This new wave of romance-based puritanism on this site, the need to state 'it's like friendship11!' on every single romantic desire and start glorifying the importance of friendship on every bit of romance that is not seen as socially acceptable is pissing me off, sorry:
It's not amatonormatvity for gay people to kiss on screen. Same gender friendships are more common and socially acceptable than same gender romances. So long as they don't devalue friendship, it's okay for gay audiences to have gay ships of a same gender pairing. It's not allonormative for Black women to want to be represented in a happy relationship on TV and it's not progressive to call every black-woman-nonblack-man pairing a friendship or 'sibling coded' duo just because you think Black women are undesirable. It's not progressive to call romantic acts you find personally repulsive platonic to 'cleanse' them. It's not progressive to call same gender romances friendships in a society that hates gay romance. It's okay to desire people the same gender as you in non platonic ways and that is not a moral failing. It's not progessive to make fun of alloromantic people for being upset that they're single on Valentine's Day. It's wrong to shame people for having romantic attraction when it's a normal human expression just as it is normal and human to have no romantic attraction. It's puritan to condemn romantic attraction because you instantly think it will lead to sex. It's puritan to condemn romantic attraction to the same gender because you think it ruins the 'purity' of f/f/ and m/m friendship. It's puritan to condemn romance between white and Black people because you find Black people undesirable.
Like all I'm seeing people intellectualising their discomfort of gay, interracial and poc x poc romances by refusing to call them what they actually are, avoiding addressing the idea of people being physically attracted to each other and equating all platonic feelings as romantic (which is amatonormavity, ironically).
