A romantic Aromantic

“However, this reminds me, I’ve also been having some thoughts about the word romantic and how I’m inclined to use it in my head — and how sometimes I’m not sure how to make the distinction between “I find this romantic, in the sense of romanticized ideals and cozy, picturesque visuals” and “I find this romantic, in the sense of wanting to share it with a romantic partner”. Not necessarily the same thing in all cases, but I don’t actually know what makes them different for me personally.” – The Ace Theist, 2014

I was following a link trail re: platonism, and found this in a comment, and it really resonated with me. I think that this conflation, of the Romantic – the sweeping visuals, the sappy confessions of mutual affection, etc. which have always had a strong appeal to me, with the romantic – in the sense of being in a romantic relationship, is still one that I haven’t been able to pick apart (as evidenced by my inability to avoid using the word in my definition, but if I waited to be able to define it to post this, it’d never get done). I think that this tangle was one of the reasons it took me over half a a year of being comfortable as Ace before I (somewhat reluctantly) adopted the Aro label.

It’s still something that’s really confusing for me, in that I’m not sure what makes romance romance. Is it a speech-act? If you call something romance, does that make it so? I think it’s probably more complicated than that, since there are certain things which can be considered romantic, and certain things which are generally not considered romantic, so the speech act theory works on the first category but not the second.

It’s not something I worry about too much, since it doesn’t really change anything, no matter how you define aromanticism I’d still be aromantic, but it is a question that it would be nice to have a solid answer to.

Ace-moris Laetitia

So for those of you who haven’t heard about the pope’s new “post-synodal apostalic exhortation” (I’m somewhat envious of the level of specificity of language achieved by that that mouthful.) Since I’m in college and don’t have time to read a 250+ page document at the drop of a hat, I’ll be basing my thoughts on the NPR summary.

My first thought is that “-and for a 79-year-old man who has taken a lifelong vow of celibacy, the pontiff has some pretty solid relationship tips” is a pretty condescending sentence, especially considering the reputation of Pope Francis, who has made a name for himself by being a pope for the people, one who places a high value on his connection to the laity. It turns out that celibacy is not some magical thing that prevents you from being a participant in real and significant relationships, hmm.

But the points, as summarized by Domonoske, feel sound, and the pope’s words have a definite poetry to them that I admire, so I’ll share some:

• “Often the other (person) does not need a solution to their problems, but simply to be heard, to feel that someone has acknowledged their pain, their disappointment, their fear, their anger, their hopes and their dreams.”
• “Love does not have to be perfect for us to value it.”
• “Loving another person involves the joy of contemplating and appreciating their innate beauty and sacredness”
• “A celestial notion of earthly love forgets that the best is yet to come… It is much healthier to be realistic about out limits, defects and imperfections.”

And one that I really didn’t resonate with:

• “At other times, the problem (of time) is the lack of quality time together, sharing the same room without one even noticing the other.”

As someone with strong introverted tenancies, when I found friends that I could share a room with while barely noticing their presence, my live became much richer, but maybe that’s just me.

*Yes, I know the post title is atrocious, I’ll show myself out*

**It occurred to me as I was writing this that, in a half-joking way, this 250 page document might be the ultimate example of the Ace Theory-Ace Practice conversation**

Possibilities Project 5: The QPP/Passionate Friendship

This is almost certainly the most talked about model among ace communities. The model for this relationship has a few possible manifestations:

Kitchen	?	Common Bed	Art Studio/ Office
A (Me)		Living Room/	Dining Room
B

and

Kitchen	?	?	Art Studio/ Office
A (Me) + B		Living Room/	Dining Room

This model is probably closest to the romantic/sexual norm, but I can see that normativity (norms aren’t inherently bad, and I don’t think the romantic/sexual norm, as an option is inherently bad.) giving this kind of relationship strength and stability, and while I’d love to be a rebel against the romantic/sexual machine, strength and stability are two things I might be willing to trade for.

In regards to the common bed, I modeled this relationship both with and without it, since I think that the individual bedrooms would be in question in this kind of relationship and haptics could be achieved by having a shared bedroom.

I think that both the strength and weakness of this model lie in its closeness to the norm, since the norm offers more certainty than the less charted roads of larger chosen families, this model is more stable. But at the same time as The Thinking Aromantic points out (in their characteristically aroace-supremacist way) “Romantic-sexual people, whether straight or queer, are very attached to the fantasy they have of that romantic-sexual happily ever after, and they cling to it even when it fails them continuously over the course of decades, even though they all know several people who have also had no luck with that fantasy.” Just because the norm is better explored does not mean that the norm offers more certainty of long term relationship, the normative lifestyle is prone to collapse right alongside the more inventive one.

Platonic

Possibilities Project 4: Chosen Family Revisited

This idea is really a variation on the theme of chosen family, but it’s one that seems more common among celibate communities. This idea is one that, to me, could be just as good as the first, and feel more realistic, since it has fewer moving parts. The model looks something like this:

Kitchen	?	Common Bed	Art Studio/ Office
A (Me)		Living Room/	Dining Room
B+C

This model can be summarized as “traditional monogamous romantic/sexual pair with an additional single person grafted on.” and it seems to me that this type of relationship is harder to separate from the romance supremacy culture – as evidenced by the summary. However, I’ve talked to people in this type of relationship, and that in itself says something about the plausibility of this type of relationship. This relationship subtype has a lot in common with the larger chosen family type: The long-term nature, the focus on the set of relationships as a whole, with each member an equal, etc.

I retained the common bed in this model even though this scenario makes that possibility less likely, it still stands for an ideal level of physical intimacy in a family relationship. The question mark remains in the diagram because even though this is a more trod path, every relationship is unpredictable, and also because I’m almost certainly forgetting important aspects of good relationship.

This model’s strength is in the plausibility and in the size of the community that can be formed. The drawback is the anxiety around the relationship between the romantic/sexual couple and the single person, since society will privilege the romantic/sexual relationship over their relationship to the single person, the single person might always have a fear that the couple might leave them or treat them as a less important part of the whole. I’ve spent less time thinking about this model over the first one, but I can definitely see the appeal of fewer moving pieces and possibly the depth of relationship that can form between three people as opposed to six or more, but on the other hand the other model’s distance from the norm adds a sort of commitment to that distance that this model doesn’t intrinsically entail.

Possibilities Project 3.5: Forums of Address

Something I’ve been thinking about in regards to the first model is what you call someone in that kind of a relationship. So let’s go through the options, and if don’t mention a label you think might work, please let me know:

Friend: this term is good, and should be applicable, but it doesn’t quite carry the weight of the commitment you’ve made to the person. It also can have oblique implications of romance as people might just assume you’ve dropped the gender label from boyfriend or girlfriend. Overall it might be a good way to introduce someone to a person who you don’t know very well/non-accepting family, but for specificity it leaves a lot to be desired. 8/10

Housemate/Flatmate/etc.: This is similar to friend in the understating of the relationship, but it is, in my estimation, less likely to imply romantic/sexual relationships. Again, this might be a good way of explaining the relationship to someone who you’re not very familiar with, but still leaves a lot to be desired in expressing the full nature of the relationship. 7/10

Partner: Very strong implications of romantic/sexual relationship, but it gets closer to the level of commitment and mutual care that should be present in the relationship. It is vague enough that it might work as a somewhat ambiguous form of address. This does have an implication of exclusivity, so it might be somewhat confusing on that count. 5/10

Sibling/Familial Terms: These are good in terms of the strength of the bond implied, and the non-sexualized nature of these terms of address, but there are obvious drawbacks in terms of the literal interpretation and the monastic feel of brother/sister. Blood sibling is a bit melodramatic, but I think it might work the best out of what I’ve been able to think of so far (plus, I am a bit melodramatic). 8/10

QPP/Passionate Friendship: I’m really not a fan of the word platonic, since I think Platonism has done a lot of harm, especially in the realm of sexuality, so by extension I’m not a fan of queerplatonic as a relationship term, but TAA’s Passionate Friendship is so niche I don’t think that would be very useful either (and my philosophical beef with TAA is almost as big as my problems with Plato). 6/10

Comrade: Live together, bring down capitalism together. 10/10

Possibilities Project 3: Chosen Family

Now that the foundations are laid, I think it’s about time I got to the actual project of looking at what I’m looking for. The first idea I want to present is the one that I would choose first, and it’s probably also the one that falls closest to both the category of checklist and the realm of lived relationship. The floor plan model for that relationship looks something like this:

Kitchen	?	Common Bed	?	Art Space /Office
A (Me)		Living Room/		D+?
B+C		Dining Room		E+F

 

In a way this map is fairly close to the late-to-post-college experience, a group of friends living together, splitting rent and food. It may in fact be the case that there wouldn’t be a whole lot of functional difference between that arraignment and the one I am presenting here, at least in the short-term. Which brings us to the major difference, this is a relationship set that, ideally, would last beyond just a few college years. In addition, the chosen-family model would accommodate both “single” people and people in romantic/sexual relationships, all as part of one family.

This model is also quite close to some models I’ve seen proposed by relationship anarchists, with a combination of both close-friendships and romantic relationships and sexual relationships, in a large web of interaction. A major difference from those models though would be that, in this model, all of the relationships are together – both in a relational sense and in a physical sense. The family that I want is based on more than just individual consent, it also believes in group consensus and togetherness. I believe that relationships work best when time is spent in presence with one another, and living together is the way that facilitates that best.

I don’t have all the details figured out, and I don’t think that would be very healthy if I did, but I have spent a lot of time daydreaming about getting to live with my friends for the foreseeable future. Sitting around a fireplace, or making a meal together, taking care of pets. Living our lives, and having a community to return to in the evenings. But the question marks leave room for growth, for change, they’re a flexible space, to remind me not to get caught up with rigid dreams.

One of the major things I don’t have with this plan is how to make it happen, and once it’s begun, how to make it work. I’m hoping that I can gain some insight looking at co-housing communities, but so far I just can’t imagine asking my friends to commit to something this out-there, although I have talked about it with a few of them. This feels like something with so many moving parts – having one person dream about six or more people’s futures, well, it feels impossible.

Possibilities Project 2: Ways of Modeling and Common Themes

In the past year, I’ve thought about a lot of ways to model relationships that are a touch more complex than your normal (statistically speaking) romantic/sexual monogamy (or attempted monogamy as the case so often turns out to be). I started with the simple family tree style graphic, lines connecting people on a two dimensional space, this got confusing quickly, as different kinds of relationships were hard to separate from one another, and the cohesion of the whole quickly got lost in a tangle of lines and double lines. I also tried a more 3D molecular model, with lines connecting members in space, allowing meaning to be shifted from line type to position in space, but this too became confusing quickly. The modeling method that I liked the best (though it’s still not without its flaws), is the house model – in my dream house, how would space be divided? Although this method relies heavily on conventional assumptions to do the work I want it to do (namely to separate sexual/romantic relationships from non-sexual/romantic ones), it is clean and clear and maintains the unity of the whole while allowing for a variation of types of relationships bound together by the whole, as well as providing opportunities for emphasizing other aspects of community development that I think are important chosen families.

Another thing that the floor plan modeling allows for is the processing of the nature of the group relationship, as well as aspects of individual relationships within the group. The place informs the people in it, and the rooms you plan for say something about the relationships you want to nurture, and how you want to do it. All of my plans (involving more than just me), have a few rooms in common:

• Kitchen/Dining room – food is critically important to any relationship, it is in eating together that we grow together.
• Living Room – again, spending time together, in the presence of the people you love is important to me, as well as having a space to be a host, since by hosting others the strength of the primary relationships is strengthened.
• Art space/ Office space – Supporting the hobbies and skills of the other people in the relationship is important, since that is part of being invested in each other.
• A Common/shared bed – Haptics are something that I’m finding increasingly both pleasant, and important for the building of deep relationships, and the common bed, a place to sleep together in the most non-sexual sense of the phrase.
• And finally, each design has individual bedrooms– places of privacy, to create a place for the individual amid the group, or a place for a romantic/sexual relationship within the non-romantic/sexual larger group.

Possiblities Project 1: Ace Theory and Ace Practice

Perhaps the most contentious part of A Life Unexamined’s post on things they’d wished they’d known about being an Aro Ace in a relationship is their line: “Sometimes you’ll feel like screaming at the aces who talk about what their ideal relationship would look like, at their checklists of what exact things they’d do and wouldn’t do, at the endless hypothetical discussions that actual, real life relationships never seem to feature in.” This quote points to something that I can definitely see, both in myself and in the parts of the ace community that I interact with online. There is an eagerness to define or describe or imagine a perfect asexual aromantic relationship, or relational system, but the stories of people who have made it happen are few and far between.

This is not to say that theorizing about relationships that break from allosexual norms is bad, but following a weak form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, theory and practice must inform each other, there must be a praxis: whereby theory opens up new forms of relationships and offers new ways of understanding (perceiving) existing ones, and on the other hand, practice must provide new things to understand and must push the boundaries of what we can theorize about.

Now, that’s all well and doctrinally sound to say, but in truth relationships are much easier to theorize about than they are to practice. I don’t mean to imply that theorizing about ideal relationships is unnecessary, or unimportant, dreams of the future are intensely hopeful (and I am a creature craving hope), and in my own life I lean heavily toward the theory end of almost everything. But it is precisely because ace relationships are harder in practice (because maintaining a relationship takes more time, emotional investment, interpersonal dedication, etc. than writing about an ideal relationship), that they are at least as important. Ace relationships, even when they fail to follow the theory to the letter, even when they don’t last, have the gravitas and impact of interpersonal relationships that have succeeded at least for a time. Each relationship like this, whether or not it succeeds in the long term, can be used as the fodder for a next generation of theory.

This prescript is mostly a reminder to myself, cause I’m going to write about what some possible futures look like for me, and, since I’m relatively young, those futures exist almost solely in the realm of theory, largely unpracticed – barely more than pieced together dreams and collected wishes, but at the same time, those wishes and dreams couldn’t happen until I had met and loved people who I could imagine those futures happening with. So the following ideas are unlived, but they aren’t uninfluenced by real relationships, and I’ll do my best to stay away from endless checklists and hard and fast boundaries.