person says something like "I'm ace but don't worry, I can still feel love", that's not internalised arophobia, it's just regular arophobia (but it might also play into internalised aphobia if they feel that the only way they can deal with their asexuality is to throw themself as hard into their romantic endeavours as possible).

Lots of aromantic people struggle with the effects of amatonormativity, and feeling that their life will be incomplete without romance, or that they're missing out on a fundamental human experience (this is not true, you can live a happy and fulfilled life without romance or any form of relationship). You could be what's known as Cupioromantic, which is a label under the aro umbrella that describes aro people who enjoy being in romantic relationships and seek them out, but it's important to understand the distinction between wanting to be in a romantic relationship because you enjoy it, and wanting to be in a romantic relationship because you feel like you won't be happy any other way.

Unfortunately (if you see it that way), wanting not to be aro will not make you magically allo. Wanting to be another sexuality has never been able to turn someone into that other sexuality, that's why conversion therapy doesn't work. You have to find a way to live with it, and there's no surefire way to accept your orientation, but having other friends who share your orientation can be one of the best ways to feel less broken and less alone. Personally, I like to write about aro characters who are like me, mostly because they don't really exist anywhere else, and it helps me to remind myself that I'm not the only person like me in the world. But you could also listen to more music that isn't about love, or see if you can avoid specific things that you know make you feel unhappy in your aromanticism. I'm not saying it's easy, and I'm not saying that path to acceptance will be linear, but I do think trying to work towards that acceptance is worthwhile.

I hope this helps, and that you feel better about yourself soon.

~ mod key

edit: the reason i hesitated to call "wishing i weren't aro" "internalised arophobia" in that post, is largely because it depends where the desire not to be aro is coming from. if it's from a profound loneliness that many aro people experience due to their aromanticism, being misunderstood or even abandoned by their friends, having difficulty connecting with people who aren't aro, that's very different from a person wishing they were aro because society tells us we aren't whole without a partner, or that we're missing out on this experience, or even that we're broken or mentally ill for not being able to experience this sort of attraction.

[peach-pot]

Honestly I can take the other definitions but, “not caring to act on attraction” just seems like celibacy. Imagine if we called people who felt romantic feelings but didn’t want to be in relationships aromantic instead of just “people who didn’t want to be in relationships”. Does the fact that they’re “functionally” asexual (ie meaning they’re not looking to have sex) mean that the label of asexual fits the kind of experience/treatment they want from people in the future anyway? Asking in good faith.

I think that if someone who experiences sexual attraction but has no interest in acting on it, in good faith identifies as asexual, they should be taken as such. I’m in the business of trusting people to know which terms will be most useful to them in describing themself and finding community.

My experience with asexuality includes many things. Here’s a short list of the ways it makes me feel outcast from society, driving me to find community with fellow asexuals:

Sexual attraction is viewed as an inherent part of the human experience, but it is something I cannot fully conceptualize, much less relate to and experience. Thus I am often deemed less human than my allo counterparts.

The society I live in is built around the idea that everyone desires and has sex, and often this means there is no place for me within certain areas of society.

Individuals and society as a whole treat those who have not had sex (for whatever reason) as less than and childish, so I am looked down upon by my peers for being asexual (and assumably never having had sex).

As someone who has occasionally desired romantic partnership, I am excluded from the world of romance because society deems romance and sexuality as inherently linked.

Now, not all of these points would necessarily apply to someone who experiences attraction but doesn’t want to act on it, but a lot of them would. And some of these points might not apply to even some asexuals who don’t experience attraction, like sex neutral and sex favorable aces. I’m sure there are also experiences some asexuals have that I don’t share.

At the end of the day, the asexual community, I think, should be a place for people who fall outside the allonormative, amatonormative societal model in terms of sexuality. If someone is experiencing sexual attraction, but does not care to act on it, they will have what I would be willing to define as an asexual experience. And if they deem it as such then I see no reason to exclude them from a community they could serve and be served by.

[quadrantadvisor]

Was desperate enough to use the search function to find posts about The Host by Stephenie Meyer and I just wanted to say, I love your takes and I agree with everything.

The love square never made sense. Jared and Melanie were impossible to root for because the sole basis of their love was that Melanie felt safe with him and Melanie was the last woman on Earth to Jared, and then neither of those things turn out to be true so all they have is intense sexual chemistry. And especially in contrast to Ian and Wanda, how and why am I supposed to care about them? And there is no reason for Wanda to love Jared. I get her falling in love with him through Melanie’s memory of him, but the reality ought to have shattered that illusion for both of them IMO. Especially for Melanie, because he’d rather scream at and hit her body rather than even entertain the hope she might be in there. Sure, he protects it from other humans, but then he abuses it, so that’s not in fact protection; it’s possession.

The gender bioessentialism never made sense. Sure, Wanda’s in a female body and can make the choice to reproduce, which is super cool. But given that her sense of gender hinges on that ability to reproduce and given that that ability is super rare, why would other Souls gender themselves? I think being agender or someone who just didn’t give a damn about pedantic human gender roles would have been super interesting for Wanda’s character and I think it would have added more dimension to her and Ian’s relationship. He barely had to struggle with the fact that the body she was in belonged to an attractive cisgender girl and he was a cishet man, in spite of Meyer’s weak attempts to call that into question. The gender question might have thrown him for more of a loop.

Contrast that to Jared’s very comphet interpretation of his relationship with Melanie, and ooh baby, we’ve got a stew!

Also would have liked more exploration on ethics in general. Why do the Souls care about the well-being of the organisms on the Fire Eater planet but not on Earth? Instead of stopping from eating them, do they steal their bodies too? And the humans killing other humans in an attempt to save them: Is it okay to murder them if they’re the ones doing the murdering, like before?

Sorry for the long ask. I just have a lot of thoughts. Please feel free to block and ignore if this is too weird. Genuinely no intention to bother or offend and I’m sorry if I have.

Oh man I'm always ready to rant about The Host with people!

Yeah I feel like Meyer thought she was saying something really deep about human nature and the way that our instincts drive us? And there is something there, like, your body having a reaction to another person and that affecting your behavior is interesting! In my opinion she just went WAY too far with it, and it makes the characters seem unrealistic and childish. The ways that both Melanie and Wanderer act around Jared are bizarre (this may partially be my ace spectrum talking but like, c'mon.) Jared just kinda sucks, also. The whole idea that there's this inherent magnetism between MEN and WOMEN and that that physical attraction is the most important thing in the world is so heteronormative and amatonormative and uncomfortable

And the book was SO CLOSE to having an interesting take on gender! Examing the genders and/or lack thereof of a body-snatching alien species could be so fun! There's even the mention of the alien species with three genders, and talking about their family structures. You would think that something like that would indicate a more expansive view on gender, but really it's just an extrapolation of more bioessentialism. Because that species has those biological sexes, their families MUST be steucturedin this way, because that's what's natural for them. There's no room for variability or different sorts of feelings. She completely equates gender with biology, even when that biology is being coopted by a hitchhiker.

You're so right about Ian and Wanderer, I would love more examinations of how different she is from humans, including in a gender sense, and them having to deal with that as a part of their relationship. Setting up Jared as someone very entrenched in social norms and Ian as a foil to him in that way sounds really interesting!

Soul society and ethics are SO fascinating. I do sincerely think that Meyer is an compelling fantasy and sci fi world builder, if nothing else.

It's late and I feel like I'm a little incoherent but I love getting to chat about this book, it's so infuriating but so fun, now I want to read it again.

[selfidentifiednerdyprude]

Individual choices vs systemic forces

This has come up a lot, especially with me being dumb enough to stand up for myself on a certain post about kinky aces and wholesomeness that's going around, so I'm making a post to clarify the issue.

Tl;dr you can do whatever you want forever, I don't care, it literally does not affect me one bit if an ace person is involved in sex/kink or an aro person is involved in romance or an aroace person is involved in both.

I would like to lessen the forces that make people feel like they HAVE to do these things, but it is straight up not my place to police whether anyone CAN do these things.

The thing is, nothing I say on this blog is ever about individual people making choices about what's best for themselves. "There are people in happy and healthy relationships that look like the ones that hurt me, and this is fine" has been a guideline of my writing about how I was harmed by the kink community since I started writing about how I was harmed by the kink community.

My work concerns itself with compulsory sexuality and amatonormativity, and the ways it harms everyone, including alloromantic allosexuals.

My quarrel is not with people making the choice to be sexual or romantic in whatever way they choose— it's with the system that elevates these choices to be more than choices.

It's not with the kinky ace who writes erotica. It's with the system that uses kinky aces who write erotica as "proof" that ace people are worthy of respect— because we shouldn't need proof that we're worthy of respect. We are people, regardless of how sexually inclined we are or aren't, and we belong here.

It's not with the aromantic person who chooses to enjoy romantic content or enter a romantic relationship. It's with the system that uses romo aros as "proof" that aro people are worthy of respect— because we shouldn't need proof that we're worthy of respect. We are people, regardless of how romantically inclined we are or aren't, and we belong here.

It's not with any individual person who, through their informed individual choices, has more proximity to romantic/sexual culture than me. It's with the way that some of us having those preferences is taken as proof that all of us are able or willing to conform.

I will defend to the death the right of any aspec person to make what they've decided are the right choices for themselves in their personal relationship with romance and sexuality. I will always stand against a system that elevates those who are willing to participate in those things over those who are not.

So if it wasn't clear: sex, kink, and romance favorable people are welcome here. But any attitude that views those preferences as more respectable, acceptable, transgressive, or "cool" than averse/repulsed perspectives will always be called out as the disgustingly aphobic bullshit that it is.

I care so much about all of us. I want us all to be free.

[rainbowsandchocolate]

Being not only aroace but specifically oriented aegosexual and cupioromantic has a really interesting effect on how I view amatonormativity.

We have talked about how aspecs don't subscribe to conventional amatonormative ideas and often exist outside of those, not needing sense or romance. But for those of us who are sex/ romance neutral or favourable it changes the entire premise.

Generally, the consensus is that sexual / romantic acts are based on sexual/ romantic attraction and when that isn't there it's either fake or unhealthy or even in some way predatory. Of course sex without attraction isn't "new", neither are romantic relationships without attraction. But they aren't ever seen as the "real deal". Sex work is work but is it the same as "just sex"?

An asexual person, who genuinely wants to have sex, challenges that premise. An aromantic person who is in a happy, committed, romantic relationship uproots the whole concept. Suddenly, those things are just acts. They are just things that you do (or don't) because you want to (or not). And it leads to questions. Sex is still fairly well-defined as an act. But what makes a romantic relationship romantic? The common answer is "the feelings" "the love" or something like that. Not to say that those aren't valid and important, but I think the real answer, for allos and aspecs alike is much subtler. (I don't have it, it's very individual).

Anyway, it's like the closer you look at it, those amatonormative concepts don't really hold well, even within an allo society. And I think that's super cool.

[stranger-rants]

I’m not sure how coherent this will be, but as an aromantic asexual who is romance repulsed due to trauma I have very complicated feelings about characters who feel like they are inherently unlovable. Yes, it’s very sad that they feel that way in the context that they’re in but also I feel the same way about myself in many ways. I don’t particularly view myself as lovable and I have conditioned myself to fully accept abandonment as the ultimate outcome of any relationship I have. It’s happened to me numerous times in my friendships as I know I will never be anyone’s first priority. Whoever they love romantically will be their first priority.

That’s how things go, ‘understandably.’

I know that because of the amatonormative society we live in that aromantic asexual people especially don’t have great support systems. In many ways, society forces partnerships onto us as a requirement to just… live. When you don’t have that, it’s very hard to do things as an unpartnered aromantic asexual person especially if you’re disabled or chronically ill. I don’t need anyone to try to prove me wrong or to console me over this. I am chronically ill. I have aging parents who won’t be able to take care of me forever. Even then they’re responsible for the majority of my trauma. I have no one who will consistently be there for me when they’re gone. It is what it is.

…umm… but I say this because even if someone feels like they’re unlovable, they still deserve to be treated with dignity. They shouldn’t need a romantic relationship to “save them.” They shouldn’t have to learn to be loved before they get access to support systems and support systems shouldn’t be exclusively available in the form of romantic relationships. Of course not every aromantic asexual person is traumatized in this way nor is everyone traumatized in this way aromantic asexual, but we both share in a common struggle and it’s not just that individual people abandon us but society abandons us… over and over.

Yeah, sometimes I do want characters I like to be loved by someone and grow within a relationship. At the same time, I think it’s valuable to show characters who feel unlovable that their survival matters despite that. They don’t need to be lovable to live their lives and maybe we acknowledge that not being able to get what they need to survive is not a personal failing due to their lack of lovability but a structural one wherein people who can’t form romantic partnerships are regularly ignored by society. So many abused kids especially are told that love will fix them but so often that’s an excuse to just punish those of us who can’t experience that easily or at all.

[md-confessions]

about the nuzi stuff like its not a dislike of this ship period its just! a dislike of the fact that people view their relationship as something that can only be strictly romantic and nothing else. like if that is the case then thats absolutely fine and im not gonna yknow, cry about it but it makes me a little sad to see people devalue platonic/queerplatonic relationships (especially as someone in a longstanding qpr). their interactions can absolutely be read as both romantic and platonic but it feels like people often stamp down on/dismiss those who would prefer to view them as platonic bcus 'they must be in love bcus of x y and z' when its like? both interps are absolutely valid and people can enjoy both! i think sometimes the way people are absolutely adamant about nuzi being romantic just really reminds me how amatonormative relationships are the standard and as an aroace its like oh...ok (walks away like the sad ant with a bindle) also, it is a little unfair to say people are just being salty another ship didnt happen because they dont enjoy yours in the same manner, people are just allowed to dislike things for reasons aside from that or even for no reason at all!

.

[puppetriix]

Obv take your time answering this (I’m about to go to bed anyway) and don’t even answer if it’s too personal but:

I know you know queer platonic relationships but how familiar are you with relationship anarchy? I’m only asking cuz it’s such a niche topic.What are your thoughts on it? Also would you consider yourself aplatonic? Or simply aroace? How has amatonormativity impacted you?

Welp, I just fell down a rabbit hole!

Prior to today I had no clue what most of those words meant so take everything I say with a grain of salt. (though I agreed with a lot of it, I just didn’t know it had words)

LOVE RELATIONSHIP ANARCHY!! THATS WHAT I’VE BEEN SAYING SINCE THE BEGINNING!!!!

I hate how the societal standards for relationships are Friendship<Dating<Married<Family like come on man, no it doesn’t have to be that way.

Me personally, I don’t think that relationships should even be put into categories like that. The relationship shouldn’t be based off of how much romance stuff you do. It should be based off how much genuine love you have for each other. (Not necessarily romantic love, not necessarily sexual love, and not necessarily platonic love. Just love.)

No, I don’t think I would consider myself aplatonic. The amount of platonic love I feel and have felt for some people is honestly unreal to me. I never knew I could love like that but it’s so freeing and it makes me so wonderfully happy. Yes, I have used the term “friendship crush” because I feel so much “I WANNA BE FRIENDS WITH THEM SO BAD” even when I am already friends with said person. Platonic love I guess :) I do understand why some people would be aplatonic though and I fully respect them.

I am Aroace, Though I’ll explain exactly what that means to me!!

Asexual: I do NOT want a sexual relationship. No sex, no “caresses” (especially sexual ones near my stomach), no stroking my face. I.E.: NO NO SEX NO PLEASE DONT EVEN CARESS ME NO.

Aromantic: I do NOT wanted a necessarily romantic relationship. I do not want mouth to mouth kisses, I do not want anything related romance teehee stuff (sorry i don’t know how to better explain it) I.E.: please no lip kisses eheh no.

But! I am fine with kisses on the forehead, hand, cheek, etc. I also love hugs and cuddles and sleeping together in a non sexual sense.

What love do I want: Queer platonic. I just want to love and be loved equally. I want to cuddle up with someone on our bed when either of us are upset. I am not necessarily opposed to hugging and loving each other in public either. I want someone who can understand the fact that I do not want any form of sexual attraction towards me and would prefer no romantic attraction as well. I do think I want love, but I don’t a necessarily romantic relationship, I do not want what most people label as “dating”. Would I like to be labeled as a family? I am not opposed to it, I love found family and already consider most people I am friends with to be apart of my family. I would also like to note that I would like to experience this with one or more people. Also, I am fine with this relationship being labeled as a friendship :)

amatonormativity. Oh boy. Hate that. I used to think I wanted to have a romantic relationship, and the other person in said relationship wanted that too. But I soon realized: No. I do not want something like that. The other person didn’t understand at the time and I do not know if they’d understand now, (but nonetheless I do not love them anymore for multiple unspecified reasons.)

I think what society views as a relationship is really ucky and I like to just view things how I see them for me.

Love is how you would like to view it for you. Love is love.

[angryaromantics]

Hi! Aromantic here. Just wanted to vent here and know your thoughts on this.

I told a friend about how I would love to have a best friend to go through life with. I don’t want an SO or kids and I would like said best friend to have those same wants.

They were sad about this mainly because I didn’t consider them a best friend and they do want an SO and kids.

I can see them as a best friend that’s not the problem. I really love this friend with all my heart. I was kind of upset about it. Because it felt like I couldn’t have what I want if that makes sense? I know they don’t mean it that way.

I want commitment from said best friend that I wish to find one day. Am I not allowed that?? In my head, since they want an SO I’ll be on the side. I’ll be less important than the family they create. They said that I won’t be less important but I straight up can’t see it. I’ve been poisoned by amatonormativity at a young age and deconstructing that is REALLY hard. No progress made at all.

I know I should trust what they say. But at the same time I want to be enough for somebody. I don’t want to live alone and have no one to talk to physically. I would like to experience commitment. I want exclusivity. It’s all just really hard to process.

I'm sorry, that sounds like such a tough situation to be in. I can definitely understand your point of view. When you have such specific wants and needs that don't align with the societal norms (kids, s/o, etc.), it's hard to find someone to fulfill this needs, and can be even harder to trust that anyone you find will.

I do think it's worth noting that even allo people often do want these sorts of dynamics as well. You don't have to be aro to reject the amatanormative mold, it just gives some of us a jump start. Many allo people, when they realize it's an option, will embrace atypical relationship structures right along with you.

I'm going to bring myself into this as anecdotal experience because honestly, that's all we've got. I spent literal years, assuming my sister would settle down and form a family unit that automatically becomes more important than me. She's married, and that STILL hasn't come true. We're actively trying to buy a house and build a life together right now. There's absolutely no reason your friend can't want the same.

That being said, it's hard to build that trust. We spend so long letting our brains flow through the same amatanormative thought patterns, and it takes active effort to confront them and question where they're coming from. Unfortunately, allos have the same issues, so there's always the chance that it simply Won't work out with your friend. And that's scary! But that's the way all relationships of any structure work.

You never know how things will work out, but you've got to decide if what you want, and who you want it with, is worth taking the plunge.

[andgry4]

I have some thoughts I'd like to share but I'm not sure how they'll be recived. Anyways here I go.

So I'm huge star wars fan and my favorite character is Obi-Wan Kenobi, so of course I'm aware about him canonically aparently being bi or aroace or both. I personally don't have any problem with this I actually find it amazing and love the representation being aroace my self but here's the thing.

I don't see Obi-Wan coded as a bisexual character.

I've read a lot of things included the parts of the recent book that suggest his orientation, and I still don't see how is he coded as bi. Can someone explain me how?

Now I see how it can be (I don't have the book or the images to show you the exact things, but I'm sure you can find them easily), after all his thoughts go a little wild on the many posible ways he could or not be atracted to a lot of characters of several genders within the story and there's many more things I've learned from other peoples perspective on how could he fit onto bisexuality, yet I think I can see those same things and still they don't make him bi for me at least.

So let me explain my point of view.

First of all I feel like a lot of people, when explain about being aroace and (insert orientation, ex. Bi, Het, Gay, Pan, etc.) usually forget about the aroace part of it, as if the other "half" of the sentence is way more important and that, at least for me, is superfrustraiting, because to me, and I know am not the only one in this case, figuring out all parts of that is not easy, 'cause we don't experience atraction in the same way, no matter in which part of the spectrum you are. You see, personally, for a long period of time I didn't know wether I was straight, gay, bi or pan and it took me quite a while to learn more about asexuality and aromantism, and another great time once I knew I am aro and ace, which of the others I might experience, I know am cis and now I know am het, but I come to realice it doesn't really matter that part to me that much, am just aroace, and, maybe am still figuring things out, but like at the end of the day I don't want to be in either a romantic or sexual relationship, neither qpr no matter with who guy/girl/other. Only time will show whats next form me and my family of friends.

Now back to Obi-Wan, most of the things I've read on the book, to me, feel more like that, yeah there's the confusion with a lot of posibilities, which I found great either way, but at the end he is most definitely coded aroace aspec and yes, he can be also bi, but that confusion does not make him inherently bi. But there's the other half of the story everyone forgets about and is we know Satine is in the future (and other women in old books and stuff, but not counting them), and please tell me if am missing information, am open and I love to learn, but as far as I know there's no man in the saga and in Obi-Wan's story that is as significant in this matter (and no, I'm not counting fan's headcanons, I know a lot of them and yes I read fanfiction) again let me know if there's something I'm missing.

So for all of that 👆🏻 I can only see him coded as aroace aspec, and let's be honest most people hype up about him being bi and throw away the fact that he's also aroace, demeaning it.

So if you have another point of view or know something I don't about this, please let me know. I don't have anything against him being bi I just can't see him under that umbrella or how is it. Until I learn otherwise I'll keep my perspective.

Also because this might be the only time I talk about this, there's too much fanfiction shipping him with Cody WHY? THEY ARE PERFECT PLATONIC BEST FRIENDS, anyway personal preference, feel free to read and ship whatever you want, I actually mostly read general fics, there's too much amatonormativity in the real world to let my safe personal scape have a topic that reminds me of romance and stuff, plus I'm fine with the canon relationships.

Last note. Sorry for any grammar mistake, English is my safe yet not first language. And if you read this far thank you.

[armchairsoapbox]

I’ve had a bit of time to think about Skip and Loafer after binge-reading through it after someone posted and said it was the best ✨aro✨ representation they’d seen recently and

When I was browsing through the tag in Tumblr I saw so many other fans talking about how Shima is beginning to realise he loves Mitsumi, following the most recent chapter with the beach trip, the chats that Shima had with Fumi and Mukai, and the crab moment.

And it could go that way, and it would still be a pretty nice story to read because it has still taken the time to ask what love and romance really means. Love is not treated as the obvious goal from the start and it’s not even taken for granted what it means, and what Shima ends up feeling is love, the development is organic enough and not forced.

BUT

What I would find more interesting and appealing is if Shima realises that Mitsumi is important to him, but that emotional connection doesn’t have to fit or be shoehorned into “love” or “romance”. Or alternatively that it is “love” — but it’s a broader conception of love that doesn’t fit neatly in the much more typical person/friend/lover schema that Mukai raised.

It would be much less amatonormative, yes, and of course I’m writing this here as someone who wants aro representation, but it would also be much more interesting to have that exploration of what love and romance means across the story (as seen eg. in Mitsumi and Yamada’s conversation, or Mitsumi asking Fumi what love feels like and being unsure if it’s something that’s that important to her) continue in this way.

Also, I’m wary of how Shima’s views on love are tied to his own experiences — I say “his experiences” and not “his trauma”, because I think the issue is that the hypothetical “Shima is learning that despite his past experiences love isn’t so bad and he can love after all” narrative path would also imply arospec feelings towards those they care about are damaged and should be healed, rather than fully valid in themselves.

Shima and Mitsumi are happy with one another’s companionship. They like each other for who they are, and care for one another. That relationship is important to both of them. Isn’t that enough?