Galactic Turtle Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.