Jump to content

Galactic Turtle

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Galactic Turtle

  1. 2 minutes ago, Mark said:

    Terms like "just friends" and "more than friends" imply some kind of hierarchy in terms terms of relationship types. Which is very much an integral part of amantonormativity and romantic culture.
    I can be tempted to use likes of "just romance" at times :) 
    In the case of this definition of queerplatonic. 

    There is the same notion of hierarchy.

    Why not call it "queerromantic", "quasiromantic" or "pseudoromantic".
    Moreover "commitment level" is an attribute which can apply to any type of relationship, independent of type. Those with low (or unbalanced) commitment levels tend not to last long, even romantic ones.


    Yes I agree with all of this! That's probably a big contributing factor to why I find it all so uncomfortable.

    • Like 1

  2. 7 minutes ago, Mark said:

    I've never really liked terms like 'squish', 'platonic attraction' or 'queer platonic'. As well as wondering if they were terms which made more sense to asexuals. Especially considering that the common colloquial meaning of the term is "without sex".
    The term 'lush' makes far more sense, to me, as a 'crush analog'. With terms like 'philia' and 'ludus' being a far better ways to describe attractions I have which are not sexual, sensual or aesthetic.


    Yeah, I prefer just close friend. Feelings around friendship in modern culture seem to have been dulled down by the concept of "facebook friend" or "twitter follower" or whatever. There's lots of levels to friendship and I'm fine with there only being one word to encompass it all to avoid all the extra terminology that all seem to have romantic equivalents. I just get annoyed by the looks people give me when I say I'm happiest with friends and family only and they just say "why would you just want to have friends?" Like, excuse you, what is so trivial about friendship? Even if it's odd to verbally express affection for one's friends, I am fine keeping it to myself. I believe they feel it in my actions which is enough. 

    • Like 2

  3. 3 hours ago, Magni said:

    Question to get people thinking if needed: How would you describe the way you do or do not experience tertiary types of attraction?


    When I think about gender preference I can only think of the fact that I desire friendship exclusively with other women. I don't know how I feel about calling that platonic attraction though but since I'm aro ace this is the only aspect of myself that feels oriented at all. 

    • Like 3

  4. This is my first time hearing the term "nonamorous" but that sits with me well just like the term "nonsexual" because upon first learning about asexuality/aromanticism my mind was equating those to nonsexual/nonamorous by mistake but that's just the type of words I was looking for.


    You say you want to be close to someone but I don't typically think "partner" when thinking about the people I'm close to. I have a friend who I've known for over 20 years. Sure we don't talk daily or even weekly. She's out there gracing the world with her talents. I admire and respect her as she does me. We have the same level of ambition, we have a similar world view so naturally if I'm facing a difficult decision or am facing a problem I might ask her for advice. It's not like it was when we were kids of course. For me friendship in childhood is like climbing every hill together and celebrating at every peak. In adulthood it is like climbing a mountain alone and seeing a familiar face only when you've descended to sturdy ground on the other side. We've all faced our own unique challenges since graduating from high school seven years ago, but outside of my family I feel like I know her the most intimately out of anyone else. I'm happy just knowing she exists and my insecurities about the sturdiness of our relationship since we began living in different cities has faded as I've matured. 


    Of course in addition to my friend, for me when something exciting happens in my day or when I develop an interest in something I like to talk to people about it. As a kid I fell in love with Star Wars but no one else in my school knew anything about it so I found a message board online where people would talk about Star Wars. The rest of my life has gone very much the same way and with the increase in technology and online communities I can always find someone to talk to about any of my specific interests. Am I really close with these online people? No. Typically our conversations don't stray too far past our common interest but if we keep in touch for years and years and perhaps I add them on Twitter or something then naturally we might hear about each other's various non-fandom related struggles and offer advice but this is pretty rare. There are also some people I met in college on the basis of these common interests. College exposed me to a variety of different people who simply didn't exist where I'm from. I'll chat with them pretty much daily as well. I also feel comfortable asking for input about difficult decisions I'm thinking about making.


    Between these two types of friendship I find that my social needs are met. Adding a partner into the mix seems unnatural. 

  5. On 3/15/2019 at 5:19 PM, Coyote said:

    What have you seen people using "split attraction model" to mean? What does it mean to you?


    If their romantic and sexual orientations are not aligned, people typically use it. Or if we're in an aro/ace community where discussing split attraction is more common, people default to listing their romantic and sexual orientations separately. To me it's just a tool.


    On 3/15/2019 at 5:19 PM, Coyote said:

    If somebody says that they use it, what does that mean to you? If somebody says they don't use it, what does that mean to you?


    If they use it I think it means they recognize that romantic/sexual attraction are separate things. If someone says they don't use it I assume it doesn't matter to them because their attractions are readily recognized and also aligned. 


    On 3/15/2019 at 5:19 PM, Coyote said:

    Do you usually think of "split attraction" correlating with "having more than one orientation," or no?


    I guess it could?


    On 3/15/2019 at 5:19 PM, Coyote said:

    Does anybody have a source dating it back prior to 2015?


    I have not looked.


    On 3/15/2019 at 5:19 PM, Coyote said:

    Any other thoughts on the dilemmas raised? Does it fill a lexical gap? Does it have multiple meanings? Is it useful?


    This is just a quick response so I did not read through all of this. Sorry! 


    • Like 1

  6. On 3/19/2019 at 1:47 PM, Coyote said:

    Oh gosh the word "platonic" has always been a mess. Best I can tell, the original use of it (in the 1600s or so) was basically a big "no homo," deliberately ignoring the homoerotic implications of Plato's writings. I can get into this more if people want but it's a bummer.


    I'd like to know more about this. I've been uncomfortable with many of the terms used in the aro community. Typically I frequent asexual spaces where aromantic conversation seems to center around the "search for a QPP" and issues along the lines of "my spouse is viewing me too romantically, what do I do?" Often when I try to explain the feelings I have for my two closest friends people jump on me saying I obviously have a squish or that I should ask them to be my partner and the very thought of any of that sounds bizarre to say the least. 


    What I did happen upon about a year or so ago were some things in reference to Plato that in summary were describing how friendship in that time period wasn't viewed as casually as it is today. I'd only seen an excerpt of it (I can't remember the title of the book) but it was a book essentially about same sex relationships throughout history.


    I only thought about it again because only a few days ago I came across Aristotle's "three types of friendship" being:

    - Friendships of utility

    - Friendships of pleasure

    - Friendships virtue


    In reading about this I quickly discovered that my two closest friends I definitely think of as "friendships of virtue." I think in general people recognize that these types of friendships are a thing but they're often dismissed because I don't think they're all that common.


    • Like 4

  7. On 2/9/2018 at 12:03 PM, SoulWolf said:

    I think I understand what you're asking. My idea of what people call a QPR is close friendship. It's how I have always viewed friendship with people I'm close to, long before I heard of QPR's, amatonormativity and aromanticism. It's only in recent years that I've started to realize and accept that most people's idea of friendship is very shallow compared to mine.


    The phrase "just friends" makes me squirm. A friend is a big deal to me, not something to label with a "just" in front. I think QPR's wouldn't really need a name if most people didn't treat friendship like a shallow disposable thing.


    Yes, these were my thoughts. When I first heard about a QPR I was under the impression it was talking about best friends. To me, friendship in and of itself is a relationship. It only gets sidelined because of the general culture and generally friends don't point out the relationship that rests between them. For example, I've been friends with a girl for... 20 years now? Not once have I asked her what she thinks about our relationship, what we can work on in our relationship, or where she envisions our relationship going in the future. I don't particularly find it necessary, but these conversations are commonplace (from what I've heard) in romantic relationships. I really think a great amount of friendships would benefit from similar discussions but... oh well.


    When I first heard of a QPR I thought to myself "well that sounds nice." When really what I thought was nice about it is the acknowledgement, discussion, and celebration of friendship. But when I stared at my friend as she was sleeping (TOTALLY NOT CREEPY I MEAN WE WERE SLEEPING IN THE SAME ROOM IT'S NOT LIKE I BROKE IN MUAHAHAHA) I tried to like... feel something different than what I've always felt for her as if me feeling a different way about her would make what we have more valid. But then I grew to realize that I was forcing the issue due to the fact that I've always operated in an amatonormative world and I guess... wanted to show the world "hey, look what I have, be jealous!" I worked out for myself that I personally didn't need those discussions to happen, that I was happy the way things always have been, that I was happy considering her my best friend, and had no desire to be "paired up" with her like a QPR heavily suggests. I feel no need for partnerships in life for my emotional benefit which is how I came to the conclusion that I am aromantic. I love my friends!!! I'm planning to be friends for life with one or two of them. They're very important to me! But calling them my partner, even in those times we do live together or even if we lived together for years and years and years seems.... unnecessary? Obviously not everyone feels the same way but...


    ... I do think in general there might be a conflation between romantic attraction and romantic expression. I often see people saying "I want a QPP who is this specific gender, is in this specific height range, who will take me out on dates, kiss and cuddle me, live with me, raise a kid with me, and never date anyone else but it's not going to be a romantic thing because he'll be my QPP, not my boyfriend." And then I'm just left all ???? An emotional partnership can contain any list of activities but from where I'm standing it's the desire for that partnership that makes something romantic even if it's not like the type of romance you see on TV. Every other person defines a QPR a different way so of course I'm not talking about all of them, but there is a noticeable portion I've seen (more on AVEN) where this is the case. The on the opposite end of the spectrum I think people slap a QPR onto things just to make their friendship seem more important or valid because in the modern day most people brush it aside like a simple, temporary thing that doesn't matter in the scheme of life nearly as much as a romantic partner would.


    On 2/9/2018 at 8:50 PM, Apathetic Echidna said:

    I know of people who are housemates with friends, so is living together 'beyond friendship'? I know people in friends-with-benefits relationships, there is an entire topic on how those generally don't even resemble a friendship.....


    Usually I'd say something is "beyond friendship" or (preferably) "of a different nature than friendship" when there is desire by the people involved to define what rests between them as not just a relationship, but an emotional partnership. It's the aspect of partnering that I never really understood in romantic relationships. I've lived with friends on different occasions but it was because it happened to be a convenient solution. When my friends had to move out or when I had to move out in each instance it wasn't seen as a betrayal or a severing of something we'd built together. As long as the lease is taken care of then everything was fine. I've had other friends who fool around on occasion. They have fun. But it's not viewed as a partnership. When one person involved did enter a relationship they simply stopped sleeping together, friendship still solid. I know other people who meet up with people for no other reason than to have sex. Then when they don't feel like having sex with each other for whatever reason, they let the person know and all is well. But in partnership whether it's between two people or a poly situation, there is always something there resting between the people to signify their emotional partnership (as opposed to a partnership of convenience).


    On 2/9/2018 at 8:50 PM, Apathetic Echidna said:

    I know of two different couples who are married for reasons unrelated to romantic love *cough* citizenship *cough* is that beyond friendship when they remain friends but the government thinks they are married?


    That's what I was hinting at above. Marriage wasn't really thought of by most as synonymous with love until pretty recently. Marriage in and of itself is a legal partnership.


    On 2/9/2018 at 8:50 PM, Apathetic Echidna said:

    Basically I just have an issue with the wording of the article, especially as it is representing itself as a concise definitive article which might be the first and last point people go to to learn the meaning of the word queerplatonic relationship. I assume there wasn't a polite disclaimer telling people that text is just a guide and to always refer to how the person using it defines the term as the better definition? that just leaves it open for ignorant people to argue with people in QPRs


    Yeah I really have no idea where this Wiki came from, it just stood out to me because I was researching the topic and I was like "hey wait, that's a thought that was crawling in the back of my mind!"


    On 2/9/2018 at 8:50 PM, Apathetic Echidna said:

    I guess the fact that we are in a quite romantic-centric culture forces us to use separate words to get recognition and understanding.


    Yup. Not really "forces" people but... would make them more inclined to for sure.


    On 2/9/2018 at 8:50 PM, Apathetic Echidna said:

    As for the definition, it would be the second one as generally when saying romance we are talking about romantic attraction. If you check out the topic here http://www.arocalypse.com/forums/topic/200-where-is-the-line-between-sexual-and-romantic-behaviour/ there seems to be a general consensus that certain actions are generally less important than the perceptions, intentions and feelings behind them in defining whether something is romantic, neutral, friendly or sexual. 


    Thanks! I'll make sure to read through this. I'm just like.... SO ANNOYED that this doesn't make sense to me. xD 


    I'll look for threads on romantic vs. platonic behavior too. Right now my thoughts are that, due to how romance is often portrayed, I think many forms of romantic expression are seen as lesser than, diminished, or nonexistent. 

    • Like 2



    58 minutes ago, Apathetic Echidna said:

    I would say best friends is beyond 'normal' friendship, I'm sure there are some people who see good friends as being more than friendship if they are used to light friendships.


    It didn't say beyond "normal friendship" though. It said "beyond friendship." Heavy, light, and everywhere in between. I'll point at an original oreo and a double-stuffed oreo but still call it an oreo, for example. I call this girl Mo my best friend because we've known each other since before we could spell our own names but I feel as close to her as my other three close friends even if I open up to the four of them differently on different occasions usually on the basis of interests or experiences we have in common or on the basis of how I think they'll respond given their personalities. Does Mo see me as her best friend? Not sure. But in my head she's what comes to mind.


    However I have noticed that people I know these days who struggled on the friendship front while they were in school do tend to be more emotionally "high maintenance" for lack of a better term. My one close friend talks about how anxious she gets when forming new friendships, always going out of her way to try to be extra entertaining or else they might lose interest and ditch her. She talks about how she wishes she had close friends (seeing as I consider her to be a close friend this hurts a bit) and that the one thing she wanted most growing up was that BFF who would go with her to all the places she wanted to go, have a secret handshake, share milkshakes with her at the diner, tell her exactly what she wanted to hear to make her feel better, be her constant echo chamber of validation, and really understand her. But even then that is friendship. She considers it as such. A very close friendship, but not "more than" friendship which is something that always trips me up: the "more than" as if friendship is somehow lesser or marginalized. *cough* amatonormativity *cough* 


    59 minutes ago, Apathetic Echidna said:

    See, friendship and how different people perceive it is the slippery term


    This is also true but is something we inherently run into by defining QPR as a gray area. We're putting a cap on friendship, limiting its level of importance, and limiting its level of intimacy. 


    1 hour ago, Apathetic Echidna said:

    Queerplatonic is sort of the same but different term to create a non-romantic equivalent of a romantic relationship while creating a separate term to move away from the confused perceptions of what friendship is to different people. 


    That's what I mean. Would the need to create a non-romantic equivalent of a romantic relationship exist if not for the impact of amatonormativity on any given culture? How are we defining romanticism? Are we defining it by stereotypical expressions of romance or are we defining it as the innate desire for or natural draw to a person(s) that would result in a partnering type of relationship distinct from one's friendships at large?


    On 2/7/2018 at 8:14 AM, Digestive Biscuits said:

    So my understanding is that you're asking if amatonormality is harmful to or cannot exist with Queerplatonic-Relationships (QPRs), or at least the concept of QPRs?


    I'm more asking if the concept of a QPR (as defined by most people) would exist if not for amatonormativity and what is seen as the stereotypical (only acceptable) displays of romance.


    On 2/7/2018 at 8:14 AM, Digestive Biscuits said:

    I ultimately believe that amatonormative thinking effects individual QPRs in such a variety of ways, dependant on so many variables, that to gauge an overall effect would be very, very difficult.


    Exactly. I think it impacts people differently depending on what they themselves define as a QPR which seems to vary greatly from person to person.


    On 2/7/2018 at 8:14 AM, Digestive Biscuits said:

    To me personally, I would use it as a label for a relationship that is modified form of a 'normal' romantic relationship (although I do see QPRs being more of a modified friendship, that's my opinion anyway).


    That seems to encompass both ends of how I've seen it described. Some people describe a QPR as something they might form with a friend they've had for a while who also isn't interested in dating/romantic partner who happens to have a life trajectory what would make it convenient to live together and have the other person as their main "go-to" for various things. Longterm and perhaps lifelong roommates as a result of convenience. (modified friendship)


    Other people describe a QPR as a monogamous commitment, distinct and definitely "above" friendship. They buy a house together, sleep in the same bed, go on outings specifically designed and intended just for the two of them, possibly raise a kid and/or own a pet together, have each other as their number one priority... but because for some reason they don't view their relationship with this person as meeting all the criteria of a stereotypical romantic relationship one might see on TV whether that be through physicality, their openness at expressing undying feelings, or just their aversion to the concept of marriage, call it a QPR. 


    So really I guess my confusion starts to how we're defining certain things. We fling around all these terms quite casually but unlike with asexuals constantly debating the definition of sexual attraction, the debate over these terms seems to be nonexistent making the whole concept murky and the only use of the term is what it means between the small group of individuals using it to define themselves rather than a practical term to be used across the board. 


    • Like 2

  9. Hello humans. ^_^


    TL;DR - I was wondering in general what everyone's thoughts were on amatonormativity being a concept that is adverse to queerplatonic thought OR if not for amatonormativity, do you think the categorization of "queerplatonic" would be necessary? 


    I was actually in the beginning stages of working on a larger thought piece that is slightly related to the topic title but stopped short when I was reading the article for "queerplatonic" on something called "Aromantics Wiki" which is I suppose a sub-wiki for terms found within aromantic communities. I'm not sure who wrote any of this but it caught my attention all the same. The article brings up but doesn't actually go into detail on a thought that has been on my mind for a while: that the idea of a QPR and the idea of amatonormativity, both mentioned quite prevalently in aromantic spaces, are often in conflict with each other due to the way a QPR is commonly defined.


    "A queerplatonic relationship," the article begins, "is one which is more intense and intimate than what most people regard as friendship." But then that is followed up with: "It can be characterized by a strong bond, affect, and emotional commitment not regarded by those involved as beyond friendship." This made sense in my mind that from the outside a relationship might be assumed to be one thing but it is really something else, and through this disconnect some feel the need to label a relationship as a QPR. 


    However, while QPR's are often explained very differently from person to person, the go to description I usually find is "more than friends, less than lovers" or "a gray area between platonic and romantic." I think it is this type of sentiment that the article indirectly touches upon later when it says: "In her book Minimizing Marriage, contemporary philosopher Elizabeth Brake talks about a concept that is adverse to queerplatonic thought, naming it 'amatonormativity.'"


    For those who don't know, amatonormativity is defined as the following: 


    Amatonormativity: The assumption that a central, exclusive, amorous relationship is normal for humans, in that it is a universally shared goal, and that such a relationship is normative, in the sense that it should be aimed at in preference to other relationship types.


    In other words, amatonormativity is addressing the type of relationship hierarchy that is behind the sentiment "more than friends" that is thrown around quite casually and that is why whoever wrote this Wiki blurb most likely said that the concept of QPR and the concept of amatonormativity go against each other especially when viewed in the context of aromantic spaces. I was wondering in general what everyone's thoughts were on amatonormativity being a concept that is adverse to queerplatonic thought OR if not for amatonormativity, do you think the categorization of "queerplatonic" would be necessary? 

    • Like 3

  10. Hmm... well... I guess one thing is I always try to think about the purpose of a romantic relationship and I do that by looking at my friends who are mostly all in one or have been in one before. My friend right now is very worried that when her boyfriend moves to Japan for a year, he won't be able to support her "emotional needs." Right now they still live in separate time zones (Chicago vs. New York) but apparently Japan makes this different. So that got me thinking about who supports my "emotional needs" I suppose. I ask my parents for advice on things and sometimes I also ask my friends for advice and appreciate candid responses. I rant sometimes and appreciate someone listening. I don't see why someone being in Japan (one of my best friends has lived in Taiwan for quite some time now and we talk daily) would prevent them from giving advice or listening to rants. She later specified that she likes to be doted on and "feel loved" which is something I can't relate to and have difficulty understanding. I "feel loved" by my friend in Taiwan and my parents in Philadelphia. Distance doesn't seem to have anything to do with it. 

  11. Ello. ^_^


    *looks around*


    Uhh... hi i'm Turtle. O.o I work in concert and theatrical production. I prefer hot chocolate over coffee or tea. I like Star Wars, K-pop, and F1 racing.


    Just thought I'd poke around here... see what's up so...


    *sits on the couch*

  • Create New...