Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About treepod

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Gender
  • Pronouns
  • Romanticism
    greyaro, lithromantic
  • Sexuality

Recent Profile Visitors

197 profile views
  1. I have a tough time with defining things using words, oof. This is hard but here goes: 1. Maybe not much. I guess if I could realistically call them a companion, i.e. they hold a separate distinction from the rest of my friends, including long-term exclusivity and an understanding that we're sharing our lives together. But I guess if I was non-monogamous I would feel differently about that... But there's something that rings true about the word "companion," in any case. 2. Not really. Personally I kind of think of squishes as mostly occurring with people who are new to me. They're all about intrigue. Plus I'd strongly consider being in a QPR with one of my longterm friends, someone I've certainly never had a squish on but is nonetheless very special to me. 3. It'd be nice, but I don't really think of it as a strong want. I'm usually 100% down with whatever they want, so long as we get to be friends 4. Physical intimacy/closeness (to a degree, probably less so than what one might consider standard in a romantic relationship) and a special companionship, as I described in answer 1. I probably would feel weird calling them simply my friend, but equally weird calling them my girlfriend/boyfriend/etc. Even "partner" doesn't exactly seem right, because people have romantic/sexual connotations attached to that word. To Mark's question: For me, the distinction is I don't feel obligated to perform amatonormative expectations or measure up to someone else's romantic attraction towards me. There is just something very relieving and satisfying about saying, "this is different," because of the way romance traps me into participating in something I can't really reciprocate. From experience with people who expressed romantic interest in me (or indeed other people), I can just tell they're experiencing something that is way out of my depth, even if I can't quite say what.
  2. When it comes to analyzing your feelings and your past, only you can decide whether those things make using the term aromantic (or similar) on yourself useful. But based on what you've said here, I think it might be worth looking into demiromanticism, as well as the varying ways people describe a queerplatonic relationship, which can include a "friends with benefits" sort of situation. Read about others' experiences and compare them to your own, and ask yourself what it is that you want.
  3. treepod


    I’ve been thinking about this off and on for a while. Looks like you haven’t been online in quite some time, but just in case you come back I want to amend what I said about what romantic attraction is like. Until recently, beyond knowing that my attraction to others is fleeting, inconsistent, vague, and rare, I didn’t have a good reference for what it is I actually want out of a relationship and what I’m comfortable with. Turns out, not much. At least in the way of “romantic” gestures. So I’ve been considering that it’s probably more accurate for me to base what I consider romantic attraction on what the desired action is with the person, and not whether they make me feel giddy or whatever. Because platonic/queerplatonic, sensual, and aesthetic attractions exist, and those don’t have to correlate with romantic interest at all, so feeling things like I described before doesn’t really actually signal romantic attraction anyway. And because something can sound like it’d be enjoyable on paper but in practice make me uncomfortable or indifferent. td;lr, I now think that the most important thing is to explore what you really strongly desire to act on with another person, if anything at all. You might be surprised to find that alloromantic folks can be way more enthusiastic and, er, active than you anticipated. At least that’s my experience.
  4. Of course! I guess I was mainly referring to how difficult it is to present it in a way that non aspec folks can understand, without brushing up against amatonormativity too much. Like what raavenb2619 just said: It’s probably a good-natured attempt to normalize it, but they don’t get that in this case, trying to make it sound relatable erases the fact that it is in fact very different from what non aspec people are used to, and that distinction needs to remain clear so that we can express what we need. But it is a distinction that is regardless hard for me to put into words
  5. Yeah it’d be really great to hear some thoughts from people who are more experienced in this. I’m kinda just shooting in the dark too
  6. So maybe it’s safe to say that QPRs *can have elements that overlap with friendship, and even elements that look like romance, but at its core it is something else because it fulfills a different need/role, whatever that may be?
  7. Can we say that wanting/having a QPR is like wanting/having kids? People shouldn’t be judged for not wanting kids or treated like they’re missing some essential human instinct to be a parent. It’s just a lifestyle choice, and does not reflect any poor character or incompleteness. Although perhaps it’s incorrect to say not wanting a QPR is a choice? Idk. It was just a thought Some really good stuff has been said all around here, and I agree that the focus on trying to prove that “aros love too!” is reductive and unhelpful. I find myself getting a little frustrated that the definition of a QPR seems to be such a slippery fish. I guess that’s because it’s a little different every time depending on who’s involved, but... we need to be able to describe it in general in a way that doesn’t make it seem like a stand-in for a romantic relationship. I even like the idea of a QPR for myself, but the notion that it takes the place of a romantic relationship is still very off-putting to me. The whole point is that it’s incomparable, really. I’m tempted to simply say that a QPR is a relationship that is “something else” ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  8. I mean yeah. My point was that the general public isn’t very aware of aromanticism as a thing that can be separate from being asexual and that can be a little annoying sometimes. I never meant to say that someone has to use the split attraction model. This is coming from someone who used to use asexual as a blanket term for my own aromanticism as well, so I know what that’s like.
  9. Ahhh. Yeah that about describes my scope of understanding/comfort level with those relationships too. The last one I remember did baffle me a lot and it did feel obligatory. But it’s a comedy so maybe it was meant to be sort of a gag pair. Usually when it’s minor characters I just tolerate/ignore it. I’m glad personally that they didn’t feel the need to define Crowley and Aziraphale’s relationship at least, embracing that it’s unconventional instead of trying to “tie up loose ends” EDIT: I just found this and I’m living for it: basically it sounds like Neil is saying that because they’re beings not of this world, anything is possible, and thus he prefers to leave it up to the viewer’s imagination. Their love for one another could be interpreted as being on a different level apart from the friendship-romance dichotomy. Neat!
  10. Are you referring to the story itself or the fandom?
  11. True that! I guess when I said people should be able to enjoy *whatever*... there are some limits. What you say about different fan sites makes a lot of since. The wild thing I discovered about Good Omens is that shipping overwhelms everything everywhere. I’m sure there’s other stuff out there from more mature people but of course the really avid ones drown them out and it overwhelms me a lot. I think I may have found one podcast that looks like it will be all or mostly free of it. Yeah I had a feeling that was a case. It seems that general lexicon isn’t usually aware of the split attraction model, so since the words people are already familiar with are terms like bisexual, asexual looks like the corresponding term for somebody who’s interested in nobody (as in one or the other, both/all, or neither/none, where asexual = neither/none). It looks from the outside like a complete system. Also people have a hard time imagining what a relationship without a sexual element would be like, so that’s probably part of it. Yeah this here is really a great opportunity to educate pop culture en masse because this show is so beloved. If they pass it up I’ll be crushed. Not to mention how insulting it is when someone “gives in” to a romantic relationship. Like Jughead would have basically been cut and paste easy representation if they’d let it. But instead they made a self-indulgent social-outcast-meets-popular-kid trope that no one needs any more of. Our identities get boiled down to social ineptitude and coming of age sexual awakening narratives and it drives me up the wall. “The end of their relationship, not the beginning” yes! QPRs are pretty ambiguous as a term and don’t have a lot of good examples in fiction, so I was actually really grateful for the way the main characters in Good Omens displayed intimacy on an emotional level while remaining at somewhat of a distance. But when fandom turns this into a juicy will-they-won’t-they thing, it occurs to me that to most people this stuff is just like foreplay to the main event. But to me, them “getting together” would spell the end for the dynamic I loved so much. It can be extra frustrating when writers feel the need to give a character an obligatory “happy ending”/wife+kids because that’s what’s expected. It’s like they don’t know how to finish the job when it comes to creating a character with an unconventional lifestyle. Still I’m glad you can enjoy Doc’s character regardless. I totally see why he’s appealing and how he’s one of those special ones to keep with you for a long time. Ultimately it’s better to focus on what mattered to you about him in the first place.
  12. Anyone else get really disappointed when a character you related to as possibly aro turns out not to be, or fandom for the character ships them relentlessly? It's nobody's fault really (people deserve to write about and imagine whatever makes them happy), but it still makes me sad and lonely in my little aro corner. I have a few examples. My first (and probably most traumatic) encounter with this was when I was in high school, my best friend recommended the book Graceling to me. It was a great book, from what I remember, and I really enjoyed the magic system. And at first, I was so ecstatic about the main character's distain for the guy who kept flirting with her. She seemed decidedly repulsed and offended, and was determined that she didn't need or want a relationship. But when she slowly fell in love with him and especially when they had sex, I was so mortified. I felt deeply betrayed by this character, who I'd been totally rooting for as an independent badass. But I didn't have the heart to tell my friend that it put a huge damper on the whole book for me (of course she shipped the two pretty hard). Jughead from the Archie comics is a really particularly odd example. I personally knew nothing about the comics before the Riverdale show was announced, but in the midst of it I did find out that Jughead was intentionally asexual and most likely also aromantic (google image search "Jughead asexual" and you'll find all kinds of hilarious quotable moments). Sadly, even though his actor in the show was all for the idea of keeping this canon, the writers didn't agree. Instead I guess he's ambiguously angsty and brooding and """different""" for no actual reason, and he still gets a girlfriend. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I don't actually know because I've tried to stay as far away from Riverdale as possible. But so much for educating pop culture on an aro/ace narrative... Next, since the new season three of Stranger Things, there seems to be a bunch of people anxious to know whether Will might be gay. This is a nice thought, sure, but given that the only evidence is his lack of a girlfriend and Mike saying he "doesn't like girls," it's not very compelling... most people seem to be ignoring that not liking girls does not equal liking boys. Obviously for us, this is very frustrating. And actually, one could much more easily make the argument for him being aro/ace because he always seems so tired by his friends' relationships, always wishing they could play D&D like they used to. Poor guy. He even told his mom, at breakfast after being grossed out by his older brother and Nancy, "I'm never going to fall in love." Like hello And finally, I just finished watching the recent tv adaptation of Good Omens. I get particularly mixed feelings here. On the one hand, I totally get why people really really love shipping Crowley and Aziraphale because their dynamic is such a good mix of comical shenanigans and genuinely touching moments. But while I was watching the way they interacted over the course of the show, instead of hoping they'd kiss, I was just thinking "wow I want whatever this is real bad" (speaking as someone who's hoping for a QPR type of thing in my own life). Like, I'm really invested in how their relationship develops in canon, but I don't feel the need to imagine it going any """further""" because it's already my ideal situation. But the fandom is downright obsessed with them as a romantic and sexual thing. Like it's literally all there is. The whole "ineffable husbands" thing gives me war flashbacks straight to 2014 johnlock. Yeesh... 🤢 Well this has been a rant. Again, people can enjoy whatever they want, I just wish there was a little more room for me.
  13. Limerence- I’ve never heard of this word! According to google it seems like it’s generally a synonym for romantic attraction (at least to general society) but it seems to me like the way you’re using it defines it in a way that encompasses “platonic attraction” or what one feels in a squish. It’s like a state of mind toward a person rather than a desire to go through with specific romantically coded actions. Very interesting. I think I might bring this up in another topic; a while back I think there was some discussion over the term “platonic attraction” and whether attraction was really the right word. Maybe “platonic limerence” has a place.
  14. I don’t use any of these terms because I can’t pin myself down, but I’m sure it’s still useful for others. Being grey/lithromantic though, I can sometimes like the idea of romantic things in theory, but in practice get really uncomfortable. It’s too situational and/or fluctuating to really say for sure.
  15. I resonate a lot with this personally. I see others in romantic relationships having deep emotional connections and being affectionate, and I think to myself that it seems nice and I wish I could have that. But then when it comes down to it, my attraction to others is fickle, and someone reciprocating my feelings generally freaks me out a little. If friendships were more commonly affectionate (especially physically) I would be satisfied with that. Goodness, I am so touch starved
  • Create New...