Jump to content

Coyote

Member
  • Content Count

    264
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

3 Followers

About Coyote

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Personal Information

  • Name
    Coyote
  • Location
    US
  • Romanticism
    Quoi
  • Sexuality
    Gray

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

1,636 profile views
  1. huh. Yeah, in retrospect, that was poor phrasing on my part. It's hard to describe something so nebulous, I guess, especially when I don't really think of it as One Thing. Oh dear. I very much would not like the concept of queerplatonic to be associated with soulmates. It sounds like you might not have meant that specifically though.
  2. Yeah? I'm including stuff like that. Okay. I hope you understand my confusion, then, when people call a decidedly nonromantic (and presumably nonsexual) feeling "not platonic." Put on the same level.... Okay, yeah, that makes sense. Okay. So if that's what friendship is, and if "platonic" is the adjective of friendship, then-- ...what do you mean by calling alterous "different from platonic"?
  3. Well, sure, the original post didn't use the terms QPR or Named Important Relationship. None of the additions did. Excepting of course the one at the end talking about romantic relationships. Benefits is an ambiguous category. I think I sort of see what you're getting at, but the very first list did include "sleepovers," which isn't one of those technical/financial benefits specific to marriage as a legal institution or other people's conventions around it. So stuff like "surprise cookies" and "two people can walk more dogs" seems like more in the same vein, there. If I could easily do it, I'd check the post for any sign of further followup from the original poster, but 1) I don't know how to do that as a non-tumblr-user, because it's 53k+ notes and my only option would be to scroll through that list forever in the hopes of catching a glimpse of a relevant comment and that's just ridiculously labor intensive for something like this, and 2) it looks like the OP has deleted the original post, anyway. I can't know if that's because they got annoyed with people's additions or just because of too many notifications. So... despite my impulse to want to verify the OP's intentions, that path is basically blocked off for me here. Imma be real with you chief... I didn't even fully read the addition by vaspider at first. I don't even having anything specific against that person, they're just one of the people that I've gotten in the habit of ignoring half the time. Anyway yeah they turned a post about "nonromantic reasons an aro might enter a marriage" into "a good outlook to have for a good romantic marriage," which, hm, while not necessarily wrong, does seem like kinda, uh, not what people were using the post for. But then again, I feel weird about speaking to intent when, again, that's so hard to determine in this case. But then again (x2), them starting off with "I want y'all to pause for a moment and consider this" starts off on a real condescending foot, if you ask me... and going "IF YOUR RELATIONSHIP WOULD NOT STAND UP WITHOUT THE ROMANCE IN IT, DON’T GET MARRIED" is kinda.... I mean, who is the audience here? It's on this post about aros, worded as if it's directed at the people posting/adding on, but then is seemingly addressing people in romantic relationships...? What? Who are you even talking to? Why are you talking to that group on this post? .....'Course, it's a reblog-addition, not a comment, which means it's simultaneously being sent to people upstream and being shared to their followers, so maybe that bit is for their followers? I dunno. Managing audience stuff on Tumblr always seemed prohibitively complicated to me and I think that's a big part of how you end up with tonal weirdness like this. But they're also using "aromantic" there as if it describes nonromantic relationship components instead of a type of person, which... what? Also -- "I submit that we should refer to this as the New Platonic Ideal" -- No Thank You. To quote one of the classics: Plato's grave is a gender neutral bathroom.
  4. Okay. What are you using friendship to mean? (Here are five different ones that I know of) Sure, but what I'm getting at is -- if "platonic" means "nonsexual" and "sexual" encompasses "romantic," then you're never in a position to need to distinguish between "nonromantic nonsexual" and "romantic nonsexual" -- but for those who do recognize the romantic nonsexual possibility, then the specifically romantic/nonromantic distinction becomes important, and that's how you'll see some people using it, as a consequence. Though, again, to reiterate, because of this mess, I just say "nonromantic" if I mean nonromantic. Do they? I'm not sure I've seen that. Here, maybe, although I'm not sure of that. It's not necessarily dependent on attraction, no. Many definitions of queerplatonic emphasize the strength of the bond, the partnership configuration, the nature of the relationship, etc. With that said, a lot of people have approached the term very differently, and there's no one consistent definition that everybody agrees to across the board, so don't expect consistency. Well, no, because relationship =/= what attraction you feel within that relationship, and also (like you said) there are types of attraction which themselves get deemed platonic. I mean, technically, sensual attraction that's nonromantic/nonsexual* is "platonic," and it'd be a bit silly to say "okay the whole relationship is not platonic anymore because one person felt an inner unspoken impulse to cuddle" and so on. *depending on what definition of "platonic" you're using. huh. When I meet someone who seems super cool and I want to be friends with them, I call that thinking they seem super cool and wanting to be friends with them. I'm also more inclined to describe that impression in terms of characteristics of the person themselves -- ex. "she's really charming," "I liked their vibes," "I think we're on the same wavelength," "co seems like a rad person," etc. Then again, when I get those impressions, I don't necessarily see that as a "for no discernible reason" situation. There is a discernible reason, and it's that I like interacting with the person. Anyway -- so you say here that you use alterous for a feeling that's "neither platonic or romantic" ... in that it differs from the platonic attraction by... including infatuation? Meaning "platonic" for you necessarily is mutually exclusive with infatuation?
  5. Uh... ...eh? atm I'm not sure there is necessarily a way to "say QPR without saying QPR," since QPR doesn't inherently mean anything in and of itself outside the framing as such. I also... don't... see why this is stated as a contradiction or a drawback. I mean.... What's wrong with posts about QPRs? What's wrong with posts about nonromantic marriage that don't use the term "QPR" specifically? ....I just don't understand what the objection is. Especially since the OP doesn't specifically start out by saying "married for reasons other than a QPR," so it's not like something's going directly against the OP's wishes (that I can see), and the first initial list even included “we got married because it gave us an excuse to have sleepovers every night,” implying the relationship isn't supposed to be totally devoid of emotional investment in each other. And... I don't see how the additions are taking it anywhere away from where it's supposed to be, except for maybe being... less flippant/humorous? ...but then again the original post doesn't feel all that funny to me in the first place, so. To me it's not all that noticeable. So I... don't see what the issue is, unless you're trying to blacklist QPRs & think this should have been tagged as such, so that you could blacklist it (in which case I might suggest just blacklisting marriage posts instead, to be more comprehensive). ...? Which part?
  6. Wait, hold on. Didn't @raavenb2619 use "alterous" for a feeling they've had that didn't involve wanting to form a particular relationship? What are you using "platonic" to mean here? Generally. But people also do both. "I kind of like queerplatonic as a definer for the attraction I feel to my zucchini" was the very first known online use. I've also seen it used more recently in other places, even on Arocalypse. I mean, I don't really get that either, but it does get used. There's a problem with relying on those dictionaries or other conventional approaches though because a lot of English-speakers typically don't recognize adult nonsexual romantic relationships as a concept. Yeah... "a little bit romantic, but not completely" is worlds different from "completely off the scale." The way people fail to make any distinction between the two on this topic is like people failing to make any distinction between nonbinary people with totally-off-the-binary gender identities and nonbinary people who are half-man half-woman.
  7. Yes, alterous appears to be from 2015. I've no idea how it's supposed to be different from "queerplatonic," the term introduced five years earlier, besides usually being accompanied by a more derogatory treatment of "platonic." Mark is a them, not a him. Yeah so the multiple different understandings of the word "platonic" are why I try to avoid it when trying to talk with any precision about these things. The way I would understand what other people are using the word "platonic" to mean in these contexts (re: "alterous") would be "nonromantic," although people don't always bother to clarify that, so I can't be sure. But then... if you're defining "alterous" as "neither romantic nor platonic [nonromantic]"... the main way for me to make sense of that would be (1) some kind of quoiromantic situation, where the romance-quotient (lol) is ambiguous or undetermined somehow, or (2) a general umbrella term for emotional attraction, where romantic-ness goes unspecified. But that doesn't seem like what people are getting at, either. I've seen aromantics get pretty emphatic that their alterous feelings are NOT romantic at all. In which case... I can make sense of that as (3) talking about an exact synonym for nonromantic emotional attraction (which other people also sometimes call "platonic attraction"), or (4) talking about a more particular subset of nonromantic emotional attraction, which feels different from other kinds under that same umbrella. That last one is the approach that makes the most sense to me, conceptually. Yet it's also completely incompatible with how I usually see it talked about (see above, the text Raven quoted on alterous being non-platonic). It's all very confusing. So, I mean. I don't use this concept, myself, or apply it to my own experiences. But that's because I'm confused by the framework people are using to even talk about it in the first place, not because any particular experiences are different. Identifying myself by the lack of it is something I would only do if it became inescapably prevalent and demanded of me.
  8. hmm.... I can't remember writing anything like that myself. The closest thing I can think of is Oriented Gray, which was mostly about the term "oriented," not "arospec," although point two there does include some discussion of spectrum terms. There's also this short tumblr post that's somewhat related (summary: there's no need to say "acespec" when "ace" means the same thing), although it sounds like you were definitely thinking of something else. ...Not really. From collecting some info recently, I know that it was proposed sometime in 2014 on Tumblr (original post now deleted), but if there was a switch that happened, I'm not sure when it was. It... kind of has. The ace counterpart used to be called Asexual Awareness Week, but the old site now redirects to Ace Week.
  9. I'm not sure I know exactly what interaction you mean, sorry. Can you remember anything else? Anyway, for what it's worth, here's how I use the term "aro":
  10. I put together some links on this here: https://theacetheist.wordpress.com/2019/08/06/tiny-linkspam-on-tri-label-aro-aces/
  11. You think? Is it? I don't think there's necessarily been any particular data collected to measure that. Anyway, I think this might be a case similar to what Redbeard was saying the other month about romantic orientation & discrimination law, about how emphasizing a romantic/sexual split could actually have negative consequences -- currently, if someone were being harassed in this way, the avenue already available to them would be to call it sexual harassment.
  12. So "nonpartnering"? Or nonamorous? Correct. What do you mean? I neither deny nor agree with it. I'm skeptical and unsure.
  13. "Gold star" anything is an illegitimate concept anyway. It's disappointing, I know, when you're hoping to make a point by drawing a comparison to what you think is a shared point of reference, only to find out that the person you're talking to doesn't agree with you on that either. If you really want to have a discussion about this, we can do that, you're welcome to it, but preferably not here on this thread, because I really would like to discuss the actual topic here. Maybe it wouldn't make any difference, but you seem to be treating the attraction-basis-for-orientation model as some inherent natural truth as opposed to kind of a consequence of mere happenstance. In actuality, there's no particular hard "proof" supporting it besides just the fact that a lot of people either use it or talk about it at this point, but it wasn't always that way. There are two main things that I think are relevant here. Well, three, really. The first is that I'm understanding the history of the aromantic spectrum as basically drawing directly on the asexual spectrum, given the parallel terminology (correct me if I'm wrong here, folks). The asexual spectrum is a concept expressed by the AVEN triangle (with its white-to-black gradient), which was itself based on the Storms' model. In direct reference to the triangle, the term gray-a was first proposed in 2006. You'll notice that it isn't explicitly defined in terms of frequency of attraction -- it's introduced as a name for the "fuzziness" around the asexual part of the AVEN logo. And thirdly, "asexuality" itself, the basis of comparison for gray-asexuality, wasn't (and isn't) always defined on the basis of attraction, either. While it's certainly fine to use it for that, there's always been people using it to mean more than one sort of thing, from the beginning and throughout the community's history. Why approach it like this one model is more "right" than any other, when the reason it even gained this level of prominence at all is an artifact of older infighting + bureaucratic inertia? I'm not saying for sure it wouldn't, I just don't see why it would. The term has only been around since 2015, I basically never see it defined in a way that's not amatonormative, and there's nowhere near the widescale cultural weight around it compared to sex and romance, because it's way too niche for that. So what does that leave? Not necessarily. So romantically or sexually, specifically? And not including other "a-" stuff?
  14. I guess it figures that I'd start a thread on one topic and it'd get completely derailed by another... It may be defined by an absence, but I think the relationship between aromanticism & asexuality is more than just being defined by an absence, or else we might as well end up reasoning that atheism is a part of this a-spectrum notion, too. Are there other connections there besides the absence prefix? Bud if you think that identifying as disabled isn't something with ambivalent edge cases and that disability itself hasn't already been studied and scrutinized by scholars and activists alike as a social construct, I have some bad news for you. Is there? Knock it off with the identity policing, dude. You went and made claims about the rainbow flag without knowing the history of it -- do you know the history of the aromantic spectrum concept either? Star Lion's grayro himself, so I don't expect he'll take this advice seriously, but ftr, identity policing is still identity policing regardless of whether you yourself identify with the term in question.
  15. ..."their" flag? What flag? You mean the rainbow flag? The rainbow flag designed by Gilbert Baker in 1978 that represents the entire LGBT community? Is that the flag you're calling just for gay men? That's an excessively binary outlook. Nothing "makes" you bi besides identifying as bi, and there's nothing wrong with discounting exceptions or expressing priorities by identifying as something else. .... So am I the only one seeing this? Is anyone else seeing this?
×
×
  • Create New...