nonmerci

I thought about the way people would behave with their "soulmates", not at all the concept of "fate" or "there is somebody out there for everyone", which is very amatonormative and I don't like that because people use it to say "you don't find the one yet".

When I discovered I was aro I had the urge to tell people, but didn't because 1. I don't have a lot of friends, 2. I didn't know how to bring the subject naturally. Now, I don't feel like this any more. I think about it less. I just "come out" if the subject somehow comes in the conversation. Like the other day, I told someone I was ace just like that, I don't even know what we were talking about, but it sounds like a good idea to precise "I am ace" before saying something about sexe or I don't remember. (And it was fine by the way, I don't even know if "come out" is the good term for that because it was absolutely not the subject of our conversation). So I will not think of "coming out", but I can if I feel like it is good to say I am aro or ace if the conversation is about romanticism or sexuality, or something like that.

YMBAI if you are confused by the "I love you" thing and why it is an important "step " in a romantic relationship. Because why would you date someone you don't love (romantically)? (I thought that being crushes and being in love was the same)

I guess Something like raavenb2619 says? I don't really know, but it seems that it actually exists as I saw people say they have this kind of feeling, and the same about QPR. Also, the idea that something can different from platonic without being romantic is heloping me to get why QPR is different from a deep friendship, because then the feeling is different. But if I have to define it, I would say that QPR makes me thought of two characters that I created in a story, when I read things about "platonic soulmates", completing (in the sense that their personality are complementary and that they fit each other somehow, not that they are each other half) and things like that. Now, I realized that there are some problem with these concepts, in particular as I created these characters to value friendship. But I don't know, this makes sense on the moment, and I began to understand QPR like that, and see alterous as the attraction for this kind of Relationship. But maybe I am wrong of course.

I would your model 3 of friendship, in a way it doesn't exclude the first one. More precisely, for me a friend is someone I enjoy company, and who is there for me if I have problems (and I am there too if my friend has problems of course). The second point is important to distinguish from an acquaintance. I also add that I can see my friend as an equal, in the sense that there is no authority relationship as you can have with your parents for instance ("equal" was probably not the word but I can't find the English word for "sur le même plan"). See what I mean? About this point in your (good) article... "Presumably, under this model, if two people are friends, but they both(?) start feeling another form of attraction, then that (itself) changes the nature of the relationship (as opposed to a change in bonds, behaviors, commitments, etc.). It is unclear to what degree this attraction needs to be mutual or needs to be openly acknowledged in order for this change to take place." It's true that I see a lot of people saying that the feeling leads to qualify something as a QPR or not, and I believe it's true, as it is for romance. However, I don't think that the feeling alone is enough to change the nature of the friendship into a QPR : I ththink there has to be a discussion between the two person involved, so they both agree to label their relationship this way. Just like romance, you can't be a couple if the other person don't agree with it. But of course this is my opinion. Thinking in terms of attraction and feelings is helpful to me, but I make a distinction between attraction and relationship, feeling and actions. You can be attracted a certain way without getting involved in a relationship, the same way you can be friend with someone without feeling squishes.

That's how I read it too. Probably because I don't want to get married. If aros want to get married they can, and if they don't they don't have to be pressure to do it; that's how I see it. Otherwise it is normative.

To be simple, for me platonic is to friendship what romantic is to romance. But I guess this is not how everybody use it. I have not your knowledge of history of the words and common use of terms. I am just influence by the fact that "squish" is define by "platonic attraction" which is defined by "the desire of be friend with someone".

You mean the post about how marriage should be about platonic feelings? At least that's how I read it, that a marriage can only work if there is platonic content. Well, I guess that one of the question would be what is platonic exactly, but this is another debate. Personnaly, I think that what makes a marriage work is trust and enjoying the other person company. If this is platonic or romantic, not the question I think. To know for sure that a platonic marriage works better than a romantic marriage, there should be studies; but really, I don't think it's possible because I think this is rare that even alloromantic people get married without sharing platonic things. Of course I can be mistaken, but I never saw this in real life. This sounds like QPR should get married, but I think only the individuals should decide what is ideal for them or not. By the way, I don't think it is ideal to replace the norm of romance marriage by a norm of platonic marriage is ideal. I think we should focus on celebrating the diversity of relationships, and stop giving advantages to people who are married. But that's just my thoughts of course. I personally don't cant to get married. Except for the cake and the dress maybe. This post also seems to think that all aromantics are looking for a "platonic lifemate", which is not the case. Personally, I think the Platonic Ideal should be celebrating all kind of relationships, instead of focusing only on one type.

Congratulations!

If I have to say a difference, I'd say like you that analterous treat it as an attraction, whereas non-alterous insist more on the relationship. I agree about romantic and platonic, but I don't see platonic and sexual as antonyms. Probably because I don't use it as Platon would have done, but I associate it with friendship. And in theory, there is no reason one can't be sexually attracted to friends. This is the whole concept of "friend with benefits". I think the point is to distinguish between an alterous attraction and a squish. So I think it is your option 4, a desire/attraction for a non-romantic emotional relationship, different from platonic or romantic. I think there is more attraction than the ones we usually talk about, so maybe alterous is a good word for that. How I see it, queerplatonic is used to talk about a type of relationship, not attraction. At least I never see queerplatonic attraction be used. Plus, I know queerplatonic is an established word, but I see a problem use a word with "platonic" in it for something like alterous, that is supposed to be neither romantic nor platonic. But this is just my point of view of course. Thanks for the links, this is interesting.

Oups, sorry Mark. (Note to myself, always look the gender of the person before using pronouns; they is the neutral pronoun, that's it?) Thanks for your responding, I don't have the time to answer right now but I will later.

Aromantic is not about commitment; and for what I read, you were involved in the relationship. But if you are not comfortable in a relationship, breaking it is not a mistake, if you can't see a way to make it work. If you both don't expect the same things of your relationship, it is better to stop before realizing too late you don't want the same thing. I hop you can stay friends though, they seem to be an important person for you.

I don't think it is more common for aros, just that we won't put the same words on it. Allos would call is "sexual harassment". Because, you know, romance can't lead to bad behavior like that, it is pure and beautiful (irony).

OK. As you ask if a-spec include aplatonism, I thought you thought it was part of the a-spectrum. About nonamorous, yeah, maybe. I think non alterous is more about QPR I guess, whereas nonamorous is larger (both QPR and romantic relationship). There are so much terms, I got lost sometimes. I think they are useful, but sometimes it's difficult to find the correct word to describe my experience.

Hi everyone! So, after seeing this term on this forum I start wondering if I can be non-alterous somehow. But it's hard to find information about it. So, it seems the term is recent. For the definitions I find, an alterous relationship or attraction would be somewhere between platonic and romantic; a definition that I don't like because it would place romantic and platonic on the same scale when I see them as different. But it seems to describe QPR. So I would describe alterous as being attracted or desire a relationship that is not conventional. And being non-alterous or analterous would be the contrary. I also saw once a definition that I like of non alterous : no desire for a special relationship or connection with one person. I personally find this term useful, because I can say that I am not interesting in a QPR, or a special one-to-one relationship that would be different from friendship. But I am the only one? Is there other person here who identify with this label? Do I understand it correctly? I think I saw @Mark talk about it here, so I'm interesed to hear them on this subject.

For me it sounds demi, but not being demiromantic myself I can't say for sure.

Yep, I think it is somehow that for me. I am positive or indifferent to romance when it is not towards me. But unhealthy romance? I call that an obsession and I don't like that.

Well, the thing is it is sometimes described the same way we describes QPR, who are described in an amatonormative way too. Personally, I would describe it as "not looking for a special one to one link", as QPR could be; not very satisfying, but it is useful to me. And about it not being near of the cultural weight of sex and romance... isn't it true for platonic attraction too? Though you don't deny that aplatonism could belong here?

I use this term the same as you do. I think it is logical.

I know a girl who ask the police for not having her ex boyfriend come near her, and broke up with him because of the way he behave. He refused to accept the break-up. Maybe people would call that sexual rather romantic, but it was because he was in love with her, in a very fusional way : wanting to do everything with her, be with her all the time; she ended it after he wanted her Facebook password. She needed space and he won't let her. OK, she was allo, but still, she needed the police to get rid of him. So I think romantic harassment can be threatening too.

It was an example. There is also the valorization for different kinds of relationships, the fight against amatonormativity... And I think non-alterous can have that too. But this is just my opinion, I just started looking this label to see if it can fit me si I don't know a lot yet, maybe you know more and can explain why you think it doesn't fit in an a-spectrum? And I won't define atheism like this neither. It is some kind of belief too, in science and evidences. About the greyro thing : I don't know why it would more fit in alloromanticism than aromanticism. If for you aromantic is strictly define as not feeling romantic attraction, so alloromanticism should be define as feeling it, in a normal way, isn't it? So for you, shouldn't the grey area be his own thing, in particular for greyros who don't define them by the frequency but the itensity of the attraction? Or demiromantics, who have a completely different way of experiencing attraction? Anyway, I think that greyros were included in aromanticism because there experience is one of an aro most of the time. And again, I think it is up to the person to define if there experience is closer than an aro or a allo. About my own label, as I said I am questioning right now, because I am wondering if what I called before "grey crushes" were not some kind of alterous attraction, if that term exist. I know I had only one real crush. But this is another debate.

I thought like this at the begining. But when I start labelling as grey, I saw how I am not allo at all (well, I'm now wondering if I'm greyro or aro, but that's another debate). I had one crush in my entire life. I won't be able to say what's my type, if I'm hetero, homo, bi, or anything, because I never had enough crushes experience to know, as one is not representative. I Don't see how I could fit in an alloro label at all. That would be completely contradictory with my everyday experience. And I suppose this is the same for a lot of people in the grey area. I think it's upp to the person to define if there experience falls under the aro or the alloro label. Some people in the grey area will think about themselves as aro, other as alloro, maybe some will think neither of this label fit them. I think there is one Spectrum, from aro to allo; but that when we speak about an aro spectrum, we speak of everybody that feels their experience is an aromantic experience (like don't want a relationship, don't understand crushes or why they are important people, and other things that I forget right now), even if they are in the grey area.

Well, if this is two aro allos, this is possible. And for the rest I won't speak, I know that aro allos struggle with this, but maybe someone here will tell me they succeeded to find an alloro Partner who don't catch feeling?

Not necessarily. I suppose it can be the case in a sexual context too. Or other, if people want a physical intimacy. But personnaly I lack of imagination to know how this is agreable. I like a big bed for myself alone. ? I said something else because I don't really know. Living with more than one person sounds interesting, but maybe tiresome. I could also see myself alone with a child. I may adopt someday. I don't think about these things; I can fantacize about things I want to do, but not about where I live and with who.

I say one to one with different persons. I am not at ease when there is a lot of people, I never know how to act. It's worst if I don't know them well. I am more at ease with one to one interaction with friends.