Mark

I think it's also useful to ask "What is the main difference between a QPR and a romantic relationship?".

Monogamy may be sexual, social, structural or emotional. None of these require the relationship to be romantic. Other non -romantic ways in which you can see binary relationships lionised include "platonic soulmates", the singular "best friend", even the idea that one-to-one interactions are "easier" than groups. There appears to be a social expectation that people will "grow out of" group relationships. Even though this is self evidently false. I've seen this kind of idea in quite a few places. Including solo poly, single at heart and, even, aro. I think, even for an extreme introvert, it's not practical or sensible.

I experience envy (including being envious of situations) rather than jealousy. With the two often being conflated. It can seem almost that jealousy (and posessivness) is expected of allos, Including as a metric of "how much they love" their partner.

I recall an article which even quoted Brake. Whilst describing something which sounded virtually identical to a romantic relationship. It's likely that they don't. Also that the intended audience is other allos. For me it's the "half person" idea which makes me think "just no". 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. I find this a rather dystopian removal of individuality and autonomy. Trying to turn humans into something like The Borg.

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. 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. Where it originates from the aro community it's an example of "respectability politics". It was specifically intended to be an umbrella term. Articles about the subject, especially from non aspec sources, can describe something very romance like. 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.

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

As someone who does like many romantic coded things, I agree with the Con bit. It's something I've objected to on that basis where I've seen it used by the likes of TAAAP. I've also wondered if the "Aros don't (want to) date" meme is more aro ace than generally aro. My observation is that many allos don't like dating. Seeing it as a kind of "necessary evil" to getting into a relationship. Something to get over as soon as possible, even to avoid entirely.

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

The language used can sound very similar to that used to describe romance. There's no good reason a non-romantic relationship should closely resemble a romantic one. 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. 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.

I think "called into question" is far too mild a way to put it There's also the anachronistic language. Since.there's no possible way that Ulrichs could use the term "heterosexual" in 1879. Even if he were making use of a "Split Attraction Model" it would be a different model from that being described. Ditto for Tennov.

It isn't just Tumblr. There's this aces & aros article which goes on about platonic (and queerplatonic) relationships as though these are the only possible kinds of non-romantic relationship. I find the likes of "life partner", "soulmate", etc to be repulsive even without romance. There's the term "nonamorous". Though I find it hard to interpret this as anything other than "asexual" in Latin. I'm not sure how well this distinction would work for me. Since it seems it may well put a lot of things, especially sexual and sensual, I see as non romantic under Romo-talk" and relationships which I'd see as "romance like" under "Nonromo-love". Where would purely sexual flirtation, sexual friendships. sensual friendships, non-romantic dating and so on fit into this classification. That's also the impression I get. I think it's the use terms like "couple", "life partner", "strong bonds", "more than". Which I very much associate with the way allos describe romance. Another thing being that I see "platonic" as being more of an antonym to "sexual" than "romantic". It's something which isn't confined to Tumblr. It seems that the soulmate concept is itself normative. Quite likely a meme which underpins amantonormativity. I wonder if another way variation is the idea that everyone wants a singular "best friend".

This reminds me of the marriages makes people happier myth.

Since this article conflates sex and romance, in a rather "bait and switch" way, it's not the best place address the question

Cisnormative as much as heteronormative, probably with mononormativity thrown into the mix. I suspect that in the case of 2 it matters quite a lot who does the initiating. Thus 2a: male-to-female touching can be viewed differently from 2b: female-to-male touching. There are situations, such as in certain "contact sports" where 3 can be perfectly acceptable. Though, of course, these are only going to appeal to some men. Other possible factors would be if the people involved are coupled, single and looking or single and not looking.

You find this bias in many places. Rather than just Youtube. Including "aspec" websites where there might be little or no mention of sexual and non-romantic relationships. Whilst lionising platonic relationships. Sometimes with a "not all aros are ace" footnote.

Another possible issue here would be wanting to do things which are romantically coded.

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

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.

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,. 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.

Something I notice right away is the assumption that everyone would marry. Even in 1992, this was a questionable idea.

The link appears to require a login

The Classical Greeks did consider mania to be a form of "love". With "romantic love" seeming to contain a large portion of manic elements. Before the last two centuries or so depictions of anything which could be "romance" were rare in literature and seen as universally tragic when they did show up. With motion pictures being too recent an invention to have existed in pre-romantic societies. This turns out to be untrue. Getting Married Makes You Happier? Again, No It's notable that "mania" can be translated as "obsessive love". The problem this argument runs into is that marriage (and children) long predate romance and romantic love. On the other hand aros experience social rejection/exclusion along with minority stress. The idea that aros won't "suffer the pain of rejection" or experience "breakups" is based on amantonormative attitudes. It's likely that disenfranchised grief is an issue for aro breakups. Marriage has been in decline, amongst the industralised world, since the 1960's.

I put down "repulsed". The idea of being 'in a relationship', having romance directed at me or being expected to direct it at others is very much of a hard NO. Romance in fiction I'll generally find boring or an annoying distraction from the plot. Maybe OK if it's sexual, sensual or otherwise involves non-romantic passion. However I am very favourable towards physical affection with friends.

It's typically clear that they just mean "romance". Rather than including eros, philia, storge, ludus, mania, pragma, philautia, agape, etc. You can also encounter terms like "soul/solemate" applied non-romantically. Along with amantonormative like non-romantic relationships. Some fairly widespread QPR definitions looking rather that way. Even within the kink scene I find this notion rather squicky. Along with "other half" this sounds like a creepy dystopian thing rather than something you'd expect anyone to aspire to. Who'd want to be a fractional person?

Certainly some of the titles could be applicable from an aro perspective.