Jump to content
Guest

QPR , friends and... amatonormativity.

Recommended Posts

Guest

Where to begin… Well, i am sure someone already said something about it somewhere, but here i go.

 

First of all, I have nothing against QPR's , or even the label itself.

 

 

But I believe QPR's are not immune to amatonormativity. 

 

I feel like sometime , we present QPR's as "more than friends". Peoples say "well, i would never do that for a friend but i would for my QPP" and frankly? I hear the same thing… from alloros and their romantic crush.

 

And of course, i heard some "well, we can still be in a relationship ! It don't have to be romantic ! "

Some peoples call them their "platonic soulmate" . I don't like that soulmates thing, and i know a lot of aros don't either. I am not too angry about it, but i am not sur i am 100% comfortable with that word. I just saw someone say " soulmates can be platonic ! don't exclude us ! " and like.. please no...

 

idk.

 

We yell at allo aces for saying "we can love too" but… some aros are doing exactly the same thing. (not just for QPR's i noticed. Can be friendship or familly.  We put someone's value in how and how much they can love  and i am not sure i like it )

 

------------

 

Also something i would like to discuss , a lot of aros are firm on saying that QPR are not friends , like, never ever.

 

but i heard some aros  say that sometime, friendship and QPR can overlap. To be honnest , i sometime have trouble seeing the difference between the two, but that's just my two cents as someone who never had a QPP. So i would like to ask peoples who know more about them. 

 

It make sense to me at least.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting topic.

I said many times here that QPR can be presented as amatonormative in some way. The concept in itself isn't hurtful, but sometimes the way it is presented is, for the reasons you said.

6 hours ago, Cristal Gris said:

I feel like sometime , we present QPR's as "more than friends".

I also saw it defined as "more than friendship but less than romantic relationship". For some reason people tend to put a hierarchy on everything.

 

6 hours ago, Cristal Gris said:

We yell at allo aces for saying "we can love too" but… some aros are doing exactly the same thing. (not just for QPR's i noticed. Can be friendship or familly.  We put someone's value in how and how much they can love  and i am not sure i like it )

 

This is true. I think someone talked about it on another topic. I never thought about it before, but yeah, this is harmful because it will always create another norm. Even when don't talk about QPRs,  we talk a lot about how we love our friends for instance. Less about how we love our familly however, that's sad for our siblings lol. I think I can get why : relationships are seen as important by society. As we can't have the romantic relationship, we put the light on other type of relationships. Maybe instead of select one type, we should focus on celebrate the diversity of relationships, or that enjoying loneliness doesn't mean you are not human? 

 

Also, we can remember that happiness can be based on other things but a relationship. Like loving one's job, having passion, or anything else that you can think of.

 

6 hours ago, Cristal Gris said:

but i heard some aros  say that sometime, friendship and QPR can overlap. To be honnest , i sometime have trouble seeing the difference between the two, but that's just my two cents as someone who never had a QPP. So i would like to ask peoples who know more about them. 

I think the feeling is different, but I never have a QPP so...

I remember, while I was trying to explain the concept to some aro people, they understood is as a bromance, or as famille relationships. I probably didn't explain well anyway, in particular because I was explaining it while talking about two characters of my story (on a forum someone saw them as romantic, so I had to explain they weren't).

 

6 hours ago, Cristal Gris said:

And of course, i heard some "well, we can still be in a relationship ! It don't have to be romantic ! "

Some peoples call them their "platonic soulmate" . I don't like that soulmates thing, and i know a lot of aros don't either. I am not too angry about it, but i am not sur i am 100% comfortable with that word. I just saw someone say " soulmates can be platonic ! don't exclude us ! " and like.. please no...

I have nothing against the concept of soulmates... if it is not use to mean "the one" or "there is someone for everyone in this world".

For what I read, the soulmate concept come from reincarnation theories. The idea is that souls reincarnate into groups. The members of your groups are your soulmates. They are not only one person, and it can be any kind of relationship. Someone who was your father in a previous life can be reincarnated as a friend or a teacher in this life for instance. It is also possible to reincarnate alone, and in this case our soulmates won't be there in our present life.

Now, I like this on a philosiphical level, because it can be any relationship; not only romantic or queerplatonic. It even think of the absence of soulmates. And it's true that there are people with whom I feel better, or that I befriended quickly. I don't think it is harmful to talk of platonic soulmates in that sense. But when it became synonyme of "unique partner that is wait in for you because this is fate"... well, I don't really like it.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On ‎8‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 1:38 AM, nonmerci said:

I also saw it defined as "more than friendship but less than romantic relationship". For some reason people tend to put a hierarchy on everything.

Ah , yeah… That...

 

On ‎8‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 1:38 AM, nonmerci said:

Also, we can remember that happiness can be based on other things but a relationship. Like loving one's job, having passion, or anything else that you can think of.

Of course !

But… even if someone don't like any of these things, are they less human? Do they deserve less respect ?

 

If someone is loveless (i know it can mean a lot of things but you see what i mean?) , it don't make them a bad person. They also deserve respect.

 

What i mean is : we don't deserve respect because we can love, we deserve respect because we exist.

 

On ‎8‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 1:38 AM, nonmerci said:

I have nothing against the concept of soulmates... if it is not use to mean "the one" or "there is someone for everyone in this world".

That's usually what they mean haha

 

On ‎8‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 1:38 AM, nonmerci said:

For what I read, the soulmate concept come from reincarnation theories. The idea is that souls reincarnate into groups. The members of your groups are your soulmates. They are not only one person, and it can be any kind of relationship. Someone who was your father in a previous life can be reincarnated as a friend or a teacher in this life for instance. It is also possible to reincarnate alone, and in this case our soulmates won't be there in our present life

Oh? I didn't know that.

 

On ‎8‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 1:38 AM, nonmerci said:

But when it became synonyme of "unique partner that is wait in for you because this is fate"... well, I don't really like it.

 

That usually how they describe it. In fiction at least, not sure how peoples really feel about it in real life.

(but i would not be surprised they also mean it like that )

 

Share this post


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

For what I read, the soulmate concept come from reincarnation theories. The idea is that souls reincarnate into groups. The members of your groups are your soulmates. They are not only one person, and it can be any kind of relationship. Someone who was your father in a previous life can be reincarnated as a friend or a teacher in this life for instance. It is also possible to reincarnate alone, and in this case our soulmates won't be there in our present life.

As someone really interested in Eastern and New Age spirituality, this resonates with me. It describes my relationships with other versions of me on anther timelines with whom I'm energetically in contact and can "channel" when I desire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2019 at 6:39 PM, Cristal Gris said:

I feel like sometime , we present QPR's as "more than friends". Peoples say "well, i would never do that for a friend but i would for my QPP" and frankly? I hear the same thing… from alloros and their romantic crush.

The language used can sound very similar to that used to describe romance.

 

On 8/7/2019 at 6:39 PM, Cristal Gris said:

And of course, i heard some "well, we can still be in a relationship ! It don't have to be romantic ! "

There's no good reason a non-romantic relationship should closely resemble a romantic one.

 

On 8/7/2019 at 6:39 PM, Cristal Gris said:

Some peoples call them their "platonic soulmate" . I don't like that soulmates thing, and i know a lot of aros don't either. I am not too angry about it, but i am not sur i am 100% comfortable with that word. I just saw someone say " soulmates can be platonic ! don't exclude us ! " and like.. please no...

There's this article which states "They complete you". Which is rather romance like.

Also this which states "a queerplatonic relationship is an intimate and intense relationship that doesn’t have characteristics of either a friendship or a romantic relationship." Then says "You feel like you’ve known each other for years and you can’t imagine your life without them!" which sounds like the way many allos describe romantic partners.

 

21 hours ago, nonmerci said:

I have nothing against the concept of soulmates... if it is not use to mean "the one" or "there is someone for everyone in this world".

For what I read, the soulmate concept come from reincarnation theories. The idea is that souls reincarnate into groups. The members of your groups are your soulmates. They are not only one person, and it can be any kind of relationship. Someone who was your father in a previous life can be reincarnated as a friend or a teacher in this life for instance. It is also possible to reincarnate alone, and in this case our soulmates won't be there in our present life.

In it's original form that could be interpreted as "you may meet some people who seem familiar at various times of your life".
How did "people" become "person"? Where did idea of it being important to specifically seek that individual over the rest of humanity come from? Ditto for the notion of fractional (half) people.

Share this post


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

How did "people" become "person"? Where did idea of it being important to specifically seek that individual over the rest of humanity come from? Ditto for the notion of fractional (half) people.

To stay with the reincarnation theory,  in fact it describes two kind of soulmates that people confused : the one I was talking about, and the popular vision of soulmate.

 

Also there is the idea that we are not complete for a very long time. I think this is Plato who said that originally humans were double, and the get divided? And somewhere there is the other half? I don't know the English terms for this theory sorry.

 

Anyway I have trouble to understand the idea that we are not whole when we are alone.

Share this post


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

Also there is the idea that we are not complete for a very long time. I think this is Plato who said that originally humans were double, and the get divided? And somewhere there is the other half? I don't know the English terms for this theory sorry.

 

I only recalled the part about Zeus fissioning conjoined twins. The searching part is also in there.

Quote

According to Greek mythology, humans were originally created with four arms, four legs and a head with two faces. Fearing their power, Zeus split them into two separate parts, condemning them to spend their lives in search of their other halves.

Quote

...and when one of them meets the other half, the actual half of himself, whether he be a lover of youth or a lover of another sort, the pair are lost in an amazement of love and friendship and intimacy and one will not be out of the other's sight, as I may say, even for a moment...

Though this would have been implied as "homo(sexual)", given Greek culture at the time also that The Symposium is all about eros. (Also male/female conjoined twins are so unusual that it's unlikely that the original legend would omit this.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2019 at 1:38 AM, nonmerci said:

Maybe instead of select one type, we should focus on celebrate the diversity of relationships, or that enjoying loneliness doesn't mean you are not human? 

I think that's a good aim.

Also we shouldn't forget all the interactions humans can have without really there being any relationship. I really like interacting with strangers in some settings. It can be very rewarding and meaningful.

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

Though this would have been implied as "homo(sexual)", given Greek culture at the time also that The Symposium is all about eros. (Also male/female conjoined twins are so unusual that it's unlikely that the original legend would omit this.)

I searched; we are talking of the same thing it seems. In his texte Plato said that originally there were 3 types of humans : male, female, androgyne (with a half female and a half male). So he talked about hetero and homo relationship. At end he talks about heterosexual and sexe between men,  but omitted sex between women; but I can't say I'm surprised.

If you speak French, here is the link to Plato's text. 

https://www.philolog.fr/le-mythe-de-landrogyne-texte-de-platon/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

16 hours ago, nonmerci said:

I searched; we are talking of the same thing it seems. In his texte Plato said that originally there were 3 types of humans : male, female, androgyne (with a half female and a half male). So he talked about hetero and homo relationship. At end he talks about heterosexual and sexe between men,  but omitted sex between women; but I can't say I'm surprised.

This section is attributed to Aristophanes.Possibly Plato is using people he knew as archetypes.

Though it might be reasonable to describe the soulmate concept as "platonic".
On the other hand "platonic love" dosn't appear to have that much to do with Plato. (Ditto for "romantic love" and Rome.)
 

16 hours ago, nonmerci said:

If you speak French, here is the link to Plato's text. 

https://www.philolog.fr/le-mythe-de-landrogyne-texte-de-platon/

I don't know French. Though I'm not sure that French translations would be any easier to make sense of than English.

 

 

Share this post


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

I don't know French. Though I'm not sure that French translations would be any easier to make sense of than English.

 

it's a simple text. But a bit too long for me to translate it right now ^^

 

I am not sure how I feel about this text that being said...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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” ¯\_()_/¯

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
10 minutes ago, treepod said:

I’m tempted to simply say that a QPR is a relationship that is “something else” ¯\_()_/¯

 

This is the wording i like the most, to be honnest.

 

That being said : i think we must not forget aros who feel like their QPP are also their friends, and aros who feel like it can overlap. We should accept that it can be different for everyone.

 

(note : i am aware that QPR's being different for everyone is generaly accepted. And i am aware that aros who defend that qpr's are different than friendship are usually yelling at alloros who dismiss us. )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Cristal Gris said:

 

That being said : i think we must not forget aros who feel like their QPP are also their friends, and aros who feel like it can overlap. We should accept that it can be different for everyone.

 

(note : i am aware that QPR's being different for everyone is generaly accepted. And i am aware that aros who defend that qpr's are different than friendship are usually yelling at alloros who dismiss us. )

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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 minute ago, treepod said:

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 it’s core it is something else because it fulfills a different need/role, whatever that may be?

 

I suppose it's right. Well, it sound right to me.

 

But that's only my two cents as someone who never had a qpr and is not really looking for one. So i may not be the best person to speak about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Cristal Gris said:

But that's only my two cents as someone who never had a qpr and is not really looking for one. So i may not be the best person to speak about it.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2019 at 3:25 PM, treepod said:

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.

If someone needs to justify not doing something that is a good sign of it being normative. (Even more so if there's a "missing some essential human instinct" meme associated with it). As well as having children,  this certainly applies to romance, the 'relationship escalator' and marriage.

 

On 8/10/2019 at 3:25 PM, treepod said:

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?

Maybe it would be better to ask if wanting a QPR is a choice?
There's also my poll, which showed only around a quarter of those responding are interested in QPRs.

 

On 8/10/2019 at 3:25 PM, treepod said:

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.

Where it originates from the aro community it's an example of "respectability politics".

 

On 8/10/2019 at 3:25 PM, treepod said:

I find myself getting a little frustrated that the definition of a QPR seems to be such a slippery fish.

It was specifically intended to be an umbrella term.

 

On 8/10/2019 at 3:25 PM, treepod said:

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.

Articles about the subject, especially from non aspec sources, can describe something very romance like.

 

On 8/10/2019 at 3:49 PM, treepod said:

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?

There can be a great deal of denial about QPRs having romance like elements or dynamics.
I'd also say that they can, in some cases, be a "stand in" for a romantic relationship. (Even though calling those 'queerromantic', 'quasiromantic' or 'pseudoromantic' might make more sense.) These are also the kind of examples you are most likely to see in non-aspec media, since they are easiest for allos to comprehend.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue with thinking about qprs right now is that I have such a hard time distinguishing for myself what the difference is between a qpr and a very close friendship. Trying to draw the line for me between what is platonic and what is romantic is super tricky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

4 minutes ago, aspecofstardust said:

I have such a hard time distinguishing for myself what the difference is between a qpr and a very close friendship

 

To be honnest…. i feel the same.

 

Also, when I say i am not looking for a qpr , it mean that i am not looking for a "certain type of relationship described by some aros about their qpr ", and i would probably not feel the need to call it like that. But i could have a relationship i would call close friendship but someone else would call it a qpr ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cristal Gris said:

 

 

To be honnest…. i feel the same.

 

Also, when I say i am not looking for a qpr , it mean that i am not looking for a "certain type of relationship described by some aros about their qpr ", and i would probably not feel the need to call it like that. But i could have a relationship i would call close friendship but someone else would call it a qpr ?

 

 

Exactly! The boundaries of what a qpr is is totally up to the people involved. I know what kinds of relationships I'd really like to have in the future, but am I ever going to be able to find someone who won't leave me when they start a romantic partnership? It's tricky.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Articles about the subject, especially from non aspec sources, can describe something very romance like.

Yeah, Googling “queerplatonic relationship” gives me mostly articles like “X signs you’re in a queerplatonic relationship without even knowing”, which feels icky and amatonormative, but very little that criticizes amatonormativity and relationship hierarchies. Which makes me wonder, do the non aspecs writing these articles know that they’re harmful?

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

It was specifically intended to be an umbrella term.

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:

 

23 minutes ago, raavenb2619 said:

Yeah, Googling “queerplatonic relationship” gives me mostly articles like “X signs you’re in a queerplatonic relationship without even knowing”, which feels icky and amatonormative, but very little that criticizes amatonormativity and relationship hierarchies. Which makes me wonder, do the non aspecs writing these articles know that they’re harmful?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2019 at 12:39 PM, Cristal Gris said:

I just saw someone say " soulmates can be platonic ! don't exclude us ! " and like.. please no...

 

+1 to the anti-soulmates resistance. The idea of "soulmates" at this point is basically inextricable from the idea of predestined relationships, which... is just a bad outlook to have on relationships all around, no matter what kind.

 

On 8/7/2019 at 12:39 PM, Cristal Gris said:

a lot of aros are firm on saying that QPR are not friends , like, never ever.

 

I'd really like to know how these people define "friendship."

 

10 hours ago, aspecofstardust said:

My issue with thinking about qprs right now is that I have such a hard time distinguishing for myself what the difference is between a qpr and a very close friendship.

 

There isn't necessarily any difference -- they can be the same. "QPR" is just... more specific, or I guess, a more specific way of indicating how you think about the relationship/how it doesn't fit within societal norms. Different people live in different cultural contexts, so there can't be any hard and fast rules for what exactly that will entail.

 

8 hours ago, raavenb2619 said:

Yeah, Googling “queerplatonic relationship” gives me mostly articles like “X signs you’re in a queerplatonic relationship without even knowing”, which feels icky

 

Oh geez, what?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

+1 to the anti-soulmates resistance. The idea of "soulmates" at this point is basically inextricable from the idea of predestined relationships, which... is just a bad outlook to have on relationships all around, no matter what kind.

 

That, or "they are two (or more when they try to be inclusive ) part of a one"

 

Also, no one is perfect for anyone and i feel like this is dangerous to say so.

 

18 hours ago, Coyote said:

I'd really like to know how these people define "friendship."

 

Interresting.

Friendships are different for everyone… not unlike other relationships.

 

18 hours ago, Coyote said:

Different people live in different cultural contexts, so there can't be any hard and fast rules for what exactly that will entail.

 

I feel like we have a tendency to forget about cultural context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2019 at 7:16 PM, raavenb2619 said:

Yeah, Googling “queerplatonic relationship” gives me mostly articles like “X signs you’re in a queerplatonic relationship without even knowing”, which feels icky and amatonormative, but very little that criticizes amatonormativity and relationship hierarchies.

I recall an article which even quoted Brake. Whilst describing something which sounded virtually identical to a romantic relationship.

 

On 8/10/2019 at 7:16 PM, raavenb2619 said:

Which makes me wonder, do the non aspecs writing these articles know that they’re harmful?

It's likely that they don't. Also that the intended audience is other allos.

 

On 8/11/2019 at 3:53 AM, Coyote said:

+1 to the anti-soulmates resistance. The idea of "soulmates" at this point is basically inextricable from the idea of predestined relationships, which... is just a bad outlook to have on relationships all around, no matter what kind.

For me it's the "half person" idea which makes me think "just no".
 

On 8/11/2019 at 3:53 AM, Coyote said:

There isn't necessarily any difference -- they can be the same. "QPR" is just... more specific, or I guess, a more specific way of indicating how you think about the relationship/how it doesn't fit within societal norms. Different people live in different cultural contexts, so there can't be any hard and fast rules for what exactly that will entail.

It's important not to overlook that there is a cultural context involved in the QPR definition(s).
Also that factors like social class, age, gender, race, religion, etc. can affect someone's cultural context as much as geography.

 

On 8/11/2019 at 10:20 AM, Cristal Gris said:

That, or "they are two (or more when they try to be inclusive ) part of a one"

I find this a rather dystopian removal of individuality and autonomy. Trying to turn humans into something like The Borg.

  • 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...