I'm Aro, I'm Ace, and I'm a hot mess

Amatonormativity is a complex topic to fully define, because it covers a lot of different things. Amatonormativity describes the societal pressure for people to get into romantic and sexual relationships, the normalization of prioritizing romantic and sexual relationships over other relationships, the assumption that all people want and/or need a romantic and sexual relationship to be happy, and much more.

In this post, I'm specifically examining amatonormativity with respect to the pedestal it places romantic relationships on. This side of amatonormativity is closely intertwined with arophobia, but it hurts everyone. The same way that the patriarchy is intertwined with misogyny, but it hurts everyone.

To a lot of aspec people, the harm of amatonormativity is obvious, but if you aren't aspec or otherwise haven't given much thought to this, here's some examples of how amatonormativity hurts aromantics.

Amatonormativity pressures people to get into romantic relationships, even if they don't really want one. A common aromantic experience is pretending to have a crush or going on a date with someone you don't like, just to hit that benchmark in school or get people to stop commenting on it.

Amatonormativity prioritizes romantic relationships over all others, including familial and platonic relationships. For a lot of aromantics, it feel incredibly disheartening to consistently be brushed aside by your friends and family in lieu of a romantic partner.

Amatonormativity assumes that certain actions are inherently romantic and demands that you get in a relationship in order to share close affection.

Amatonormativity assumes that romance is inherent to humanity, which can make aros feel alienated, dehumanized, and pathologized.

But amatonormativity hurts everyone, not just aromantics. How?

Attraction =/= action. You can be romantically attracted to someone and not want to be in a romantic relationship with them, or you can desire a romantic relationship without feeling romantic attraction.

But amatonormativity presumes that everyone wants a romantic relationship, and that if they don't now, they will in the future. It treats romance like a cure-all for a plethora of issues, and pressures people who are not ready for relationships to date anyway, because love is just so wonderful. Aromantics are the most obvious group, but there are a lot of alloromantic people who are harmed by this, too. People who were just dumped or broke up with their partners, recent divorcees, recent widows/widowers, people who are struggling with their mental health, etc.

If you are going through these struggles or difficult times, a romantic relationship is often not a good thing, and can often make things worse. Not always, of course, but often. And amatonormativity is what is usually pressuring people to heal all their ills with a romantic partner. I've seen Not to mention that some people just don't want to date. You don't have to be aromantic to be uninterested in dating. Again: attraction =/= action.

Amatonormativity can be extremely isolating. Prioritizing one singular relationship of this specific type can be very harmful. It can cause people to deprioritize other relationships, including platonic and familial, and can also cause issues. It's fine for a romantic partner to be important to, but when it causes someone to blow off their close friends or family (who, often, they have had a relationship with for a much longer amount of time than their partner), it's important to examine why that relationship is now taking precedence over others. Amatonormativity doesn't just insist that romantic relationships are more important that other relationships, but that they are better and more fulfilling. It's honestly sickening to think too much about.

I've actually noticed this exact part of amatonormativity being used by controlling or abusive partners to justify forcing them not to spend time with their friends, and that's alarming. How many videos have you seen where an angry person makes their partner cancel plans with their friends because they're supposed to be the priority? Obviously, that's not always what's happening. but this specific brand of amatonormativity makes this sort of tactic easier to hide.

Amatonormativity assumes that just because you're physically affectionate with someone, you must be in love with them. No, actually, I just hug my friends because they matter that much to me. No, they don't matter that much because I'm secretly in love with them. You should be able express your affection in whatever way you (and the person you are expressing affection towards) are comfortable with, and it doesn't matter if that is typically regarded as romantic. If you're tired of people saying you shouldn't hold hands with your best friend, you're tired of amatonormativity.

The tying of humanity to romance is so damaging. If romance is so, so important, then why not force it on everyone, regardless of if it makes them miserable? If it's so wonderful, then everyone will be happier if they have it, right? This is why it gets perpetuated so much. This is why it's pushed on everyone, regardless of their desires or situation. Because if love is what makes us human, then society better make damn sure everyone gets in a relationship.

And that's not even getting into how amatonormativity intersects with heteronormativity to make a whole new mess. It's just an assumption in fiction that a boy meeting a girl means the beginning of a romantic plot, and that isn't just in fiction. If you have a friend of the opposite binary gender, it's just assumed that you will date eventually. Amatonormativity and heteronormativity together say: "A boy can't be friends with a girl, because boys are supposed to date girls, and everyone has to date, therefore the only reason to befriend a girl is to date her."

And this is far from an exhaustive list of the impacts of amatonormativity. This is just a few examples of how the romance-centric part of amatonormativity affects alloromantics and aromantics alike. There is so much more to amatonormativity than this.

also i don't like the dig towards Reciproromantic people.

the aspec as a whole is about the LACK of attraction, not action. having sex does not mean you are attracted to person sexually. having a relationship does not mean you have to be romantically attracted.

demiromantism and aflux are real things, i am demiromantic (among other aro IDs) that these are real.

and the weird tone towards alloromantic and allosexual aspecs too?? you know aspec isn't just romantic and sexual right?

The who point is that it is 2 people committing to eachouther in away normal revered for romantic and blood family. In outherwords it's makein someone who your not related to your family.

It is a level up from friend in the same way romantically going from dateing to calling eachouther partners to getting married are levels of incressing commitment.

In a long term comited QPR relationship you might see things like putting the outher person in your will, liveing together long term, planing long trips together, co owning pets, co owning property. Things most people do with romantic partners.

Now do some people do this and call it best friends yes but if they are truely committed in that way it still exists out of social norms and as such is functionally a QPR.

Now the reason that it is important to communicate wanting to be in or thinking that you are inna QPR is becuase with out that comunation you can get unequal expections. People will not even think that haveing commitment like that in a platonic relationship is a option. It also can cuase alot of frustration if one person starts expecting the outher to show up in one way when the outher person didn't think that was the expection.

No relationship inherently requires more commitment than another. It is not a "level up" from friendship, and getting married isn't always a "level up" from dating.

A long term QPR will have a variety of different looks because there are a million different ways to do it. One QPR may live together, cuddle, kiss, or sleep together, while another may live separately, only engage with each other under certain circumstances, or simply co-exist.

No relationship is inherently a QPR, just like no relationship is inherently romantic, platonic, or familial. "Friendship with a lot of commitment" is still friendship.

I will agree that communicating what relationship you want with one another is important and vital to healthy interactions with people.

And for most of hetronormitive socitiy friends are seen as disposable. Seeing friends as on the same level as family is inherently queer in our society.

And yes what the commitments are is what ever is communicated between the people involved. That being said if your zero comitment fair wether friends thats not QPR. Right now we have people who full chested will be like I won't drive my friends to the air port and they shouldn't drive me. Like the bar isn't high becuase socity puts it that low.

Like people will call some one they talk to at work then never message outside of work friend. They will call someone there friend then not show up for them when there actually need hell. People will call someone friend and then never prioritize them because they have a romantic relationship thats seen as the most important one.

I don't disagree that society as a whole devalues and belittles friendship, but your initial wording was "it is a level up from friend" which is just not true. At least not inherently.

There is a huge problem with people putting romance on a pedestal and acting like it's inherently superior to everything else, yes. But claiming QPR's are just "friendship with more commitment" is not the solution, in fact it's doing the exact same things allos are doing with romance.

Low commitment friendships can actually be QPR's, since a QPR is defined entirely by individual experience. It doesn't have one set definition.

I agree that QPR's need to be valued by society the sane way any other relationship should.

In the end, the only person who can dictate the rules of a QPR is the people in that specific QPR.

Essentially, it "queers" what people might expect from a typical platonic relationship, but that's the only real requirement. FWB may consider themselves queerplatonic. Someone with a purely platonic marriage may consider themselves queerplatonic.

QPR was literally coined to be versatile and an umbrella term for anything that didn't fall under the traditional definitions of romantic or platonic. Trying to narrow it down and give it rules disregards the entire history of the term.