So, its Aromantic Awareness Week

[lionheart]

twitter.com/i/status/1363843446616719363

I've read around (a little) but I'm still not sure why this constitutes an identity to be championed by Stonewall etc.

Anyone shed any light on this and on the language (spectrum; allies) ...?

I really don’t like the ‘educate yourself’ mantra, I seriously don’t have time for all this education about other peoples kinks.

It's very sweet that you're trying so hard with this one Star555, and honestly, full points for polite engagement. Genuine respect for that. But I'm a lesbian, not long out after a few decades of being in the closet because of lots of homophobic stuff - the kind of actual oppression Stonewall used to give two hoots about. I'd actually love to go to a meet up with other Lesbians, but that's something Stonewall rather frowns on these days. It's nice to know that they're putting their full weight behind all the people who are happy being single and get a bit ticked off by the occasional person asking if they have a girl/boyfriend/partner.

That reads a touch more sarcastic than I intended. But seriously, there are some interesting discussions to be had about the idea of automatically pairing off. But it won't happen if we're going to play identity chess instead.

LGBTQIA - Lemongrass, Garlic, Basil, Turmeric, Quoriander, Indonesian Bayleaf, Allspice.

I'm finding it hard to contain my indifference.

Aromantic. Do they swoon while reading romance novels?

Or aromatic- bit spicy? Likes the smell of cinnamon.

I'm genuinely confused as to what that actually means. It seems that some people have to find a way to make them that little bit more special than everyone else.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Someone shared this screenshot on Twitter which I found pretty funny

@OppsUpsSide

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

Now that's an interesting question. A pragmatic woman who married for security, not romantic love.

@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.

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

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

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

@ArabellaScott

LGBTQIA - Lemongrass, Garlic, Basil, Turmeric, Quoriander, Indonesian Bayleaf, Allspice.

Love this!

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.

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.

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

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.

@BuntingEllacott

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

Lol this is the one issue I have with the Tempest (it's not funny enough to compensate like Midsummer Night's Dream) . I mean, the girl marries the first guy (besides her father) she ever sees? Seriously? She doesn't even know what kinds of people are out there in the world to make an informed choice!

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?

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.

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.