So, its Aromantic Awareness Week

Being lesbian, did you also feel the same about Twelfth Night?

I actually have a very bizarre relationship with romantic relationships in arts and visual media - as I grew up in the 80's and became aware of sexuality/romance, I ended up transposing a lot of my feelings into male characters, because same sex relationships were nigh-on invisible. So I still tend to find heterosexual representation quite compelling because I always manage to 'feel' the way the bloke does in romance stories. It's only as I've got older that I've realized that the way I felt about Han Solo, for example, that other people called a crush, was actually me wanting to be him, with all that swagger and confidence, and permission to have Princess Leia be in love with me.

Everyone is complicated and a bit weird once you dig in to it.

A lot of the grievances that this group seem to face have nothing to do with this identity and everything to do with being a woman in a patriarchal society.

There should be some kind of movement...

I'm for not being annoying and trying to fix up dates for people who are happy single. I'm against making up finer and finer categories of label for subtle degrees of does want sex doesn't want sex has sex but doesn't feel sexual attraction feels sexual attraction but doesn't feel romantic attraction feels romantic attraction but doesn't want sex, when they can't even agree themselves what it all means.

How's about everyone just says whether they are looking for a relationship, who they want a relationship with, and what kind of relationship they're looking for, and everyone else just takes their word for it? Seems a whole bunch simpler.

But we really need to push back against slightly annoying things like someone assuming you will pair off one day when you are happy being single forever being termed 'oppression'. It's a dilution that reduces the significance of the realities of oppression.

Yes. This.

I’m finding this a bit baffling - I mean, I can absolutely understand the concept that some people have little or no romantic feelings.

But I don’t really understand why Stonewall is championing it. I find it difficult to believe that aromantic people face the sort of discrimination that someone who’s openly gay or lesbian might.

And surely if the platonic partners really, really want the same rights as romantic partners, they could have get married or have a civil partnership anyway?

Lovely looking words, to be fair. I do appreciate the linguistic creativity. And tbh, I ain't that fussed about the community/club building aspect of it. We all like to find our gang, I guess, that's also human nature.

It's the discussion of oppression that's giving me the irrits. Is it common or likely for aromantics to be threatened and chased down the street for holding their platonic friend's hand? Specifically because they are platonic, not romantic partners? It's not, is it? I wouldn't wish it on anyone btw. But we really need to push back against slightly annoying things like someone assuming you will pair off one day when you are happy being single forever being termed 'oppression'. It's a dilution that reduces the significance of the realities of oppression.

This is all quite offensive towards gay and lesbian people who have suffered genuine oppression and discrimination isn't it? Why does Stonewall indulge it?

Stonewall long ago lost interest in boring old lesbians and gays. In fact it has turned against them quite savagely, calling the LGB Alliance a hate group. As long as the money keeps flowing in for all this nonsense, Stonewall will keep on churning it out.

Speaking of Shakespeare, I always wanted Viola and Olivia in Twelfth Night to actually end up together...it would have been a lovely match (and Viola just could be bisexual), but alas for enforced heteronormativity. Being lesbian, did you also feel the same about Twelfth Night?

At the risk of attracting ridicule, I went to an Ace awareness event recently, and it was interesting to talk to people who are asexual and/or aromantic. I know it’s not the same as being actively discriminated against, but I can see why they often feel alienated and excluded from popular culture, work place socialising etc, when the general assumption is that everyone is either in a relationship or looking for one.

Apparently you can be one of these, too: platoniromantic, idemromantic, nebularomantic, sensualarian or quoiromantic.

Star555 Why does it matter what impression you give, as long as it's not abusive? You like someone a lot, and you think that you would benefit from the legal protections of a civil partnership? Nothing stopping you doing it. It used to be that two women who lived together were assumed to be sisters or friends rather than lovers. Nowadays it doesn't matter to that many people either way.

Perhaps queerplatonic partners think that officially getting married would be subscribing to some of the conventions of amatonormativity and giving the false impression to society that the relationship is actually romantic after all, and they want to avoid that.

Well then that's their choice. There is the option, take it or don't. Hardly on a par with people being beaten up for holding hands is it? Or killed in some places. Or not being allowed to marry. Or have sex.

“‘I am not romantic, you know. I never was.”

Was St Julian of Norwich aromantic and was she oppressed because of it?

I bet the Ace spectrum people hate Shakespeare's comedies, tho. Every fucker paired off in the end.

@bourbonne Excellent question, I have often wondered that myself and I think queerplatonic partners should do what you suggest to get legal advantages!

Here's one "philosophical" argument I thought of: Perhaps unlike romantic polygamy which is (generally) frowned upon in society, it's seen as fine for people to have multiple close platonic relationships. The intrinsic nature of platonic love makes "exclusive", formalised relationships between only two people seem weird and unnecessary from an emotional point of view -- you don't see a lot of platonic jealousy compared to romantic, for example. Perhaps queerplatonic partners think that officially getting married would be subscribing to some of the conventions of amatonormativity and giving the false impression to society that the relationship is actually romantic after all, and they want to avoid that.

Someone shared this screenshot on Twitter which I found pretty funny

Half the world thinks romantic marriage is nonsense.

What's that song by Malvina Reynolds? Little boxes, made of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.

So is Charlotte Collins an example of an aromantic in literature?

Surely everyone marries for sexy love feelings? Don't they? I think that's definitely part of the church service - you pass through a special hoop that checks you feel things for your spouse.

I think they do it differently in the civil ceremony. In the civil partnership you just pinky-swear, though.

But they do have the same rights? They can marry, no one checks you romantically love the person you’re marrying. And if you don’t marry, you have exactly the same rights as an unmarried romantic couple.

Succinctly put.

Yes, Meredith, seems quite a limited concept of marriage. Massive chunks of the world's population marry with no expectation of 'romance' at all.

I think the only real importance of having the special term "queerplatonic" is a way to signify to the rest of the world that a particular platonic relationship is just as serious as a romantic one would be, and that the platonic partners ought to be treated with the same respect and have the same legal rights (which they don't!) as romantic partners.

But they do have the same rights? They can marry, no one checks you romantically love the person you’re marrying. And if you don’t marry, you have exactly the same rights as an unmarried romantic couple.