deletingthisaccount

On 3/18/2020 at 11:39 AM, Mark said:

On 3/17/2020 at 12:04 PM, Coyote said:

 

Point of clarification -- I think the "I Don’t Mean to Baffle You, But I Do" post was more about the author's own relationships, but before that, in 2011, they posted this, which specifically says "a queerplatonic relationship can be sexual." (I don't know why use the term "platonic" in the term then, but that's what they did.) So technically speaking, that's not a recent development.

I've always found this kind of statement oxymoronic.
Even reading the post from 2011 it's unclear what it's intended meaning and audience is.
Could it be intended for sex favourable asexuals rather than allosexuals?
 

I doubt sex-favorable aces would use QPR to refer to a sexual relationship (at least from what I've seen). "Sex-favorable" just means that they are willing to compromise sex within a relationship if their partner is sexual. So typically, this would mean a romantic relationship. And if a sex-favorable ace is in a relationship with another ace, then usually sex wouldn't be part of the relationship.

If interested, here's a brief explanation of that: https://www.asexuality.org/?q=attitudes.html.

On 3/18/2020 at 11:39 AM, Mark said:

Is this an allo ace (or AVEN) thing?
AFAIK allo allos in mainstream society just use "(romantic) relationship" regardless of if they kiss, cuddle, have sex, etc.

I think it's a bit of both. Many romantic aces will still call their relationships romantic regardless, but others will say that their relationship isn't "romance" without it.

On 3/16/2020 at 11:30 AM, Coyote said:

For the third link--

 

Oh! haha, um, this-- @Ace_of_Spades7 I'm not sure if you know this, but Meloukhia is the coiner of queerplatonic. Here's the first usage that appears on the internet, in their Dreamwidth comment from 2010.

 

I mean, that doesn't mean they're totally above criticism in how they write about it, of course, but uh, well, I don't think you can position this as a pollution of the original meaning when the original meaning came from this person themselves.

 

I didn't know that. I'm new to both AVEN and Arocalypose (although I've known I was aro-ace for about 4 1/2 years now), so I'm not very up-to-date on the terms yet. Thank you for clarifying that and educating me on this topic. I guess the way the article was written made QPRs sound like that. Although overall, each platform seems to have varying definitions of QPR, so I think that's where my confusion is coming from.

Also, this quiz here: https://lonerwolf.com/asexuality-test/. At the end of the quiz (not the quiz itself), it gives a description of what asexuality is like. Here's the paragraph about romantic vs. aromantic:

"Asexuals embody a wide spectrum of people: they range from flat-out Asexual's who enjoy the companionship and romanticism of being in a relationship (and will even have sex to produce a child or please their partner, but not for their own pleasure), as well as those who are completely Aromantic, where the thought of intimate physical contact with another person makes them feel ill." 

So the difference between "romantic" and "aromantic" is being portrayed as dislike of physical contact rather than not experiencing romantic attraction/desire. This isn't directly related to QPRs, but I think some misunderstandings of (a)romanticism, particularly in ace media (although not directly AVEN), might factor into people's understandings of QPRs. 

(Also, just to clarify, I am not basing my identity as an aro-ace on this definition - it's because I don't experience romantic or sexual attraction/desire lol)

5 hours ago, Coyote said:

 

o.O aro ace is a term for people, not relationships.

 

Anyway, I've.... seen one example where someone described "queerplatonic" as like basically "a partnership without sex" (paraphrasing), which is a problem, but I wasn't under the impression that that was a widespread way that people were using it. Do you have linkable examples of the thing you described here?

Lol I know that aro-aces are people. I mean more as in like the "type of people that are in x relationship," I guess.

Here the commenters seem to have a good understanding of QPR. But the last comment is an example of someone calling their relationship "ace dating":

https://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/193637-how-to-recognise-queerplatonic-feelings/?tab=comments#comment-1063707570

And AVEN shut down on me before I could find more concrete examples of what I meant. But lots of debate on "your relationship sounds more QPR than romantic" or vice versa. So not necessarily using it to mean "anything non-sexual" (although I've seen that), but "not romantic enough to be romantic" vs "too non-romantic to be QPR."

Here's are some posts characterizing QPRs as nonsexual relationships:

https://wearyourvoicemag.com/lgbtq-identities/dating-relationships-asexual

http://meloukhia.net/2012/06/i_dont_mean_to_baffle_you_but_i_do_queerplatonic_partnerships/

The first link is by an asexual, the second link I'm not sure.

11 minutes ago, Coyote said:

 

I'm... not sure I've seen that? I don't recognize what you're talking about here.

Like, for example, a relationship between two aces where they're both romantically attracted to one another, dedicated to one another, in love with one another, but there's no physical element involved at all. One couple in this relationship will describe itself as an aro-ace QPR, because no physical element is involved. The other couple in the exact same relationship will call it a romantic ace relationship because they love each other, regardless of no physical element involved.

Then say you have an ace relationship similar to what I described above, but add cuddling -- one couple will call itself a QPR because there's no kissing. The other couple in the same relationship will call it a romantic relationship, because there's a physical element involved.

Or add kissing. The couple may feel romantically desire one another, but aren't romantically attracted to one another per se, so they call it an aro-ace QPR instead.

These are just a few I've seen, but I'm sure there's more. Basically, just lots of confusion over what words mean.

1 hour ago, nonmerci said:

Wat what? How do they come to this conclusion?

I am aroace and certainly don't want a QPR. Aroace just means no romantic and no sexual attraction... some wants a QPR and some don't. It depends on the person.

I don't even think it is an aro ace thing : I'm sure I saw some aro allo said they want one too... so they can add a sexual composent sometimes.

 

Maybe it is an example of how some aces are still stuck in amatonormativity? They have to difficulty to understand some people are juste not interested in monogamous relationship, romantic or not? I don't know.

Yeah, I'm not sure. I've seen plenty of ace articles (although not AVEN directly) where they describe aro-aces as "wanting QPRs." And I've seen a lot of aces that carry that assumption... although not all. But enough to surprise me.

I've actually never thought of a QPR having a sexual component before, but yeah, you're right. That could be possible. I'm glad to hear aro allo perspectives too!

I completely agree, I think romantics generally have a hard time understanding that, ace or not.

20 minutes ago, Blake said:

It is up to you if you want to look for a partner. I understand your worry of everyone leaving at some point of your life, because it is my worry and the worry of a lot of people here and in other communities. I think everyone in the a-spectrum feels alone and even betrayed by friends when they leave. Also, it is normal to want to connect with people, because we are social animals (if you believe in evolution). Moreover, people change their minds a lot. ^^ My advice is to connect with people that you know share your goals or passions. I have found a dnd group that we reunite once per month for sessions. I love to taste coffee, and I got a friend who shares this passion with me, so we go sometimes to coffee bars to drink and talk. Having different activities with different kind of groups has help me not rely on just one or the other. It wasn't easy, but it is not impossible. Finally, the most important thing is to never force yourself into something you dont want to be in. I forced myself to date for 9 months and I hated myself for it, because i thought that i should like to date (this was before knowing i was aro). And it was selfish of me to put my partner through the sadness of those 9 months just because I wanted to know what it was to date. (There is more to the story but that is for another day). If you dont like broccoli, then don't eat it, there are other options ^^. The hard part is to find it, but hey that is life i guess.

Yes, for sure. I'm a pretty social person and I love having friends. I've made many close friends over the years. I'm not lonely now, but I worry about it in the future. Once all my friends and colleagues start having families, I'll probably do as you said and try to find group meetups. But I just don't want a partner, you know? Like, even if at some point in time I feel like I have to be in a partner-like situation solely for the sake of avoiding economic and social disadvantage, I wouldn't be doing so because I consider that person as a partner, you know? I just want friends, nothing more lol I just wish our society wouldn't act like the only cure for loneliness is relationship/partnership.

I can relate to that. Although I never actually managed to make it into a relationship, I tried to force myself to want and be in relationships for 7 years, just because that's what we're "supposed" to do. I guess I never got there because it just felt so wrong, you know? And when I discovered aromanticism/asexuality, it was the biggest relief in the world!

4 minutes ago, Coyote said:

 

Well, that can't entirely work as a lineage, because as I explained at the link above, the term "split attraction model" emerged on Tumblr in 2015 among people who were up in arms about ace community language proliferating (in some cases objecting to it being too universalized, in some cases just objecting to the concepts existing at all), and "queerplatonic" was coined in 2010, so that predates "split attraction model."

 

The original language within the ace community itself was just "romantic orientation," "romantic attraction," other specific attraction subtypes, etc. -- and ace communities were talking about these things as early as 2003 or so, before a bunch of non-aces decided that our language needed to be supplanted by theirs because ours is evil.

 

And in any case, queerplatonic relationships don't have to be based on a particular type of attraction, anyway.

 

What is possible is that different definitions of "romantic" (itself) and "aromantic" (as an identity term) are putting people in tension, but that doesn't entirely explain why people get invested in this whole narrative of the ace community as thieves who wrongfully co-opted the concept of the QPR.

 

You're explaining exactly what I mean, just in a much better way ? I know these terms have originated in different times. But the language evolving to describe these concepts over time, from romantic orientation/attraction --> queerplatonic --> split attraction model, and otherwise, has led over time to relationships that are functionally the nearly same as one another being described as all different terms. Which has also created divides on what romantic vs aromantic mean. So now a relationship between romantic aces, which at the beginning the aces themselves would've described as romantic, tends to just be called a QPR now, while "romantic" is used for "something more." Sorry if I'm not explaining it well.

I don't think the different definitions entirely explain the narrative, but I think it could be a factor. There's a lot of definition debate swithin the ace community. I'm new to Arocalypse though, so maybe definition debates don't happen as much in the aro community. Was just a thought, but if my perception is misconstrued, then I'll retract.

1 hour ago, Blake said:

First, you are valid for not wanting to be in a relationship of any kind. The beauty of being a human being is we are all different. Yes, some aro want a relationship, probably not a romantic one, maybe a qpr. But there are some that do not want to be, like you. Aromanticism is a spectrum, so there is not just a single type of aro (greyaro/demi/a/cupio/etc). Also, what is for me a relationship isn't the same for others. Hipe this could help you mate.

Thank you, I appreciate this. I understand some aros do want partners, which is also valid! It's just hard for me when people assume that even all aro-aces are looking for partners. I've seen other aro-aces express worry of being lonely once all their friends marry, have kids, etc., and even when they say that they don't want a QPR, their posts are still flooded with comments about how they should be in a QPR. But in my case, I feel like I can force myself to want that, you know? So that assumption becomes very frustrating.

49 minutes ago, Coyote said:

 

I... don't see any connection there, actually. The term "split attraction model" emerged from a completely different set of conflicts.

 

Sorry, I realize I didn't explain what I meant by this very well. I understand that these conflicts are different. But I mean because the split attraction model only very vaguely defines types of attraction, plus all the other new terms, tends to create very different understandings of what constitutes a romantic relationship vs. a queerplatonic relationship within both communities. So a relationship that, at the beginning of the ace community, would have been seen as "two romantic aces in a QPR" now is viewed as "an aro-ace QPR", while the relationships of romantic aces are viewed as "more" than that. And many people in the ace community tend to believe that being "aro-ace" means wanting a QPR. So I think that's where some of the misunderstanding on the origin of QPR came from. Does that make sense?

1 hour ago, Coyote said:

With all due respect, this response makes me think you probably read the first post and then commented without reading all four pages here -- which is an understandable choice. I mean, I probably wouldn't have the patience to read this whole thing myself if I hadn't been involved all through it to begin with.

 

For the record, though, what I've experienced and witnessed so far has been:

• I try to correct someone directly, and we spend like three straight days messaging back and forth before I can get them to begrudgingly accept the correction.
• I point out a correction indirectly, and I get told I'm irritating to deal with, and then that person just jumps ship rather than apologize for any of it.
• Someone else makes a correction directly, and they get completely ignored.
• Someone else makes a correction directly, and they get told that it doesn't matter.
• Someone else makes a correction indirectly, and another person comes back at them reiterating the incorrect version.

So I mean, sure, keep correcting people, I guess, but what do you do when this is the result? There's a lot of politics involved here that seem to be less about the information itself and more about who it comes from and what that narrative is interpreted to stand for.

 

You are correct. I only read the first page. Thank you for taking the time to explain this though, so I didn't have to reread. Well, that's unfortunate then. I have no other suggestions ?

In part, from the perspective of an aro-ace who's also active on AVEN, I think a lot of the misinformation stems from the ace community's hesitance, especially AVEN in particular, to clearly define romantic vs. sexual attraction in the split attraction model. On top of that, creating a flood of other terms that further muddy the water.

Reading about David Jay's life experiences as a romantic ace (the founder of AVEN), he seems strikingly similar to what many aces would now describe as an "aro-ace wanting a QPR." In middle school, he didn't understand all the hype about crushes, dating, sex, etc., but still wanted partnership based on emotional connection, actively seeking partnership out. Nowadays, many aces on AVEN still actively experience attraction, have crushes, want to date, etc. but don't want sex involved (or even do want sex involved, but only at certain point). So then aces similar to David Jay feel out of place saying that they desire romantic relationships, since they don't want any of that.

Honestly, I was shocked when I joined AVEN how many aromantic aces still actively desire partnership in QPRs. Which was in part why I joined Arocalypse. I felt out of place, realizing "wow, even aro aces want a partner... is something actually wrong with me then??"

Of course, it's possible for some aros to want QPRs... and that's okay! But to the point where I can't even use the word "aro ace" anymore to convey that I have no innate interest in partnership at all... that seems a bit extreme. I think correcting wrong misconceptions will help. And also maybe trying to more clearly define terms, will help a lot of the confusion.

I agree that QPRs aren't immune to amatonormativity. This is my perspective as an aro-ace who's never been in a QPR (and don't want to be), but QPRs also seem like "more than friends" to me. Many of the aro ace QPRs I've seen even operate almost exactly like romantic relationships between two romantic aces (not all! But definitely some). Not saying QPRs are entirely romantic, but I think they definitely are more than friends.

At one point on AVEN, an aro-ace posted about her worries of being alone after all her married friends with kids become too busy, and was looking for advice, but also stated she didn't want a QPR. I was shocked when despite that, allo aces flooded the comment section telling her to just be in a QPR.

I respect anyone's wish to be in a QPR. If someone wants one, by all means, go for it. But I feel like it's something I can't force myself to want, you know?