Jump to content
Cristal Gris

I am nonamorous but sometime i wish i was not?

Recommended Posts

Hey.

 

Okay so… i am nonamorous. I don't think i could have a qpr , well , i don't think i would want one anyway. I don't know if i could get THAT close with someone.

 

… but sometime, i want to be close to someone. A qpr sound nice ( that being said, i would never be able to get physically close with them (like hugs or kisses) ). And everyone make it soud like this is the best thing in the world. 

 

(serious question : do you think this is a form of amatonormativity even if this is not romance ? )

 

Well, i wonder if i am really nonamorous. Or maybe i just wish i had close friends. I don't know anymore. Maybe my stance on nonamory will even change if i get closer to someone? I know i can get squishes but they never lead to anywhere. (for various reasons)

 

(anyone can relate? Or want to add something? )

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I RELATE A LOT to this. Most of the time, I would say that the nonamorous label is accurate for me. I don't desire exclusive partnerships of any kind. But occasionally - most often when I'm lonely but also when I feel close to a friend of mine - I will think about what it would be like to have a partner. Living with someone and seeing them often would relieve my loneliness but also I often enjoy my friends' company. For me personally, this is why I identify as aroflux. My feelings about partnerships (not just QPRs but also romantic relationships) change and sometimes it seems more possible to want to be close to someone in those ways. I still use the nonamorous label because every time I've had a chance to go through with a partnership I have pretty much ran away (quite literally once) so I'm not sure I would like relationships in practice. 

 

As for amatonormativity, I think it could definitely be a part. It may be that you sometimes get overwhelmed by the constant push to be in a relationship to be happy. It may be that because people around you seem happy in relationships, you see the positives. Or it may be that because everyone around you is in a relationship, you're lonely, and then you start thinking about What Ifs. It doesn't always have to be about romantic relationships; amatonormativity affects all relationships. If romantic relationships are inherently more important, then all other relationships are less important, right? So even if you don't desire romantic relationships, amatonormativity still teaches you that friendships should only be casual and a certain level of emotionally intimate, and that friendships (defined this way) aren't enough to be happy. Although QPRs can be like particularly close friends for some people, they're still far enough away from the common definition of friendship to be different.

 

Feelings are complicated and there can be many things contributing to them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, running.tally said:

I RELATE A LOT to this. Most of the time, I would say that the nonamorous label is accurate for me. I don't desire exclusive partnerships of any kind. But occasionally - most often when I'm lonely but also when I feel close to a friend of mine - I will think about what it would be like to have a partner. Living with someone and seeing them often would relieve my loneliness but also I often enjoy my friends' company. For me personally, this is why I identify as aroflux. My feelings about partnerships (not just QPRs but also romantic relationships) change and sometimes it seems more possible to want to be close to someone in those ways. I still use the nonamorous label because every time I've had a chance to go through with a partnership I have pretty much ran away (quite literally once) so I'm not sure I would like relationships in practice. 

 

Saaaame. But i think, in the end, that i just want someone close.

8 minutes ago, running.tally said:

As for amatonormativity, I think it could definitely be a part. It may be that you sometimes get overwhelmed by the constant push to be in a relationship to be happy. It may be that because people around you seem happy in relationships, you see the positives. Or it may be that because everyone around you is in a relationship, you're lonely, and then you start thinking about What Ifs. It doesn't always have to be about romantic relationships; amatonormativity affects all relationships. If romantic relationships are inherently more important, then all other relationships are less important, right? So even if you don't desire romantic relationships, amatonormativity still teaches you that friendships should only be casual and a certain level of emotionally intimate, and that friendships (defined this way) aren't enough to be happy. Although QPRs can be like particularly close friends for some people, they're still far enough away from the common definition of friendship to be different.

Yeah, i think you're right. Everyone seem happy with their qpp , i think i just want to be happy too. But i should remember that no Relationship is more or less important.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I didn't know this term. I think it fit me, though I am a bit like you : sometimes I with I wasn't, bit it could be amonorlativity even here. In particular for me because unlike a lot of aro, I do want children. I experienced squishes. And I'm not against the idea of having a QPR  (I think about it as an emotional bond that don't require kisses), I just miss it.

 

I do believe that even here, we can talk about amanormativity. No offense to any aro in a QPR or who want one, but I think that QPR is some how described as something that replace romantic relationship for us : we don't have a romantic relationship but we can still form very powerful bounds with people. It's kind of the "we don't have se but fall in love" of the aro community.

(Of course I'm not saying this is exact my the same thing, QPR is different of romantic relationship for a lot of reasons, but it share the particularity of being very important for people who are in them, and a minority of aro gave me the feeling they use it as a replacement for romantic bounds).

 

So when we don't feel the need for it, I think we can feel the same way than with romantic relationship.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To anyone interested in what nonamory means: https://anagnori.tumblr.com/post/68737057155/nonamory 

Nonpartnering is also a term used for it

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nonmerci said:

I do believe that even here, we can talk about amanormativity. No offense to any aro in a QPR or who want one, but I think that QPR is some how described as something that replace romantic relationship for us : we don't have a romantic relationship but we can still form very powerful bounds with people. It's kind of the "we don't have se but fall in love" of the aro community.

There's this definition of queerplatonic: "A queerplatonic (or quasiplatonic) relationship is a relationship that is not romantic but involves a close emotional connection (platonic) beyond what most people consider friendship. The commitment level in a queerplatonic relationship is often considered to be similar to that of a romantic relationship."
Which could also be described as "queer/quasi/pseudo romantic". It also seems unlikely that 'platonic' here was intended to mean anything other than it's regular definition. I wonder if 'powerful bond', 'close emotional connection' & 'commitment level' are describing mania (μανία).

Certainly describing all possible non-romantic relationships as (queer)platonic is not very useful.

 

13 minutes ago, bydontost said:

To anyone interested in what nonamory means: https://anagnori.tumblr.com/post/68737057155/nonamory 

Nonpartnering is also a term used for it

Interesting, since if you took the literal meaning of the term it would be synonymous with 'asexual' 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Mark said:

Certainly describing all possible non-romantic relationships as (queer)platonic is not very useful.

FWIW, the term "queerplatonic" was specifically coined in the context of "queering platonic relationships" - that is, expanding the concept of "platonic relationships" to make space for non-romantic relationships that cross boundaries of (usually conservative USAmerican) expectations of what's acceptable in a platonic friendship. Which boundaries are crossed can vary; queerplatonic relationships don't necessarily have to involve long-term commitment, or a deeper emotional connection than friendship. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Mark said:

Interesting, since if you took the literal meaning of the term it would be synonymous with 'asexual' 

you mean the translation?? because I'm pretty sure the root is supposed to mean love

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nonmerci said:

Wow, I didn't know this term. I think it fit me, though I am a bit like you : sometimes I with I wasn't, bit it could be amonorlativity even here. In particular for me because unlike a lot of aro, I do want children. I experienced squishes. And I'm not against the idea of having a QPR  (I think about it as an emotional bond that don't require kisses), I just miss it.

 

I do believe that even here, we can talk about amanormativity. No offense to any aro in a QPR or who want one, but I think that QPR is some how described as something that replace romantic relationship for us : we don't have a romantic relationship but we can still form very powerful bounds with people. It's kind of the "we don't have se but fall in love" of the aro community.

(Of course I'm not saying this is exact my the same thing, QPR is different of romantic relationship for a lot of reasons, but it share the particularity of being very important for people who are in them, and a minority of aro gave me the feeling they use it as a replacement for romantic bounds).

 

So when we don't feel the need for it, I think we can feel the same way than with romantic relationship.

Interesting way to put it. I do think qpr can be amatonormative in a way.

 

44 minutes ago, eatingcroutons said:

FWIW, the term "queerplatonic" was specifically coined in the context of "queering platonic relationships" - that is, expanding the concept of "platonic relationships" to make space for non-romantic relationships that cross boundaries of (usually conservative USAmerican)

It work in Europe too. Where i live at least.

 

To be honnest, i describe myself as nonamorous now, but i am currently wondering if this is true. I guess time wil tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my first time hearing the term "nonamorous" but that sits with me well just like the term "nonsexual" because upon first learning about asexuality/aromanticism my mind was equating those to nonsexual/nonamorous by mistake but that's just the type of words I was looking for.

 

You say you want to be close to someone but I don't typically think "partner" when thinking about the people I'm close to. I have a friend who I've known for over 20 years. Sure we don't talk daily or even weekly. She's out there gracing the world with her talents. I admire and respect her as she does me. We have the same level of ambition, we have a similar world view so naturally if I'm facing a difficult decision or am facing a problem I might ask her for advice. It's not like it was when we were kids of course. For me friendship in childhood is like climbing every hill together and celebrating at every peak. In adulthood it is like climbing a mountain alone and seeing a familiar face only when you've descended to sturdy ground on the other side. We've all faced our own unique challenges since graduating from high school seven years ago, but outside of my family I feel like I know her the most intimately out of anyone else. I'm happy just knowing she exists and my insecurities about the sturdiness of our relationship since we began living in different cities has faded as I've matured. 

 

Of course in addition to my friend, for me when something exciting happens in my day or when I develop an interest in something I like to talk to people about it. As a kid I fell in love with Star Wars but no one else in my school knew anything about it so I found a message board online where people would talk about Star Wars. The rest of my life has gone very much the same way and with the increase in technology and online communities I can always find someone to talk to about any of my specific interests. Am I really close with these online people? No. Typically our conversations don't stray too far past our common interest but if we keep in touch for years and years and perhaps I add them on Twitter or something then naturally we might hear about each other's various non-fandom related struggles and offer advice but this is pretty rare. There are also some people I met in college on the basis of these common interests. College exposed me to a variety of different people who simply didn't exist where I'm from. I'll chat with them pretty much daily as well. I also feel comfortable asking for input about difficult decisions I'm thinking about making.

 

Between these two types of friendship I find that my social needs are met. Adding a partner into the mix seems unnatural. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Galactic Turtle said:

This is my first time hearing the term "nonamorous" but that sits with me well just like the term "nonsexual" because upon first learning about asexuality/aromanticism my mind was equating those to nonsexual/nonamorous by mistake but that's just the type of words I was looking for.

 

You say you want to be close to someone but I don't typically think "partner" when thinking about the people I'm close to. I have a friend who I've known for over 20 years. Sure we don't talk daily or even weekly. She's out there gracing the world with her talents. I admire and respect her as she does me. We have the same level of ambition, we have a similar world view so naturally if I'm facing a difficult decision or am facing a problem I might ask her for advice. It's not like it was when we were kids of course. For me friendship in childhood is like climbing every hill together and celebrating at every peak. In adulthood it is like climbing a mountain alone and seeing a familiar face only when you've descended to sturdy ground on the other side. We've all faced our own unique challenges since graduating from high school seven years ago, but outside of my family I feel like I know her the most intimately out of anyone else. I'm happy just knowing she exists and my insecurities about the sturdiness of our relationship since we began living in different cities has faded as I've matured. 

 

Of course in addition to my friend, for me when something exciting happens in my day or when I develop an interest in something I like to talk to people about it. As a kid I fell in love with Star Wars but no one else in my school knew anything about it so I found a message board online where people would talk about Star Wars. The rest of my life has gone very much the same way and with the increase in technology and online communities I can always find someone to talk to about any of my specific interests. Am I really close with these online people? No. Typically our conversations don't stray too far past our common interest but if we keep in touch for years and years and perhaps I add them on Twitter or something then naturally we might hear about each other's various non-fandom related struggles and offer advice but this is pretty rare. There are also some people I met in college on the basis of these common interests. College exposed me to a variety of different people who simply didn't exist where I'm from. I'll chat with them pretty much daily as well. I also feel comfortable asking for input about difficult decisions I'm thinking about making.

 

Between these two types of friendship I find that my social needs are met. Adding a partner into the mix seems unnatural.

thanks for sharing that. To be honnest, i think i will just not think about this anymore and probably see what will happen next. Also, yeah i would be happy with good friends ^^ even if we are not Partner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm also trying to go with the flow--my approach to most things in life.  i am fairly interested in having some sort of qpr or friends with benefits relationship, but i'm also quite satisfied with my friendships and my own company.  i'm neither actively pursuing nor avoiding anything else.  i am polyamorous, but that's along a different axis, like there's mono to poly and then there's amorous to non-amorous, right?  it's hard to place myself on this imaginary graph because, for one thing, it depends whether the frame of reference is everyone or just aro-specs.  but basically i'd be open to relationships with 0, 1, or more than one person.  i don't think amatonormativity is often at fault when an aro-spec person (or anyone) wants certain relationships or affection.  whatever we want or don't want is okay, and we don't need to compare it to romance, dating, marriage, or anything else.  i think that's what amatonormativity forces us to do: either to define a relationship and then mold it to fit that model, or to establish a relationship and then label it 'appropriately'.  like i've thought to myself, 'at what point would i call someone my boyfriend, partner, qpp, etc.?'  well, it doesn't matter.  i've seen similar stuff in the poly community, where people refer to their different partners using terms like 'primary' and 'secondary,' which has led others to distinguish themselves as 'practicing non-hierarchical polyamory'.  i'm not saying labels are all bad--i use them for my orientations--and if they help you understand your relationship that's perfectly fine, but like...don't sweat it.  do your thing, take your time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, aro_elise said:

i'm also trying to go with the flow--my approach to most things in life.  i am fairly interested in having some sort of qpr or friends with benefits relationship, but i'm also quite satisfied with my friendships and my own company.  i'm neither actively pursuing nor avoiding anything else.  i am polyamorous, but that's along a different axis, like there's mono to poly and then there's amorous to non-amorous, right?  it's hard to place myself on this imaginary graph because, for one thing, it depends whether the frame of reference is everyone or just aro-specs.  but basically i'd be open to relationships with 0, 1, or more than one person.  i don't think amatonormativity is often at fault when an aro-spec person (or anyone) wants certain relationships or affection.  whatever we want or don't want is okay, and we don't need to compare it to romance, dating, marriage, or anything else.  i think that's what amatonormativity forces us to do: either to define a relationship and then mold it to fit that model, or to establish a relationship and then label it 'appropriately'.  like i've thought to myself, 'at what point would i call someone my boyfriend, partner, qpp, etc.?'  well, it doesn't matter.  i've seen similar stuff in the poly community, where people refer to their different partners using terms like 'primary' and 'secondary,' which has led others to distinguish themselves as 'practicing non-hierarchical polyamory'.  i'm not saying labels are all bad--i use them for my orientations--and if they help you understand your relationship that's perfectly fine, but like...don't sweat it.  do your thing, take your time

That's right. thanks! Yeah i think i will just wait and see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most people have somewhat conflicting feelings about what they want in their life, not just us aromantics. Or we feel that we want something when maybe we don't actually want it (or only sometimes). Personally, sometimes when I lay awake at night I think about how nice it would be to have another person to snuggle up against, but in reality I know that I don't like that at all. Their breath gets all in your face or you have no space to move around!
I don't know if that adds anything useful to the conversation but I thought it's somewhat related.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...