Squishy or not Squishy

[nonmerci]

6 hours ago, Holmbo said:

 Just cause someone doesn't get squishes  doesn't mean they're unable or unwilling to form platonic bonds with others. Platonic attraction seems to me as too vague a term to be useful, but if there is a way to describe it I don't think it's just about getting squishes.

I think it all depends on how we define "platonic". The problem is that it is a very vague concept, and I think we should as to people who have squishes to define what platonic attraction is. Because right now I feel like we don't have the same idea of what platonic attraction or platonic bounds mean.

[NullVector]

Seems like there are two options here:

 

1. When using the word 'Platonic' in aro spaces it's given a specific technical meaning (a bit like how the word 'theory' in academic scientific contexts doesn't have the meaning it has outside those contexts - which can result in some "just a theory" type of confusions)

 

2. throw the word 'Platonic' in the bin on the grounds that it has too wide a range of possible interpretations to be useful for denoting a specific interpretation. Pick another word instead.

 

I lean more towards 2. On some older threads, people here have suggested companionate relationship as an alternative label to QPR. I found that more intuitively viable as a term. Also more neutral, in the sense of not precluding a sexual component.

[Mark]

15 hours ago, assignedgothatbirth said:

and honestly I dont think pointing at a dictionary is the best way to make this argument, especially when comparing the definition made by an amatonormative society versus how these terms are used with in aro spaces.

In my experience "aro spaces" are just a few online forums. With there being no "meatspace" aro community anywhere near me. Not even something "aces & aros" derived from an ace group.
Whereas "amatonormative society" is where I have to live virtually 24/7.

 

10 hours ago, Holmbo said:

 Just cause someone doesn't get squishes  doesn't mean they're unable or unwilling to form platonic bonds with others. Platonic attraction seems to me as too vague a term to be useful, but if there is a way to describe it I don't think it's just about getting squishes.

I find "platonic bonds" to be just as much a WTF concept as "platonic attraction". My inclination would be to make chemistry jokes asking how it would compare with ionic, covalant or metallic bonds.
It also appears to be an aro (possibly aspec) neologism...

[Holmbo]

2 hours ago, nonmerci said:

I think it all depends on how we define "platonic". The problem is that it is a very vague concept, and I think we should as to people who have squishes to define what platonic attraction is. Because right now I feel like we don't have the same idea of what platonic attraction or platonic bounds mean.

Probably

To me platonic is synonymous with friend. So to say aplatonic suggest someone who doesn't form friendships.

[nonmerci]

For me it means something different than friends. More QPR. So aplatonic : doesn't form QPR. I think it could be useful this way because some people forget all aros don't look for QPR.

[aro-fae]

It has been a bit weird reading through this thread because I always assumed platonic attraction was connected to QPRs. I did a bit of digging and was able to find a few instances of alterous attraction (also here, and here) being used to mean an interest that is neither fully platonic nor fully romantic, which to me sounds similar to a QPR but apparently does not necessarily mean that. I also still see aplatonic used to mean lack of interest in QPRs. 

I don't think this makes the concept any less vague lol, I just wanted to share what I found. 

[Coyote]

On 6/21/2019 at 8:04 AM, Mark said:

Thus "platonic" and "sexual" are very much mutually exclusive adjectives to me.

 

On 6/21/2019 at 1:08 PM, NullVector said:

In fact, isn't this just the standard usage of 'Platonic' in the context of inter-personal relationships?

 

Platonic is a hot mess of a word. We've talked about this before, but aside from the fact that I'm annoyed at the word etymologically (I hate Plato), it's also tangled up in the fact that a lot of people don't make a distinction between romance & sexuality, so, consequently, you'll have people using it both to mean nonromantic and/or to mean nonsexual and/or both. *shrug* Yet another reason why I just avoid it. I mean I get why people want a word for this stuff that doesn't have the word "non" in it, and people like a more established word over a neologism, but this is a problem with that word that's never going to go away.

 

Yet another reason why I can't rightly answer the poll the way the answers are given.

 

7 hours ago, Mark said:

It also appears to be an aro (possibly aspec) neologism...

 

What does?

 

Anyway, if y'all are interested in origins/uses of aplatonic, platonic attraction, and alterous, there's more links on that here.

[nonmerci]

9 minutes ago, Coyote said:

I mean I get why people want a word for this stuff that doesn't have the word "non" in it, and people like a more established word over a neologism, but this is a problem with that word that's never going to go away.

That's not a problem only for platonic I think. I personally hate the word aromantic, but that's just me, and I'm still using it because it the word for my attraction. (I Don't know if it  is the same in English, but in French "romantique" is a word that comes from the romantism movement, and by extension it can mean someone with a lot of sensibility (in particular when it comes to romance; like someone who will buy flowers or like candlelight dinner; so if you just say "aromantic" people completely misunderstood the meaning).

 

But language evoluates, and now it has a different meaning and I am fine with it.

[Mark]

11 hours ago, nonmerci said:

I think it all depends on how we define "platonic". The problem is that it is a very vague concept, and I think we should as to people who have squishes to define what platonic attraction is. Because right now I feel like we don't have the same idea of what platonic attraction or platonic bounds mean.

To me it's not the definition of "platonic" so much as "platonic attraction" and "platonic bond(s)" which I struggle with. In a way like "purple friendship". 
Whereas "platonic friend(ship)", "platonic marriage" and "purple pen" make sense.
 

8 hours ago, NullVector said:

1. When using the word 'Platonic' in aro spaces it's given a specific technical meaning (a bit like how the word 'theory' in academic scientific contexts doesn't have the meaning it has outside those contexts - which can result in some "just a theory" type of confusions)

This dictionary definition has both the scientific and colloquial versions of "theory".
So an "aro space" specific definition seems more like jargon.

 

8 hours ago, NullVector said:

2. throw the word 'Platonic' in the bin on the grounds that it has too wide a range of possible interpretations to be useful for denoting a specific interpretation. Pick another word instead.

Maybe if the bin is then used in an underground nuclear test to hold up the warhead.

 

8 hours ago, NullVector said:

I lean more towards 2. On some older threads, people here have suggested companionate relationship as an alternative label to QPR. I found that more intuitively viable as a term. Also more neutral, in the sense of not precluding a sexual component.

I'm not sure that works, given the existing term companionate marriage. With QPRs not being intrinsically child free.

 

8 hours ago, Holmbo said:

To me platonic is synonymous with friend. So to say aplatonic suggest someone who doesn't form friendships.

That dosn't make that much sense since it would make "platonic friend" akin to "river avon". 

I've heard it stated that it does not mean "friend adverse", such as here.

 

3 hours ago, nonmerci said:

For me it means something different than friends. More QPR. So aplatonic : doesn't form QPR.

The term "aplatonic" seems to be used for no squishes, disinterest in QPRs or both.

 

3 hours ago, nonmerci said:

I think it could be useful this way because some people forget all aros don't look for QPR.

Maybe there's a need for a term meaning "has squishes" and a term meaning "seeks a QPR". Especially if it were to be the case that most aros don't do these things.
Though that's possibly also "too much wordsmithing".

 

1 hour ago, Coyote said:

Platonic is a hot mess of a word. We've talked about this before, but aside from the fact that I'm annoyed at the word etymologically (I hate Plato), it's also tangled up in the fact that a lot of people don't make a distinction between romance & sexuality, so, consequently, you'll have people using it both to mean nonromantic and/or to mean nonsexual and/or both. *shrug*

I wonder if this conflation is a result of romantic coding of sex and romance, amantonormativity and the majority of people being perioriented.
None of these definitions appear to have much in common with what Plato was describing in The Symposium. Which seems to be that relationships should not involve eros without any other form of love also being present.
Creating a new meaning for an existing word is also a form of neologism, though different from coining a new word.

 

1 hour ago, nonmerci said:

That's not a problem only for platonic I think. I personally hate the word aromantic, but that's just me, and I'm still using it because it the word for my attraction. (I Don't know if it  is the same in English, but in French "romantique" is a word that comes from the romantism movement, and by extension it can mean someone with a lot of sensibility (in particular when it comes to romance; like someone who will buy flowers or like candlelight dinner; so if you just say "aromantic" people completely misunderstood the meaning).

Romanticism as a culture dosn't appear to have had much to do with romance as a notion of love/relationship/attraction/etc. other than name.
 

[Holmbo]

9 hours ago, NullVector said:

Seems like there are two options here:

 

1. When using the word 'Platonic' in aro spaces it's given a specific technical meaning (a bit like how the word 'theory' in academic scientific contexts doesn't have the meaning it has outside those contexts - which can result in some "just a theory" type of confusions)

 

2. throw the word 'Platonic' in the bin on the grounds that it has too wide a range of possible interpretations to be useful for denoting a specific interpretation. Pick another word instead.

 

I lean more towards 2. On some older threads, people here have suggested companionate relationship as an alternative label to QPR. I found that more intuitively viable as a term. Also more neutral, in the sense of not precluding a sexual component.

After reading this thread I tend to agree ? Nothing against the participants of  the discussion of course, just that I was flabbergasted by how different meaning we give to the word.

I think I will try to avoid the word in the future and give more specific description instead.

 

[aro_elise]

i'd say platonic attraction can just be wanting to be friends with someone, like not that strong, and then wanting a qpr could be described as queerplatonic attraction (it's in the initialism).  my squishes tend to be somewhere in between; i don't know which i'd call them.  like i don't think i've ever wanted a qpr with a specific person (but not opposed to the general idea), but there is a difference between having a squish and just liking someone as a friend.  so yeah, we're using all these terms--squish, platonic, qp, etc.--and they exist at different places on the spectrum of platonic attraction or whatever you want to call it, not to mention at a slightly different place for each person. 

 

also, for me, there can be sexual attraction involved but certainly not always (obviously never in the case of girls).  they're unrelated types of attraction but they can just happen to coincide.  like, "oh, he's fun and nice and also hot."  do y'all (allo aros) not relate?

[letusdeleteouraccounts]

On 6/25/2019 at 12:00 AM, aro_elise said:

 

i'd say platonic attraction can just be wanting to be friends with someone

 

I’ve experienced platonic atrraction a few times and I hate that the OP is confusing it for squishes (which I’ve had twice). They’re very distinct feelings even thought I think a squish is platonic attraction plus a large emotional attraction. Platonic attraction for me was looking at a person who was pretty interesting/attractive looking and the first thought to mind is ‘I should walk up and get to know them.’ That’s pretty much it. I suppose in a case where I’m already friends with them, it would be ‘I need to hangout with you more.’ But in both cases, it’s an instinct rather than a want. My squishes are literally friend obsessions. They make me clingy and I’m thinking about them a lot to the point where I start dreaming about them on a consistent basis (I don’t desire to have romantic relations with my squish though). I can’t say I have or haven’t experienced “queerplatonic attraction” but I would love to have a relationship like that one day to express my sensuality

[Autumn]

I voted "something else" because I'm honestly not sure if I experience squishes or not, or if I want a qpr or not. Part of me kind of wants a low-key qpr regardless of platonic attraction, but also it feels rather Non-Essential, just something that if I had I would probably like. If I do get squishes then it would probably be 'rarely', making me 'grayplatonic' if I had to choose a phrase. But since squishes are platonic and all my feelings for people are platonic, in general, I only have a loose idea of what feelings to call a squish and which ones not to (currently anyways)

[eatingcroutons]

On 6/20/2019 at 6:40 PM, NullVector said:

Up to now, I didn't personally see why this needs its own word.

I'm still baffled by it, to be perfectly honest. I don't understand what's unclear or insufficient about saying, "I want to be better friends with that person," or, "I think they're great, I want to spend more time with them," or any of the countless ways we already have to describe liking and wanting to be friends with people. 

[raavenb2619]

On 8/3/2019 at 2:55 AM, eatingcroutons said:

I don't understand what's unclear or insufficient about saying, "I want to be better friends with that person," or, "I think they're great, I want to spend more time with them," or any of the countless ways we already have to describe liking and wanting to be friends with people. 

I used to think that I got crushes, before I eventually realized that they were actually squishes. It was useful to have a word that described what I was feeling, and knowing that other people felt the same thing and understood it enough to give it a name helped me feel more secure in my identity as aromantic. And I actually started (re)questioning my romantic orientation because I realized I wasn’t sure if what I was feeling was a crush or a squish. 

Lastly, (and I realize this is very nebulous and subjective), I’m sort of just...glad that there’s a word? If there wasn’t a word, I’d probably want there to be one to describe this specific experience? From what I’ve learned from my friends, before the word “crush” existed, people were probably compelled to come up with a word for it; I think there’s a similar thing with squish.