Amatonormativity harming everyone

[Lovebird]

On 5/14/2022 at 8:14 PM, RepublicServicesVolunteer said:

I don't understand why disabled folks would lose their possessions if they entered romantic relationships. Are you able to expand further on that?

Also, are people giving you a hard time because you are in a romantic relationship, or because they want you to be in one?

People mainly give me a hard time because I am in a romantic relationship, my parents don't think the romantic feelings I harbour for my spouse are real because of my cognitive disabilities, despite us being together for four years. 

[Mark]

On 5/2/2022 at 11:59 PM, 2 Spirit Cherokee Princess said:

And there are abusers who take advantage of "love trumps everything" culture to isolate & make their partner dependant.

Likely they also take advantage of the self imposed social isolation from those in romantic relationships neglecting their other relationships.

On 5/13/2022 at 6:52 AM, arotr said:

Not as serious as some of the things others have suggested, but the emphasis on romantic relationships leads to many placing all their eggs in one basket. If your romantic partner is supposed to be the only real sense of solid support in your life, then what do you do when you lose them? Are friendships and other emotionally deep connections (like alterous connections, if I understand the term correctly) not permitted to have great importance?

The romantic coding of emotional support often also comes entangled with gendered expectations.
An issue with anything romantic coded, for both allos and aros, is that attempting the whatever outside of a romantic context is taboo. Especially for someone in a romantic relationship.

On 5/14/2022 at 1:49 PM, nonmerci said:

I don't know if this is what @Lovebirdwas thinking about, but for example, in France, a person can't work because of their disability, they touches money from the government, but if they get married, depending on the spouse's money, the government stop giving the money due to the disabled person, because the payement is now linked to how much money the couple gains together : this is the idea that a married couple have to share everything, but that means that now the disabled person is dependant on the spouse's money. And that's really weird because the couple can live together forever, as long as they are not married, the disabled allowance is still given. It is the marriage that changes everything.

In parts of the world where the concept of Common law marriage exists the state may consider cohabitation as equivalent to marriage when it comes to welfare/benefits payments. Though only for households consisting of a "man" and a "woman".

Of course most of the laws surrounding marriage predate romantic marriage and amantonormativity.

[The Gray Warlock]

On 5/1/2022 at 12:39 PM, Nix said:

I read a post on tumblr about how ‘forever’ seems to be the only acceptable definition of succes.
So in the case of romance, if you date a couple of people and it doesn’t work out, you have a ‘failed’ lovelife. If your marriage doesn’t work out because you drifted apart, you have a ‘failed’ marriage.

A lot of people don’t seem to be able to focus on the idea that maybe something used to be good, and has now ended, but that thing was still good. 

As a heterosexual man another concept I keep hearing and never understood is "Success with women." What the hell does that even mean? You're successful with women if you get laid a lot? Is it quantity of dalliances or of partners? Does the quality of the encounter or relationship count toward success? What if the quality is great but quantity is lacking? Does that render one unsuccessful? And my biggest peeve with this whole idea, no matter how you look at it, women are reduced to a type of chattel. A status symbol at best, notches in the bedpost as it were. I have noted also no one ever speaks of women being "successful with men." Very telling.

[roboticanary]

58 minutes ago, The Gray Warlock said:

Does the quality of the encounter or relationship count toward success? What if the quality is great but quantity is lacking? Does that render one unsuccessful?

yeah, this is something I had to deal with as well. from what i remember the 'quality' of the enccounter was entirely judged by how hot the woman was. I also remember realising that what mattered was not your actual success of any sort with women, but rather how good you were at convincing other young lads of that success. There wasn't really a clear way to define success, it was just a question of what you could get away with.