Jump to content
Mark

Squishy or not Squishy

Squishy or not?  

34 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I say I don't have squishes because I think I had only one in my entire life, or something strange that may qualifies me as a greyplatonic person but doesn't fit the definition you have here (in fact I am now questioning if I am a greyro aplatonic or an aro greyplatonic... my, identity is so complicated).

 

Anyway thanks for this, I think we need it.

 

Share this post


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

I say I don't have squishes because I think I had only one in my entire life, or something strange that may qualifies me as a greyplatonic person but doesn't fit the definition you have here (in fact I am now questioning if I am a greyro aplatonic or an aro greyplatonic... my, identity is so complicated).

I think the problem with "grey-anything" is "normal level of attraction" is a highly subjective idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had 5 in my lifetime, so I'm greyplatonic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I put 'something else' because I don't really understand the concept of 'squish' from what I've read in other threads (I don't get how it's different from the standard wanting to be friends with someone or wanting to get to know them better / spend more time with them)

 

Also this:

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say I occasionally have squishes because I occasionally feel pulled towards people, but, as most people seem to agree, what a "squish" or platonic/queerplatonic attraction might be is confusing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting, i kind of assumed most aros did.  i definitely do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good initiative for a poll.

I wonder if we perhaps shouldn't use aplatonic in that sense though. Because I've seen aros (mainly on reddit) saying that they want to use that to describe how they don't form platonic bonds. I think that's a more intuitive use of that word.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Holmbo said:

Because I've seen aros (mainly on reddit) saying that they want to use that to describe how they don't form platonic bonds. I think that's a more intuitive use of that word.

I think the way Mark use it is more intuitive, as it links to the definition of aromantic or asexual. Plus I suppose that the needing of formons platonic bond is lin to platonic attraction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Holmbo said:

Good initiative for a poll.

I wonder if we perhaps shouldn't use aplatonic in that sense though. Because I've seen aros (mainly on reddit) saying that they want to use that to describe how they don't form platonic bonds. I think that's a more intuitive use of that word.

 


Maybe the squish is a weaker form of romantic love? A vestigial emotional organ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Spacenik86 said:

Maybe the squish is a weaker form of romantic love

I don't think so, it seems to be it's own thing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted "something else" because my answer would have been "I don't use the word 'squish.'" Nothing against other people talking that way, to be clear. Just saying that for myself, it's... not the way I talk.

 

I don't use platonic orientation labels, either, for that matter. I honestly hope that that never becomes an expected/demanded/subculturally compulsory thing the way romantic orientation has become for aces. My relationship to the concept of "platonic orientation" isn't the same as how I feel about "romantic orientation," though -- it's more just... I don't see why I'd describe any of that stuff using the "orientation" framework, personally. Also I hate the word platonic.

 

On 6/18/2019 at 1:05 PM, NullVector said:

(I don't get how it's different from the standard wanting to be friends with someone or wanting to get to know them better / spend more time with them)

 

Doesn't sound any different at all to me. Here's the original thread where it was suggested, for reference (which isn't to say that other people don't or shouldn't use it differently).

 

Speaking just for myself again: I definitely have known people I've wanted to become friends with, and what I call that is "wanting to become friends."

 

10 hours ago, nonmerci said:

Plus I suppose that the needing of formons platonic bond is lin to platonic attraction?

 

What?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm one of the ones who doesn't have squishes. I'm friendly to people and if they are friendly back then we have a chance at friendship but I don't understand the 'want to be friends' draw people talk about. Friendships just happen with work, I don't have a particular target to aim at. And once you are friends with someone there is an investment, and so a drive to continue the friendship ~even when the friendship turns toxic it can be hard to break the bond. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Coyote maybe I maybe using the term "platonic" as something more specific than other, but for me it's more than "just want to become friends", I understanding it as an attraction that leads people to want a QPR relationship. And I see QPR as a not romantic couple so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2019 at 2:57 PM, nonmerci said:

I think the way Mark use it is more intuitive, as it links to the definition of aromantic or asexual. Plus I suppose that the needing of formons platonic bond is lin to platonic attraction?

The definition which comes up from an Internet search is "Aplatonic is simply a descriptor used by some aro people to explain that they do not experience squishes nor desire to be in qpps/qprs."
Though the tumblr blog this appears to come from appears to be against using it as it's own orientation or identity. Even though this is implied by the way "platonic attraction" is often used...
There might be more of a need for a term to describe aros who experience this kind of thing.
There's this AVEN post covering various different usages of the term. 

 

On 6/19/2019 at 6:36 AM, aro_elise said:

interesting, i kind of assumed most aros did.  i definitely do.

That was my assumption too. A lot of writing about the subject does seem "squish normative",

 

On 6/19/2019 at 2:58 PM, Spacenik86 said:

Maybe the squish is a weaker form of romantic love? A vestigial emotional organ.

Conflating "romantic" and "emotional" seems rather an amantonormative POV. As does seeing "squish" as involving some kind of "diluted romance".

 

9 hours ago, nonmerci said:

maybe I maybe using the term "platonic" as something more specific than other, but for me it's more than "just want to become friends", I understanding it as an attraction that leads people to want a QPR relationship. And I see QPR as a not romantic couple so...

There are multiple definitions of platonic around. AFAIK "just want to become friends" isn't in any dictionary.
I couldn't find "platonic attraction" in any dictionary. It shows up most often contrasted with "romantic attraction" on AVENQuora and Typology Central.
With "platonic attraction" vs "friendship" appearing in this Carnival of Aces piece.
I suspect that current usage of "platonic" has about as little to do with Plato as "romance" does with the City (or Empire) of Rome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Coyote said:

Speaking just for myself again: I definitely have known people I've wanted to become friends with, and what I call that is "wanting to become friends."

Yeah, same. Up to now, I didn't personally see why this needs its own word. Or how it's at all specific to aros. 🤷‍♂️

 

But maybe it's what @nonmerci said:

11 hours ago, nonmerci said:

an attraction that leads people to want a QPR relationship.

which would be more aro-specific, I guess...(although I'm personally not sure about the term 'QPR' - do these imply an aro-ace only dynamic, or can they be sexual? (the 'P' might suggest not))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think QPR can be sexual too.

And I Don't think squishes and QPRs are just for aros. In particular if we think about it as an attraction. Maybe for allo, it is melted with the romantic one : they confused romantic and sexual attraction, so they can confused romantic and platonic too I guess. Plus, a lot of aros said they mistaken their squishes for crushes before knowing about aromanticism. It must be even more complicated for allos to differenciate the two attractions.

 

5 hours ago, Mark said:

Though the tumblr blog this appears to come from appears to be against using it as it's own orientation or identity. Even though this is implied by the way "platonic attraction" is often used…

That's just an hypothesis as I'm not familiar with Tumblr, but could it be link to the idea that squishes is an aro thing? It was built by opposition to crushes, and as a part of the aro Identity. Now, if we admit that it is an attraction, there is no good reason to believe that allos can't feel it. So it would be like taking away from the community a very important component.

 

But I kinda think it is useful as an orientation or identity. At least for me, the concept of greyplatonism is helping me (what I consider grey-crushes could be grey-squishes, and that makes more sense to me).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, NullVector said:

Up to now, I didn't personally see why this needs its own word. Or how it's at all specific to aros.

 

It's not.

 

7 hours ago, NullVector said:
19 hours ago, nonmerci said:

an attraction that leads people to want a QPR relationship.

which would be more aro-specific, I guess...(although I'm personally not sure about the term 'QPR' - do these imply an aro-ace only dynamic, or can they be sexual? (the 'P' might suggest not))

 

Not at all. Queerplatonic as a term was originally intended as something open to anyone. To quote the person who first suggested the word, S.E. Smith: "Anyone, sexual or asexual, romantic or aromantic, straight, gay, queer, bi, lesbian, poly, cis, trans, etc etc can be in a queerplatonic relationship."

Share this post


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

I think QPR can be sexual too.

That's something I find difficult to comprehend.
Since I understand "platonic" to mean "non physical", "non sexual", "non sensual". Thus "platonic" and "sexual" are very much mutually exclusive adjectives to me.

 

14 hours ago, nonmerci said:

And I Don't think squishes and QPRs are just for aros. In particular if we think about it as an attraction. Maybe for allo, it is melted with the romantic one : they confused romantic and sexual attraction, so they can confused romantic and platonic too I guess.

I think that it would be perioriented people (including aro aces) who'd be most likely to conflate and confuse romantic and sexual attractions. 
I don't understand what "platonic attraction" means. So would tend to see it as belonging on this kind of adjective-noun combination list. About the best I could come up with would be "It's some kind of abstract attraction which I don't grok."

 

15 hours ago, nonmerci said:

But I kinda think it is useful as an orientation or identity. At least for me, the concept of greyplatonism is helping me (what I consider grey-crushes could be grey-squishes, and that makes more sense to me).

I also find it useful to consider that way. Though in the context of quoi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2019 at 8:56 PM, Coyote said:

I voted "something else" because my answer would have been "I don't use the word 'squish.'" Nothing against other people talking that way, to be clear. Just saying that for myself, it's... not the way I talk.

 

Same. I definitely have had things in the past that could be described as "squishes" but I personally don't like the way it (or any of it's derivatives like smush or lush) sound. And if I were ever to talk about having one to non-a-specs I feel like it would require too much explanation- I'd use "friend crush" instead just because it feels more self-explanatory. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You’d have to have a pretty amazing personality for me to have a squish on you and its happened twice so far while I’m 17 currently. The poll was a little confusing for me though because I’ve experienced platonic attraction quite a few times without getting to the point of having a squish on somebody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mark said:
20 hours ago, nonmerci said:

I think QPR can be sexual too.

That's something I find difficult to comprehend.
Since I understand "platonic" to mean "non physical", "non sexual", "non sensual". Thus "platonic" and "sexual" are very much mutually exclusive adjectives to me.

Yep, that's how I understand it as well.

 

In fact, isn't this just the standard usage of 'Platonic' in the context of inter-personal relationships? I just googled it and this is the top hit I got: 

 

adjective
  1. (of love or friendship) intimate and affectionate but not sexual.
    "their relationship is purely platonic"
    synonyms: non-sexual, non-physical, chaste;
    spiritual, intellectual, friendly
    "our relationship is purely platonic"
     

So it seems very confusing to me to coin 'QPR' as a term to inculde sexual relationships. When that usage flatly contradicts the common usage of 'Platonic'...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, NullVector said:

Yep, that's how I understand it as well.

 

In fact, isn't this just the standard usage of 'Platonic' in the context of inter-personal relationships? I just googled it and this is the top hit I got: 

 

adjective
  1. (of love or friendship) intimate and affectionate but not sexual.
    "their relationship is purely platonic"
    synonyms: non-sexual, non-physical, chaste;
    spiritual, intellectual, friendly
    "our relationship is purely platonic"
     

So it seems very confusing to me to coin 'QPR' as a term to inculde sexual relationships. When that usage flatly contradicts the common usage of 'Platonic'...

 

I dont think so- for example, "friend" generally is taken to mean "not romantic or sexual" but "friends with benefits" is still considered a type of friendship. 

 

and I think just because platonic attraction by itself is not sexual doesn't mean that you cant also have sexual attraction along with it, or a platonic relationship that is also sexual. like, romantic attraction and sexual attraction are two different things but most romantic relationships are also sexual.

 

and honestly I dont think pointing at a dictionary is the best way to make this argument, especially when comparing the definition made by an amatonormative society versus how these terms are used with in aro spaces.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

and honestly I dont think pointing at a dictionary is the best way to make this argument, especially when comparing the definition made by an amatonormative society versus how these terms are used with in aro spaces.

 

I was only trying to point out there that, if we do the equivalent of calling circles as squares and squares as circles in aro spaces, then it's reasonable to expect our talking this way to (unnecessarily IMO) confuse people. I mean, I'm here in this space and I find it confusing :P

 

So, are we doing this? The question for me is whether 'platonic' and 'sexual' are mutually exclusive by definition. If most people would agree "yes" then is setting up our terminology to say "no" really a good idea? Can we use better words here? That's the question I was implicitly asking by "pointing at a dictionary". 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2019 at 3:57 PM, nonmerci said:

I think the way Mark use it is more intuitive, as it links to the definition of aromantic or asexual. Plus I suppose that the needing of formons platonic bond is lin to platonic attraction?

 Just cause someone doesn't get squishes  doesn't mean they're unable or unwilling to form platonic bonds with others. Platonic attraction seems to me as too vague a term to be useful, but if there is a way to describe it I don't think it's just about getting squishes.

  • 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...