#or platonic partnerships societally equal to romantic ones

[contagious-watermelon]

so have we advocated for QPRs being a known relationship option bc its important that people not be boxed in by preconceived labels and notions, or are we just trying to extend the pressure to get into a committed relationship to aromantic people after they try to escape the bounds of amatonormativity

[aromantic-diaries]

So like.

I've been struggling with the whole, feeling like my emotions are compatible with the aro identity I'm working to accpet.

I have a bf (3 years now), and I know I would be sad if we broke up you know? I've dated in the past, a little, and I was mildly put out when my first bf broke up with me. I am happy when my partner is around, because when he's not I'm alone. But when he's not around, and I'm not alone (Say, I spend time with friends with notable frequency), I am equally happy as when he is around. If not happier.

I just. I didn't realize I was gay until I was like, 15. I feel like every crush I've ever had was me talking myself into it: "Oh damn, I want to make out with him. Wait I've been thinking about this guy a lot lately, does that mean I have a crush? I have a crush, therefore I Must want to spend my life with him!" And like. Yeah, duh I want to make out with him, but I also want to spend time with him casually as a friend? But of course, Every 15-25 year old Must be in and out of relationships until they find ☆The One☆.

Idk. It's just. I feel strongly, all the time, about everything. I hook up with someone, and there's never a point where they're not a person to me. I want to Talk to them as a real person. Dating wise I always Want to be a good friend before going out with someone, and then it's still just being friends but also sexually intimate. I have always felt Equally strongly about the guys I have dated and the friends I keep.

I Feel like I would be happiest if I had a tight knit groupd of friends, some of whom sex is a part of our friendship. I can't fathom building my life entirely around a given person: It's not like it would be easy without income from another person to become a stay at home parent, but I have absolutely no parameters in my mind about who that income should come from.

My hair dresser told me It sounds like I dreamed of skipping through marriage, straight to being a divorcee parent on child support. It sounds aweful, but that almost exactly the vision. I want to be my whole self, and eventually I want to be a parent, but we are told for so long that both of those things require a romantic partnership.

Does any of that make sense for aromantic experiences?

Navigating life as an aromantic person can get difficult at times and I bet there's many people who can relate to what you're going through. I do however think that having close lifelong platonic relationships is something that can be achieved, even though it's viewed as unconventional by societal norms. I do believe in you

[theaceandaroadvocacyproject]

And as a final wrap-up to ASAW, one of our breathtaking members made a deeper 101 for Amatonormativity! 

Amatonormativity is a term coined by Elizabeth Brake to describe the widespread belief that one romantic partnership is an ideal everyone should aspire to and will inevitably be unhappy without. Amatonormativity exists in our communities, our media, and our legal institutions, and harms everyone regardless of romantic orientation. 

We hope these offer a solid introduction to the topic! Image descriptions under the cut. 

[There are 4 images. Each one reads “Aromantic Spectrum Awareness Week” at the topic in black lettering, with multiple bullet points in light gray boxes with green borders. The backgrounds are respectively green, blue, orange, and pink, with the aromantic flag diagonally taking up the bottom right corners, and the TAAAP logo in each bottom left. 

Amatonormativity is: The widely held societal belief that a committed monogamous relationship is a universal goal and a special site of morality and social responsibility. - Putting romantic relationships on a pedestal above all other interpersonal bonds. 1,100+ legal privileges granted by state sanctioned marriage. Treating coupled romantic relationships as the sole source of all support, physical affection, and emotional intimacy, causing isolation by creating artificial scarcity of caring, which in turns weakens community efficacy. Sex shaming and sex-negative attitudes; treating sex as immoral without the “morality” of romance.

Amatonormativity harms us all: Rewards and encourages romantic harassment (e.g. persistent unwanted advances and boundary violations) by assuming that romance is inherently good and universally desired. Treats coupled romantic relationships as essential to happiness and fulfillment, misleading people to believe that being in an unhappy or unhealthy relationship is better than being single and that their worth is linked to romantic desirability. Devalues friendship, chosen kin, community, and other platonic bonds. Glorifies artificial scarcity of caring through the idea of “The One”, a magic bullet for unhappiness, displacing personal accountability, communication, and effort in relationships and encouraging codependency, possessiveness, and fear of loss.

Marriage is: A patriarchal, capitalist, colonial institution rooted in property law and selectively prohibited or promoted throughout US history as a form of social control for enforcing white supremacy. Historically a way for landowning men to control women’s sexual behaviour to ensure paternity and privately raise children to consolidate family wealth for patrilineal inheritance. Contemporarily a way for both spouses to control each other’s sexual behaviour, privately raise children, and consolidate family wealth for patrilineal inheritance, all under the veneer of companionate romantic love instead of property law. Not a norm throughout most of human history.

Resist Amatonormativity: Lifelong exclusive romantic commitment and the formation of an isolated nuclear family unit is not the ultimate goal of all relationships. Embrace relationship and family diversity, including single positivity and support for non partnering aros. Reject relationship hierarchies and escalators. Practise ongoing consent instead of indefinite commitment and presumed obligations. Remember that LGBTQIA+ rights do not stop at abled monogamous gay marriage equality. Affirm that we are complete human beings without mimicking oppressive cis hetero Amatonormative relationship structures or standards in our own lives.

End description.]

[allos-aro]

hiya. I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this, but I'm a young & confused arospec feeling weird about some shit. basically, I'm feeling kind of strange about the qpr thing? not in the sense that intense platonic relationships are bad in any way. the opposite. it's more the idea that platonic relationships are inherently lesser to romantic ones so they need a specific (queerplatonic) label. also the idea of a partnership, and just having one "most important" person, bothers me. help??

Hi there!

So I will grant that I’m probably not the best person to ask about queerplatonic relationship (QPR) related things because I’m working through some of my own biases related to them. But, I can talk a little bit about reconciling labeling interpersonal dynamics and the concept of “most important” person/people.

So QPRs are intentionally established to be self-defined dynamics, and from my understanding, the morphing of QPRs into this concrete, well-defined type of dynamic that has specific kinds of attraction attached to them is not in the spirit of the original QPR concept. (This isn’t to say that the labels for attractions that have sprung up to explain some QPR dynamics aren’t valid! But it’s more that QPRs are supposed to be nebulous and self-determined instead of predictable based off of pre-established norms.)

The only place in which QPRs are seen as “lesser” to romantic dynamics are when you’re interacting within an amatonormative framework. (Amatonormativity being the idea that monogamous romantic dynamics are “most important” and that everyone is striving for one and that everyone is happy in one.) It’s a pretty common thing because we live in an amatonormative society, and unlearning amatonormative frameworks is really difficult when you’re surrounded by it. And, in practice, in non-aro spaces, it can be REALLY hard to justify QPRs as being equal to romantic dynamics without calling it a romantic dynamic.

Another thing that’s worth keeping in mind is that putting a Label to a dynamic doesn’t necessarily make it more important than your other dynamics. The things that you do in those dynamics may differ, but that doesn’t label importance necessarily. For example, I could have a sexual QPR with someone that has equal weight to my friendships with other people, the only thing that’s different is what I call those dynamics and what I do in them. One thing that might help with better understanding this is reading into relationship anarchy, which originates in the polyamory community but has a lot of applications within fighting amatonormativity. A lot of definitions do use the “love” word, but I’m not sure that I’ve seen an aromantic-specific definition around yet. Link to The Anarchist Library, on Relationship Anarchy.

Ultimately, the final line is: QPRs, and by extention all labelled interpersonal dynamics, are not inherently placing the importance of the person (or people) in that dynamics over others. Our society benefits from telling people they have to categorize people by importance, and while that’s the “norm”, it doesn’t have to be that way. Assuming that people who have labelled interpersonal dynamics are placing one person (or a few people) above everyone else is falling into the amatonormativity trap, and for QPRs it goes directly against the spirit of what a QPR is supposed to be (a self-defined dynamic between at least two people that has specific meaning that cannot be easily summarized within a specific, societally accepted label).

I hope this doesn’t sound too terribly harsh? I know that sometimes I get a little bit intense about things like relationship anarchy and amatonormativity. But I hope this is at least halfway helpful?

ETA: other folks with more direct experience should definitely chime in! I am not the arbiter of aro experience, nor should I be considered one!

[squidproquoclarice]

I love Arthur and Sadie’s relationship (platonic or romantic, it doesn’t matter cause it’s great either way) b/c they both treat each other with so much respect and they are truly equal. Sadie sees Arthur as an equal to her, and Arthur sees Sadie as an equal to him. They’re both very powerful individuals, and instead of holding one another back by the societal standards for a m/f relationship, they support each other’s strengths by not boxing themselves into relationship roles. I love them sm!!!

They really are, and as much as I ship it like FedEx and think they’ll be amazing together romantically, a huge part of that is because of that extraordinarily strong and unusual dynamic they have to begin.  Like you say, they see each other as equals, respect and trust each other as equals, and it becomes a partnership between them where their strengths and their needs are acknowledged.  The respect and admiration between them for each other as people is just fantastic.  So yeah, they become solid and deeply supportive friends long before anything romantic ever would enter the picture.  And “friends to lovers” is a pretty damn great storytelling tool for a reason because of the power of that underlying dynamic.  Especially for these two, with as much pain and emotional damage as they have in their past, having a friendship without the pressure of romance first is going to help a lot with the necessary task of a lot of healing before they’re ready for any kind of romance or sexual intimacy entering the picture.  They’re partners and equals who have that as the most important part of their relationships.  They happen to become lovers, yeah, but that’s only one facet of the relationship as it evolves into something new, rather than some kind of immediate I can’t live without you and I don’t know why enthrallment where the romance is everything.  So while I’m in favor of M/F platonic friendships always and forever, I’m also in favor of M/F platonic friendships that slowly evolve into a truly wonderful romance that’s all the stronger for the romance being only one part of everything they have between them, because that dynamic still places such a high and necessary value on the friendship.Either way you see it on the romance angle, Arthur and Sadie’s friendship is one big yeehaw.

[melloroom]

“Let Boys* and Girls* be friends”(written for r/breadtube)

*NOTE (For the purposes of this entry, assume that when I say boys and girls, I am referring to children who are identified by society (parents, schools, neighbors, relatives, etc) as boys and girls BEFORE they have the agency to alter or reject that gender assignment.)

This music video by a band SIAMES, I will link here because it is relevant to WATCH IT FIRST: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM7Eh0gGNKA

In the video, there are 2 teen boys and 2 teen girls and one of the girls is new to the group. The other three take her to an abandoned school. Here they hang out until the main girl reverts back to her childhood/kid self and so do they all. They frolic until the end of the video to the tune of the song. Lyrics include lines like: "I never wanted to hurt anyone...i just want to fly." The theme is about friendship.

THIS VIDEO IS EXPLAINS A CORE NOUGAT* OF MY FEMINIST MAXIM. I'm more or less angered because I haven't had the visual aid to talk about this* until this video. This video wasn't intended at all to be a feminist one, I can tell. And yet, it would do wonders to explain my point of view. IN THE VIDEO the girls are visibly more stiffened and less enthusiastic as the boys. Commenters of the video stated it was "coming back to the boys" that helped them become happy and free again. Maybe "coming back to the boys" was in reference to the Danish band's music. I could see it that way. I also see it going a different way: that if teen girls wanted to feel happy and free, then they have to be around the boys. I have to dive into this idea. The boys in the video just *are* happy, no explanation needed. It seemed like a commentary on how boys are more carefree than girls are, as though it were by default. This is not factual at all but it's not an uncommon perspective either. It is something I've seen a lot of. People critique girl culture for being more stiff and "meaner" than boy culture. Example: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/are-girls-really-meaner_b_633441 Im wizzing by the empirical evidence to state, from personal experience, being boxed in as female negatively effected most of my platonic relationships. It was a dark time.

This is my counter-argument to the above generalization about girl-culture: boys have more freedom* (of certain varieties. Source: any episode of Master of None) and girls are more stifled by societal expectations. That is why mean/cold/hardened/loner girls exist in abundance (myself included). The main girl in the video certainly embodies this ideal. She is the goth girl. A mix of feminine beauty and stand-offishness. Her resemblance is something I see many girls work hard to achieve (the beauty to ward off girl-bullies, the goth to ward off suiters). But I'm here to address how the girls clearly enjoyed being carefree and playful MORE** than what they end up being as teens. So the obvious question is this:

If that's** what the girls clearly enjoy more, why weren't they like that from the start? Why change at all? easy answer: because current society doesn't make it possible for girls to be just friends with boys. Or boys to just be friends with girls.

Even as an openly gay female-presenting Non-Bin, most of my guy friends have a hard time being close friends with me. They've admitted it's difficult to keep a platonic female friend without feeling pressure to BE something more. This is especially true if that male friend is single. Our society doesn't ever seem to encourage or protect boys' and girls' "friendship integrity." There always has to be something else....something to imply these boys and girls will not be complete until they "get together." Now in the video, instead of that real pressure, there are just the kids. Now they are free to be together and free in a real way. Again, the song is about "flying free, and not hurting anyone else emotionally. I'm actually angry because this is not our world. Real children of opposite genders DO NOT GET to be friends without pressure. At least not unless they're related in some way, or sheltered, or some other third thing. I really don't want to come across like partnering is unacceptable, or romance has no place in society. I've partnered myself so why would I even? BUT, we are compromising friendships, even mental health, in favor of pushing partnership. Worse than that, we are subjecting children to a bullshit ultimatum: pair up, or be alone. I'm angry about that. NOTE AGAIN, that a big (kinda weird given what I just went over) element about this video is the total lack of romantic "tension" between the boys and girls. They're just there, there is nothing pulling them in a romantic direction. It's just not made to elicit that emotion (at least for me).

I love that. I love the energy and cooperation these kids have, without a lingering implication that it's "not enough." THIS is what I, as a feminist, have wanted to work toward achieving for a long long long time. I'm angry It took me so long to put it into words. This is about WAAAAAY more than friend-zoning (relationship-or-bust mentality). Friend zoning is looking at this phenomenon on an individual basis, but this is a cultural problem. This is a cooperation obstruction that needs to be removed for gender equality AND social stability to be realized. The pressure to keep genders apart (unless for romance) leads to tons of inequities for women to contend with, including being left out of male-dominated fields. Male born/masculine people suffer too. The longer we go without repairing the rift between the genders the more isolated young people will be. Because gender-zoning is only going to get worse unless we do something. Language needs to evolve. Caregivers need to become aware of gendered treatment and break from doing it. School systems need to crack down on bullying, transphobia, and homophobia, among other things. Most of all we need to have better representations of healthy AND diverse gender friendships in media.

[a-dinosaur-a-day]

gryfftech replied to your post “And with that, #Raptormonth and #Birds are Dinosaurs Week are over!”

I feel so out of it, I don't know what half of those terms are. But I still support this month!

I actually really love defining stuff, so @gryfftech, prepare yourself for some rad definitions under the cut

Gay - an umbrella term that applies to anyone who exclusively is attracted to the same gender as themself; however, is often used for men/partial men (such as demiboys) who fit this condition. 

Achillean - Men who are attracted to other Men (mlm) (also applies to nonbinary people who identify at least partially with Man and apply this label to themselves) 

Lesbian - "A person who is a woman or partially a woman who feels attraction, be it romantic and/or sexual, to other women and partial women.” 

Sapphic - Women who are attracted to other Women (wlw) (also applies to nonbinary people who identify at least partially with Woman and apply this label to themselves) 

Andro/Masc/Masexual/romantic - When one is attracted to men and/or masculine genders/individuals (these types of orientations are useful for nonbinary people who don’t want to use the terms gay or straight) 

Gyne/Fem/Womasexual/romantic - When one is attracted to women and/or feminine genders/individuals 

Diamoric - A flexible term that has two different definitions:  1) A nonbinary person who prioritizes nonbinary people and nonbinary partnerships in their life  2) A relationship that involves at least one nonbinary individual (even if one of the people involved is binary) 

Enbian - A nonbinary person attracted to other nonbinary people (nblnb) (like sapphic & achillean) 

Ceterosexual/romantic - Someone who is exclusively attracted to nonbinary genders (really only usable by nonbinary people) 

Bisexual/romantic - Someone who is attracted to two or more genders 

Polysexual/romantic - Someone who is attracted to three or more genders, or all genders to the exclusion of one, etc. 

Pansexual/romantic - Someone who is attracted to all genders, or attracted to people independent of gender 

Multisexual/romantic - Someone who is attracted to multiple genders; or a term used for the entire community of people who fit this description (bi, poly, pan, etc.) 

Pluralian - An umbrella term for people who are attracted to more than one gender; one who prioritizes, or is proud of, all the genders to whom they are attracted equally; one who celebrates their multiple attraction; the community of people who are attracted to more than one gender; a descriptor of the attraction someone who is attracted to multiple genders feels towards anyone of any gender -> a term that is similar/aligns with “sapphic” and “achillean” and “enbian,” and can be used as a replacement for words such as gay, straight, and diamoric when pluralian/mspec people describe their attraction towards other people 

Asexual - Someone who does not experience sexual attraction 

Graysexual - Someone who experiences sexual attraction less so/differently than others 

Demisexual - Someone who only experiences sexual attraction once they have formed a deep emotional connection with someone else 

Aromantic - Someone who does not experience romantic attraction

Grayromantic - Someone who experiences romantic attraction less so/differently than others

Demiromantic - Someone who only experiences romantic attraction once they have formed a deep emotional connection with someone else 

Akoi/Lithsexual/romantic - Someone who feels attraction but it fades when reciprocated, or when a relationship is entered, or a person who feels attraction but has no desire to have the feelings reciprocated 

Intersex - An individual whose biological characteristics do not fit into the biological models of male and female 

Trans - An individual who does not completely, no-holes-barred identify with the gender they were assigned at birth 

Nonbinary - An individual who identifies with a gender outside of the societal binary of man/woman; used as both an umbrella term as well as just a gender in and of itself

Genderqueer - An individual with a gender identity outside of the gender binary, or with an identity other than man and woman (yes, this is very similar to nonbinary) 

Maverique - A gender characterized by autonomy and inner conviction that is entirely independent of male, female, or anything derived from the binary genders which is not without gender or a neutral gender; a distinct and firm Other Gender 

Agender - Someone who does not have a gender/experiences no gender whatsoever

Neutrois - Someone who has a neutral or null gender

Genderless - Someone without gender, or with a neutral or null gender, etc. (all three of these have a lot of overlap) 

Genderfluid - Someone whose gender changes over time, or has a gender identity that changes 

Genderflux - Someone who experiences shifts or changes in the intensity of their gender 

Demigirl - Someone who is in part, but not entirely, a girl/experiences the woman gender only in part 

Demiboy - Someone who is in part, but not entirely, a boy/experiences the man gender only in part 

Demifluid - Someone who is in part, but not entirely, genderfluid

Deminonbinary - Someone who is in part, but not entirely, Nonbinary 

Proxvir - A gender relative to male, but is something separate and entirely on it’s own 

Juxera - A gender relative to female, but is something separate and entirely on it’s own 

Xenogender - A gender that cannot be defined in terms of the male/female gender binary or any typical terms that are used to describe gender; and is thus described utilizing other terms (such as descriptors of nature, music, etc.) 

Graygender - A weak or indeterminant nonbinary gender, or an individual who is not invested in their gender

Cassgender - A gender identity that one feels is unimportant, or someone who is indifferent to the idea of gender 

Bigender - Someone who is two genders at once, or has two distinct gender identities 

Trigender - Someone who is three genders at once, or has three distinct gender identities 

Polygender - Someone who has multiple/many genders at once 

Alterous - An attraction that is not entirely or completely platonic or romantic, and is best described as wanting emotional closeness without necessarily being platonic and/or romantic 

Queerplatonic - A relationship that is not romantic, but involves a close emotional connection beyond what most people consider friendship/best-friendship; there is also a commitment level similar to a romantic relationship, where people partner up, oftentimes for their whole lives, to go through life together. 

Quoioromantic - When someone experiences something between romantic and platonic attraction, but doesn’t know what romantic attraction feels like and doesn’t know if they experiences, or just can’t differentiate between the two

Polyamorous - When someone does not desire to be in a relationship with only one other person. This often applies to the LGBTQ+ community and LGBTQ+ people are often polyamorous, so it was included here (I also am inclined to just include the term in the general community anyway, but that’s Discourse™ so I’ll leave it at that). 

Hopefully that helps! 

[theliterateape]

Last Best Friend: Living With the Loss

By Caracal

Well, dammit, I’ve done it. I’ve done another adult thing. I've lost the most recent one of that special kind of platonic compatriot that you lean on, rely on and give way more fucks about than your other normal friendships. I think I’ve had my last best friend. Last BFF. Last ride-or-die. The last Vin Diesel to my Paul Walker. 

I remember a few months ago I read that, somewhere around the age of 30, you will probably stop having these kinds of friends. That you’ll grow up, and whether or not you yourself follow the normative path, most of your friends will all have started careers they care about, gotten married, and started having babies. That you’ll keep up with each other, but naturally lose the state of having a non-romantic partner in crime, and start having situational friends instead.

You’ll still have people you check in on and care about but it won’t be the same. You’ll have more friends in the future of course, but all you'll do is go get a drink once in a while or play Ultimate or whatever it is that you do. No more will you have that one person that you do everything with, and that you’re still somehow not fucking. (Or at least shouldn’t be.) I read that article, and I thought it was bullshit. I thought that my most recent bestfriendship would live through anything. We had all the right components: camaraderie, geographical closeness, love of booze and cigarettes, shared gayness, shared singledom, and a lack of romantic interest in each other. But alas, I’ve moved away and she’s distracted by seeing somebody new. We’ve lost two of the essential ingredients—and we all know that while drunken declarations of everlasting brotherhood and sisterhood are easy to make, they’re also easy to break. So here we are. I’ll be 30 in a few months, and I think it’s finally happened: I think things may be fizzling with my last true homeslice.  I suppose that it may be time to wave goodbye to a central tenet of my entire social life on this planet: singularly intense, ridiculously codependent friendships. I remember having a best friend ever since I was old enough to be tossed out into the social wilderness—no parents, no teachers, just struggling to learn what the hell peers are and how to to kick it with them. Sometimes a whole band of you rolls around the neighborhood together. You make prank calls on each others’ houses, you screw around on your bikes or skateboards or rollerblades, somebody will always manage to find someone’s dad’s porn stash, you’ll aggressively whip lunchboxes at trees during recess together or play tetherball or climb trees or whatever the thing was. But even if there’s a whole band of you, you’ll gravitate toward that one other kid who gets you.

One other kid who needs a best friend at the same time as you do, or is kinda nerdy and awkward like you, or just the kid who lives closest to you. I’m Facebook friends with most of mine, all the way back to first grade. Some of them are around for pretty big milestones in your life. I learned how to ride a bike from my first best friend since my dad wasn’t in the country often enough to teach me himself. My latest one coached me through my divorce. Growing up, I, like many people, have followed an MO of having a few larger nonmixing groups of friends and acquaintances. You have your work friends, hobby friends, drinking friends, family friends. Whatever the configuration, with them you maneuver through all the regular motions of life—school, career, dating, blah blah blah; but through it all, it seems to be accompanied by having one person that’s the Preferred Platonic Person. Some bestfriendships last for decades and over distance, and some for mere months and are locale-specific. But, at least for me, usually there’s one somebody around that ends up having a special status. Finding a new BFF is almost as thrilling as finding a new potential romantic partner. Actually, I’d say that as an adult, it’s much harder to find a new close friend than it is to find someone to fuck. However you meet them, you meet this new friend and you click. You’re interested in them, but not too interested. You spend lots of time playing it cool, where you spend the first few weeks or months of the friendship trying to not appear as though one of you is more into the other, but secretly knowing that you’ve found someone you’d consider taking a bullet for.

As your friendship grows, you learn each other’s intimate secrets, conversation starts to flow naturally, and you feel just as comfortable bumming around doing nothing together as you are partying through the night. You call or text each other whenever you feel like you’d like to connect with another human being. You watch each other make good or bad decisions, hear out endless fears and insecurities, and work through any number of hangovers together. You’re both in it 50/50. Separate but equal. You can be vulnerable, but without the baggage and high stakes that come with romantic partnership. It’s invaluable during tumultuous times.

But time, distance, romantic partners, unrequited feelings, sexual tension, insecurities, being a shitty communicator—any one of any number of things can break you apart. The breakup of a bestfriendship can be easily just as painful than that of a romantic relationship or even worse. I lost a friendship a couple years ago that I think I mourn more than my marriage. That’s not to say that the deep friendship always goes explosively unto its grave. Maybe you just slide peacefully apart for years, knowing that you’re still close and still connected, but you both know that it’s not in the same way that you once were.  Either way, you’ve grown the fuck up. You learn to eschew codependence and lean on yourself. You drive more of your time and attention into your yourself or your career/marriage/kids/dogs/boat/whatever floats that boat of yours. That might be a good thing. That might be part of becoming a fully-functioning adult human. Or it might be total societal garbage. But as with everything else involved with The Life Transition That Never Ends, it just is what it is.

That brings some existential relief, but I don’t know that I have to like it.