"love is love" until it doesn't include sex

"love is love" until it lives in separate beds

"love is love" until it is queer platonic

"love is love" until it does not comply with compulsory sexuality and amatonormativity

love IS love, for aspecs, for sex sepulsed folk and for platonic relationships

"love is love" apply to more than same-sex relationships in a world where romantic and sexual relationships are considered more valuable

Remember to advocate for Asexuals and Aromantics this pride. Because we are also here, and we are also queer

“Love is love” until you love more than one person

“Love is love” until it doesn't comply to your romanticised just-made-for-each-other narrative

“Love is love” until it is not monogamous

polyamorous people are also a very neglected part of the lgbtq+ community and just as much a victim of amatonormativity as asexuals and aromantics. they too should be respected and included in pride!!!!!

— from an aromantic who respects those different from them

starting a new fuck/marry/kill called aro/crack/attack where you take three characters and decide who you're making aromantic, whose egg you're cracking, and who you're doing grievous bodily harm

One of the greatest forms of love is creating safety for people to be fully themselves around you. Grateful for the friends who hold my truth with care.

keep thinking about how I wrote in my dissertation about how every time a new form of public/social space emerges it's immediately popular with kids and teenagers who see it as a chance at freedom and then adults colonise it and kick them out. this happened with malls in the 80s and diners in the 50s and pool halls in the 20s. my dad was doing research on this trend in like 1975. and I was like "yeah so this is going to happen to the internet" and then five years later every government suddenly decided to ban kids from everywhere online. I hate being right especially when I don't even get paid for it

Asexuality and aromanticism being defined as "little to no sexual/romantic attraction" is crazy to me. Imagine if they redefined being a gay man as "little to no attraction to women" and you had to, like, figure out for yourself that liking men was a part of it.

Personally, I define my aroaceness not as a lack of romantic or sexual attraction, but as an orientation towards relationships that are neither romantic nor sexual. Redefining my orientation this way has helped me find a lot of peace I didn't have before.

This is such a perfect way to put it, I’ve been trying to translate this to allos and this is just perfect

if your transfeminism doesn't include transmascs, trans men, nonbinary people -- basically anyone who isn't a binary woman -- you are a fake feminist. your activism is myopic and you only stand for people you understand. your fear of what you don't understand, of what you haven't personally experienced, is overruling your compassion for others. feminism is for everyone.

hi, ashamed to have formerly been your mutual and how you havent grown up from transtagram, yes i do hear myself when i say "transfeminism needs to include trans men" and "feminism needs to include trans men" because the fight for womens rights is also the fight for trans mens rights. like very directly its not even an indirect thing, womens rights and oppression has ALWAYS affected trans men directly. so like. yeah im hearing myself and im right

"Feminism should include men" hmm if only there was a prefix before the word "men" that might change the context of this statement. If only there was a kind of man whose very right to live as a man was contingent on people designated female being allowed to control their own lives. Hm I wonder if Mx. Werewolf is perhaps dropping the prefix from the word "man" to falsely equate said minority of men to a majority of men to whom women's rights don't apply. I wonder.

Also feminism is about gender equality and while it doesn't center men it absolutely does include them to some extent, if your idea of fixing society is for women to just stay away from men then you're never gonna abolish patriarchy you're just gonna isolate yourself in a weird little political lesbian circlejerk centered mostly on continuously purging the impure.

also also many feminist issues like sexual assault, spousal abuse, diet culture, etc do also affect cis men, albeit to a lesser extent than women, and we as feminists should be fighting against those things happening to anyone, because they're bad.

Also statistically speaking trans men are affected worse by many aspects of misogyny than cis women and it's pretty ridiculous to decide that your "cis female" friend should be suddenly kicked out of feminism when he comes out as a trans man despite being now in a more vulnerable position just because he identifies as a man now. Pshaw.

official aromantic post 🫩

Y’all will look at gender essentialism saying “men good women bad” and instead of going “both men and women are equally capable of being good and evil and neither are inherently one or the other based, we should do away with gender essentialism” you went “I see! We should fix gender essentialism by making it so women good men bad. I am a good person doing good things(TM) by saying this :)” and I need you to see that. I need you to see you are just as gender essentialist as the person saying that women are inherently bad when you say that men are inherently bad.

Stop trying to make gender essentialism “good” or “right” because it never will be and you are only causing harm to people.

NO ONE IS INHERENTLY ANYTHING AND YOU NEED TO REALIZE THIS OH MY FUCKING GOD

psst *hey did you know that there’s actually no one way to be queer and you can do whatever you want as long as you’re not hurting people? You can be a cis woman and go by he/him pronouns btw. you can be a trans woman who doesn’t transition and goes by he/him btw. you can be a trans man with long hair and dress feminine btw. you can be a cis woman and get top surgery/ go on hormones. you can be nonbinary and not do anything about it btw. You can be asexual and have sex btw. You can be aromatic and do “romantic” things btw. You can do whatever you want forever and you shouldn’t put yourself in a box unless it appeals to you and you are comfortable with that. btw.* Wow guys I wonder if anyone heard that

would say “where’s the pride flag for aromantics who are sick and fucking tired of it all” but i think that’s just the regular aro flag

Thinking about it, and I’d like to forward the idea that prejudice against single people (aromantics, asexuals, and also just… anyone who does not have a romantic partner) follows dynamics less like anti-queer bigotry and more akin to anti-fat bigotry.

Fatness, like singlehood, is seen at large as a state of failure. Everybody is supposed to want to be [thin / partnered], and if you are not, that is a personal failure on your part, and you are pathetic and mock-worthy. The popular idea is that of course everybody wants to be [thin / partnered], and everybody is striving towards the goal, and anybody who is not [thin / partnered] is either temporarily inconvenienced on their way to correctness, or has something fundamentally wrong with them. And because [fatness / singlehood] is something that is treated as fixable, if you have not fixed it, then there is something wrong with you—and thus discriminating against you is acceptable, because your [fatness / singlehood] is based on your own bad choices.

The world is, in some cases quite literally, not built for fat or single people. If you are fat or single, the world is much more difficult or expensive to live in, because it is structurally designed for the assumption that you are thin or that you have a partner. The normative Person, after all, is thin and romantically partnered. If you are not thin or not romantically partnered, there is something fundamentally less human about you.

[Fatness / singlehood] is something embarrassing, something worth mocking others over, something that reflects your fundamental unworthiness. Every fictional hero is thin, every fictional happy ending ends with romance. Everyone in your life is either quietly or not-so-quietly worried about you.

And all this is fine and acceptable. Because in the general perception, [fatness / singlehood] is not a real axis of bigotry. It’s a choice! You could just become a different person and stop being [fat / single]! You deserve the mockery, the derision, the attempts to fix you, the world not accommodating you, because you could just become a better person and stop being [fat / single] at any point. So it’s your own fault people treat you badly, really.

official aromantic post :/

I think it should be considered a form of degendering to try to divorce trans people from their gendered histories. My gender doesn't make sense without the fact that I was a little boy, or something like it, before I was a girl and a woman. If you were always a girl, thats awesome, but a lot of people project their dysphoria onto me when I try to talk about my own fucking life. If you think talking about having been a boy makes me less of a woman, that is degendering.

trans women should not have to be sexy to you for you to respect them. Aaaaaand post

Maybe it's the demi-romantic in me but the concept of a "honeymoon phase" and the idea that your affection for someone will wane and lessen after you spend more time with them feels so alien and backwards to me.

My friend telling me that the honeymoon phase ended and that's why they drifted stung so much because that was the opposite of my experience. I only grew to love them more and started desiring their presence more as the years went on. That they essentially got bored and the excitement puttered out feels so fucking awful seeing as I was just as enamoured with them, if not more so, as the first year we were involved with each other.

It just feels bad sometimes being so different from everyone else ya know?