Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About treepod

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Gender
  • Pronouns
  • Romanticism
    greyaro, lithromantic
  • Sexuality

Recent Profile Visitors

302 profile views
  1. Growing up I guess I was pretty romance favorable, though every time someone showed interest in me I’d get like, offended, and really indignant about the whole idea of dating them. Even if I thought our feelings had been mutual. I was romance favorable in the sense that I liked the idea of it, but when it actually came down to it I would get pretty squicked out. More recently now that I’ve loosely concluded that I’m greyaro and/or lithromantic, and therefore that it isn’t worth paying attention to the rare and fleeting feelings I have for some people, I’ve stopped having a favorable opinion of romance (in relation to myself) and am now much more neutral to repulsed. Although it’s very situational. To me it it seems to have something to do with letting go of societally enforced ideas about what I’m supposed to want in life.
  2. Alright so, I’m joining this topic because I’m not sure I wrap my head around all of it either. This all seems to be dealing with differing ideas about what “platonic” actually means, right? I’m trying to suss this out: —people who describe something as alterous tend to see platonic as being to do with friendship only —people who disagree with the above usage see platonic as its own separate thing, on a different level to either friends or romantic partners, and therefore to them alterous is redundant? I agree that there seems to be a linguistic inconsistency with romantic ->> romance and platonic ->> friendship. Another wrinkle in all of this is that the term queerplatonic also linguistically implies that it is something different from platonic. So what makes it “queer?” When dictionaries say platonic defines something non-physical or non-sexual, we should maybe consider the societal context, where people usually don’t separate romantic and sexual attraction, or for that matter any other attractions. My understanding of queerplatonic relationships is that they lack to some extent romantic attraction but contain one or more other types (emotional, aesthetic, sensual, sexual, etc.). Unless I’ve misunderstood and there are some people in QPRs who are not attracted to their partners in any way? So here’s a shot in the dark, could platonic then refer simply to any relationship that does not contain attraction? In this case, alterous and platonic could coexist, where both describe something “else” but only alterous can go along with queerplatonic. Although don’t some people use the term platonic attraction? That really throws a wrench in my idea...
  3. This is a very nice sentiment. Ditto
  4. I chose one other person, with separate sleeping arrangements. Because although I like being cozy with people, sharing a bed is something I’ve never understood the appeal of. Especially on a nightly basis, it seems sort of cumbersome. And I like my personal space. Someone could be invited into that personal space from time to time, but not as a given. Actually, funnily enough, my parents (who are still married) sleep in separate rooms, as did my grandpa and his second wife. So I guess it’s a common enough preference in my family, though a little different in my case since it’d be a qpr, wherein the person is ideally like a longterm close roommate.
  5. This hasn’t really happened to me (maybe a point of privilege) but I am often worried that sometimes after coming out to someone as a way of stating that I’m unavailable, that person could interpret it as a phase, something they can wait out until I get over my inhibitions or whatever. Maybe I’m just paranoid, but it feels like they don’t take me seriously. If I’m asked whether being aro/ace has to do with trauma or body confidence, that seems like a red flag...
  6. It seems like you can also get intriguing results from searching “what is a friend crush” Like I think there is some amount of overlap, for the same reason a lot of these examples bring up sexual stuff: because most people don’t separate types of attraction. To me, the strongest way I’ve been able to see the difference is through real-life interactions, wherein I witness someone being attracted to me, or talking to me about someone else they’re attracted to.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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?
  13. 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)_/¯
  14. 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.
  15. 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!
  • Create New...