What is the "a-spectrum"?

[VoidArcana]

6 hours ago, Coyote said:

 

Hold on, it's "erasure" to talk about one person?

You're really not listening to my problem here are you? I've said multiple times your example came across as 'this is the only kind of aplatonic' (aka erasing other kinds). I know it probably wasn't meant that way, but that's how it sounded. 

At this point I think I'm also going to take a step back from this conversation, because I honestly can't explain myself any differently then I have, and I don't think I can state things any clearer, so if you're not getting my point by now, I doubt I can change that. 

[LauraG]

54 minutes ago, VoidArcana said:

7 hours ago, Coyote said:

 

Hold on, it's "erasure" to talk about one person?

You're really not listening to my problem here are you? I've said multiple times your example came across as 'this is the only kind of aplatonic' (aka erasing other kinds). I know it probably wasn't meant that way, but that's how it sounded. 

At this point I think I'm also going to take a step back from this conversation, because I honestly can't explain myself any differently then I have, and I don't think I can state things any clearer, so if you're not getting my point by now, I doubt I can change that. 

This feels like @Coyote is talking about how ix meant the original statement, which was supposed to be an example of one person, which wouldn't be erasure. But you're still upset about how you originally interpreted it, which was not how it was intended? Am I reading this situation correctly?

I think you're not getting each others' points because you're not talking about the same thing. To go back to Coy's original question:

On 6/9/2020 at 10:18 AM, Coyote said:

I don't.... sssssee if you answered the question there, so I'll break it into two questions: 1) Are you (still) saying that [that use/definition] affects people who identify as aplatonic (ostensibly, negatively)? 2) And if so, how so?

I interpreted "[that use/definition]" to mean the personal definition, now that we've cleared up that Coy did not intend it to be a broad, overarching definition, but rather as an example. So essentially how I read this question was "Are you saying that a personal definition of 'I don't love my friends' affects others who identify as aplatonic in a negative way?" Which I don't think is what you're saying, @VoidArcana, if I'm interpreting you right.

I'm not sure what you're looking for from Coy before we can move on from the misunderstood meaning of Coy's statement back to the intended meaning of the statement. Are you looking for Coy to apologize because others misunderstood what ix was trying to say? Or, did you miss when Coy said that that's not how ix meant the original statement? Are you looking for Coy to edit the original statement to be more clear? I'm confused. I feel like "If I misunderstand something you say, and I'm offended by what I thought you said, then even after we've established that you didn't actually mean that, you absolutely must apologize or we cannot continue the conversation" is a bit of a harsh sentiment, so I'm sure that's not what you're going for here?

Edited June 12, 2020 by LauraG

[LauraG]

1 hour ago, John Rando said:

4 hours ago, LauraG said:

To play devil's advocate (and I legitimately mean that - I think you could probably argue against this pretty easily), an alloromantic aplatonic person might love their romantic partners, but not love their friends (note: this is a specific example, not a broad generalization). For them, the idea of being "more than friends" might make some inherent sense to them, and so they're not exactly defying amatonormativity there. In fact, they may actively be confused by aro frustrations with things like that phrase, because they can't relate, and aros might be frustrated with them because they feel like they're upholding a system they find harmful. In this case, it might not make sense to group these two groups together.

To play devil's satan*, first you don't need platonic attraction to have friends.

Second, It would makes total sense to me to say "more than friends" when you mean "the relationship I have with them is based on romantic attraction in addition to the platonic one" (not all romantic relationship are like that). But most people would understand it as "this relationship counts more in the absolute relationship hierarchy because ... amatonormativity !", and that doesn't make any iherent sense, regardless of your orientation.

And third, serendipity and the gray area of the aro spectrum make that some aplatonics having a romantic orientation are already inside the aro community and the civil war has not happened yet.

* satan = prosecutor

1) Did I say that you need platonic attraction to have friends somewhere? If what I said sounded like that, it's not how I intended it.

2) That also makes sense to me. It also would make even more sense if they felt romantic attraction without feeling any platonic attraction. I meant inherent sense to them personally, with how they personally structure relationships. Why do we, as aros, see that statement as automatically being about relationship hierarchies in general as opposed to how things personally feel? I don't know that that's necessarily how all alloromantic folks see that statement. (Honestly, I don't think they think about it, for the most part.)

3) I know, lol, I'm one of them, and this whole hypothetical example was based on my own personal experience (which is why I said it's easy to argue against lol). I experience exactly one kind of strong emotional feeling towards others, which I feel quite rarely, and it beats me whether that's a romantic or platonic feeling. Honestly I personally kind of like "more than friends" as a neutral way of describing this feeling without specifically labeling it platonic or romantic, but... that would not play over well with other aros, and I know that.

Also... "the civil war has not happened yet"... I beg to differ haha. I think @Coyote literally has a post titled "The Gray Wars".

[Coyote]

6 hours ago, Mark said:

Something I can often struggle with is understanding how QPRs are non-romantic when they are described.

Does anyone else want to address this?

 

4 hours ago, LauraG said:

Also as perhaps a point of clarification, I don't think @Coyote, by asking why aplatonic should be included in aspec, means to imply that there isn't a reason why aplatonic could be grouped with ace and aro, but rather that aplatonic should only be included in that grouping if it makes sense and there's a reason for it, so Coy is asking about what that reason is in a legitimate sense. Coy you can correct me if I'm wrong here.

Generally when I ask questions they're intended as questions, not declarations, yes. It could be that some folks are coming from a context where questions are generally not used as questions, which may be why that needs to be said. I'm not even being sarcastic about that, either. I had a whole conversation with some of my PF mutuals once about them coming from a discursive context where people kept using "What does this mean?" to mean "I disagree"/"This is bad" -- which is gravely objectionable to me, as that encodes asking for clarification as itself an attack, and that's just a recipe for trouble.

 

51 minutes ago, VoidArcana said:

I've said multiple times your example came across as 'this is the only kind of aplatonic' (aka erasing other kinds). I know it probably wasn't meant that way, but that's how it sounded. 

I believe we've discussed what my intentions were,* so.... is the thing you're asking for..... for me to go back and edit the post?

*(it was intended as one example of one person, not a universal description of all people who identify as aplatonic)

[VoidArcana]

49 minutes ago, Coyote said:

I believe we've discussed what my intentions were,* so.... is the thing you're asking for..... for me to go back and edit the post?

*(it was intended as one example of one person, not a universal description of all people who identify as aplatonic)

All I was looking for is an acknowledgement that what you said was poorly worded? And that wording specifically has caused issues for people. 

Every response I've seen so far has honestly seemed rather dismissive. A general attitude of 'I didn't mean it that way, so why is there an issue?'. You seem so surprised that people have interpreted it different then you intended, you keep asking for clarification rather then just, accepting that it didn't come across the way you intended? 

1 hour ago, LauraG said:

I feel like "If I misunderstand something you say, and I'm offended by what I thought you said, then even after we've established that you didn't actually mean that, you absolutely must apologize or we cannot continue the conversation" is a bit of a harsh sentiment, so I'm sure that's not what you're going for here?

If you step on my foot, are you going to apologise for stepping on my foot, or are you going to argue that you didn't mean to step on my foot so obviously my foot shouldn't be hurt?. 

Establishing the intent behind the example doesn't change the fact that the example didn't come across as intended, multiple people have expressed issue with that, and Coyote has not acknowledged that. I'm not looking for an apology, I'm looking for the feelings, of both myself and others, not to be brushed aside just because 'it wasn't meant that way'. 

I will not be responding to this anymore. I have nothing more to say. 

[Coyote]

1 hour ago, VoidArcana said:

All I was looking for is an acknowledgement that what you said was poorly worded?

Oh.

Currently I do not believe it was poorly worded. I believe the wording adequately matches the thing it was meant to express.

1 hour ago, VoidArcana said:

Establishing the intent behind the example doesn't change the fact that the example didn't come across as intended, multiple people have expressed issue with that, and Coyote has not acknowledged that.

I acknowledge it.

Now from my perspective, there's been a misunderstanding that's involved other people putting words in my mouth and then asking me to apologize for things I didn't actually say. This strikes me as pretty unfair, and I was operating on the hope that with time and further clarification, maybe folks would realize that and apologize to me for jumping the gun, or at least quit holding me responsible for their own mistakes. While misunderstandings are no big deal, and while it's fine to ask for clarification, I don't believe I'm necessarily on the hook for other people's misreads.

I'll go back and take a look at the original text again.

• "That's the question though, would an alloromantic allosexual have any reason to want to identify with the ace & aro umbrellas like that? I mean, if someone's like 'I don't love my friends,' I don't see what that necessarily has to do with me. I'm not preemptively ruling it out, just asking what the rationale is supposed to be."

So the text in question does:

• ask about grouping the aplatonic identity a certain way with aromanticism and asexuality
  • in a way that would mean including allo-allos who identify as aplatonic
• give an example of one aplatonic narrative
• indicate I don't currently see the answer to the question I am asking
• specifically state "I'm not preemptively ruling it out, just asking what the rationale is supposed to be"

The text in question does not:

• preemptively rule anything out
• definitively declare what the answer to the question is
• assert that one type of narrative is representative of the entire identity

So that arrangement of words does seem to me to decently match up to what they're supposed to do. If multiple people have interpreted it differently, then multiple people have made a mistake.

Ways I would be open to editing the post:

• adding "for instance" in front of the example given for instance
• adding more examples of aplatonic narratives, in addition to the one I initially asked about

[LauraG]

3 hours ago, VoidArcana said:

If you step on my foot, are you going to apologise for stepping on my foot, or are you going to argue that you didn't mean to step on my foot so obviously my foot shouldn't be hurt?

This analogy does not really work in the given situation. To me, at least, a more adequate analogy would be something falling on person A's foot, but person A thinks person B stepped on it, so person A snaps at them. Person B says it wasn't them in reaction to being snapped at in an annoyed tone, and person A says "how dare you ignore my pain, you could have just apologized" Which like, maybe it'd be nice for them to acknowledge that person B is hurt (apologizing still seems like a bit much), but given the fact that person A started out by snapping at person B, and when there's a history of person A repeatedly stepping on person B's toes and saying "what? it wasn't me" and then running away when told "yes, it was you," then it makes sense that person B might react a bit harshly in this circumstance.

Honestly I don't think this analogy is perfect either, but hey... stepping on someone's foot has more fault involved than having something you said misinterpreted by someone else. That's a no-fault situation, and expecting one person to accept fault is a bit ridiculous.

1 hour ago, Coyote said:

adding "for instance" in front of the example given for instance

I think this would lend some clarity to the original sentence. I don't think it's immediately obvious that it's an example, though once I realized that's what it was it made sense that way.

Edited June 12, 2020 by LauraG

[nonmerci]

@Coyote You're right that we should have apologized for going so hard on you. So sorry for that. Re-reading the post I can see that it was not meant to be hurtful but it was mis read because, as you said, we are used with questions not being questions.

(Though I still think the "I don't like my friends" was reductive and badly written, so yes for editing with "this is not supposed to define all aplatonic people" or something like that)

(Though to be honest, what annoying me was not that you didn't give apologies,  but more than the clarification didn't came from you but others, which makes me confused about if you agree or not : before your previous response I had no idea what you truly think about all this, and that makes the discussion a bit hard... now I can understand why you don't want to engage in the conversation if you have an history of being called out, but it makes me think that left me confused and ignored)

13 hours ago, LauraG said:

To play devil's advocate (and I legitimately mean that - I think you could probably argue against this pretty easily), an alloromantic aplatonic person might love their romantic partners, but not love their friends (note: this is a specific example, not a broad generalization). For them, the idea of being "more than friends" might make some inherent sense to them, and so they're not exactly defying amatonormativity there. In fact, they may actively be confused by aro frustrations with things like that phrase, because they can't relate, and aros might be frustrated with them because they feel like they're upholding a system they find harmful. In this case, it might not make sense to group these two groups together.

OK,  I get your point. But I disagree. If we take just ace and aro groups, the same problem can arise : for instance if some aros want to talk about why sexual attraction is important to them, but that aces are sex repulsed and are not comfortable with kt. Of if some aces want to talk about how romance is more than friendship for them too, which would frustraste aros. But we still group them together because we think the similarities are more important than the differences. And that's how I feel about aplatonicism right now.

 

8 hours ago, Coyote said:

16 hours ago, Mark said:

Something I can often struggle with is understanding how QPRs are non-romantic when they are described.

Does anyone else want to address this?

I don't think this fit on the current discussion, but maybe make another thread?

 

Edited June 12, 2020 by nonmerci

[John Rando]

9 hours ago, LauraG said:

Did I say that you need platonic attraction to have friends somewhere? If what I said sounded like that, it's not how I intended it.

Sorry, it was not meant as an accusation or something. It was to say that the following quote didn't make much sense to me since if you have a relationship based purely on affinity compared to a relationship based purely on feelings, these are just two uncomparable things. I couldn't say which one is the other but with something more. To use other words, for me the two relationship are orthogonal. The second answer adressed the cases where relationship are both romantic and platonic (based on attraction or not)

9 hours ago, LauraG said:

For them, the idea of being "more than friends" might make some inherent sense to them, and so they're not exactly defying amatonormativity there.

9 hours ago, LauraG said:

Why do we, as aros, see that statement ["more than firends" NDLR] as automatically being about relationship hierarchies in general as opposed to how things personally feel? I don't know that that's necessarily how all alloromantic folks see that statement. (Honestly, I don't think they think about it, for the most part.)

Sadly, even if a few people are genuinly anti-amatonormativity, we expect amatonarmativity to be a given, so unless we choose our words wisely, we see societal norms acknowleged everytime they are not expessly ruled out. When we say "more than a friend" instead of "a friend and lover", we allow the others not to think about it and stay in the confort (or disconfort, depending on the audience) of amatonormative assumptions if they want to.

[Coyote]

10 hours ago, LauraG said:

I think this would lend some clarity to the original sentence. I don't think it's immediately obvious that it's an example, though once I realized that's what it was it made sense that way.

Okay. I have edited my post.

6 hours ago, nonmerci said:

You're right that we should have apologized for going so hard on you. So sorry for that. Re-reading the post I can see that it was not meant to be hurtful but it was mis read because, as you said, we are used with questions not being questions.

Thank you.

6 hours ago, nonmerci said:

Though I still think the "I don't like my friends" was reductive and badly written

Good news: "I don't like my friends" isn't the paraphrasing I used. It was "I don't love my friends," because "love" (specifically) was what that original thread was about.

If you believe I'm paraphrasing that thread poorly, what paraphrasing would you prefer?

6 hours ago, nonmerci said:

(Though to be honest, what annoying me was not that you didn't give apologies,  but more than the clarification didn't came from you but others, which makes me confused about if you agree or not : before your previous response I had no idea what you truly think about all this, and that makes the discussion a bit hard... now I can understand why you don't want to engage in the conversation if you have an history of being called out, but it makes me think that left me confused and ignored)

There's a lot of things going on in this thread. If there's a particular part of your posts you'd like to hone in on and make sure I don't miss when I'm figuring how much of everything to reply to, a good way to do that is with direct questions. Do you have any questions about what I do or don't agree with?

[Mark]

On 6/11/2020 at 10:26 AM, nonmerci said:

So, to answer the original question ("what does an allo allo person who doesn't love their friends has to do with me?"), I would say that : the problem face are similar.

I'm thinking that similar problems from different causes might require different solutions.
 

On 6/11/2020 at 10:26 AM, nonmerci said:

People are supposed to need each other company. For instance, in the aro community, loving our friends is seen as something that humanizes us, because "we don't love romantically, but platonically". And to take the same example as @John Rando did, if you tell someone "I didn't miss my friends during the confinment", you will be seen as weird because you are suppose to love them and so miss them.

I do miss friends.
However I associate love for friends more with "philia" ...

[Mark]

21 hours ago, nonmerci said:

I say later that why I reacted that way was because for me, aplatonic, aromantic and asexual problem are similar, and that's why it makes sense to group together, to fight against the issue and discuss about their experiences. Of course a-spec is not the only way to acknowledge struggles matter and the purpose is not to make a list of people who has problems, or everyone would fit in the label and it will make no sense at all.

It's worth asking "how similar" as well as if the False Equivalence fallacy might apply here.

The aromantic spectrum is quite diverse as are the asexual and aplatonic spectra.
An "aros and aces" a-spectrum is more diverse. With the possibility of conflicting needs between allosexual aromantics and asexual alloromantics.
An "aros, aces and aplos" being even more diverse. With more possible conflicting needs.

[Mark]

19 hours ago, John Rando said:

To play devil's satan*, first you don't need platonic attraction to have friends.

It's possible for friendship to be based around sexual, sensual, aesthetic, romantic, etc attraction.
Attraction and love are different things. Someone who "loves their friends" could mean in terms of philia, eros, ludus, romance, etc.

19 hours ago, John Rando said:

Second, It would makes total sense to me to say "more than friends" when you mean "the relationship I have with them is based on romantic attraction in addition to the platonic one" (not all romantic relationship are like that). But most people would understand it as "this relationship counts more in the absolute relationship hierarchy because ... amatonormativity !", and that doesn't make any iherent sense, regardless of your orientation.

Allos can use the phrase "more that friends" where there is just romance involved.
There is also the way in which QPRs are often placed in this hierarchy.
Without considering that at least some aros find non-romantic, including platonic, relationships to be "more than romance". Effectively inverting the hierarchy. Others may question the hierarchy concept.

[nonmerci]

7 hours ago, Coyote said:

Good news: "I don't like my friends" isn't the paraphrasing I used. It was "I don't love my friends," because "love" (specifically) was what that original thread was about.

If you believe I'm paraphrasing that thread poorly, what paraphrasing would you prefer?

Oops, I made a mistake while writing (in my language "like" and "love" can be translated by the same word, that's why; but I think the meaning is different in English and "love" is stronger than "like" so it may have been confusing).

I think that it is enough to just edit the first post as you did. I think my problem was that I didn't understand you were paraphrasing in the first place.

 

7 hours ago, Coyote said:

There's a lot of things going on in this thread. If there's a particular part of your posts you'd like to hone in on and make sure I don't miss when I'm figuring how much of everything to reply to, a good way to do that is with direct questions. Do you have any questions about what I do or don't agree with?

I don't really know now, I think your previous post get answer my questions. Maybe if I read again the conversation I will find, but where I live it is late,I should sleeping,  so let me think and I'll see.

Thanks for asking.

 

6 hours ago, Mark said:

do miss friends.
However I associate love for friends more with "philia

For this, it was an example because of what John Rambo said some posts ago, about not missing friends. And I relate to that part. But I get that all people don't.

 

5 hours ago, Mark said:

It's worth asking "how similar" as well as if the False Equivalence fallacy might apply here.

The aromantic spectrum is quite diverse as are the asexual and aplatonic spectra.
An "aros and aces" a-spectrum is more diverse. With the possibility of conflicting needs between allosexual aromantics and asexual alloromantics.
An "aros, aces and aplos" being even more diverse. With more possible conflicting needs.

OK, I see what you mean. Maybe you are right and this is a false equivalence as you said. I think what confuse me here is that I see the same false equivalence between aro and ace, but that's another subject.

[DeltaAro]

On 6/12/2020 at 12:00 AM, John Rando said:

Why though ? If I don't have obsessive thoughts and fantasies and a desire to maintain a relationship (aka limerence) for my parents am I a sociopath ?

1. Sociopathy entails a pattern of behavior of actively harming others. So no, it's not sociopathic.
2. If aplatonicism is just about not having “obsessive thoughts and fantasies and a desire to maintain a relationship”, there's nothing negative about it.

On 6/12/2020 at 12:00 AM, John Rando said:

You don't need to emotionally love your parents to be part of a healthy and mutually enjoyable parent/children relationship.

I'm afraid, I don't know what aplatonicism is about.

The other way around (from the perspective of the parent), if aplatonicism would entail that someone is incapable of fulfilling more than the bare legal requirement towards their children – that is providing and minimally caring for them – isn't it negative in this situation?

Any random adult OTOH can just walk away if they don't get what they desire from a relationship – that happens all the time for millions of reasons.

It doesn't make aplatonicism sociopathic – just negative in this situation. And sure, there are worse parents around. Who do not even meet the minimal legal requirements or actively harm their children.

––

Now regarding “emotionally loving” … in Star Trek, Mr. Spock rarely displays emotions. He usually just makes value judgements and those values drive his actions. Would a relationship purely based on values and no emotions lack something? It's so alien to me, I can barely imagine it… but I tend to "no".

Still an argument could be made that it is impoverished. That's getting very subtle and complex again like with all issues raised here…

Values are bound by logic, they are part of cognition. If Alice values X, she cannot logically consistently value not-X. The same does not apply to emotions. Say, Alice and her friend take part in a contest and Alice's friend wins. Alice is happy about that – but not happy that she lost. Perfectly normal. So emotions are very different from cognitions.

Would it be bad for a child with usual human psychology to be raised by Mr. Spock? If every action is motivated only by values and never emotions (e.g. Mr. Spock values the child's well-being etc. – but does not experience emotions like love), does that lead to behavior which is overly rigid (because it is based purely on cognition) and most humans have serious problems with? IDK…

Edited June 12, 2020 by DeltaV

[Coyote]

I don't believe "sociopathy" is a medically legitimate concept to begin with ftr.

[Momo]

This thread is locked. It's been going downhill for a while and hit absolute rock bottom. Everyone take a breather.