Green Onion Fairy

"i need friends so bad" awh :( i'm sure you'll find someone soon!!

"i need a sexual partner so bad" awh :( i'm sure you'll find someone soon!!

somebody at a zine show earlier this year spent several minutes expounding to me on her zine compiling all the horrible "types" of men she's been on dates with locally & i was like "wow yeah huh. that sucks. sorry that keeps happening to you." she did the straight woman song & dance, ohhh this is my cross to bear, guys are just awful why do i have to be attracted to them! & it was all i could do not to just ask her if she's ever actually tried anything else. not even "have you ever dated a woman" - have you ever been on a date with guy who isn't straight. what about a guy who isn't cis. do you only date guys of a particular age or cultural background? only guys you find in a very specific set of places? what are your criteria for going on a first date with a man, & is it possible that the choices you're making are in fact part of the equation of "all men [in my life] are awful"?

like...i am OBVIOUSLY not some fucking men's rights incel-apologist here, "why do women only want the bad ones, not all men are like that" lmfao nor am i going to argue that the system of patriarchy doesn't result in widespread extremely shitty behavior among a variety of men! possibly even a majority along certain other axes of identity/privilege! but at the same time i am more than a little concerned about how low many straight women's standards seem to be & also how, idk, weirdly attached most "heteropessimist" women still are to normative gender roles & their much-bemoaned status as heterosexual

And there was a lot of "men are stinky and don't take care of themselves unlike women" "men aren't emotionally mature and tend to be closed off" "men are dogs and only want sex" and I'm not saying this isn't true, because it is true that many especially cishet white men are really bottom of the barrel level partners... but I am frustrated that this happens because of a system that allows it. These dudes think the behavior is cute and continue to act this way because the world around them does not expect better of them, writing it off as just being how guys are and never once challenging them to be better than that.

While queer men and men of color have their own problems to be sure, I will say there is a reason we see overall less of these complaints in these men specifically because of cultural challenges to men who act like this and a lack of willingness to tolerate this sort of behavior from them. It's not that gay men are inherently better at taking care of themselves, at personal hygiene and emotional maturity, or at regulating sexual need with other forms of closeness in a relationship. It's that a lot of gay culture does not tolerate or write off the bottom of the barrel behaviors that are encouraged by the patriarchy itself, and thus it quickly becomes clear that this behavior is not cute and won't be allowed to continue.

And it also bothers me because never once do these women consider a third possibility to their choice of "become gay" vs "date guys they actually don't like at all" which is: consider queerplationic arrangements. Romantic friendships. Kitchen table poly FWB agreements. A roommate that you may in fact be totally nonsexual with but have a deep and profound soulmate-like bond to share. Or like. Date dudes of different races and sexualities and backgrounds and see if maybe part of your problem is the choosing pool you're in itself.

Literally the bi woman who is engaged to a man stated that actually she had these same problems ***while dating women*** and then knew that her future husband was The One after he handled the discussion of her bisexuality with far more grace than anyone else had ever before. She also stated that previously all of her relationships both man and women had been white, and the dude she's marrying is Vietnamese, and that slight adjustment for race seems to have fixed much of her problems because of, again, a cultural challenge to the behavior she didn't enjoy. AND she is not ignorant to the way her fiance's mother treats him as the specialist boy who has ever existed while being harshly critical of his female relatives- but neither is he, nor is *he* tolerant of that behavior either.

Yes, male privilege and male entitlement are both incredibly frustrating things to deal with as not only oppressive forces but also as an active problem with many women's dating lives. But also treating these as though they are inherent to the men displaying these behaviors rather than challenging those same men to be better is actively contributing to the problem, as it takes all responsibility and accountability away from the problematic men themselves and writes them off with yet more "boys will be boys" mentality.

but particularly regarding aspec identities, our perspectives and needs: it very clearly establishes relationship hierarchies. it centers the one soulmate as the one and only partner regardless of the type of relationship. that is fundamentally against aspec and particularly aromantic needs, because it is often this particular status that defines the relationship more than any of its contents. qprs are not necessarily defined by containing less intimacy than romantic ones (tho they often might), but the fact that the relationship itself demands to be understood differently. if you define it as Romance Lite that defeats the point. it is neither romance nor lite.

at the same time soulmate narratives also pair people in rigid ways which goes against relationship anarchy bc you cant weigh different relationships against each other like that. apart from the fact that two people in any relationship cannot possibly feel the exact same way about each other, by pairing people so definitely it also creates a certain segregation between aspecs and allos which denies them compassion for each other and capacity to approach each other by implying that there is one particular person who already perfectly fulfills all your needs.

So a lot of people realize they’re aromantic when they unravel “I want someone who will support me, care about me, and who I can be vulnerable with long term” from “I want to be in a romantic relationship,” aka what society frames as the only way to achieve this. Once we realize that romantic/sexual attraction and the need for emotional intimacy can be two separate things, and some people may have one but not the other, it’s like a light bulb goes on.

This post is a playful way to take that lens to characters and relationships we’re intrigued by. Sometimes there’s a character with a hard shell and so so many bottled up issues we just want to shake them up and make them crack so they have to confide in someone for once. Sometimes their trust issues are so profound that the idea of them being forced into vulnerability and finding care is tantalizing. Sometimes a couple characters clash but are so similar if they only knew..!

Yet with shipping being a celebrated focus of fandom, folks may find themselves embracing that social framework I mentioned earlier of “the only way to have intimacy and trust is a romantic relationship.” I’m inviting people to step outside this mold and see the infinite possibilities of this trope in a non-romantic context, and maybe even consider if some of their ships are just because they want the characters to have their barriers pulled away and talk.

(I was specifically inspired by thinking about a canonically aroace and romance-repulsed character, and seeing people who want this scenario trip over themselves to come up with reasons for why it’s a) not actually aroace and b) why it would be okay to ship it even if it wasn’t.)

So glad you asked, @kittycattscathy! This is the short answer – I'd be happy to elaborate once I have more time, but I think this at least gives some food for thought.

These days, we use "friend" in a very specific way to mean 1) someone who is not a family member 2) who we are close with 3) in a platonic way.

In the 18th century, "friend" is less a specific category of acquaintance (non-familial, platonic) and more a signifier of the depth and closeness of the bond between two people.

Samuel Johnson (1768) gives us this definition:

"Friend" (when used to address someone directly) is a term of endearment and affection; it's a way of indicating that someone is in your inner circle without necessarily meaning "platonic non-family-member". Thus, dismissing any kind of relationship where the two parties use this term by saying "they were just friends" fundamentally misses the point of how the word was being used.

"Przyjaciel" is a word, which isn't used as frequently as "friend" and you need to truly have a deeper bond with someone to call them a "friend" in Polish. If someone calls you a "przyjaciel" then they have a truly strong bond with you on a platonic level.

i guess it probably doesn't matter all that much, considering most people would probably go "well why do you need people to know that someone is a friend you have sex with?" but... it just kinda sucks. i guess. that there's no term that encompasses the care and trust there. like yeah it's sexual but it takes trust.