Mark

2 hours ago, nonmerci said:

So here's my questions to those who have been in one or want to :

-what is the main difference between QPR and friendship?

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

2 hours ago, Irifluo said:

Admittedly, there are many words in our language that describe binary relationships: friends, lovers, marriage, parenting, siblings, etc. There are relatively few words describing multivariate relationship: cooperation, group, polyamory, etc.
It can be seen faintly that the tradition of attaching importance to binary relationship in culture is obvious. For example, in the sense of monogamy, most people say that relationship means Relationship Escalator [https://offescalator.com/what-escalator/] from friend to lover to marriage to family.

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.

2 hours ago, Irifluo said:

When I was a child, I often lived in groups (or groups on the Internet, similar to the community, and many members were active). My childhood was living in such an atmosphere: Play Together.
We attach more importance to the multivariate relationship of the group than we do to the relationship between the two.
We value group relationships very much, so we often play together (not every time every member participates), so we WON'T BE ALONE.

There appears to be a social expectation that people will "grow out of" group relationships. Even though this is self evidently false.

2 hours ago, Irifluo said:

However, now, someone told me that you only have two choices: Either love, or be alone.
I think this is unfair and unimaginable.
After all, I have had a childhood, we rely on strong, friendly and multivariate relationship, everyone to play together, very free, not alone - very happy.

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.

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.

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.

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.

17 hours ago, raavenb2619 said:

Cons: it promotes a limited, overgeneralized understanding of aromanticism since aros can still want to date/be romance favorable/like romantically coded actions, etc. I’ve run up against this drawback myself when friends are confused by how I could like a romance webcomic.

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.
 

18 hours ago, raavenb2619 said:

Does anyone have anything better to say that’s also fairly quick and painless? (Something like “I’m not interested in dating” won’t work a lot of the time because people love to reply with “you just need to find the right person”/[insert amatonormative comment of your choice])

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.

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.)

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.

On 8/2/2019 at 7:46 PM, Coyote said:

Well, this thread didn't get any new posts since I was last here, but an unspecified member(s) of AUREA recently published this post about it. For anyone keeping track: I posted my thoughts about that here (see comment section also). Short version: 1) interpreting "tender" and "affectionate" as equalling "romantic" deserves to be called into question,

I think "called into question" is far too mild a way to put it

On 8/2/2019 at 7:46 PM, Coyote said:

2) as a historical account, this is overly cautious in all the wrong places and not enough in others.

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.

On 8/3/2019 at 11:57 AM, eatingcroutons said:

"Queerplatonicnormativity" is exactly what the Tumblr posts you linked to at the start of this thread were complaining about, and fighting that norm within our communities is exactly what they were suggesting. When arotaro says, "That 'default' is so overpowering that those of us who do not fit into this description often feel excluded from the aro community," they're talking about the 'default' assumption that all aros want a QPR, or some kind of committed partnership.

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.

On 8/3/2019 at 11:57 AM, eatingcroutons said:

In my experience the extent to which this "default" exists varies among community spaces, but in every aro and aspec space I've been in, at least once people have assumed I want or would be interested in a QPR. I tend to spend less time in the spaces where that assumption is more prevalent, largely because I find discussion of QPRs and seeking and maintaining them equally as off-putting as discussion of romantic relationships. So I guess that's a manifestation of what arotaro was complaining about: I feel somewhat excluded by those community spaces.

I find the likes of "life partner", "soulmate", etc to be repulsive even without romance.

On 8/3/2019 at 11:57 AM, eatingcroutons said:

I don't think that having an agreed-upon label for those of us who really aren't interested in any kind of partnership or committed relationship, seriously is the best way to solve that problem. Not least because of the issues the links in the OP describe about coming up with such a term.

There's the term "nonamorous". Though I find it hard to interpret this as anything other than "asexual" in Latin.

On 8/3/2019 at 11:57 AM, eatingcroutons said:

An example of something that has been helpful is the Arocalypse Discord explicitly segregating off channels for "Romo-talk" (discussions of romance-coded things) and "Nonromo-love" (discussions of queerplatonic and other non-romantic relationships), to minimise the prevalence of those topics in general channels. Other things that would help of course include more visibility and discussion of the experiences of those of us who are very, very happy to be single and stay that way forever.

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.

On 8/3/2019 at 7:42 PM, nonmerci said:

It's not a specific website, juste a general feeling I had after go on different websites or posts about aromantcism. Most of them were mentioning QPR's, with lines like "not feeling romantic attraction doesn't mean that aros can't form strong bounds with people, or even form couples", or something like that. At first I think it's just something aros can do, and after reading a lot, I view it, if not as a norm, at least as something popular or frequent in the community.

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".

On 8/3/2019 at 11:55 PM, raavenb2619 said:

I came up with another possible source for the misconception that all aros want a QPR, but it’s a bit indirect. 

The Tumblr community seems to be pretty fascinated with soulmates and soulmate AUs, but often times when aro bloggers (including myself) complain about soulmates being amatonormative, we get a bunch of people telling us that soulmates can be platonic (as if that helps anything). Maybe some people see this unhelpful chant of “soulmates can be platonic” and interpret it to mean that all aros want/have some sort of partner/soulmate? 

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".

On 7/31/2019 at 10:29 PM, Mirrorreaper said:

Whats the hedonic treadmill?

The hedonic treadmill, also known as hedonic adaptation, is the observed tendency of humans to quickly return to a relatively stable level of happiness despite major positive or negative events or life changes.^[1] According to this theory, as a person makes more money, expectations and desires rise in tandem, which results in no permanent gain in happiness. Brickman and Campbell coined the term in their essay "Hedonic Relativism and Planning the Good Society" (1971).^[2]During the late 1990s, the concept was modified by Michael Eysenck, a British psychologist, to become the current "hedonic treadmill theory" which compares the pursuit of happiness to a person on a treadmill, who has to keep walking just to stay in the same place.

This reminds me of the marriages makes people happier myth.

On 1/13/2019 at 1:50 AM, DavidMS703 said:

There are whole cultures where kissing is uncommon and even that view it negatively (Source: http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/article/some-culturally-based-differences-sexual-activity), which I think shows that kissing doesn't have to be a part of sex.

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

23 hours ago, NullVector said:

 thanks. It's not explicitly stated, but I guess that to work as an explanation, that hypothesis would be assuming that (per heteronormative social conventions/codes) :

Cisnormative as much as heteronormative, probably with mononormativity thrown into the mix.

23 hours ago, NullVector said:

1. female-to-female touching = ok

2. male-to-female touching = prohibited outside the context of (heterosexual) romantic relationships

3. male-to-male touching = prohibited outside the context of (homosexual) romantic relationships

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.

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.

7 hours ago, Coyote said:

I would have said QPR, if you mean "really affectionate" in a way that's "more than is considered normal," since QPR was originally supposed to be an umbrella term. But I dunno if the poll options here are supposed to be making a distinction between "QPR" and "Purely platonic friendship."

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.
 

7 hours ago, Ace Of Hugs said:

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

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.)

7 hours ago, Ace Of Hugs said:

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

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.

1 hour ago, Holmbo said:

That's a good point. There's a lot of pressure on romantic relationships. You're dependent on them for every major aspect of your life: your home, your children, your economy. Only main thing most people have independently from their spouce is work.

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.

9 hours ago, Ace Of Hugs said:

Where would "really affectionate platonic friendships" fit?

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,.
 

9 hours ago, Ace Of Hugs said:

(If you're familiar with the "triangle theory of love", my close relationships tend to be "companionate".)

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.

On 7/25/2019 at 7:57 PM, Coyote said:

 

Weird. Let me get you a different one. 

This should be the google scholar result page. Here and here are its links. This should give you the PDF.

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

3 hours ago, Coyote said:

Here's something I found on marriage and friendship:

Carbery, J., & Buhrmester, D. (1998). Friendship and need fulfillment during three phases of young adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(3), 393-409. doi:10.1177/0265407598153005.

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.
 

5 hours ago, TripleA said:

We also see a rose-tinted form of romance in many books, TV shows, movies, art, etc. Where as, before, romance was seen as bad, and plays like Romeo and Juliet would have been seen as a warning of what romance love/attraction can do to someone's mental state.

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.

5 hours ago, TripleA said:

 Also, it is known that long term, stable, romantic relationships/marriages can make both parties happier in life. 

This turns out to be untrue. 
Getting Married Makes You Happier? Again, No

5 hours ago, TripleA said:

Not to mention that when humans experience romantic attraction, it is an unhealthy obsession with one person, they must know every little thing about that person, and they must possess them for themselves. It's almost an act of greed. 

It's notable that "mania" can be translated as "obsessive love".

5 hours ago, TripleA said:

Yes, romantic love can be seen as necessary on a biological standpoint, but if someone does not want to have children, is romance and marriage really necessary?

The problem this argument runs into is that marriage (and children) long predate romance and romantic love.

5 hours ago, TripleA said:

Are those who are Aromantic less susceptible to mental illness because they don't need/want to pursue romantic relationships, therefore won't suffer the pain of rejection, the friendzone or a breakup?

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.

4 hours ago, raavenb2619 said:

Birth rates aren't the same as marriage or relationships. Admittedly, they're often seen as linked in Western society, but I've heard that birth rates are lower in developed countries because of things like health care, and I don't think health care is greatly affecting marriage, relationships, or the way people view marriage and relationships. 

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.

On 7/22/2019 at 9:44 AM, nonmerci said:

Phrases like "Love is the most beautiful feeling in the world", or whatever you want instead of "beautiful". I'm sure that it's a wonderful feeling, but everytime I hear it sounds like you need it to be happy.

It's typically clear that they just mean "romance". Rather than including eros, philia, storge, ludus, mania, pragma, philautia, agape, etc.
 

On 7/22/2019 at 9:44 AM, nonmerci said:

The whole concept of "the one" too. Because if you say you are aro, people will just assume that this special person will come and change your identity. Even if it does, you can still be in the grey are of the spectrum. Plus it doesn't invalidate how you felt at the moment.

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.

On 7/22/2019 at 9:44 AM, nonmerci said:

Then not specifically alienating for aros, but things like "I am yours", "You are mine"... I don't get why this is romantic. The idea of belonging to someone else... Just no? Why would anybody want that?

Even within the kink scene I find this notion rather squicky.

9 hours ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

I've always found the phrase "better half" to be kind of horrifying. Please love yourself..??

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?

 

On 7/18/2019 at 4:44 PM, Coyote said:

Absolutely. But in more styles than just that, too. The main reference point I have -- the thing I think it would be good to have an aro umbrella equivalent of -- is the essays on the Asexual Perspectives page on AVEN. They're linked right there next to the FAQ, so it makes it easy to start reading further when you're just finding out about/first researching the thing. They're about topics like coming out, discovering your orientation, feeling alienated from society, rude responses people have, advice, and so on. I don't know of any collection of similar essays on, you know... discovering the aromantic umbrella, coming out as aro, feeling alienated from amatonormativity, rude responses people have about aromanticism, advice, personal narratives of living single/unpartnered, etc. People have definitely written about these things, I'm sure, I just don't yet know of any places they've been... collected, as such, in the same way.

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