Jump to content

nonmerci

Member
  • Content Count

    249
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

7 Followers

About nonmerci

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Personal Information

  • Name
    Nathalie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I would your model 3 of friendship, in a way it doesn't exclude the first one. More precisely, for me a friend is someone I enjoy company, and who is there for me if I have problems (and I am there too if my friend has problems of course). The second point is important to distinguish from an acquaintance. I also add that I can see my friend as an equal, in the sense that there is no authority relationship as you can have with your parents for instance ("equal" was probably not the word but I can't find the English word for "sur le même plan"). See what I mean? About this point in your (good) article... "Presumably, under this model, if two people are friends, but they both(?) start feeling another form of attraction, then that (itself) changes the nature of the relationship (as opposed to a change in bonds, behaviors, commitments, etc.). It is unclear to what degree this attraction needs to be mutual or needs to be openly acknowledged in order for this change to take place." It's true that I see a lot of people saying that the feeling leads to qualify something as a QPR or not, and I believe it's true, as it is for romance. However, I don't think that the feeling alone is enough to change the nature of the friendship into a QPR : I ththink there has to be a discussion between the two person involved, so they both agree to label their relationship this way. Just like romance, you can't be a couple if the other person don't agree with it. But of course this is my opinion. Thinking in terms of attraction and feelings is helpful to me, but I make a distinction between attraction and relationship, feeling and actions. You can be attracted a certain way without getting involved in a relationship, the same way you can be friend with someone without feeling squishes.
  2. That's how I read it too. Probably because I don't want to get married. If aros want to get married they can, and if they don't they don't have to be pressure to do it; that's how I see it. Otherwise it is normative.
  3. To be simple, for me platonic is to friendship what romantic is to romance. But I guess this is not how everybody use it. I have not your knowledge of history of the words and common use of terms. I am just influence by the fact that "squish" is define by "platonic attraction" which is defined by "the desire of be friend with someone".
  4. You mean the post about how marriage should be about platonic feelings? At least that's how I read it, that a marriage can only work if there is platonic content. Well, I guess that one of the question would be what is platonic exactly, but this is another debate. Personnaly, I think that what makes a marriage work is trust and enjoying the other person company. If this is platonic or romantic, not the question I think. To know for sure that a platonic marriage works better than a romantic marriage, there should be studies; but really, I don't think it's possible because I think this is rare that even alloromantic people get married without sharing platonic things. Of course I can be mistaken, but I never saw this in real life. This sounds like QPR should get married, but I think only the individuals should decide what is ideal for them or not. By the way, I don't think it is ideal to replace the norm of romance marriage by a norm of platonic marriage is ideal. I think we should focus on celebrating the diversity of relationships, and stop giving advantages to people who are married. But that's just my thoughts of course. I personally don't cant to get married. Except for the cake and the dress maybe. This post also seems to think that all aromantics are looking for a "platonic lifemate", which is not the case. Personally, I think the Platonic Ideal should be celebrating all kind of relationships, instead of focusing only on one type.
  5. If I have to say a difference, I'd say like you that analterous treat it as an attraction, whereas non-alterous insist more on the relationship. I agree about romantic and platonic, but I don't see platonic and sexual as antonyms. Probably because I don't use it as Platon would have done, but I associate it with friendship. And in theory, there is no reason one can't be sexually attracted to friends. This is the whole concept of "friend with benefits". I think the point is to distinguish between an alterous attraction and a squish. So I think it is your option 4, a desire/attraction for a non-romantic emotional relationship, different from platonic or romantic. I think there is more attraction than the ones we usually talk about, so maybe alterous is a good word for that. How I see it, queerplatonic is used to talk about a type of relationship, not attraction. At least I never see queerplatonic attraction be used. Plus, I know queerplatonic is an established word, but I see a problem use a word with "platonic" in it for something like alterous, that is supposed to be neither romantic nor platonic. But this is just my point of view of course. Thanks for the links, this is interesting.
  6. Oups, sorry Mark. (Note to myself, always look the gender of the person before using pronouns; they is the neutral pronoun, that's it?) Thanks for your responding, I don't have the time to answer right now but I will later.
  7. Aromantic is not about commitment; and for what I read, you were involved in the relationship. But if you are not comfortable in a relationship, breaking it is not a mistake, if you can't see a way to make it work. If you both don't expect the same things of your relationship, it is better to stop before realizing too late you don't want the same thing. I hop you can stay friends though, they seem to be an important person for you.
  8. I don't think it is more common for aros, just that we won't put the same words on it. Allos would call is "sexual harassment". Because, you know, romance can't lead to bad behavior like that, it is pure and beautiful (irony).
  9. OK. As you ask if a-spec include aplatonism, I thought you thought it was part of the a-spectrum. About nonamorous, yeah, maybe. I think non alterous is more about QPR I guess, whereas nonamorous is larger (both QPR and romantic relationship). There are so much terms, I got lost sometimes. I think they are useful, but sometimes it's difficult to find the correct word to describe my experience.
  10. Hi everyone! So, after seeing this term on this forum I start wondering if I can be non-alterous somehow. But it's hard to find information about it. So, it seems the term is recent. For the definitions I find, an alterous relationship or attraction would be somewhere between platonic and romantic; a definition that I don't like because it would place romantic and platonic on the same scale when I see them as different. But it seems to describe QPR. So I would describe alterous as being attracted or desire a relationship that is not conventional. And being non-alterous or analterous would be the contrary. I also saw once a definition that I like of non alterous : no desire for a special relationship or connection with one person. I personally find this term useful, because I can say that I am not interesting in a QPR, or a special one-to-one relationship that would be different from friendship. But I am the only one? Is there other person here who identify with this label? Do I understand it correctly? I think I saw @Mark talk about it here, so I'm interesed to hear them on this subject.
  11. For me it sounds demi, but not being demiromantic myself I can't say for sure.
  12. Yep, I think it is somehow that for me. I am positive or indifferent to romance when it is not towards me. But unhealthy romance? I call that an obsession and I don't like that.
  13. Well, the thing is it is sometimes described the same way we describes QPR, who are described in an amatonormative way too. Personally, I would describe it as "not looking for a special one to one link", as QPR could be; not very satisfying, but it is useful to me. And about it not being near of the cultural weight of sex and romance... isn't it true for platonic attraction too? Though you don't deny that aplatonism could belong here?
  14. I use this term the same as you do. I think it is logical.
×
×
  • Create New...