The Spectrum Between Romance and Platonic Realtionships

As a heteroromantic asexual, I view it as inappasite to classify the type of relationship I would want to be the same as a hetererosexual. Fundamentally, a heterosexual wants different things. Also, as someone with a disability, I have different needs. For example, for someone with a lower-functioning disability, combining maternalism and romance may be appropriate. Society is highly judgmental of that and says no romantic relationship should possess any maternity. Outside, of BDSM, I tend to not judge fetishes or kinks. I do in the context of BDSM, since I regard enjoying the degredation of another or another’s suffering as schadenfreude as immoral. Adult baby, scatology, or other quirky variants are ways that people find to make bareable a miserable world. Making someone feel like a freak for their mode of happiness is too cruel for me to engage in.

Other variables in having different classifications of relationships include the desire to avoid the rancor of a breakup. Calling a girlfriend or a boyfriend an exclusive benefriend entails a demotion rather than a breakup and leave the air much clearer. Traditional romantic relationships, and the subnorms which rule them, are cruel. They are also quire confused and conflicted. The general consensus among women is that they want a man who they feel will be protective but from demographics that are more dangerous. It is one thing to desire a safe bad-boy who is macho and simpy but quite another to codify it in the normative ethics of how men are supposed to exist and behave. As it is meeker and more gracile men are not only less wanted but in the normative wrong if they pursue women or manifest their meekness and bate-maleness in the context of a romantic relationship.

This of the Swiftesque belief that any slight is a boundary violation and therefore is immoral and unethical. If someone hurts one’s feelings in any way, they are wrong. It is not noble, in that system, to accept someone for who they are but to hate them if loving them requires any sacrifice. A heteroromantic asexual beta-male myself should be able to have a shorthand for the type of relationship I want. That where I am not expected to protect anyone with literal or metaphorical muscle, where my value is in my character, and where gilded and gushy vintage romance is the vibe and theme. To emphasize the first part, where my value is not in pampering or bodyguarding my partner but in fighting and sacrificing for benevolent causes. I am not going to make her feel safe spooning her but I have a character of steel and would give my life and livelihood for what I believed was right. For humanity and for the environment. That she would tell me that she loved me, foremost, because I am a good man.

It is not the same type of relationship as others have or seek and should not be classified in the same manner. The aim is not Plato’s three forms of love but partners in service of whatever causes they find themselves most suited. Then the relationship is defined by dharma and teleology. It is fundamentally different in nature. Like the semi-maternal relationship a higher functioning person would have with a lower functioning person. It is a relationship with romance that is different to a traditional relationship. These are all different types of relationships. The subnorm that a man’s role is a masculine protector of an independent but pampered and protected female needs abolished and that type of relationship to be one form of many acceptable types.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: