![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
grzanka posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
aromanticismContents: the origin of queerplatonic, the controversy of QPR as ace vs aro term, what do we take from this
The term queerplatonic relationship seems to have originated here, in comments on a journal entry titled “A/romanticism” (make of this what you will in terms of it being coined as a term relating to aromanticism or asexuality). Context: the OP, Kaz, is a well-known ace blogger posting on their dreamwidth journal. OP didn’t make up the word itself - that was Meloukhia in the comments, but Kaz gives the word some meaning too.
Kaz in this “A/romanticism” post mentions experiences of feelings that “didn't really fit in with most people's perceptions of friendship, and [were] furthermore pretty damn different from the desires that I'd seen other aromantic people express (which tended to involve a lot of stuff like being independent and living on your own)”. Kaz goes on to say “And, well, what the hell was romantic attraction anyway? I'm still looking for an answer to this question, by the way.”, “recently I've met a lot of ace people iding as aromantic who have expressed desires similar to mine - they want a BFF who's also their life partner, they might want to live together with this person, they might want to raise kids together. I think some of them even mentioned a gender preference. I'm starting to realise I may have let myself be driven away from aromantic based on the fact that the other aromantic people I was seeing seemed very different from me and I assumed that theirs was the "right" way to do aromanticism. But surely aromantic can entail different things.”, “Under this kind of thinking, I am definitely aromantic - I lack romantic attraction. (I sort of deduce this by the fact that it's only really aromantic people who I've seen asking the "but what the hell IS it anyway?!" questions; romantic people seem to know.) I've got something else, but that's not the question.”, “more and more I feel like the whole concept of a romantic orientation is asking me to define myself in terms of boxes that just don't apply - hence my constant back-and-forth not feeling comfortable with any of the options ending with me making my very own - that asking me "so what's your romantic orientation?" is simply the wrong question.”. The entry is not tagged and the word queerplatonic isn't mentioned in its body.
In comments, someone mentions “romantic friendship” as a term Kaz may be looking for to describe their relationship, to which the reply is “b) the focus on the relationship being nonsexual instead of nonromantic makes me wonder if it couldn't end up being used to refer to asexual romantic relationships which makes me kind of unhappy”. It's Meloukhia that comments “Although I kind of like queerplatonic as a definer for the attraction I feel to my zucchini; it neatly avoids discussing the gender of either party involved, while emphasizing the idea that it is a deep (almost symbiotic in some ways) emotional connection that transcends what I think of as friendship.” to which Kaz replies “Oh my I liiiike queerplatonic. I think I've mentioned before that one of the options I play with is "having a queer romantic orientation" - I really *like* this because I think "queer" works really well for these sorts of "YOUR BOXES, THEY ARE INSUFFICIENT" relationships” and “I think "queerplatonic" sort of evades [reinforcing the idea that heteroromantic aces can’t be queer] because it's clear it's about queering platonic relationships”.
This whole conversation is taking place between asexual people, one of them definitely aromantic, the other either greyromantic/aromantic/not making sense of applying the terms to themself, in an ace-focused space, though the topic of the exchange is that of romantic orientation and non-romantic relationships.
Meloukhia later introduces the term queerplatonic on their website and the introduction is preceded by “Asexuality has its own language and terminology, which it would behoove you a bit to explore if you are interested in engaging with the asexual community and understanding what we say and what we are talking about.” It's where the definition is as following:
This definition is also used by s.e. smith (Melokuhia under a different pseud) on a tumblr blog, preceded by an introduction “An outgrowth of a conversation about aromantic orientations, and the desire to be able to define relationships that are not romantic, that are also not friendships, and that play an important role in your life.”
The post that I'm writing is a direct consequence of the ongoing controversy in whether the term “queerplatonic” originated in asexual or aromantic communities and therefore if it's an asexual or aromantic term. (Spoiler: I’m not sure if the place where it was coined should translate 1:1 to which community’s term it is.)
The argument for the asexual side is such: Back in 2010 the ace community was most of what there was for aspec identities. Early aromantic communities were too weak to survive or unfriendly and those bloggers who coined the term didn’t participate in them. The bloggers mostly identified as asexual, so this is an asexual term.
The argument for the aromantic side is such: This is clearly a discussion about romantic identity, lack of romantic attraction and relationships that are non-romantic. Considering this, even if it was taking place as an extension of asexual discussions, the term is an aromantic one.
Anyway, make of this what you will, though I’m going to tell you my opinion if you’re interested in reading it.
I think that it’s important not to forget that the talk about it was between bloggers who were mostly participating in asexual spaces. We have to consider the situation at the time though. There were virtually no aromantic communities, but the conversation was (to me clearly) dealing with aromantic spectrum experiences. I think the important things to establish there are: a) how did the situation change between then and now with aro communities now existing, b) is it the origin that makes QPR an “ace” or “aro” term, c) is it the meaning of QPR that makes the word an “aro” or “ace” term? ( There's also d) what about people who don’t treat their romantic and sexual orientations as separate?, that honestly I have no idea what to do with…)
How did the situation change? Well, aromanticism is no longer only talked about in ace spaces or thought about as a subset of asexuality and there are aromantic communities now. At the time the term was coined, aromantic topics were brought up mostly in asexual spaces and it could have been thought of as a specific categorization within the asexual identity. Right now we’re seeing separation of aro and ace spaces, which are thought of as more distinct and independent identities.
The origin - a conversation between people who treated queerplatonic as an asexual word because they were asexual, and aromantic communities didn’t really exist outside of asexual ones - would point to it being an asexual word.
Taking into account how aromantic is treated as a separate identity now and the fact that queerplatonic relationships were meant to be specifically non-romantic, it could be considered an aro word. Say if a term related to being wsw/wlw originated in a conversation of two aromantic-identifying individuals, would it be a wsw/wlw term or aro term? This example is obviously not identical, because aromantic and wsw/wlw communities were never treated as one community, but I hope illustrates my point on how this debate changes when aromanticism is not an extension of asexuality.
Anyway, here are the things to consider when you’re arguing whether it’s an ace or aro term. Personally I believe it’s not as easy as saying it’s either of those things. I think it’s important to include the ace history of the word but also the fact it was discussed in relation to aromanticism, now a separate identity.
What do we take from this? Hopefully more willingness not to erase the historical context of the creation of the word (by people who meant it to be an ace term), hopefully more recognition that in the new reality, since it’s defining non-romantic relationships in context of discussion about aromanticism, it can be treated as an aro term. See, on one hand I understand - it wasn’t coined by people who meant for it to be an aromantic term (aromantic as a separate identity didn’t exist). On the other hand though I don’t understand the unwillingness to admit the word is (and always has been) thematically part of the aromantic spectrum side of the aspec discussions.
What it should translate to functionally? I think some phrases may be helpful to illustrate.
NO: Queerplatonic relationship is an ace term!
NO: Queerplatonic was coined by aros!
YES: Queerplatonic is an aspec term. Aspec means asexual and aromantic.
YES: Queerplatonic was coined back when aromanticism wasn’t a separate identity from asexuality by asexual aro-specs and was intended as an asexual term. However thematically it is related to aromantic experiences.
The term queerplatonic relationship seems to have originated here, in comments on a journal entry titled “A/romanticism” (make of this what you will in terms of it being coined as a term relating to aromanticism or asexuality). Context: the OP, Kaz, is a well-known ace blogger posting on their dreamwidth journal. OP didn’t make up the word itself - that was Meloukhia in the comments, but Kaz gives the word some meaning too.
Kaz in this “A/romanticism” post mentions experiences of feelings that “didn't really fit in with most people's perceptions of friendship, and [were] furthermore pretty damn different from the desires that I'd seen other aromantic people express (which tended to involve a lot of stuff like being independent and living on your own)”. Kaz goes on to say “And, well, what the hell was romantic attraction anyway? I'm still looking for an answer to this question, by the way.”, “recently I've met a lot of ace people iding as aromantic who have expressed desires similar to mine - they want a BFF who's also their life partner, they might want to live together with this person, they might want to raise kids together. I think some of them even mentioned a gender preference. I'm starting to realise I may have let myself be driven away from aromantic based on the fact that the other aromantic people I was seeing seemed very different from me and I assumed that theirs was the "right" way to do aromanticism. But surely aromantic can entail different things.”, “Under this kind of thinking, I am definitely aromantic - I lack romantic attraction. (I sort of deduce this by the fact that it's only really aromantic people who I've seen asking the "but what the hell IS it anyway?!" questions; romantic people seem to know.) I've got something else, but that's not the question.”, “more and more I feel like the whole concept of a romantic orientation is asking me to define myself in terms of boxes that just don't apply - hence my constant back-and-forth not feeling comfortable with any of the options ending with me making my very own - that asking me "so what's your romantic orientation?" is simply the wrong question.”. The entry is not tagged and the word queerplatonic isn't mentioned in its body.
In comments, someone mentions “romantic friendship” as a term Kaz may be looking for to describe their relationship, to which the reply is “b) the focus on the relationship being nonsexual instead of nonromantic makes me wonder if it couldn't end up being used to refer to asexual romantic relationships which makes me kind of unhappy”. It's Meloukhia that comments “Although I kind of like queerplatonic as a definer for the attraction I feel to my zucchini; it neatly avoids discussing the gender of either party involved, while emphasizing the idea that it is a deep (almost symbiotic in some ways) emotional connection that transcends what I think of as friendship.” to which Kaz replies “Oh my I liiiike queerplatonic. I think I've mentioned before that one of the options I play with is "having a queer romantic orientation" - I really *like* this because I think "queer" works really well for these sorts of "YOUR BOXES, THEY ARE INSUFFICIENT" relationships” and “I think "queerplatonic" sort of evades [reinforcing the idea that heteroromantic aces can’t be queer] because it's clear it's about queering platonic relationships”.
This whole conversation is taking place between asexual people, one of them definitely aromantic, the other either greyromantic/aromantic/not making sense of applying the terms to themself, in an ace-focused space, though the topic of the exchange is that of romantic orientation and non-romantic relationships.
Meloukhia later introduces the term queerplatonic on their website and the introduction is preceded by “Asexuality has its own language and terminology, which it would behoove you a bit to explore if you are interested in engaging with the asexual community and understanding what we say and what we are talking about.” It's where the definition is as following:
Queerplatonic is a word for describing relationships where an intense emotional connection transcending what people usually think of as ‘friendship’ is present, but the relationship is not romantic in nature; people in a queerplatonic relationship may think of themselves as partners, may have sex, may plan on spending their lives together, etc. The ‘queer’ is a reference to the idea of queering relationships and ideas about relationships, not for describing the orientations or genders of anyone in a queerplatonic relationship. Anyone, sexual or asexual, romantic or aromantic, straight, gay, queer, bi, lesbian, poly, cis, trans, etc etc can be in a queerplatonic relationship, can have more than one such relationship, and there can be more than two people in a queerplatonic relationship; couples, triads, quads, whatever. The key feature is the idea of being deeply connected to someone, without a romantic element (though a queerplatonic relationship can be sexual).
I also want to note that there are many different kinds of queerplatonic relationships; we’ve been jokingly referring to them with different vegetables (‘she’s my zucchini,’ ‘I definitely think of ou as my eggplant’ etc.). The point is that this is an umbrella term that encompasses many different types of relationship, rather than being rigid; it’s fluid!
This definition is also used by s.e. smith (Melokuhia under a different pseud) on a tumblr blog, preceded by an introduction “An outgrowth of a conversation about aromantic orientations, and the desire to be able to define relationships that are not romantic, that are also not friendships, and that play an important role in your life.”
The post that I'm writing is a direct consequence of the ongoing controversy in whether the term “queerplatonic” originated in asexual or aromantic communities and therefore if it's an asexual or aromantic term. (Spoiler: I’m not sure if the place where it was coined should translate 1:1 to which community’s term it is.)
The argument for the asexual side is such: Back in 2010 the ace community was most of what there was for aspec identities. Early aromantic communities were too weak to survive or unfriendly and those bloggers who coined the term didn’t participate in them. The bloggers mostly identified as asexual, so this is an asexual term.
The argument for the aromantic side is such: This is clearly a discussion about romantic identity, lack of romantic attraction and relationships that are non-romantic. Considering this, even if it was taking place as an extension of asexual discussions, the term is an aromantic one.
Anyway, make of this what you will, though I’m going to tell you my opinion if you’re interested in reading it.
I think that it’s important not to forget that the talk about it was between bloggers who were mostly participating in asexual spaces. We have to consider the situation at the time though. There were virtually no aromantic communities, but the conversation was (to me clearly) dealing with aromantic spectrum experiences. I think the important things to establish there are: a) how did the situation change between then and now with aro communities now existing, b) is it the origin that makes QPR an “ace” or “aro” term, c) is it the meaning of QPR that makes the word an “aro” or “ace” term? ( There's also d) what about people who don’t treat their romantic and sexual orientations as separate?, that honestly I have no idea what to do with…)
How did the situation change? Well, aromanticism is no longer only talked about in ace spaces or thought about as a subset of asexuality and there are aromantic communities now. At the time the term was coined, aromantic topics were brought up mostly in asexual spaces and it could have been thought of as a specific categorization within the asexual identity. Right now we’re seeing separation of aro and ace spaces, which are thought of as more distinct and independent identities.
The origin - a conversation between people who treated queerplatonic as an asexual word because they were asexual, and aromantic communities didn’t really exist outside of asexual ones - would point to it being an asexual word.
Taking into account how aromantic is treated as a separate identity now and the fact that queerplatonic relationships were meant to be specifically non-romantic, it could be considered an aro word. Say if a term related to being wsw/wlw originated in a conversation of two aromantic-identifying individuals, would it be a wsw/wlw term or aro term? This example is obviously not identical, because aromantic and wsw/wlw communities were never treated as one community, but I hope illustrates my point on how this debate changes when aromanticism is not an extension of asexuality.
Anyway, here are the things to consider when you’re arguing whether it’s an ace or aro term. Personally I believe it’s not as easy as saying it’s either of those things. I think it’s important to include the ace history of the word but also the fact it was discussed in relation to aromanticism, now a separate identity.
What do we take from this? Hopefully more willingness not to erase the historical context of the creation of the word (by people who meant it to be an ace term), hopefully more recognition that in the new reality, since it’s defining non-romantic relationships in context of discussion about aromanticism, it can be treated as an aro term. See, on one hand I understand - it wasn’t coined by people who meant for it to be an aromantic term (aromantic as a separate identity didn’t exist). On the other hand though I don’t understand the unwillingness to admit the word is (and always has been) thematically part of the aromantic spectrum side of the aspec discussions.
What it should translate to functionally? I think some phrases may be helpful to illustrate.
NO: Queerplatonic relationship is an ace term!
NO: Queerplatonic was coined by aros!
YES: Queerplatonic is an aspec term. Aspec means asexual and aromantic.
YES: Queerplatonic was coined back when aromanticism wasn’t a separate identity from asexuality by asexual aro-specs and was intended as an asexual term. However thematically it is related to aromantic experiences.
no subject
Date: 4 Mar 2019 16:21 (UTC)Sciatrix has said:
I don't know which controversy this post is responding to, but I'm inferring that you've seen some people argue that, because of the history of QPR, allo-aros are not allowed to adopt the term. IMHO, this is an infuriating category error, born from a belief that borrowing ideas is always "appropriation", and therefore bad. As an activist, I would very much like to be able to coin words without creating flame wars in the distant future over whether people who don't share my specific set of identities are allowed to use it.
no subject
Date: 4 Mar 2019 16:24 (UTC)no subject
Date: 4 Mar 2019 19:49 (UTC)It's actually a different controversy, happily I really haven't seen anyone saying that allo aros can't use the term!! What I meant was, hm, sometimes an aro person says "This is an aro term that was made up by aros", often in response to someyhing like "QPRs, that's a non-sexual romantic relationship, right??". This aro may get a response of "This is an ace term that was made up by aces" - it doesn't lead to calling for certain groups to stop using the term, it's just this... well, debate about ownership, which community gets to discuss the definition... It's not as nasty as gatekeeping, but it definitely leads to some bad blood between the communities, which I don't want, which is why I want more people to know how the term came to be, so we can avoid debates about "who gets the final say".
no subject
Date: 7 Mar 2019 02:43 (UTC)I wanted to comment on the scenario you used here, because I am often the person chiming in about the inaccuracy of who made up the term.
First, I generally try to qualify my chiming in with the nuance you are talking about in this post (at the very least saying "this term is ALSO an ace term and was made up by aces"), but I can't promise I have always been perfect in that regard. Something for me to think about.
Second, posts that say "this is an aro term that was made up by aros" usually also put qprs in the "strictly non-romantic" box. I think non-romantic is not a wholly accurate way of describing qprs. I have difficulty articulating exactly what this feels like to me, but trying to force things into two boxes -- "romantic" and "non-romantic" -- well, it doesn't work. Framing it that way tends to make the term inaccessible to greyromantic people (and inaccurate coinage claims, when the coiners also coined greyromantic in the same thread, just... the claim of ownership makes the insistence towards "non-romantic" feel worse, and it is easier to correct that than explain what its like to feel wishy-washy about what romance is) I wrote a post on qprs not being non-romantic recently if you want a bit more context on why I think this: http://shades-of-grayro.tumblr.com/post/183151952430/examples-of-why-non-romantic-can-be-inaccurate
Third, I think misconceptions that qprs are non-sexual romantic relationships need to be treated with a bit more nuance as well. I have seen people getting confused, because outside of the ace and aro communities, "platonic" typically does mean non-sexual (and non-romantic because split attraction is not a thing for these people). Because we use platonic to mean something slightly different, it can be easy not to see exactly why this misconception happens (especially when it comes from people who are new to ace communities, and I suppose aro communities to a lesser extent).
no subject
Date: 7 Mar 2019 07:21 (UTC)no subject
Date: 7 Mar 2019 07:33 (UTC)no subject
Date: 8 Mar 2019 00:42 (UTC)no subject
Date: 8 Mar 2019 08:54 (UTC)no subject
Date: 8 Mar 2019 22:16 (UTC)This is an example of that, if you were curious. Poking around this person's blog, they are clearly new to the ace community, and they just so happened to make a very pretty and very incorrect graphic that people reblogged without verifying that the info was correct...
no subject
Date: 9 Mar 2019 07:58 (UTC)no subject
Date: 8 Mar 2019 00:33 (UTC)I think then the question would be how do we distinguish between Romantic[relationship type] and romantic[attraction/feelings/actions] so other people understand what we mean by the word? (And subsequently, avoid jumping down people's throats because we misunderstand which one they meant)
Because if we are considering queerplatonic and Romantic relationships mutually exclusive categories (which, should we?*), and Romantic relationships are only Romantic because the people in them say so, wouldn't that mean the decision to call a relationship a queerplatonic relationship instead of a Romantic relationship would by default make the relationship inherently not a Romantic[category] relationship? By that logic, if someone says "Queerplatonic relationships can be romantic" they most likely mean the attraction/feelings/actions meaning of romantic, or that they meant they were like romantic relationships but that didn't quite fit for the individual (it is a completely nonsensical statement otherwise, like, not even offensive. just... nonsense. It would be like saying "friendships can be romantic!" meant that you thought friendships that were romantic were Romantic relationships by default? Idk it just does not compute in my brain). In most cases, if a person understands that relationships in general can be Romantic even if they are nonsexual, then I think it is the people in the relationship's choice to say whether the relationship is Romantic or queerplatonic (or something else), even if "non-sexual romantic relationship" might describe the relationship. People know their own relationships best.
*I think we mostly do, but I don't think policing it that way is helpful.
Also if anyone is interested, this was the post that sparked this particular bit of controversy that I saw: https://www.tumblr.com/dashboard/blog/diskhorsedudes/179350504675 (my opinion on it is that it could be a little better worded, such as adding "like" before each instance of "romantic relationship", but I think the intent was in line with what we are saying here) And the commentary on it was here (in the notes): http://loud-and-queer.tumblr.com/post/179433384047/im-confused-how-does-it-make-sense-to-apply
no subject
Date: 8 Mar 2019 07:01 (UTC)I'm an aroace in a Romantic relationship with a person who has romantic feelings for me. However, although our relationship is labelled Romantic (it's important to my partner) it doesn't really fit into the Romantic mould at all—we have very specific rules about who is allowed to kiss who and where and how, I often respond with "gross" to romantic statements directed at me because I'm very romance-indifferent, and a lot of tropes and ideas about coupledom really really disturb me.
Basically, it doesn't look like what people think of a Romantic relationship at all. I think it looks a lot closer to a queerplatonic relationship but then it becomes "my Romantic[category] relationship can be queerplatonic[attractions/feelings/actions]" which... I'm not sure is the right way to go either.
I think if there must be a clear and mutually exclusive divide between Romantic and queerplatonic relationships, the definition of Romantic needs to be made looser or something because right now if I say to people I have a Romantic[category] relationship, it's assumed to also be romantic[attractions/feelings/actions], which is only true of my partner and not true at all of me.
The statement "Queerplatonic relationships can be romantic" I think I would agree doesn't really make sense, but only if you consider "romantic" to mean "romantic all ways from all involved parties".
no subject
Date: 8 Mar 2019 18:05 (UTC)Since you said that your Romantic relationship doesn't look like a Romantic one and more like a QP one from the outside, I think I'd like to say what my general goals in terms of various relationship types are:
1. Change the assumption that one person's relationship of any kind will look like another person's relationship described by the same word. I'm especially interested in changing the assumption that Romantic relationships as a type have to look a certain way, fit a certain mold like you said. I think it should be more recognized that everyone has different needs and that communication is always crucial to find out those particular needs and not assume that because someone agrees to a Romantic relationship they're automatically going to like certain romance-coded gestures. The relationship should be customized to each of the partner's needs. Again, one Romantic relationship will not look like another one - I believe this idea can be popularized some, because there are people who rely on those expectations of what Romantic relationship should be too much.
2. Recognize that there is an intention behind an action and a certain way this action is coded in the culture we live in. So, recognize that romance-coded actions like a kiss on the mouth can have a romantic intent for some (related to romantic feelings or wanting to reciprocate a parnter's romantic affection) and a platonic or familial intent for others. There aren't actions that are universally reserved for romantic interactions and conceptualized the same way by everyone. This can be especially stark when comparing different cultures. All this makes it hard to tell as an outsider what's going on between people doing a certain thing and contributes to point 1, no one's relationship of any kind is going to look like another person's.
3. People use labels for two reasons, to communicate something between the people involved and to communicate something to the outside world. I guess the first thing would be like providing a framework, a reference for the relationship so that negotiating a relationship doesn't have to start without any reference. But it also communicates something to the outside world and this is mainly the reason why I want the perceptions of Romantic relationships expanded, so that outsiders will assume less when they hear a communicate "we're in a Romantic relationship". Though I'm assuming that people who chose this label may want to communicate this certain model that the outsider would be assuming to be at play. But in general I think less assumptions is better for everyone.
4. As for where QPRs fit into all this, lol, I think it can be helpful in conceptualizing that not all relationships are the same and some people find the current divides lacking. I also think it's important what can be communicated to the outside world when people are using this label and if there are things that "look more like QPR" than a friendship or Romantic relationship...??
no subject
Date: 10 Mar 2019 03:16 (UTC)I think in time, assuming very optimistically that everyone takes all the ideas on board and enthusiastically implements them, yada yada yada, the boundary between Romantic and qp relationships is going to fade more and more and eventually end up blending into one category because it’ll stop mattering what label people put on it if it’s the same kind of “relationship significant in people’s lives” and both can contain whatever the people in those relationships want. I don’t think this is a bad thing, to be clear, but i just wanted to bring it up because you talk about labels being important to communicate certain models of relationships in your 3rd goal, however if both Romantic and qp relationships are allowed to contain whatever elements, this aspect of labelling I think will be mostly lost. If both labels can be used communicate the same relationship (as it already true of relationships such as mine and shades_of_grayro’s) and the one actually chosen is due to almost arbitrary reasons, then the importance of exactly which label is used dwindles and it stops communicating a specific model.
So yes, your general goals would help here, but splitting Romantic and QPR into completely separate circles doesn't make sense when both are allowed to have elements of the other. I'm not arguing for complete abolishment of one or both terms here (or at least definitely not at this stage where we are very very far away from getting everyone to recognise that any relationship can contain anything) but I did want to point it out. Because if you split them, you're making Romantic and QPR boxes anyway.
no subject
Date: 10 Mar 2019 03:17 (UTC)no subject
Date: 8 Mar 2019 20:33 (UTC)Also, me too! I'm an aroace in a Romantic relationship where my partner feels romantically towards me but I don't distinguish between romantic and platonic attraction, so it's not specifically romantic for me. Our relationship does "look like" a Romantic relationship, even if those actions aren't specifically romantic for me, which is why I am fine with calling it that. I think queerplatonic could describe our relationship just as well since it's not actually really romantic for me, but I don't really care about the word used to describe it.
And when do you go around calling Romantic relationships Romantic anyway (besides in aspec communities)? Usually I just call them my partner, which isn't specifically romantic or (queer)platonic.
Also, I think that the thing with Romantic relationships is that the norm isn't really set by the aspec communities, it is set by society in general (which was part of the original problem that gave birth to the word queerplatonic). I do think it is valuable to expand the notion of what Romantic relationships can be as well (I even have a draft of a post talking about how that is necessary to combat amatonormativity, albeit with a slightly different angle)
no subject
Date: 9 Mar 2019 08:13 (UTC)no subject
Date: 10 Mar 2019 04:09 (UTC)I agree that it's in aspec communities that you'd call a relationship Romantic the most (or to people who know you're aspec, which is pretty often for me), but I'd also say that the distinction between a Romantic and non-Romantic relationship is the most sharp in aspec communities. Which then means that the confusion is in exactly the area that you least want it to be—other aspecs. You can always clarify what you mean by "Romantic relationship", of course, but the norm of a Romantic relationship is always going to be assumed first (and assumed completely if no clarification follows). I think it's less the "needing to clarify" bit that's a problem and more the "assuming things" part. And yeah, I agree that the existing norm is an idea which trickles down to us from wider heteronormative/amatonormative/etc society.
If you ever finish that post, I'd really like to see it!
no subject
Date: 8 Mar 2019 09:20 (UTC)Sigh I think I generally would like to divorce the meaning of certain actions that are romance-coded from romantic intent, at least for the people involved. So kissing someone but without romantic intent would be non-romantic no matter how romance-coded the action is...??
Individuals using qpr to mean romantic feelings non-sexual is, I don't understand the intent, but if they feel this term applies better - sure. Also I can't open the first link I think it wants to redirect me to dashboard??
no subject
Date: 8 Mar 2019 20:07 (UTC)no subject
Date: 8 Mar 2019 22:07 (UTC)I think I know what that post was trying to say in the bit where it says queerplatonic "can mean a romantic relationship without sex" -- not everyone finds the SAM makes sense to them personally, and the SAM is really necessary to the whole concept of having non-sexual Romantic relationships. So if that is the case for an individual, they should feel free to use the word queerplatonic if they feel like it fits better and is more comfortable for them.
The bit about romantic intent... On a surface level I understand what you mean, but I have very little concept of what "romantic intent" actually is so that doesn't actually feel very useful to my experience. In a weird way, I understand it if I think about it in regards to sex. I personally find there to be a huge difference between sex with sexual intent and sex with intimate or sensual intent, but I guess that parallel fails because it's still sex without the sexual intent, not cuddling. Sex is a bit more concrete than romance, so I am not sure that means anything.
no subject
Date: 9 Mar 2019 08:24 (UTC)Hah I mean same here, kinda the reason why I ID as aro, and it's not tangible. But yeah the main thing is that the intent changes what the action means - just the same way it does for sex. I wouldn't divide sex as something separate here, it's still an activity, like cuddling, kissing, hand holding. Romance isn't a specific activity...?? So you can't do it with romantic intent...??
no subject
Date: 4 Mar 2019 21:03 (UTC)Another reblogger had reposted it, but claimed that I was wrong about those terms originating in ace communities, and that actually they were coined by aromantic communities.
Ironically, that same exact post series was what prompted someone to send me anonymous messages telling me to get out and stop posting that content in the aromantic tags because it was too asexual and not related to aromantics, so there's just no winning.
no subject
Date: 5 Mar 2019 08:28 (UTC)no subject
Date: 8 Mar 2019 23:22 (UTC)It had a slightly different slant than I usually see, but it was trying to do the same thing.
no subject
Date: 9 Mar 2019 08:25 (UTC)@shades_of_grayro
Date: 13 Mar 2019 03:12 (UTC)This is Coyote, by the way, just now figuring out that I can post here without an account. Hi folks.
Anyway I'm chiming in here just because I happened to see a follow-up post about that from the OP: http://aro-punkwave.tumblr.com/post/183343745701/that-post-about-queerplatonic-being-a-arospec-ace
Which, uh. hm. "Yeah, I know [correction that people are making], what I meant was [thing other than what I said]." I didn't spot their age listed anywhere, but they strike me as maybe kind of young? Still, unfortunate situation all around. I was also dismayed that Magni replied to that post with the pillowfort link right there in Lunarian-therian's addition and yet didn't acknowledge that in that post I was pretty directly responding to one of zer own posts, but. What can you do.
Awesome Etymology
Date: 5 Mar 2019 02:34 (UTC)I'm really surprised that fights break out on the origin of the word (which I never really knew until reading this) but I would have thought that if any fights broke out it would be over the meaning of the word and how it is used.
I do think 'Aspec' should be used more. I know Aros and Aces have differing issues, but some are shared, and we have a shared history, and Aspec is a great term for those who don't use the split attraction model. Basically I feel we should share a Aspec dictionary rather than trying to carve out separate dictionaries for Aces and Aros.
Re: Awesome Etymology
Date: 5 Mar 2019 09:09 (UTC)no subject
Date: 5 Mar 2019 21:23 (UTC)Memes aside, I think it should be possible to acknowledge that queerplatonic is at present both an ace *and* an aro term; one that was developed by aces in aces spaces, during conversations about aromanticism [and adjacent identities], and meant for use by people of all orientations. Ideally, it can even be accessible to people who aren't even ace or aro at all!
Talking about queerplatonic as an aro term in and of itself isn't a problem at all, and neither is talking about an ace term. Because it's both! If people want to talk about it as a queer term or just a general useful relationship term, go at it!
What bothers me more is when people make claims about it's *history* that erase or ignore asexuality, or try to imply that non-aro people can't use it. It also feels like sometimes there's a weird push to purge aromantic history of any traces of asexuality, or to seperate "aros" and "aces" into two mutually exclusive bubbles, but it just doesn't work like that. It's not necessary to erase it's asexual history to acknowledge that it's a very useful word for people of all stripes now.
no subject
Date: 5 Mar 2019 21:24 (UTC)no subject
Date: 6 Mar 2019 08:53 (UTC)