been thinkin about how my ethics professor back in undergrad was like.
look. there’s no such thing as perfect altruism. you’ll always get something out of helping or being kind to others, whether it’s a stronger relationship or returned kindness or just the feeling of having done good. there’s nothing inherently bad about getting something from doing good either, especially since it’s completely unavoidable. people being rewarded for putting love into the world doesn’t make the world a worse place. so just do as much good as you can and don’t worry about being “selfless” while doing it, because being truly selfless is in fact impossible.
and like man did that take the pressure off of Being A Good Person!! you’re allowed to enjoy helping people! you’re allowed to be kind without worrying that you’re maybe secretly just doing it for yourself!! it’s okay if you are doing it for yourself because you’re still being kind to others!!!!!
if it makes you happy to help people then actually you are helping two people
Unironically the biggest death knell I heard for twitter was the fact that, as far as anyone is aware, there are no longer any furries working at twitter.
The rats have fled the sinking ship
The wolves have fled the sinking ship
The dragons have fled the-
I’m not even joking furries account for like 30% of all modern tech infrastructure.
So as an Antarctic expert I need to add to this that we had not in fact been to Antarctica when it was named. The ancient Greeks decided that because there was an Arctic at the top of the world, with bears, there had to be an opposite at the other end, without bears. Which is kind of ridiculous except that the fuckers were dead on
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
what’s amatonormativity?
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
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)
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.
It also encourages people to stay in abusive relationships because it pushes being in a relationship is the highest priority/being alone is terrible.
Also….
“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.
ALL of those things go into the ideal norm that is oppressing ALL OF US. It doesn’t matter in WHICH way you stray from the heteronormative ideal — if you’re polyamorous or if you’re gay or if you don’t fall in love or you love while disabled. ANY WAY you stray from it is punished.
Amatonormativity is not just “you must fall in love.” It’s “You must fall in love in the right way with the right person.”
So yes, amatonormativity is absolutely linked to heteronormativity.
And, as ace-and-ranty hinted, it is also linked to the supremacy of monogamy. Amatonormativity also excludes all forms of polyamory.
It also has something to do with why gays successfully got gay marriage before they got, say, “federal protection from discrimination in adoption cases” or “the right to be gender nonconforming in public school”. People who think it’s weird to see a man in a dress can still wrap their head around “he wants to marry the man he loves” because all you did was swap the expected pronouns.
Amatonormativity does pressure people into heteronormative relationships, but it also exists within the gay community and allies, to place a monogamous marriage to a same-sex partner above, say, a polyamorous polycule, or an asexual living with a queerplatonic friend.
Add to the list: the expectation that various other things should be cheerfully sacrificed for the health of the marriage. If one partner suddenly wants more kids, or for their partner to quit a job/turn down a promotion/break off a friendship, people will often view the other partner as selfish and unreasonable if they don’t put “the marriage” (really the other person’s wants, disguised as or promoted to the whole marriage) ahead of their own priorities and desires, even if the other person has suddenly dropped a completely unexpected wish on their heads after never indicating such an issue previously.
I’ve seen a Reddit thread where someone’s significant other—girlfriend, not spouse—wanted them to break off a lifelong (20+ year) close friendship due to feelings of insecurity about the relationship, and there were people lining up to insist that the romantic relationship took precedence over the friendship, and I wanted to make an account and jump in asking them how many of their exes they considered more important than their longest-lasting, closest friendship.
Not only because romantic relationships don’t always last and this person was statistically likely to become an ex, and not just because isolating one’s significant other from their friends is usually a red flag, but because the friendship had not been concealed from the significant other and either they hadn’t been around long enough to attain seriousness enough to jettison a lifelong friendship over (for the same reason you don’t marry someone you’ve known for a couple months) or they’d sprung this on the OP out of nowhere after it not being a problem previously. Either way, a lifelong friendship has value and it’s weird to see people think it should be so lightly discarded, just because Romantic Relationship More Important (regardless of length or quality).
There’s also a tendency, running alongside the primacy of the romantic partnership, to view a person who’s become your romantic partner as yours to change, or even view your desire for a particular person to expect them to change to get you.
People do a disturbing amount of getting with someone they’re not well compatible with just because they like them in other ways, with the full intention of expecting them to change once they’re dating, or demanding that they change once the relationship is established enough to be painful if broken, hoping and often banking on the other person reshaping themselves for the relationship. People also do a disturbing amount of lying about themselves to make themselves temporarily more attractive, in the hopes of getting the other person attached before they reveal the truth.
(While we’re at it, add the viewing of unrequited romantic love as a preventable tragedy that could be fixed by the recipient “giving them a chance” or trying to love them back or just accepting a relationship with them, especially as if they get to claim placeholder rights if the person is single. For that matter, add the tendency to preface and pre-strengthen an attempt to date someone by asking if they’re single.)
Ironically but unsurprisingly, a whole goddamn lot of the functions of amatonormativity come at the expense of actual love.
Where I throw my science and crap to
