#OPINION | Amatonormativity: The damaging pedestal of romantic love
By Sam Gianan
Content warning: This article contains mentions of sexual reproduction, rape, sexual harassment, abuse, and aphobia (discrimination against aromantic and asexual people).
“Why aren’t you in a relationship yet?” “When do you plan to get married?” “What do you mean you don’t have a crush?”
These questions are asked once someone is believed to start wanting romance. As high school is where many are obsessed with the idea of romantic love, teenagers have to constantly deal with queries from others regarding their attraction. This curiosity is somewhat to be expected, as it is a time full of confusion and exploration. Then, the overload of questions ends after becoming an adult.
At least, that’s what a few might believe. Even entering adulthood, there is always a premium placed on romantic love and a corresponding pressure to obtain it. But God forbid that someone would go against that, because if a person were averse to dates or anything else synonymous with romance, they’ll be forever pitied and ridiculed. They’ll be told by others why they might feel that way with the same harmful phrases thrown around: maybe they haven’t found the right person, or maybe they’re too immature and naive. Being queer is often never even considered an option, especially if they barely or outright do not feel attraction. And if all of these actions were done in the name of love, the pain it brings is ironic.
In the eyes of society, nothing is more important than romance. Because of this culture, people unintentionally hurt others and manipulate them into fitting certain standards. Dismissing feelings, sexual orientations, and relationships benefits no one, and it goes against the originally intended message of love. Causing suffering does nothing to help, and that is why we must end amatonormativity.
A damaging relationship hierarchy
The focus on romantic relationships with sex, marriage, and having children is what defines amatonormativity. It is the belief that romance is a universal goal, where romantic and sexual relationships are considered to be the end-all-be-all. Platonic and even familial relationships are treated as less important than romantic ones, normalizing the prioritization of a romantic partner before anyone else. Since this hierarchy exists, the toxic culture claws at all types of relationships, affecting most, if not everyone.
Amatonormativity holds standards as to how people should treat their romantic relationships vs. platonic ones. For example, it’s seen as unusual to put as much effort towards friends as romantic partners. So “unusual,” in fact, that if anyone were to act even slightly affectionate towards someone, their feelings are immediately seen as romantic. And if that isn’t the case, friends are set aside for the sole reason that they are platonic. This also places pressure on romantic couples as they are expected to always be intimate, both physically and emotionally. There has always been a set of unwritten rules on how both types of relationships have to act, and it’s damaging to assume that everyone wants to follow them.
A reason for this behavior is that society loves to label everything for others. Everyone must fit something well-known to be understood. It is often obligatory for some to understand another person’s feelings through a single word, even if the person themselves are uncomfortable with identifying as something. With this, the respect for one’s choice of identity is broken for the comfort of someone else and their preconceived notions of what exists and what doesn’t. This destroys the concept of a diverse spectrum of connections — how can a spectrum exist if relationships and how people should act in them are immediately placed in boxes?
On the other hand, when people contradict the speculation on their romantic feelings, they are said to be in denial. Many view friendship as something that will soon bloom into romance, so anything that doesn’t fit what is conventionally platonic is viewed as repressing romantic feelings. Friendship is a stage that does not matter to them; it is merely seen as a stepping stone for something “greater,” or it will forever remain as something easily disposable.
This belief is so widespread that it has become normal for others to dictate how people define their relationships with and attraction to others. No activity is inherently romantic in nature. Living together, raising children, and being physically affectionate can apply to friends as well. It is incredibly unnecessary to exclude conventionally romantic activities from platonic relationships simply because of different labels.
We live within a culture that treats even basic socialization and affection — especially between cisgender men and women — as having romantic and sexual subtext. Amatonormativity has murdered kindness: with this set of beliefs, the concept of goodwill without reciprocation of attraction is broken.
With romance comes pressure
Unfortunately, for many, the pressure from amatonormativity causes them to enter romantic relationships despite their hesitation. With the idealization of romance, people are led to believe that it is something everyone would eventually enjoy once tried. This detrimental thinking can even extend to marriage, sex, and having children, as they are all seen as milestones everyone should reach.
It is unhealthy to all parties involved if these experiences are brought on only by societal standards. Those who force themselves to participate in such activities are uncomfortable, while those whom they participate with do not have their feelings reciprocated.
The harm caused by these standards does not end there. Some people force themselves to stay in romantic relationships despite toxicity and even abuse because their community is too blinded by love to notice the cracks.
Many couples are always told to try fixing the relationship, which is perfectly valid until the issues are clearly past solving through simple communication. Since romance is seen as the peak of what a relationship can be, people are forced to retain that state as much as they can. But can that really be the peak, if romance itself is what makes them unhappy?
Romantic love and by extension, marriage, are seen as inevitable and infinite sources of happiness. With the so-called beauty of the concept, it’s seen as strange and childish when one doesn’t desire it — ironically enough, most experience their first crush as a preteen.
Everyone is expected to constantly have romantic interest, so it’s depicted as fake when someone doesn’t express that same desire. Society has put romantic love on such a high pedestal that simply not thinking about the concept is seen as something to raise eyebrows at. People are expected to model their lives for an assumed romantic future. Never mind friends, career, and family — in their eyes, romance should always be at the center of people’s thoughts.
Amatonormative culture does not care about what happens after people get romantically involved. It only cares about spreading the so-called beauty of romance, despite it sometimes being just a facade.
Discrimination towards aromantics and asexuals
Aromantics or aros, are people who feel little to no romantic attraction, while asexuals or aces, are those who feel little to no sexual attraction. Because of the heavy preference placed on romantic and sexual relationships, they are discriminated through microaggression and pressure. A major cause of aphobia, or the discrimination against aromantic or asexual people, is amatonormativity.
The fixation on these concepts of romance and sex has led to verbal and sexual harassment, with uncomfortable flirting, overly sexual remarks, and jokes about corrective rape being only the tip of the iceberg. Basic consent has been shattered for the goal of pushing amatonormativity onto everyone.
Aphobia also shows through comparing different sexualities to see which is the most oppressed. People from the aromantic and asexual communities have been labeled as “basically straight.” This incident happens especially if a person is either both aromantic and asexual or feels some amount of attraction towards the opposite gender. They are said to not face discrimination since they are not attracted to other genders.
Other than this being false, amatonormativity still ends up creating aphobia towards the communities regardless. And even if hypothetically, it was true that aros and aces do not face discrimination, what does it matter if one orientation is discriminated less than the other? The queer community should not be a place to hold the Oppression Olympics. The amount of stigma a label faces does not make it any less valid.
Aphobia, and with it, amatonormativity, manifests through ways that hide their disrespectful nature to the people showing them.
Aromantics and asexuals are thought to simply be going through a phase and that they will eventually believe in romance. Others say this as if a person cannot be sure of how they feel and what they desire. As if no matter what, romance is the end goal, and achieving it is when everyone realizes what their life has led up to.
None of that is true. Romance and sex are not required to feel complete or achieve happiness. Humanity has millions of stories where someone finds contentment from hobbies, friendships, food, and any other thing imaginable. But even so, aromantics and asexuals are not required to list all of their “alternatives” to sex and romance and consider them more important. Understanding and respect for aros and aces are often traded for explanations for their preference, explanations that they do not owe others.
Singleness in mass culture
The culture, media, and religion that surround people impact their beliefs; and if what is shown to society is harmful, the general opinion can also be such. In movies, books, and poems, romantic love is always shown as something characters often end up obtaining despite their reservations. There is barely representation of intimate platonic relationships that do not become romantic, and there is even less of aromantic and asexual people.
Indifference towards romance and sex is often shown as a negative trait, even when characters seem content with their current lifestyle. The disinterest is always treated as something temporary and something to grow out of — never permanent.
Meanwhile, Christianity, whose followers consist of 31 percent of the population, has an unclear stance on the issue of aromanticism, asexuality, or the simple wish to stay single. The religion is somehow on both extremes of the concepts of singleness and marriage, benefiting neither side.
Many biblical characters are shown to not think about sex and romance, even to the point of disinterest, with examples being Paul the Apostle, Mary Magdalene, and even Jesus Christ. They dedicated their lives to other pursuits they had deemed more important.
Although it is difficult to place modern labels on ancient people with a different culture, the shared indifference is still present. As they are role models for the religion’s followers, not engaging in the concepts of romance and sex is viewed as being holy. Yet when someone shows little to no attraction or interest, they are thought to not value the beauty of marriage and its consummation.
Romance and sex are sometimes treated as temptation, yet sometimes not. Evil is somehow found in both participating in and avoiding related activities. The many interpretations of Scripture, whose lessons have evolved over time due to different cultures and communities, are somehow used all at once. The Church should have created a culture where anyone who is not interested in romance can thrive. Yet, that is not the case.
This contradiction shows the Church’s shocking hypocrisy on this issue. Many characters in the Bible have aims other than marriage and are validated just as much as those who married — so why are people today not treated the same way?
Romance is everywhere, and the belief that it is a common goal shared by everyone is equally as ubiquitous. But through eradicating amatonormativity, a culture that was once damaging can become a safe space. People would have the opportunity to express their non-romantic goals without the general public telling them that they’re wrong. They won’t have to hide their feelings, dreams, and relationships due to being interpreted as romantic. They would be free.
The beauty of non-romantic relationships
Society as a whole does not realize the full extent of life’s beauty. Not everyone needs romance to be happy.
It is insulting to treat the absence of attraction and interest as something to be fixed, when it was never something that was broken. Aromantics and asexuals, or anyone uninterested in romance, do not have something wrong with them for barely or not feeling romantic and sexual attraction. They are fully capable of forming healthy relationships and are not the “heartless monsters” they are offensively projected to be. Romance and sex are not what make everyone human — people simply are.
We must realize that amatonormativity is not a foundational need; it is a social construct created to highlight romance and marriage. With that, the choice to not engage in romance should be respected. Not having a romantic relationship does not equate being lonely; rather, it gives way for people to develop bonds with others, such as friends, family, and mentors. There are many forms of relationships other than what society says is most important, and they can give as much happiness as romance. People should be free to define their own relationships with others, and nobody should take that away from them.
Destroying amatonormativity would not only be destroying harmful beliefs but also liberating oneself. With many possible routes to follow for human relationships, any type of love can be felt and will be considered just as valid. And with this, everyone gets to write their own narrative. The love we choose can come in many forms. Let’s celebrate that.
