Jump to content
Mark

What do aros actually want in terms of relationships?

What relationships do aros want?  

46 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

2 hours ago, Mark said:

This very much depend on what definition of platonic you are using.
It's two mainstream being "non physical" and "non sexual" I favour the former definition.
The former excludes (non sexual) physical affection, whereas the latter does not,

 

 

I was using the latter definition of platonic.   I am perfectly willing to use a more appropriate term form "non-sexual/romantic, but still physically affectionate" relationships, if one exists.
 

2 hours ago, Mark said:

The Triangular theory of love looks very messy from my POV.
Given that "Passion" and "Commitment" definitely have multiple definitions within this model. Whilst the model itself ignores this.

 

There's also complications inherent in relating "love", an entirely abstract concept, to "relationship", which has physical structure and dynamics.


 I agree that it's not a perfect model, but it's the best one I have (so far) for describing what I experience.    I suppose that the loyalty I feel towards my friends (which is labeled as commitment) would skew things more in a QPR direction....  gah, now I'm not sure.

 

I  think what's throwing me is that my relationships with my male & female friends have been very similar...  I just feel more comfortable giving (and receiving) affection from the former than the latter.   This is possibly partly due to the fact that hugging someone of the opposite gender, at this time and place, is often interpreted romantically, if not sexually (which is also why I've historically had more male than female friends).

 

1 hour ago, Mark said:

I think having "higher in commitment" being in the QPR definition to be a bad thing. Since it buys into the, amantonormative, notion that some types of relationship are "more than" other types.
(It's possible, though rare, to find alloromantics who are more commited to non-romantic relationships than romantic ones.)

 

I'll admit that I'm a little fuzzy on the definition myself, hence my equivocation.  I seem to have a pattern of finding almost the right words for things. :/ . 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding platonic being non-physical that largely depends on the culture, probably right down to the microculture for example a group of straight cis-males in a very straight cis-male working culture at work would definitely not be physically affectionate, whereas a group of very straight cis-females might be more huggy and kissy with their friends, in the same way that some families are more huggy and kissy, and then you have everything in between. I do wonder though how "hug-starved" we are as a society if we rely so much on romance relationships for them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DogObsessedLiz said:

Regarding platonic being non-physical that largely depends on the culture, probably right down to the microculture for example a group of straight cis-males in a very straight cis-male working culture at work would definitely not be physically affectionate, whereas a group of very straight cis-females might be more huggy and kissy with their friends, in the same way that some families are more huggy and kissy, and then you have everything in between. I do wonder though how "hug-starved" we are as a society if we rely so much on romance relationships for them.

I think it's an important point that "gender coding" as well as "romance coding" is involved here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DogObsessedLiz said:

I do wonder though how "hug-starved" we are as a society if we rely so much on romance relationships for them.

 

I have a fairly long rant about "touch hunger" (a.k.a. "skin hunger") but I don't want to derail your thread. :) 

 

4 hours ago, Mark said:

I think it's an important point that "gender coding" as well as "romance coding" involved here.

 

Absolutely.  What's acceptable to women in terms of friendly touch is practically verboten to men.  I can't speak of other genders, but I'm curious.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2019 at 9:00 PM, Ace Of Hugs said:

My friendships tend to be more "friends with (non-sexual) benefits"

 

I sometimes used to joke with my roommate that we were "friends with benefits" because they let me use their store rewards card.

 

On 7/25/2019 at 9:00 PM, Ace Of Hugs said:

As I understand it, QPRs tend to be higher in commitment than what I'm talking about.

 

On 7/26/2019 at 2:38 AM, Mark said:

I think having "higher in commitment" being in the QPR definition to be a bad thing. Since it buys into the, amantonormative, notion that some types of relationship are "more than" other types.
(It's possible, though rare, to find alloromantics who are more commited to non-romantic relationships than romantic ones.)

 

Orientation doesn't have any direct bearing on it. But anyway -- on the one hand, I'm not sure if "higher in commitment" can be said to be an inherent part of the meaning of queerplatonic. The word "commit" doesn't appear anywhere in the original post/comment thread or S.E. Smith's followup explanation. A QPR can be high-commitment, but I don't operate under the understanding that it needs to be reserved as such. In another post, S.E. Smith explicitly expressed a wish for it to become a fluid umbrella term. I don't think it's amatonormative to offer "high-commitment" as an example of how QPRs "queer" the "platonic" -- one of the Societal Rules around these things is that Only Romance does Commitment, so personal peer commitment in a relationship that's not-specifically-romantic is one way of breaking those Rules. I dunno at what point the "high-commitment" example ended up becoming part of people's ideas about the One Way to do QPRs, though. I guess most likely because it's an example that just got reiterated often.

 

On 7/27/2019 at 10:20 AM, Ace Of Hugs said:

I have a fairly long rant about "touch hunger" (a.k.a. "skin hunger") but I don't want to derail your thread.

 

Dooooo you have a blog somewhere that you could post this rant to? Or possibly a willingness to create a new thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Coyote said:

Dooooo you have a blog somewhere that you could post this rant to? Or possibly a willingness to create a new thread?

 

I had one once (under an unrelated name) and I may have even ranted there about it.  But I shut it down a good 5-6 years ago due to lack of traffic.  I could start a new topic later today, if there's interest... where do you think it would be most suitable (as it's not exactly on-topic)?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ace Of Hugs said:

where do you think it would be most suitable (as it's not exactly on-topic)?

 

Relationships, maybe? I think talking about "it's detrimental that people restrict themselves to doing these things only in romantic contexts" is plenty on-topic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2019 at 3:38 AM, Mark said:

Potentially yes. Given that I lean towards to definition of "platonic" being something entirely non physical. Though it's self evidently possible for affection to be expressed in non physical terms.
 

I think having "higher in commitment" being in the QPR definition to be a bad thing. Since it buys into the, amantonormative, notion that some types of relationship are "more than" other types.
(It's possible, though rare, to find alloromantics who are more commited to non-romantic relationships than romantic ones.)

 

I specifically omitted Friends With Benefits from the options.

Partly because of the all to common (mis)assumption that "benefits" equals "sex(ual)".Though also because, especially allos, can treat the "friends" part as euphemistic.

 

Some of these aspects notably that romantic partners also be "best friends" appear to be recent additions. I don't recall encountering it 20 or so years ago.
It also appears to have become more the norm for those in romantic relationships to do everything "as a couple". Essentially "soclal monogamy" taken to an extreme.

The second paragraph of this article describes the current kind of expectations.

Wow a lot happened in this discussions. im reading the research now but yeah I really Vibe with this idea of "social monogamy taken to an extreme". I am so independent I couldnt tolerate having to "do everything as a couple" and I remember a particular kind of grief in young adulthood and adolescence when I discovered boys were using me as a wingman without my consent to get to a girl(when I perceived us as being very close friends) and essentially never speaking to me again once they started dating said girl because now they were a "unit" a single "item". Thats an aspect of modern romance i find absolutely intolerable. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want exactly what I have now: Lots of friends, some of whom I have sex with. 

 

(Well, more sex would be good.)

 

It didn't feel like that was covered by any of the poll options, so I didn't vote. 

  • Like 1

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...