an ace blog for ace posts

I'm an aromantic asexual girl in my mid twenties. In the real world I'm a teacher and wannabe journalist. My main blog is filled with fashion and aesthetic and I want to keep these ramblings away from there.

[srsblog4srsposts]

“Aroace people aren’t straight but they still have straight privilege!”

Not being able to talk openly about my orientation without fear of ridicule isn’t “straight privilege”.

Not being able to mention my orientation without worry that it will impact my reputation as a professional or as a student is not  “straight privilege”.

Not being able to talk about my orientation in front of most of my family without fear of them rejecting me isn’t “straight privilege”.

Not seeing any representation of people like me in the media isn’t “straight privilege”.

Not having any education that people like me exist isn’t “straight privilege”.

People telling you that you’re making your orientation up to be special or different isn’t “straight privilege”.

People being uncomfortable with you mentioning your orientation and telling you that no-one needs to know isn’t “straight privilege”.

Being told that your orientation isn’t real isn’t “straight privilege”.

Being told that your orientation is probably a symptom of some medical condition isn’t “straight privilege”.

People assuming things about your life and history based on your orientation isn’t “straight privilege”.

Your orientation being treated as a political stance or a lifestyle choice is not “straight privilege”.

No, aroace people are not systematically oppressed for our orientation. As far as the system cares we do not exist. Not existing, as far as most of society cares, is not “straight privilege”.

The only time I have  “straight privilege” is when I don’t talk about my orientation. At all. The only time I have “straight privilege” is when I let people assume I am straight.

And frankly, having to be silent about my orientation to be respected by the straight majority, isn’t a privilege.

[shipkart]

happy pride month to all my aroace people! you’re valid and loved ❤🌈

[srsblog4srsposts]

“It’s okay to be asexual but….”

“… don’t talk about it with your family or friends that’s TMI.”

“… don’t come out as asexual, no-one needs to know.”

“… don’t call asexuality an orientation, your real orientation is your romantic orientation.”

“… don’t use the split attraction model, it’s homophobic.”

“… don’t educate young people about asexuality, that’s sexualising them.”

“… don’t tell questioning people about asexuality, it may make them confused.”

“… don’t be proud of your asexuality, that’s sex shaming.”

“… don’t talk about issues you face for your asexuality, you’re not oppressed and your issues don’t matter.”

“… don’t create new vocabulary to describe your feelings or identity, that’s not even real”

“… don’t use existing LGBT vocabulary to describe your experiences, that’s appropriation.”

“… don’t ask not to be called straight, because you are straight.”

It’s only okay to be asexual if we’re silent about it.

[pyrosex]

You know how most of these sound like homophobic buzzwords?

“It’s okay to be gay but…”

“Don’t talk about your gayness it’s TMI”

“Teaching homosexuality to kids is sexualization”

Aphobia is literally just repackaged homophobia

[srsblog4srsposts]

“It’s okay to be asexual but….”

“… don’t talk about it with your family or friends that’s TMI.”

“… don’t come out as asexual, no-one needs to know.”

“… don’t call asexuality an orientation, your real orientation is your romantic orientation.”

“… don’t use the split attraction model, it’s homophobic.”

“… don’t educate young people about asexuality, that’s sexualising them.”

“… don’t tell questioning people about asexuality, it may make them confused.”

“… don’t be proud of your asexuality, that’s sex shaming.”

“… don’t talk about issues you face for your asexuality, you’re not oppressed and your issues don’t matter.”

“… don’t create new vocabulary to describe your feelings or identity, that’s not even real”

“… don’t use existing LGBT vocabulary to describe your experiences, that’s appropriation.”

“… don’t ask not to be called straight, because you are straight.”

It’s only okay to be asexual if we’re silent about it.

[cephalopodcourse]

yeah nobody really needs to know that you dont like sex

[srsblog4srsposts]

When I say “I am asexual” I am not saying “I don’t like sex”. People can experience attraction and not enjoy sex for a variety of reasons.

Asexuality is an orientation, not a decision… not a value statement… not a preference.

When I say “I am asexual”, as someone who doesn’t identify under the split attraction model, I am saying “I don’t experience attraction to people of any gender”. It’s no more explicit or TMI than talking about any other orientation is.

But to be honest, going the other way with this, I kind of feel like the whole “no-one needs to know about your sex life” idea comes across as vaguely sex-shaming in the first place. The fact is, it’s okay to talk about sex. Talking about sex in an age appropriate way is healthy and important. Obviously time, place and context are important… But adult friends often talk freely about their sex lives with each other if they are all comfortable talking about it, and there’s nothing wrong with that. 

So in short. 1) Asexuality is my orientation, it’s no more explicit than any other orientation. 2) There’s nothing wrong with talking about sex (in an appropriate context).

Thanks for reading.

[forevrdreamingofbetterthings]

Hear hear!!! I’m so sick of the sex- and aspec-shaming going on in the exclusionist circles, it’s gotta fucking STOP!

#BoostAceVoices #BoostAroVoices

[burningonyx]

My only problem with this post is that cishet aroaces don’t fucking belong in LGBT spaces.

[srsblog4srsposts]

Two questions:

How are aroaces- people who are both aromantic and asexual- in any way het?

Where in this post did I make any statement about whether or not asexual people have a claim to LGBT+ spaces?

[burningonyx]

“ How are aroaces- people who are both aromantic and asexual- in any way het?”

Okay, you’ve got me there. But they’re still not LGBT.

“ Where in this post did I make any statement about whether or not asexual people have a claim to LGBT+ spaces?”

You said, and I quote, “ “… don’t use existing LGBT vocabulary to describe your experiences, that’s appropriation.”  “ Which in context is you disagreeing with said perspective.

[bon3marrow]

so aroaces aren’t hets, but they’re still not lgbt+? what?? ????

[burningonyx]

They can be their own thing, or maybe MOGAI will have them. I don’t feel safe with them invading LGBT spaces.

[bon3marrow]

they’re not invading anything. they aren’t cishet, you said so yourself. they’re lgbt. i just don’t understand why you all insist on excluding them from a comunity that’s so used to being excluded.

[burningonyx]

Well okay let’s let them into LGBT. While we’re at it, we can bring in the Catholic priests, because they don’t have sex either. LGBTQAC?

[srsblog4srsposts]

Aromantic asexual (aroace) people are in no way comparable to Catholic priests. 

Catholic priests choose to remain celibate in devotion to their religion. It is a choice, and it is related to their personal ideology and beliefs.

Aroace people do not choose to be aromantic or asexual. Just like people of any other orientation do not choose who they are or are not attracted to. 

Asexuality and aromanticism are not related to any particular belief or ideology either, just like other orientations aren’t inherently linked to someone’s political or religious beliefs.

Thanks for reading.

[burningonyx]

Listen, I’ve come to recognize that I’ve been beaten here. Your argument is too sound, I can’t find any flaw with it, much to my chagrin. And I can’t think of an argument against it that doesn’t work against me as an admitted demisexual. I just know that I’m not comfortable around cis aroaces, there’s something about the combo of asexuality and aromance and cisgender-ness that rubs me the wrong way, the same way cishets do. I don’t like them, I’m never going to like them, and I don’t want to have to share a community with them.

So yeah, I can’t argue my point logically past this point, but I don’t care. There still remains the fact that cis aroaces make me feel unsafe, and I doubt I’m the only one. Cis aroaces still need to get their own community and stay away from me and others who aren’t cis aroaces like them.

Thanks for reading.

[the-a-is-for-asexual]

I’m sorry, but did we kill your whole family??? Or is the idea of someone not experiencing sexual or romantic attraction just THAT disturbing to you? PLEASE just go outside once in a while Jesus fucking Christ…

[burningonyx]

Hey so I honestly don’t know what my deal was back in those days. I’m not like that anymore. Sorry for being a monumental dick about it. I wish I could tell you why, but I just don’t know.

[srsblog4srsposts]

This is a really late response, I haven’t been on Tumblr in a while as I have been really busy with work and other projects, and honestly the level of vitriol in the discussions on this site was making it such a drain on my mental energy. So, sorry about that!

I just wanted to say that it’s really easy to get down a rabbit hole of toxic online discourse and start slipping into views that we honestly cannot justify. Especially when we begin surrounding ourselves with people who validate those toxic opinions and don’t really encourage reflection. 

Literally anyone can end up in a situation like that, regardless of how smart or compassionate we think we are. I think in a world where there is so much to justifiably be angry about (capitalism, poverty, corruption, oppression), it’s very easy for toxic communities to lead us to misdirect our anger.

It’s great to see that you have moved on and recognise that your pattern of thinking wasn’t ideal. Honestly, it takes a lot to do that. I wish you all the best!

[srsblog4srsposts]

Hey all, I am not really on Tumblr any more for a range of reasons! If anyone would like to keep in touch or follow me on other platforms (Twitter, IG, Wordpress) send me a DM and I would be happy to pass on the details. I appreciate the support for my ace-posting :) 

[stupidallos]

why do aces reply to posts about romantic love and shit like that with stuff like “nah id rather be a dragon and eat mah cake XD” like arent you supposed to be only repulsed by sex why are you acting repulsed to dating and whatever like… are you really that stupid because its fucking embarrassing

[srsblog4srsposts]

In my experience the people who say things like “nah id rather be a dragon and eat mah cake XD” are usually either very young or just coming to terms with their orientation and having fun making jokes they have seen others within ace communities make. Usually both. 

Let young people coming to terms with their orientations have fun with it without calling them “stupid” or “fucking embarrassing”. It’s harmless and hurts no-one and saying this makes your post come across as very mean spirited rather than an actual criticism of people’s behaviour. 

“like arent you supposed to be only repulsed by sex”

Asexuality is not synonymous with sex repulsion. Asexuality just means a lack of sexual attraction or a lack of attraction to people of any gender. There are people who experience attraction, and therefore are not asexual, who are repulsed by sex. And there are asexual people who are not repulsed by sex.

Further, for asexual people who do not experience split attraction (aromantic people, or people who identify as solely asexual), a lack of attraction to people of any gender often means a lack of desire to be in any sort of relationship. 

[stupidallos]

the post was meant to be mean. if you arent repulsed by sex you arent asexual

[srsblog4srsposts]

If you are on tumblr making posts with the intention of being mean then that is a magnitude more embarrassing than any cringey ace memes that tumblr kids make. If you decide that you actually want to have a discussion about what it means to be asexual, how it is defined, or learn more about our experiences then you’re welcome to reach out and I am more than happy to chat.

[stupidallos]

why do aces reply to posts about romantic love and shit like that with stuff like “nah id rather be a dragon and eat mah cake XD” like arent you supposed to be only repulsed by sex why are you acting repulsed to dating and whatever like… are you really that stupid because its fucking embarrassing

[srsblog4srsposts]

In my experience the people who say things like “nah id rather be a dragon and eat mah cake XD” are usually either very young or just coming to terms with their orientation and having fun making jokes they have seen others within ace communities make. Usually both. 

Let young people coming to terms with their orientations have fun with it without calling them “stupid” or “fucking embarrassing”. It’s harmless and hurts no-one and saying this makes your post come across as very mean spirited rather than an actual criticism of people’s behaviour. 

“like arent you supposed to be only repulsed by sex”

Asexuality is not synonymous with sex repulsion. Asexuality just means a lack of sexual attraction or a lack of attraction to people of any gender. There are people who experience attraction, and therefore are not asexual, who are repulsed by sex. And there are asexual people who are not repulsed by sex.

Further, for asexual people who do not experience split attraction (aromantic people, or people who identify as solely asexual), a lack of attraction to people of any gender often means a lack of desire to be in any sort of relationship. 

[skodasforge]

Alright I deleted That Post so here's what I think is a more eloquent, academic version of what I was trying to say:

Due to the experiences of compulsory heterosexuality, which is very specifically a result of heteronormativity and homophobia, the concept of amatonormativity (as it has been defined) doesn't quite apply to the experiences of same gender people and it feels invalidating to be told that the fight for marriage equality, which came directly from the effects of the AIDS crisis, was amatonormativity in action (yes I can point to someone saying the focus on marriage equality was amatonormative)

[srsblog4srsposts]

I’m reblogging this post in fairness to the OP since it was my commentary which made his post blow up beyond what I expected. I only have a few over 200 followers so the fact a commentary I added on a post has gotten almost 15,000 notes is very unexpected.

Also to add; if anyone is going to engage with the OP’s post with my commentary added, please do so respectfully. I didn’t add my commentary to “pile on” this person, but rather to have a discussion and to educate. If you’re going to engage, try to have a dialogue with him about the point he wants to make (which is worded much better in this post).

[skodasforge]

You know maybe amatonormativity exists but it's hard to say that when I'm 90% sure gay people were not being encouraged to seek out relationships by the wider culture until maybe 2005-ish

[im-fucking-asexual]

what's amatonormativity?

[skodasforge]

A Tumblr-based sociological theory that boils down to "compulsory alloromanticism" but I've also seen it defined to include monogamy as another expectation under the header of amatonormativity

[srsblog4srsposts]

Amatonormativity is not tumblr based- it was not created on tumblr nor was it popularised on tumblr. Amatonormativity was not even coined by asexual people or with asexual people in mind exclusively. 

Amantonormativity was coined by feminist academic Elizabeth Brake in her book “Minimising Marriage” to refer to:

the assumptions that a central, exclusive, amorous relationship is normal for humans, in that it is a universally shared goal, and that such a relationship is normative, in that it should be aimed at in preference to other relationship types. (Source)

Amatornormativity doesn’t just affect asexual and aromantic people. Whilst it’s often asexual and aromantic people you see talking about amatonormativity (because we become hyper aware of it due to how it affects us), it actually impacts the lives of people of all orientations, including LGBT+ people.

Amatonormativity in practice is…

The assumption that all single people are unhappy with their status and looking not to be single.

“Coming of age” milestones often revolving around romantic accomplishments (first kiss, first crush, first love, marriage, etc).

Non romantic partnerships (sexual or platonic) being looked down upon.

A sort of relationship hierarchy where marriage is at the top and everything else falls somewhere below it.

The expectation for romantic partners to be more important than jobs, hobbies or other commitments in a person’s life. And the belief that people who choose to pursue the former are selfish.

People who are not seeking exclusive romantic relationships being seen as less mature, stable, trustworthy or settled.

The structuring of laws and society on the basis that eventually everyone will be in a committed romantic partnership (marriage).

The toxic idea of a “friendzone” (which of course, overlaps with misogyny), where friendship with a woman is seen as “second prize” to a relationship with her.

People settling for someone they’re not really happy with or compatible with just to fulfil the desire or expectation to have a partner.

Non-aromantic asexual people trying to normalise their orientation by saying they can still “fall in love” or “have relationships” “just like anyone else”.

Asexual people or people who don’t feel attraction to anyone feeling pressured to seek out and enter into relationships.

And much more…

Violations of amatonormativity would include dining alone by choice, putting friendship above romance, bringing a friend to a formal event or attending alone, cohabiting with friends, or not searching for romance. (Source)

[kyraneko]

Also the way turning down a request for a date, while single, is often viewed as some sort of terrible insult instead of an analysis of poor compatibility.

Also the idea that it’s wrong to break up with someone unless they’ve done something objectively terrible enough to “deserve it” rather than because the relationship isn’t doing anything for you.

[jabberwockypie]

It also encourages people to stay in abusive relationships because it pushes being in a relationship is the highest priority/being alone is terrible.

[its-not-an-obsession-its-love]

Also @ OP: gay people were and are SPECIFICALLY targeted by this cultural norm because the norm is heteronormative. Gay people were encouraged to prioritize relationships and conform to the nuclear family structure just like everyone else: i.e. your mother telling you your sexuality is just a phase and that you will get over it and marry a person of the same sex eventually, people telling you that you shouldn’t be taking hormones or having top surgery because “who’s gonna wanna be with someone like that?”. Everything from fairytales to Hollywood movies portrays romantic relationships as the priority and as we already know, the relationships that are portrayed are usually between cishet people so not only are we damaged by the idea that romantic relationships are the ideal and the priority, we are also damaged by the fact that our relationships as queer people are always excluded from that ideal

@srsblog4srsposts thank you for such a thorough explanation of Brake’s theory, I wrote a paper on amatonormativity a few semesters ago and her theory is central to understanding how this norm is pervasive in our culture

[fgyhuijkopiuhyg]

I co-host a weekly comedy news podcast where we chat about weird news stories from Australia and occasionally abroad. If you’re interested you can find it here. We’re also on iTunes.

[nothorses]

actually im gonna put this in it’s own post. 

I’ve had conversations with more than a few ace teens since the discourse, and there has been such a miserable impact on their experience because of what the discourse caused.

When I was figuring out I was aro/ace, there was an entire community of bright, outspoken, positive folks who were out & proud of their identities to support me through that (very, very difficult) realization. People who talked openly about how cool it was to be aro/ace, how much they loved it and themselves, how great the community was, and who made me feel welcome and optimistic.

Folks now have nothing. They have a stringent group of people who are terrified of their own label, who hide it, bury it, laugh it off as something they’re ashamed of but are burdened with nonetheless, talk about hating themselves for it, or about how hard it’s made their lives. They have these once-thriving community spaces now full of mocking and shaming and hatefulness, and no choice but to feel terrible about themselves, often inclined to deny who they are so they don’t have to accept what has become a miserable lack-of-community to identify with.

It’s hard, learning to accept yourself as ANYTHING that isn’t straight, and the community around that identity is the most important tool you can have to get through it. The community teaches you how to feel about your new identity, whether you should feel pride or shame, optimism or pessimism, whether you should feel warm & welcome or terrified & miserable.

Today, ace and aro youth are learning to be ashamed, afraid, and to cast aside words, people, and a community history that could help them feel complete in a world that’s constantly telling them how miserable they’ll be without sex and/or romance.

[srsblog4srsposts]

am i queering amatonormativity if all my roommates are my friends

I’m not really sure what you mean by that, sorry. 

The fact that alternative living arrangements such as shared houses between friends are seen as temporary states that we should eventually move on from to seek the “ideal” of living as a (hetero) couple and starting a family, could be part of amatonormativity, sure. So living with roommates wouldn’t inherently be against the amatonormative ideal, but choosing it as a permanent arrangement might be.

As mentioned in my longer post about this topic, amatonormativity is complex and intersects with a lot of other issues including but not limited to; patriarchy, capitalism, sex-shaming and heteronormativity. It is not a descriptor of a privilege/oppression dynamic, but rather a catch all term for a set of social norms relating to the idea that “a central, exclusive, amorous relationship is normal for humans, in that it is a universally shared goal, and that such a relationship is normative, in that it should be aimed at in preference to other relationship types”.

If you’re interested in learning more about the concept of amatonormativity I suggest you reach out to feminist scholars who study it, or even Elizabeth Brake (the feminist academic who coined the term). You can buy the book where Brake introduces the concept on Amazon, if you’re interested. Personally I quite like this article on The Cut too, though, it’s less academic.

To be honest, I’m a journalist and English teacher. Philosophical concepts are a bit out of my area of expertise, but I get my understanding of amatonormativity from the writings of other people who have studied the concept in more depth. 

[skodasforge]

You know maybe amatonormativity exists but it's hard to say that when I'm 90% sure gay people were not being encouraged to seek out relationships by the wider culture until maybe 2005-ish

[im-fucking-asexual]

what's amatonormativity?

[skodasforge]

A Tumblr-based sociological theory that boils down to "compulsory alloromanticism" but I've also seen it defined to include monogamy as another expectation under the header of amatonormativity

[srsblog4srsposts]

Amatonormativity is not tumblr based- it was not created on tumblr nor was it popularised on tumblr. Amatonormativity was not even coined by asexual people or with asexual people in mind exclusively. 

Amantonormativity was coined by feminist academic Elizabeth Brake in her book “Minimising Marriage” to refer to:

the assumptions that a central, exclusive, amorous relationship is normal for humans, in that it is a universally shared goal, and that such a relationship is normative, in that it should be aimed at in preference to other relationship types. (Source)

Amatornormativity doesn’t just affect asexual and aromantic people. Whilst it’s often asexual and aromantic people you see talking about amatonormativity (because we become hyper aware of it due to how it affects us), it actually impacts the lives of people of all orientations, including LGBT+ people.

Amatonormativity in practice is…

The assumption that all single people are unhappy with their status and looking not to be single.

“Coming of age” milestones often revolving around romantic accomplishments (first kiss, first crush, first love, marriage, etc).

Non romantic partnerships (sexual or platonic) being looked down upon.

A sort of relationship hierarchy where marriage is at the top and everything else falls somewhere below it.

The expectation for romantic partners to be more important than jobs, hobbies or other commitments in a person’s life. And the belief that people who choose to pursue the former are selfish.

People who are not seeking exclusive romantic relationships being seen as less mature, stable, trustworthy or settled.

The structuring of laws and society on the basis that eventually everyone will be in a committed romantic partnership (marriage).

The toxic idea of a “friendzone” (which of course, overlaps with misogyny), where friendship with a woman is seen as “second prize” to a relationship with her.

People settling for someone they’re not really happy with or compatible with just to fulfil the desire or expectation to have a partner.

Non-aromantic asexual people trying to normalise their orientation by saying they can still “fall in love” or “have relationships” “just like anyone else”.

Asexual people or people who don’t feel attraction to anyone feeling pressured to seek out and enter into relationships.

And much more…

Violations of amatonormativity would include dining alone by choice, putting friendship above romance, bringing a friend to a formal event or attending alone, cohabiting with friends, or not searching for romance. (Source)

[kyraneko]

Also the way turning down a request for a date, while single, is often viewed as some sort of terrible insult instead of an analysis of poor compatibility.

Also the idea that it’s wrong to break up with someone unless they’ve done something objectively terrible enough to “deserve it” rather than because the relationship isn’t doing anything for you.

[srsblog4srsposts]

The second point is a very interesting one, which I can relate to. 

Some people don’t understand how it’s possible for my divorced parents to celebrate Christmas together, or how it’s possible for my mother to spend time with my father’s new partner, or my father to spend time with my mother’s new husband. 

“They just realised they weren’t compatible and had different plans for their futures/needs from the relationship” doesn’t seem like a valid explanation for a divorce the way a lot of people look at it, they believe someone has to have been objectively bad.

While relationship breakdown can happen as a result of something bad happening, it’s just as common for people to drift apart or grow separate. And that’s fine.

[skodasforge]

You know maybe amatonormativity exists but it's hard to say that when I'm 90% sure gay people were not being encouraged to seek out relationships by the wider culture until maybe 2005-ish

[im-fucking-asexual]

what's amatonormativity?

[skodasforge]

A Tumblr-based sociological theory that boils down to "compulsory alloromanticism" but I've also seen it defined to include monogamy as another expectation under the header of amatonormativity

[srsblog4srsposts]

Amatonormativity is not tumblr based- it was not created on tumblr nor was it popularised on tumblr. Amatonormativity was not even coined by asexual people or with asexual people in mind exclusively. 

Amantonormativity was coined by feminist academic Elizabeth Brake in her book “Minimising Marriage” to refer to:

the assumptions that a central, exclusive, amorous relationship is normal for humans, in that it is a universally shared goal, and that such a relationship is normative, in that it should be aimed at in preference to other relationship types. (Source)

Amatornormativity doesn’t just affect asexual and aromantic people. Whilst it’s often asexual and aromantic people you see talking about amatonormativity (because we become hyper aware of it due to how it affects us), it actually impacts the lives of people of all orientations, including LGBT+ people.

Amatonormativity in practice is…

The assumption that all single people are unhappy with their status and looking not to be single.

“Coming of age” milestones often revolving around romantic accomplishments (first kiss, first crush, first love, marriage, etc).

Non romantic partnerships (sexual or platonic) being looked down upon.

A sort of relationship hierarchy where marriage is at the top and everything else falls somewhere below it.

The expectation for romantic partners to be more important than jobs, hobbies or other commitments in a person’s life. And the belief that people who choose to pursue the former are selfish.

People who are not seeking exclusive romantic relationships being seen as less mature, stable, trustworthy or settled.

The structuring of laws and society on the basis that eventually everyone will be in a committed romantic partnership (marriage).

The toxic idea of a “friendzone” (which of course, overlaps with misogyny), where friendship with a woman is seen as “second prize” to a relationship with her.

People settling for someone they’re not really happy with or compatible with just to fulfil the desire or expectation to have a partner.

Non-aromantic asexual people trying to normalise their orientation by saying they can still “fall in love” or “have relationships” “just like anyone else”.

Asexual people or people who don’t feel attraction to anyone feeling pressured to seek out and enter into relationships.

And much more…

Violations of amatonormativity would include dining alone by choice, putting friendship above romance, bringing a friend to a formal event or attending alone, cohabiting with friends, or not searching for romance. (Source)

[nieloxychen]

see romantic relationships being consistently described as “more than” friendship. or the prevelant notion that to be human is to love romanticly

an example of the last one in media i can point out as just... a general example of this shit is cole from dragon age inquisition. for those who dont know, cole is a spirit - in this world very much not a human - but has been living amongst humans for a comparititvely long time during the series timeline. during the main game, the player has the choice to push him into becoming more human or more spirit. during the main game cole has been written as very much disinterested, and somewhat unaware of how they are generally seen, in sexual and/or romantic intimacy and relationships.

during the trespasser dlc, which takes place 2 years after the main game, you see the consequences of that decision. a more human cole now is in a romantic relationship, at a certain point even saying something to the point of “since im so human of course i want a relationship now lol”

this is amatonormativity. the developers having a character becoming human directly mean that they now need to be in a relationship.

i think when it comes to queer ppl, the amatonormativity comes more from inside the community rather than outside, so bigots being bigoted just combines amatonormativity w heteronormativity. so thats really not a point against its existance.

and like said above, amatonormatiovity shows itself in a multitude of ways, and im sure youve come across quite a few of them in your life and the media before.

generally id say that respectability politics play a huge part in this too, not just in regards to ace-spec ppl (especially since i can to a certain point understand alloro ace folk trying to work against misconceptions about asexuality and its correlation w aromanticism. but thats neither here nor there. much of what is said for example, about and around qprs can fall into similar trappings - sometimes said to be more than friendship). 

it includes the question why only married partners are allowed to visit eachother in hospitals etc in certain places, why marriage in particular is the reason for tax benefits and stuff like that.

its a topic that is just as widespread as cis- and heteronormativity, but it talks about a different branch that is no more or less important to think and talk abt than other topics.

[fuckyeahasexual]

Not to be controversial but if you feel comfortable while using the ace label to describe yourself then thats literally ALL the confirmation you need to call yourself as ace, you dont have to go around asking other “ace elders” or “ lgbtqa elders” or consult with your therapist,psychiatrist or have a full blown introspective examination of your mental health,trauma ,gender etc to confirm weather you are “really ace” or not. As long as you feel comfortable with the ace label for yourself, thats all that matters.

Labelling yourself is about YOU not others.Ive seen and been messaged by alot of ace people talking about how they identify as being ace but are stressed that they really arent one bc of x or y thing and like, even though most of those things dont have to do anything with asexuality or sexual attraction, i just want them to know that it doesnt matter as long as considering themself “asexual” feels right to them. And even if they realize that they arent ace its okay too.Misidentification is a common part of exploring one’s sexuality and they havent missed out on anything.

Dont let anyone other than you decide your sexuality for yourself.

[skodasforge]

You know maybe amatonormativity exists but it's hard to say that when I'm 90% sure gay people were not being encouraged to seek out relationships by the wider culture until maybe 2005-ish

[im-fucking-asexual]

what's amatonormativity?

[skodasforge]

A Tumblr-based sociological theory that boils down to "compulsory alloromanticism" but I've also seen it defined to include monogamy as another expectation under the header of amatonormativity

[srsblog4srsposts]

Amatonormativity is not tumblr based- it was not created on tumblr nor was it popularised on tumblr. Amatonormativity was not even coined by asexual people or with asexual people in mind exclusively. 

Amantonormativity was coined by feminist academic Elizabeth Brake in her book “Minimising Marriage” to refer to:

the assumptions that a central, exclusive, amorous relationship is normal for humans, in that it is a universally shared goal, and that such a relationship is normative, in that it should be aimed at in preference to other relationship types. (Source)

Amatornormativity doesn’t just affect asexual and aromantic people. Whilst it’s often asexual and aromantic people you see talking about amatonormativity (because we become hyper aware of it due to how it affects us), it actually impacts the lives of people of all orientations, including LGBT+ people.

Amatonormativity in practice is…

The assumption that all single people are unhappy with their status and looking not to be single.

“Coming of age” milestones often revolving around romantic accomplishments (first kiss, first crush, first love, marriage, etc).

Non romantic partnerships (sexual or platonic) being looked down upon.

A sort of relationship hierarchy where marriage is at the top and everything else falls somewhere below it.

The expectation for romantic partners to be more important than jobs, hobbies or other commitments in a person’s life. And the belief that people who choose to pursue the former are selfish.

People who are not seeking exclusive romantic relationships being seen as less mature, stable, trustworthy or settled.

The structuring of laws and society on the basis that eventually everyone will be in a committed romantic partnership (marriage).

The toxic idea of a “friendzone” (which of course, overlaps with misogyny), where friendship with a woman is seen as “second prize” to a relationship with her.

People settling for someone they’re not really happy with or compatible with just to fulfil the desire or expectation to have a partner.

Non-aromantic asexual people trying to normalise their orientation by saying they can still “fall in love” or “have relationships” “just like anyone else”.

Asexual people or people who don’t feel attraction to anyone feeling pressured to seek out and enter into relationships.

And much more…

Violations of amatonormativity would include dining alone by choice, putting friendship above romance, bringing a friend to a formal event or attending alone, cohabiting with friends, or not searching for romance. (Source)

[skodasforge]

This doesn't address my main concern, which is that this whole definition is basically "heteronormativity except Gay people are complicit in it when they seek out relationships" when it's pretty heteronormative in the first place to assume that gay people experienced the same conditioning in the same way when wanting a relationship with someone of the same gender is something we have to struggle with for so long. Breaking through to the point where you will LET yourself desire these things is such a huge milestone for us that it feels invalidating to be told "actually you're just conforming to societal expectations"

[srsblog4srsposts]

I'm at work now so am on my phone, so I apologise in advance for any errors.

The fact is no framework of understanding can be taken alone and removed from all other concepts you're right in what you say regarding people who are attracted to the same gender having to struggle to allow themselves to desire those things. Heteronormativity is actually something Elizabeth Brake talked about extensively when she introduced the concept of amatonormativity, and personally I believe the two intersect very heavily.

A person being shamed by society for desiring a relationship with the same gender is heteronormativity. But if, say, a gay man decided that he had no interest in traditional monogamous relationships and decided he would rather remain single and seek out casual sexual relationships- he faces shame under amatonormativity (for his lack of interest in monogamy) as well as shame under heteronormativity (for his attraction to the same gender).

That doesn't mean he's more oppressed or struggles more than a monogamous same sex couple, but rather, amatonormativity adds another layer to the reasons why he would be seen as "unacceptable" by broader society.

Amatonormativity isn't a word which describes a privileged/oppressed dynamic, simply a way of grouping a set of related societal norms.

Frameworks of understanding, like amatonormativity, just give a word to describe exisiting experiences and perhaps help people to understand how certain phenomena are linked. Whilst heteronormativity can explain the shame that LGBT+ (or people who aren't straight) people face for their attraction, it can't really describe the stigma non monogamous people or people who are single by choice face.

Asexual/aromantic people, non monogamous people, people who are single by choice, people who prefer friends with benefits style relationships or casual sex, and many others of all orientations, are impacted by amatonormativity.

LGBT+ people, in addition to amatonormativity, deal with heteronormativity.

One does not cancel out the other, and people can struggle under both

[skodasforge]

You know maybe amatonormativity exists but it's hard to say that when I'm 90% sure gay people were not being encouraged to seek out relationships by the wider culture until maybe 2005-ish

[im-fucking-asexual]

what's amatonormativity?

[skodasforge]

A Tumblr-based sociological theory that boils down to "compulsory alloromanticism" but I've also seen it defined to include monogamy as another expectation under the header of amatonormativity

[srsblog4srsposts]

Amatonormativity is not tumblr based- it was not created on tumblr nor was it popularised on tumblr. Amatonormativity was not even coined by asexual people or with asexual people in mind exclusively. 

Amantonormativity was coined by feminist academic Elizabeth Brake in her book “Minimising Marriage” to refer to:

the assumptions that a central, exclusive, amorous relationship is normal for humans, in that it is a universally shared goal, and that such a relationship is normative, in that it should be aimed at in preference to other relationship types. (Source)

Amatornormativity doesn’t just affect asexual and aromantic people. Whilst it’s often asexual and aromantic people you see talking about amatonormativity (because we become hyper aware of it due to how it affects us), it actually impacts the lives of people of all orientations, including LGBT+ people.

Amatonormativity in practice is…

The assumption that all single people are unhappy with their status and looking not to be single.

“Coming of age” milestones often revolving around romantic accomplishments (first kiss, first crush, first love, marriage, etc).

Non romantic partnerships (sexual or platonic) being looked down upon.

A sort of relationship hierarchy where marriage is at the top and everything else falls somewhere below it.

The expectation for romantic partners to be more important than jobs, hobbies or other commitments in a person’s life. And the belief that people who choose to pursue the former are selfish.

People who are not seeking exclusive romantic relationships being seen as less mature, stable, trustworthy or settled.

The structuring of laws and society on the basis that eventually everyone will be in a committed romantic partnership (marriage).

The toxic idea of a “friendzone” (which of course, overlaps with misogyny), where friendship with a woman is seen as “second prize” to a relationship with her.

People settling for someone they’re not really happy with or compatible with just to fulfil the desire or expectation to have a partner.

Non-aromantic asexual people trying to normalise their orientation by saying they can still “fall in love” or “have relationships” “just like anyone else”.

Asexual people or people who don’t feel attraction to anyone feeling pressured to seek out and enter into relationships.

And much more…

Violations of amatonormativity would include dining alone by choice, putting friendship above romance, bringing a friend to a formal event or attending alone, cohabiting with friends, or not searching for romance. (Source)

[filibusted]

Ace discourse ignores non SAM aces and aro/aces because some of y’all view any kind of attraction as some redeeming trait that proves maturity and that infantilizes and silences some of the most important voices in ace discourse but

[srsblog4srsposts]

In my experience the ignoring or othering of aroaces (or asexual people who don’t identify under the split attraction model) is something that has gone on long before ace discourse became popularised on this site. The fact that our perspectives and experiences are ignored in this discussion is a continuation of a long standing trend.

I think a lot of asexual people who experience romantic attraction, especially heteroromantic asexual people, will use that attraction as an appeal to heteronormative society when spreading awareness about asexuality. They’ll really push the “we can still have relationships just like anyone else, we just don’t experience sexual attraction” or “we’re not cold and heartless, we can still fall in ove” narrative because they feel it makes them more acceptable to wider society. 

Instead of normalising asexuality even in its most fundamental form (being a person not attracted to anyone), they try to show themselves as being as close to what is deemed acceptable in heteronormative society as possible. And that means alienating a lot of other people.

That said, as an aroace myself (who only uses the split attraction model in ace circles), I see no reason to alienate other asexual people from my fight for visibility. There’s already enough non-asexual people out there who hate asexual people or don’t believe we exist, we need to hold on to all the allies we have within our communities instead of perpetuating division.