amatonormativity saves

yes. it is. here's some examples even you are familiar with.

when your parents or other older relatives ask you why you don't have a significant other or are married yet.

when you're holding hands with another person and everyone suddenly assumes that you are a couple.

when people don't respect your decision to stay single because "everyone needs a romantic partner or they'll die alone."

when people assume you're flirting when you're just being kind.

when your friends greatly reduce their time spent with you just because they have a partner now.

when people tell you they doubt you're "just friends" with another person just because you display what they think are signs of romance (that may be more of an aro experience but i'm sure it can happen with anyone).

When I first learned about being aromantic and asexual, I saw a post on Tumblr about QPRs, aka “Queer/Quasi-platonic relationship”. Here is some quick information on what this means.

I thought that I was interested in this type of relationship. I have been in multiple QPRs in the past even. 

But, after really reflecting on it, I realized - it was the exact same situation as with romantic/sexual relationships.

I am not interested in any kind of relationship beyond friendship. Queerplatonic, romantic, sexual, anything like that. I do not want a “life-long partner”. I love being completely single. I am completely fulfilled and content.

Yet, that voice that tells me that I will never be happy without being in these types of relationships? Yeah, it’s still here. 

With QPRs, this was my unconscious thought process.

“If I am not in a romantic/sexual relationships, at least I can be in a QPR and be somewhat normal.” or “Maybe I will develop these feelings if I can hold out a little longer.”

I felt the exact same in QPRs as I felt in romantic/sexual relationships: trapped, awkward, uncomfortable, stressed. The fact I could not return these feelings would make me extremely stressed. In my last relationship, that was the biggest wake-up call. I was so stressed during that relationship and had no idea why. The second we broke up? I felt so much better.

My dream is living on my own, maybe own a pet, have my own space, but also have a few friends I can hang out with. This is completely fine! I am allowed to live however I want to as long as it isn’t hurting anyone.

Anyways, I guess I’m making this post to show people that you don’t have to be in ANY kind of relationship if you do not want to. I didn’t realize this until very recently, and if I had known earlier, it would’ve saved SO MUCH TROUBLE for EVERYONE. 

Aromantics reasonably take issue with the normative pressure to engage in one form of “special” relationship that automatically takes precedence over other relationships in the eyes of both participants and community members, and with the expectation that they’ll honor these relationships as super duper important and special when people around them engage in them. But that dynamic can come into play just as much with relationships that are named and articulated in different ways, that use different signifiers of affection, and that take place within the aromantic community.

Queerplatonic relationships aren’t romantic relationships, but when people go into them with expectation of developing an exceptional, lifelong relationship with shared property and legal sanction, in which partners are more obligated to each other than they are to other friends and community members, in which partners expect high levels of emotional support consistently, in which partners expect to be able to place limits on each other’s interactions with others and retreat from certain intimacies to preserve them as exclusive for their partners… similar emotional pressures apply!

Note: I don’t ID as loveless, this is just a collection of what I’ve seen loveless aros say. Add on if you’d like.

The concept of love has been so intertwined with romantic love to the point where they find two two hard to separate

They don’t believe that love makes us human

They’ve faced abuse by people who used “love” as an excuse for their actions

Every time they say that they’re left out of conversations about love, they’re faced with “love doesn’t have to be romantic” to disregard their oppression or the exclusion they’ve faced (e.g. aromantics are usually left out of “love is love” to represent the entire queer community, and every time we bring this up, we’re always faced with “love isn’t always romantic!!” to erase us, when the phrase “love is love” literally is only about romantic love outside of these conversations)

They don’t believe loving someone automatically means anything, and it’s just too vague for them (e.g. does “I love you” mean that they want the best for you, they just like having you around, or they appreciate you as a person but wouldn’t do anything for you?)

They’re neurodivergent and have always been scolded or punished for not “loving” in a specific way

They’re reclaiming their agency to define love for themselves

They feel that “We can still love!!” isn’t helpful because aromanticism isn’t a lack of anything that needs to be made up for, and they want to be respected simply for not loving

They don’t like being attached to this capitalized concept of love

They have a disorder/disability that limits their ability to feel or understand certain emotions, which may encompass certain forms of love, or the way that they “love” is just so different that no one really appreciates it

Their reasons are personal or not on this list, but still valid

I’m tired of answering this question, so from now on, anyone who asks gets this post. Here are a bunch of links to posts explaining why soulmates are a shitty concept:

my thoughts on aromanticism and soulmates (AKA why many of my posts are negative)

Nonamory as Curse: Aromanticism and Amatonormativity in Tumblr Soulmate Culture

PSA: Saying “Soulmates can be platonic too!” means nothing to me, so please stop saying it.

“the other sock in a matched set”

this post from @saltyaro

“Why do you insist on bending over backwards to please me?”

There’s definitely more, but this is what I’ve got off the top of my head.

Genuinely, I am begging. Please stop asking me these questions. I don’t know how else to explain these things, and all the questions tell me is that you haven’t taken the time to scroll through my blog for yourself before deciding to ask me a question I’ve already answered a thousand times.

and

“The thing is that when other people imply that being aro and ace must condemn someone to a sad and lonely life, they are seeing aromanticism and asexuality as the root of the problem.

They think that not having that 'special someone' in your life means it's not worth living.

they're showing pity for something they think you're missing out on

When I talk about feelings of isolation caused by being aroace‚ I'm talking about the way our (western) society is structured, about how people drift off into their bubble, about how the older you get the less and less time everyone has in their day, and how your role as a friend automatically becomes lesser compared to other relationships.

I'm thinking about how certain emotional and physical connections are suddenly reserved for romantic relationships.

About the conversations I can't really participate in and I sit there awkwardly knowing they find it weird that I'm not opening up.

I'm thinking about all the times I get hit out of nowhere with a throwaway line, reminding me that people think there's something wrong with your soul if you don't love like they do.

That they think a life like yours isn't worth living. That's the kind of isolation I'm thinking about.

Not me missing out on having a romantic partner.

okay done now sorry I'm feeling gloomy”

“dating?” u ever heard of “hanging out?”get a load of this guy

I hereby offer this gentle: "no.♡"

This is a common misunderstanding, so allow me to explain:

A friendship, a romance, and a qpr are not "tiers" of relationships. A qpr is not a "leveled up" friendship. Society imposes a hierarchy of relationships that puts romance at the top, and 'mere' friendships below. Relationship anarchy says: "Fuck that. Friendships are no less important. Romantic relationships are not the only form of meaningful connection."

Friendships can come in many flavors of closeness, from the casual peripheral friend, to a lifelong friend who you'd give your life for, to a friend you may share any variety of intimacies with. But the exact nature of a friendship is not obvious just from the word "friend."

Similarly, the exact nature of a given qpr is unique to its participants.

There is no particular element that defines a qpr. The only thing that really defines a qpr is that the participants define their relationship as such. A qpr may involve commitment, or certain kinds of intimacy that are often associated with romantic relationships, but it doesn't strictly have to.

This is because there is no specific 'signifier' of a human relationship that will allow you to immediately determine that said relationship is platonic, romantic, or otherwise.

For example, just because two people have sex, does not mean that they are in a romantic relationship. They may be friends with benefits. They may be in a qpr. They may be strangers having a one-night stand.

The thing that is different about a qpr in contrast to a romance, is that wider society generally has expectations and scripts for romantic relationships. And this can be useful! It can be a convenient shorthand. But there isn't actually a convenient script for how a qpr is "supposed" to look. As such, it's unsurprising that there's confusion over what a qpr is, exactly.

So what should you picture, if someone tells you they are in a qpr?

Picture a relationship that is outside the traditional expectations of romance and friendship. The one thing the word "queerplatonic" does do is signal some kind of deviation from the usual relationship scripts and norms.

If we could talk about our close friends without fear they might be read as crushes. 

If we could say we’re aro and people just get it and don’t push on it. 

If every experience we have wasn’t scrutinized by alloromantic people who are just waiting, frothing at the mouths for the opportunity to prove us wrong, to say we’re not actually aromantic because “that’s just silly talk.” 

If we could share affection with someone without worrying whether people think we’re dating.

If we could be openly uncomfortable with romance without people in our own community being willing to call us homophobic for it.  

If we could wave our flag with pride instead of with that little nagging fear that we’ll get hurt for it because there are people who don’t like us, who don’t believe we’re real, who think we’re a problem and are willing to hurt us over it.

I usually go to my consults with my mother since we usually schedule so we have our exams together. The timing got messy and I was alone, it was a procedure done by people who usually are old enough to be married and even have adult kids (there were only old people around me btw). They put me in the gown and I had to go back and forth just on that to solve my stuff. That's when I realized that everybody else was sat while their partners or children went there, I was the only one having to walk around the clinic like that. It was so humiliating. Since then I've been thinking how hard it is to be alone (not lonely. Alone) in this world.

A family member was on the ICU and somebody needed to be there 24h with him, the next person could only go in 24h later, so it was expected they would either pay someone or have their partner be there. This person doesn't have a partner so it's two sibling of theirs going in and back because they are the only family members who have time to do so. He would not be allowed to perform a life saving surgery if he didn't have that person (a transplant) on the day of the surgery to give a final confirmation. The organ would have been given to someone else. I don't think most people can understand this so I will repeat: it's a transplant they got in front of the line because there was nothing else but the transplant that could save them, their parents are long dead and their siblings are all married with their jobs and lives, they do not have a partner. They would not be able to allow the surgery to be performed unless he was dying in real time, because the confirmation with a family member is needed, that's how it works.

A friend's friend died, their partner of a few months was allowed in while they were in the ICU. The friend, who knew them for years, was not. I'm just so mad at the expectations. And not just hospital, to buy a house a partner is a better person for the bank than your parents, even with the later has more money than the former. Just everything is built for this and it's beyond exhaust, more than suffocating, it's scary.

I'm scared of the day my parents are no longer here and my deepest connection are going to be with people who will not be allowed to visit me if I suffer an accident on a first moment. I'm required to take a person with me to a surgery and it's recommended to be a partner. There was this once, my sibling was allowed to put their partner who lived on the other side of the city on his health care but not me, with whom he shared a bunker bed, sleeping not even a meter above his head. I have a best friend I've known since I was a baby and every time we got in the hospital we were not allowed to visit each other. Adults not allowed to visit adults. With family permission, not allowed.

I was born with my own brain, my own name, I am my own single being. And yet, everything surrounding my life expects me to have myself glued to someone else. I am myself and my own self, but that appearantly will never be enough.

when i was 5 years old my best friend was a boy named kyle who didn’t know how to knock on doors so he made dinosaur noises outside my window to wake me up in the summer until i demonstrated how to ball his fists and slam them against my doors.  we collected caterpillars in my trailer park and built them houses while we traded pokemon cards.  he wasn’t the only one.  there was ben, and mitch, and noah—but kyle’s the only one who hurt me, because when he tried to kiss me and i asked him why, he told me “because you’re a girl and i’m a boy, shouldn’t we like each other?”

i missed him so much and i wondered why he couldn’t just be my friend like he always was

in the first grade there was rich and joseph and i got sent to detention with them almost every day with a smile on my face.  we built block towers and sang to my teacher’s lion king soundtracks when she’d turn the lights off during lunch time.  one day they got in a fist fight over me at recess, and i wondered why they felt they needed to share my friendship, like it was something they owned.

in the second grade zach and i played yu gi oh under our desks during free time and i got moved for talking to him constantly.  everyone in the class would tease him and i for talking, asking when we were going to date already, asking him if he’d kissed me, and he stopped being my friend.

when i was 11 i met a chubby boy with the name of a colour who wore puffy vests and unwashed t-shirts, with greasy hair and bright blue eyes and a smile that hid hurt behind it.  people didn’t like him because he was silly, but i liked him, because i was also silly.  he became my friend the day he bought me 5 giant roses and asked me to be his girlfriend, and i politely declined but promised him i’d be his best friend because i’d always wanted a best guy friend that stuck around. we burnt our feet on the concrete during the summer and walked home with the sunset silhouetting us.  he talked often about how he loved me, but never blamed me for being me, even though he refused to move on. that boy dyed his hair jet black and sat on the end of my bed playing songs to me on guitar, and all that pent up rage from before didn’t show until the first time he slapped me across the face and called me a dumb cunt.

in the 7th grade there was a boy named ryan who sat next to me on the bus and talked to me about manga.  he’d ask me personal invasive questions but i didn’t mind because it was attention and i liked attention.  i was dating another guitarist with curly brown hair, one who was much more kind-tempered than the other, and ryan mentioned how much of an asshole he was every day.  i wondered, why, why does he think the love of my life is an asshole?  but whenever i asked him, he just told me, “girls only date assholes.  there’s no room for nice guys like me.”

i wondered, if he was so nice, why did he say such mean things?

he never stopped with me, taking me to movies, hanging out with me, you know.  being friendly.  i thought we were friends.  but then, how many times had i thought that before?

how many times had i bonded with a boy, thought they got me, only for them to ask me if i wanted to make out?

how come when i told ryan i was coming out as a lesbian, he stopped being my friend, and said “damnit, the one girl i really want to pound into a mattress, and she’s only interested in chicks!”

there was a boy my junior year who stayed up all night with me until the sun rose, talking about life, past loves, hopes, dreams.  beneath a million twinkling stars spanning forever, he brushed long brown hair out of his eyes and listened to me talk about the history that made me. then he asked me if i’d ever consider dating a guy, and complained about how he’d never get laid.

when i told him no a couple hundred times, he found new girls to listen to.

i would sit on the couch and play zelda with dakota, and he’d talk about all my favourite games with me.  he was the closest thing to support i had, and the letters and poems he wrote me were always so kind and friendly.  but he’d put his arms around me on the couch, and no matter how many times i told him i was uncomfortable, he’d still come over every day and do it.

“don’t you know how it feels to love someone and not have them love you back?  don’t you know what it feels like to be friendzoned?”

when i meet guys who talk about the friendzone, who talk about the girls who don’t give “nice guys” like them i chance, i always want to just say

when i was 10 years old i met a girl whose brown hair fell across her shoulders and whos eyes sparkled when the sunlight hit them, whose voice was like velvet and whose scent was like mountain smoke, who made me dizzier than a fly climbing a sugar hill.  and i’m 18 years old, and i still love her, and she knows, and she doesn’t love me.

but my first thoughts upon hearing her rejection were not “what a bitch,” were not “she just wants a douchebag and not a nice girl like me!” were not “im going to keep pushing her until she dates me,”

they were

“she is the best friend i have ever had, and i am the best she’s ever had, and i would hate to take that away from her.”

so before you play the victim, mr. Nice Guy, before you angrily throw your fedora on the ground and blame the girl you claim to adore so much:

put yourself in the shoes of a girl who thought she made a wonderful friend, only to find out that he just wanted her for sex.  that he just wanted her for a relationship.  a girl who was just an object to win, a prize.  a girl who’s trust you’ve just shattered.

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…

“I'm 90% sure gay people were not being encouraged to seek out relationships by the wider culture until maybe 2005-ish”

Yes.

Yes, they were.

They were encouraged to seek out heterosexual relationships.

You can’t uncouple Amantonormativity from Heteronormativity. One is built into the other. Heteronormativity means there is one right way to have a life, and that way is being straight, is falling in love, being monogamous, is complying to certain standards of beauty, it’s being white and thin and abled. 

So yes, amatonormativity is absolutely linked to heteronormativity.

The found family trope in fiction is an inherently queer trope because it directly involves deconstructing the heteronormative notions of what family is and involves defining family for oneself rather than assuming that the people you are biologically related to are always going to support and care for you. Furthermore it inherently deconstructs and challenges amatonormativity because rather than focusing on a central romantic relationship as the genesis for a family and on forming a romantic partnership as what constitutes making a family, it is focused on close non-romantic bonds. There is an overwhelming preoccupation with family as something immutable and constant because you’re related to them and challenging that is valuable for anyone who for whatever reason is no longer in touch or on good terms with their family. This is a discussion that extends beyond the context of challenging heteronormativity or amatonormativity, but that is the aspect of it that interests me and which I will be focussing on. For the purposes of this essay I will be using queer to encapsulate LGBTQIA+ identities due to the terms wide acceptance in academic circles in the context of queer theory, and because of the application of queer as a verb. This is not just about dismantling heteronormative assumptions and constructs, this is about queering the idea of what family can be and how it is formed.

The found family or family of choice trope, is described by TV Tropes as when characters “mourn the lack of family in their lives and decide to build [a family] of their own out of people they care for and who care for them in turn”. This is important, because the trope often occurs because of stressful or unpleasant family circumstances for one or more of the characters in question, though it is not necessary that this be the case. Because of this, the found family need not be as homogenous and monolithic as a family related to each other, and as such is a great exemplification of solidarity– a very important part of what makes the queer community a singular community rather than many fragmented ones. Disparate members of the community may not face the same challenges, oppression, or stigma, but that does not mean they cannot find common ground and support each other through those various tribulations. Likewise, the found family need not be unified by the same background, the same lived experiences, or even the same reasons for seeking a found family. It is the decision and dedication to loving and supporting one another, to coming together on the common ground they do have and expressing solidarity for that they do not. Beyond it’s values, the trope also serves a valuable role for queer viewers in that it provides a reassuring and valuable alternative to queer folks who are not accepted by their biological families. When as story tells you that a family can be whatever you choose, that the bonds between them are ones of choice rather than biological or legal factors outside their control, that is greatly reassuring to people who need to find a new support structure outside the one they were raised with. At its core the found family is not just representative of quee values, it unseats traditional notions about family structures and challenges heteronormativity– as does any familial unit that does not fall into the narrow confines of a monogamous, straight cis couple and their biological children to varying degrees. It removes the typical vision of a straight couple at the core of a family, the parental homestead as a place always there to come home to, and replaces it with a chosen group to form a trusted and loving community.

The archetypal family unit is deeply tied to heteronormativity as it is centred around a straight marriage as the immutable core of a family, but even more so it is tied to amatonormativity. Amatonormativity is a term originated by Elizabeth Brake to, in her words, “describe the widespread assumption that everyone is better off in an exclusive, romantic, long-term coupled relationship, and that everyone is seeking such a relationship”. Again, it is a concept that has application in a number of contexts, but it is chiefly interesting to me in the context of aromantic identities because that is where my personal experience lies, thought it should be noted that there is a large overlap in the ways it harms aromantic and polyamorous people. There is a widespread conception that settling down and starting a family is a universal goal and moreover, is accomplished in a universal way. Amatonormativity manifests itself in this assumption, and unlike heteronormativity, it is not exclusive to that idea of the archetypal family. While it is mainly concerned with the (monogamous) romantic relationship aspect of “settling down”, it often goes hand in hand with the assumption that settling down means children as well, because what else would a family consist of? What else are you going to do make meaning in your life? This brings us back to found family. Rather than prioritizing a romantic relationship as the most important part of a family– if not one’s life– it prioritizes non-romantic bonds. This is not to say that there cannot be romantic relationships as a part of a found family, but they are not the focal point. By challenging just what a family is, the found family challenges the idea of settling down as the only way to have close supportive bonds, not to mention that those bonds must originate with a romantic relationship. Moreover, since the trope more often occurs among characters who are earlier in life than people who would be getting married and having children, the trope rejects the idea that family and children are the only way to make meaning. A found family is no less important for its early formation, but it is no longer the goal of life but rather a support structure that is a part of a larger whole of a life. It directly opposes the amatonormative notion that romantic love is the most important part of anyone’s life, and leaves room for varying degrees of closeness between the members of said found family, allowing for those who do not prioritize or do not experience romantic attraction to still find a way to make family should they choose.

I usually go to my consults with my mother since we usually schedule so we have our exams together. The timing got messy and I was alone, it was a procedure done by people who usually are old enough to be married and even have adult kids (there were only old people around me btw). They put me in the gown and I had to go back and forth just on that to solve my stuff. That's when I realized that everybody else was sat while their partners or children went there, I was the only one having to walk around the clinic like that. It was so humiliating. Since then I've been thinking how hard it is to be alone (not lonely. Alone) in this world.

A family member was on the ICU and somebody needed to be there 24h with him, the next person could only go in 24h later, so it was expected they would either pay someone or have their partner be there. This person doesn't have a partner so it's two sibling of theirs going in and back because they are the only family members who have time to do so. He would not be allowed to perform a life saving surgery if he didn't have that person (a transplant) on the day of the surgery to give a final confirmation. The organ would have been given to someone else. I don't think most people can understand this so I will repeat: it's a transplant they got in front of the line because there was nothing else but the transplant that could save them, their parents are long dead and their siblings are all married with their jobs and lives, they do not have a partner. They would not be able to allow the surgery to be performed unless he was dying in real time, because the confirmation with a family member is needed, that's how it works.

A friend's friend died, their partner of a few months was allowed in while they were in the ICU. The friend, who knew them for years, was not. I'm just so mad at the expectations. And not just hospital, to buy a house a partner is a better person for the bank than your parents, even with the later has more money than the former. Just everything is built for this and it's beyond exhaust, more than suffocating, it's scary.

I'm scared of the day my parents are no longer here and my deepest connection are going to be with people who will not be allowed to visit me if I suffer an accident on a first moment. I'm required to take a person with me to a surgery and it's recommended to be a partner. There was this once, my sibling was allowed to put their partner who lived on the other side of the city on his health care but not me, with whom he shared a bunker bed, sleeping not even a meter above his head. I have a best friend I've known since I was a baby and every time we got in the hospital we were not allowed to visit each other. Adults not allowed to visit adults. With family permission, not allowed.

I was born with my own brain, my own name, I am my own single being. And yet, everything surrounding my life expects me to have myself glued to someone else. I am myself and my own self, but that appearantly will never be enough.

An unnecessary division of community. It's a direct product "American dream" propaganda, and the individualistic "pick yourself up by your bootstraps" ideals.

And it is Hurting people.

This concept of families consisting of 3-5 individuals two of which are an adult cis man and woman, the rest being their biological children is completely unrealistic even for some of the people most committed to this ideal. To begin with conceiving children is difficult, and bearing children can be dangerous for the the person carrying them. This dream is one medical condition away from being unattainable whether because one of the would-be parents is unable to have kids or because of a pregancy-related complication that harms the parent or child.

The pressure to birth your own children leads to many women developing lower self-worth or poor mental health because they feel that so much of their worth as humans relies on their ability to bear children. Adoption could be a wonderful option for those who want children, not just as a backup plan but as their primary method of seeking to raise kids. However this is against societal expectations.

Even queer folks, who by nature of who they are don't fit within the mold of the nuclear family, are pressured to strive to be as close as possible to that ideal because any other way would simply prove how different they are from the clearly superior straights cis folks./s

This concept insists upon conformity and isolation. People are shamed for living parents into adulthood, and are treated as immature outcasts without further inquiry as to why they're living with family. When people do comply they are divided into groups with only one other adult who is expected to be their only emotional support and vice versa. Women can, in some cases, depend on other friends for some support but it's dependent upon whether they have time to cultivate close friendships along with the stress of parenting, maintaining a romantic connection with their spouse, and whatever job they might have. Men on the other hand are expected to not offer each other support at all lest they be viewed as weak.

This is not a recipe for an emotionally healthy environment for children to grow up in especially since many people have children out of obligation and are completely baffled as to what to Do about this tiny human in their care.

The concept of community into adulthood has all but died as friendships are steadily shuffled to the wayside as the least important of relationships in people's lives.

People on the asexual or aromantic spectrum are obviously harmed by this, as a desire for sex and romance are integral to this ideal and people who are either asexual OR aromantic will often, in an attempt to be respected, point out the ways in which they DO adhere to the standards, thereby throwing the other community squarely under scrutiny in their place (ex. "Well c'mon, I'm not a robot, I still like sex!" or "We still love just like everybody else!").

In the same vein, this affects everyone who wants non-traditional relationships such as queerplatonic relationships or polyamory. These are typically seen as childish or immoral respectively. Because the view point of the general public is that if you aren't doing relationships the way they think you should be you are at best stupid and immature and at worst gross and harmful.

And the worst part is that the only reason for this standard to exist is to make sure people are doing good for business. Each household buying one of each appliance or piece of technology leads to higher profits. People will be too tired from trying to shoulder all their responsibilities as a duo to realize that they aren't being paid enough, aren't being treated well. And I don't think I need to explain how destroying community is good for making sure no large groups are forming which might disrupt the status quo.

Families were not (and still aren't) structured like this in much of the world. There are plenty of cultures where multigenerational households are the norm. Allowing for the young to care for the old and allowing for more dependence upon one another in families with more people to share the load.

And yet even people who claim to understand that families don't all look the same and sing the praises of found families in media can't conceptualize of such a family in real life if the relationships between members aren't falling into the expected patterns of parent-child, siblings, or romantic partners.

Caption: [So here’s something no one’s gonna tell white asexual and aromantic kids. Most of your fears for your future are rooted in capitalism and white supremacy. American white supremacy and American capitalism created this essential need for the nuclear family. And this idea that that is the only place you can get your care and resources and love.

That’s why so many of us are worried about who’s gonna take care of us if we’re elderly or disabled. It’s why we struggle to find single person housing. It’s why it’s not seen as normalized to have close relationships with your family and friends. There are so many examples around the world and throughout time where that was not the norm.