What do aros actually want in terms of relationships?

[Mark]

Whilst it can seem like every aro wants a QPR this, self evidently, isn't the case.
So I think it's important to find out what people actually do want.

[Guest]

Hum… I don't know what to choose, because it depend too much on contexts.

 

I only can tell you for sure that i don't want a romantic relationship. And i don't think i would like having no interaction.

 

And for qprs… to tell you the truth, i personnaly can't tell the difference between qprs (or at least how peoples describe them. And from what i heard, they tend to be very different from each others) and a very close friend. (Not that i am going to stop peoples from calling it like that. Just because i don't understand don't mean it's not true. ) 

 

I would not mind having a close friend. Or close friends. But do I really want a qpr ?. Well, I know i am not necessarily looking for it.

I have good friends. It's fun and i like it. 

 

And now that i think about it, even if i had  a best friend, close friends, and all of that, i would need my time alone.

 

[Edit : I think I understand QPR's a little better now.]

 

 

 

[nonmerci]

I make more than one choice : purely platonic friendship, something else (familial relationship), and little interaction (because though I enjoy people company, I also enjoy loneliness).

[letusdeleteouraccounts]

This poll seems really difficult to receive meaningful results from

 

What I want is a partner that’s more like a best friend than anything but that I can lean and lay on, feel comfortable hugging, and cuddle to sleep really (I’m homosensual and aro ace). We do everything together and possibly adopt kids together. I also want someone healthy looking that I’ll feel proud of to introduce to my family so it would also be nice if he isn’t the introverted type who makes every social situation awkward

[Misanthropy]

Ideal relationship: A friendship with sensual and emotional "benefits" that places more emphasis on connection than time spent together ( I need personal space). Not sure if that would count as a qpr? Haha Most of the time I want as little interaction with others as possible though . I love spending the majority of my time alone

[aro_elise]

platonic friendships, sexual relationships, maybe QPRs, or combinations of those.  i do love being alone but i think 'little to no interaction' would be a stretch.

[Jot-Aro Kujo]

This poll doesn't really cover what I want at all... I want "purely platonic friendship", yes, but the views I have on friendship/what I want from a friendship generally are a bit different from how allo society conceptualizes friendships. I would also be interested in a sexual relationship, but I do not consider it "romantic coded" and am not comfortable with checking of an option that implies that I want anything of the sort, given that I'm very romance repulsed.

[bydontost]

7 hours ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

This poll doesn't really cover what I want at all... I want "purely platonic friendship", yes, but the views I have on friendship/what I want from a friendship generally are a bit different from how allo society conceptualizes friendships. I would also be interested in a sexual relationship, but I do not consider it "romantic coded" and am not comfortable with checking of an option that implies that I want anything of the sort, given that I'm very romance repulsed.

I checked a few, including that "romance coded" option tho the wording doesn't sit right with me either

[Mark]

9 hours ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

This poll doesn't really cover what I want at all...

It was difficult to pick options which seemed reasonable whilst avoiding having a huge list.

 

9 hours ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

I want "purely platonic friendship", yes, but the views I have on friendship/what I want from a friendship generally are a bit different from how allo society conceptualizes friendships. 

I think that wanting friendships which different from the socially normative is fairly common amongst aros. Though there might be huge variation in terms of what those differences are.
Something I can find difficult to get across to allos is that waning some friendships to be "purely platonic" is not the same as wanting all of them to be that way...

 

10 hours ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

 I would also be interested in a sexual relationship, but I do not consider it "romantic coded" and am not comfortable with checking of an option that implies that I want anything of the sort, given that I'm very romance repulsed.

What I was intending to get over was something along the lines of "Doing things where there's a social assumption that they only (should) happen in a romantic relationship without there being any romance being involved."

[Holmbo]

I don't really look for any specific types of relationships. I want every relationship to grow organically from what we both want. If I found someone who I got along with extremely well and felt comfortable with, I might want to get into a more committed life partner relationship with them. But I wouldn't go looking for a qpr.

[Mirrorreaper]

I want a BFF like a medieval warrior and his lord kind of relationship. Someone who always has my back, and we can have beers in pubs and shoot the shit, or go camping together. I think I would have fit into to an older more outdated relationship model. 

I have a theory that aro wasnt as politically necessary in eras before the rise of the middle class, privacy, and noblemen marrying for love rather than political positions.

In older societies many people lived in the same home, or on the same plot of land, and raising children was a community situation; there was lordly devotion and queenly devotion from knights and of course, falling in love with those outside your stations- these types of relationships were coveted, rare, and well, romanticised in fiction precisely because they were not as easily accessible.

My theory is that many of us still fit well into these outdated relationship models but the way we form family and tribal groups now centres on monogamous or romantic pairings and small family units and we now stand out/dont fit into the mould. 

I always think my ideal would be something chivalric- chivalric devotion and protectiveness or being close platonic bros but not "romantic" as we see it today. 

[Guest]

Hmm… I already said my point of view above, but I think I understand QPR's better now. Never too late I guess.

 

Still, I am not really looking for one. I don't exclude the possibility of having one, but I am not really worried about that. We will see, and if it never happen I won't be too bothered.

 

 

 

[eOrion]

I can never quite decide what i want

I tried romance and QPPs, and they didnt work well with me, but still part of me is like 'pls, i want a long distance qpp',
I do want and like having friends but also having friends is exhausting and i dont like having people at my house or being at other's houses, 
I do always love internet friends though, thats my favourite type of interaction. ♥

[TripleA]

It's hard to choose for me, because my wants for companionship don't really fit one box only. 

 

I am not 100% sure but I feel like I would be happy in a strong friendship with sex and affection/Sexual QPRs. 

 

From what I've tried, the thought of going to meet someone for onetime sex makes me nervous and having been in a romantic relationship (a short one) I found it very awkward and restricting. It was uncomfortable for me to even call her my girlfriend. 

 

[DogObsessedLi]

A best friend platonic relationship (remember how close you (possibly) were with your best friend(s) at school), well ideally I want that level of intimate platonic relationship; however happy to work out a QPR also. Basically depends on the circumstances.

On 7/19/2019 at 1:54 AM, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

This poll doesn't really cover what I want at all... I want "purely platonic friendship", yes, but the views I have on friendship/what I want from a friendship generally are a bit different from how allo society conceptualizes friendships.

This is me all over. I want the closeness of childhood friendships that society has relegated by prioritising romantic relationships. Basically, friendships but before they were sidelined by other commitments (that are usually romantic relationship based).

 

@Mirrorreaper The change in society to small family units based on monogamous romantic pairings is really interesting to reflect on, and I also wonder if this arrangement then aggravates the problem because the romantic couples are straining to work independently as a unit and then feel like they have to prioritise their friendships to concentrate on this. It would be nice to see some research in this.

[Coyote]

11 hours ago, DogObsessedLiz said:

I also wonder if this arrangement then aggravates the problem because the romantic couples are straining to work independently as a unit and then feel like they have to prioritise their friendships to concentrate on this. It would be nice to see some research in this.

 

Did somebody say research?

 

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.

[Mark]

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

[Coyote]

1 hour ago, Mark said:

The link appears to require a login

 

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.

[Mark]

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.

[Ace Of Hugs]

Where would "really affectionate platonic friendships" fit?

 

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

 

[Coyote]

4 hours ago, Ace Of Hugs said:

Where would "really affectionate platonic friendships" fit?

 

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."

[Ace Of Hugs]

12 minutes 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."

 

As I understand it, QPRs tend to be higher in commitment than what I'm talking about.  My friendships tend to be more "friends with (non-sexual) benefits"  

[Mark]

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.

[Holmbo]

23 hours ago, DogObsessedLiz said:

@Mirrorreaper The change in society to small family units based on monogamous romantic pairings is really interesting to reflect on, and I also wonder if this arrangement then aggravates the problem because the romantic couples are straining to work independently as a unit and then feel like they have to prioritise their friendships to concentrate on this. It would be nice to see some research in this.

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.

[Mark]

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.