QPR Misinformation Is Not an Appropriate Vehicle for Aro Community Building

[deletingthisaccount]

11 minutes ago, Coyote said:

 

I'm... not sure I've seen that? I don't recognize what you're talking about here.

Like, for example, a relationship between two aces where they're both romantically attracted to one another, dedicated to one another, in love with one another, but there's no physical element involved at all. One couple in this relationship will describe itself as an aro-ace QPR, because no physical element is involved. The other couple in the exact same relationship will call it a romantic ace relationship because they love each other, regardless of no physical element involved.

 

Then say you have an ace relationship similar to what I described above, but add cuddling -- one couple will call itself a QPR because there's no kissing. The other couple in the same relationship will call it a romantic relationship, because there's a physical element involved.

 

Or add kissing. The couple may feel romantically desire one another, but aren't romantically attracted to one another per se, so they call it an aro-ace QPR instead.

 

These are just a few I've seen, but I'm sure there's more. Basically, just lots of confusion over what words mean.

1 hour ago, nonmerci said:

Wat what? How do they come to this conclusion?

I am aroace and certainly don't want a QPR. Aroace just means no romantic and no sexual attraction... some wants a QPR and some don't. It depends on the person.

I don't even think it is an aro ace thing : I'm sure I saw some aro allo said they want one too... so they can add a sexual composent sometimes.

 

Maybe it is an example of how some aces are still stuck in amatonormativity? They have to difficulty to understand some people are juste not interested in monogamous relationship, romantic or not? I don't know.

Yeah, I'm not sure. I've seen plenty of ace articles (although not AVEN directly) where they describe aro-aces as "wanting QPRs." And I've seen a lot of aces that carry that assumption... although not all. But enough to surprise me.

 

I've actually never thought of a QPR having a sexual component before, but yeah, you're right. That could be possible. I'm glad to hear aro allo perspectives too!

 

I completely agree, I think romantics generally have a hard time understanding that, ace or not.

[Jot-Aro Kujo]

Another allo aro chiming in to say that sexual QPRs are definitely a thing. There was actually a big fiasco related to that on Tumblr recently... But what else is new, honestly ? Tumblr is always a mess.  

[Coyote]

41 minutes ago, Ace_of_Spades7 said:

Like, for example, a relationship between two aces where they're both romantically attracted to one another, dedicated to one another, in love with one another, but there's no physical element involved at all. One couple in this relationship will describe itself as an aro-ace QPR, because no physical element is involved.

 

o.O aro ace is a term for people, not relationships.

 

Anyway, I've.... seen one example where someone described "queerplatonic" as like basically "a partnership without sex" (paraphrasing), which is a problem, but I wasn't under the impression that that was a widespread way that people were using it. Do you have linkable examples of the thing you described here?

 

41 minutes ago, Ace_of_Spades7 said:

Then say you have an ace relationship similar to what I described above, but add cuddling -- one couple will call itself a QPR because there's no kissing. The other couple in the same relationship will call it a romantic relationship, because there's a physical element involved.

 

Or add kissing. The couple may feel romantically desire one another, but aren't romantically attracted to one another per se, so they call it an aro-ace QPR instead.

 

Aside from the weirdness of using "aro ace" for something other than a person, that all seems fine to me. It's supposed to be a flexible umbrella term, after all.

 

24 minutes ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

Tumblr is always a mess.

 

True.

[deletingthisaccount]

5 hours ago, Coyote said:

 

o.O aro ace is a term for people, not relationships.

 

Anyway, I've.... seen one example where someone described "queerplatonic" as like basically "a partnership without sex" (paraphrasing), which is a problem, but I wasn't under the impression that that was a widespread way that people were using it. Do you have linkable examples of the thing you described here?

Lol I know that aro-aces are people. I mean more as in like the "type of people that are in x relationship," I guess.

 

Here the commenters seem to have a good understanding of QPR. But the last comment is an example of someone calling their relationship "ace dating":

https://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/193637-how-to-recognise-queerplatonic-feelings/?tab=comments#comment-1063707570

 

And AVEN shut down on me before I could find more concrete examples of what I meant. But lots of debate on "your relationship sounds more QPR than romantic" or vice versa. So not necessarily using it to mean "anything non-sexual" (although I've seen that), but "not romantic enough to be romantic" vs "too non-romantic to be QPR."

 

Here's are some posts characterizing QPRs as nonsexual relationships:

 

https://wearyourvoicemag.com/lgbtq-identities/dating-relationships-asexual

 

http://meloukhia.net/2012/06/i_dont_mean_to_baffle_you_but_i_do_queerplatonic_partnerships/

 

The first link is by an asexual, the second link I'm not sure.

[Coyote]

From the thread--

 

Quote

Several months later she made a comment about how we were "ace-dating" and well I was quite shocked and probably reacted like I didn't want that. We haven't mentioned it again but I would like to but don't know how.

 

...huh. Well, this is being relayed by someone who didn't like that, so at least there's not total consensus on it.

 

9 hours ago, Ace_of_Spades7 said:

But lots of debate on "your relationship sounds more QPR than romantic"

 

o.o?!

People are telling people their relationships aren't romantic enough for them to call them romantic? You mean actively trying to police people out of using that category, too? Good grief.

 

From the second link--

 

Quote

When I think of dating, what I really want, what a lot of asexual people want, are queerplatonic friendships and relationships that do not center or rely on sex.

 

hm. I think the "and" there is ambiguous. If Sherronda Brown had meant that QPR = relationship w/o sex, there wouldn't even need to be the two phrases there, though it's also unclear if this means "[queerplatonic friendships] and [queerplatonic relationships] [which do not center or rely on sex]" or "[queerplatonic friendships] plus [relationships that do not center or rely on sex]" or "[queerplatonic friendships and other relationships] [of the kind that do not center or rely on sex]." 

 

For the third link--

 

Oh! haha, um, this-- @Ace_of_Spades7 I'm not sure if you know this, but Meloukhia is the coiner of queerplatonic. Here's the first usage that appears on the internet, in their Dreamwidth comment from 2010.

 

I mean, that doesn't mean they're totally above criticism in how they write about it, of course, but uh, well, I don't think you can position this as a pollution of the original meaning when the original meaning came from this person themselves.

 

[nonmerci]

23 hours ago, Coyote said:

Oh! haha, um, this-- @Ace_of_Spades7 I'm not sure if you know this, but Meloukhia is the coiner of queerplatonic. Here's the first usage that appears on the internet, in their Dreamwidth comment from 2010.

@Ace_of_Spades7 probably linked it because I mentioned QPR can be sexual... which is, now I understand, not how it was supposed to be originally.

[Coyote]

25 minutes ago, nonmerci said:

because I mentioned QPR can be sexual... which is, now I understand, not how it was supposed to be originally.

 

Point of clarification -- I think the "I Don’t Mean to Baffle You, But I Do" post was more about the author's own relationships, but before that, in 2011, they posted this, which specifically says "a queerplatonic relationship can be sexual." (I don't know why use the term "platonic" in the term then, but that's what they did.) So technically speaking, that's not a recent development.

[Mark]

On 3/15/2020 at 9:24 PM, Ace_of_Spades7 said:

I've seen other aro-aces express worry of being lonely once all their friends marry, have kids, etc., and even when they say that they don't want a QPR, their posts are still flooded with comments about how they should be in a QPR.

The other way this can go is the assumption that people who are not interested in couple type relationships must prefer to do things by themselves. 

[Mark]

On 3/15/2020 at 10:24 PM, nonmerci said:

I am aroace and certainly don't want a QPR. Aroace just means no romantic and no sexual attraction... some wants a QPR and some don't. It depends on the person.

I don't even think it is an aro ace thing : I'm sure I saw some aro allo said they want one too... so they can add a sexual composent sometimes.

Experiencing or not experiencing a certain type of attraction does not determine what kind of interpersonal relationships people actually want.
Even many alloromantics have little interest in being in a romantic relationship.
 

On 3/15/2020 at 10:24 PM, nonmerci said:

Maybe it is an example of how some aces are still stuck in amatonormativity?

Some common definitions of QPRs seem rather compatible with amantonormativity. Especially in terms of ranking relationship types by "closeness".
 

On 3/15/2020 at 10:24 PM, nonmerci said:

They have to difficulty to understand some people are juste not interested in monogamous relationship, romantic or not? 

There are also people who are only interested in non-monogamous relationships. Be that sexual, social, structural or emotional monogamy.

Amantonormative societies are as much mononormative as they are romonormative.

[Mark]

On 3/15/2020 at 11:34 PM, Ace_of_Spades7 said:

Like, for example, a relationship between two aces where they're both romantically attracted to one another, dedicated to one another, in love with one another, but there's no physical element involved at all. One couple in this relationship will describe itself as an aro-ace QPR, because no physical element is involved. The other couple in the exact same relationship will call it a romantic ace relationship because they love each other, regardless of no physical element involved.

IMHO a term like "romo-platonic relationship" would make rather more sense here.
It makes no sense at all for two allo aces to use aro to describe their romantic relationship.

 

On 3/15/2020 at 11:34 PM, Ace_of_Spades7 said:

Then say you have an ace relationship similar to what I described above, but add cuddling -- one couple will call itself a QPR because there's no kissing. The other couple in the same relationship will call it a romantic relationship, because there's a physical element involved.

Both romantic relationships and QPRs are abstract concepts. So I'm not sure how this makes any sense

 

On 3/15/2020 at 11:34 PM, Ace_of_Spades7 said:

Or add kissing. The couple may feel romantically desire one another, but aren't romantically attracted to one another per se, so they call it an aro-ace QPR instead.

Ditto.

Is this an allo ace (or AVEN) thing?
AFAIK allo allos in mainstream society just use "(romantic) relationship" regardless of if they kiss, cuddle, have sex, etc.

 

On 3/15/2020 at 11:34 PM, Ace_of_Spades7 said:

Yeah, I'm not sure. I've seen plenty of ace articles (although not AVEN directly) where they describe aro-aces as "wanting QPRs." And I've seen a lot of aces that carry that assumption... although not all.

The looks like a variation on the amantonormative meme that everyone wants to be coupled.
I suspect that only a minority of aros actually are interested in QPRs (of any form).

 

On 3/16/2020 at 5:27 AM, Ace_of_Spades7 said:

But lots of debate on "your relationship sounds more QPR than romantic" or vice versa. So not necessarily using it to mean "anything non-sexual" (although I've seen that), but "not romantic enough to be romantic" vs "too non-romantic to be QPR."

This looks like an expression of relationship (type) hierarchy.

 

23 hours ago, Coyote said:

Point of clarification -- I think the "I Don’t Mean to Baffle You, But I Do" post was more about the author's own relationships, but before that, in 2011, they posted this, which specifically says "a queerplatonic relationship can be sexual." (I don't know why use the term "platonic" in the term then, but that's what they did.) So technically speaking, that's not a recent development.

I've always found this kind of statement oxymoronic.
Even reading the post from 2011 it's unclear what it's intended meaning and audience is.
Could it be intended for sex favourable asexuals rather than allosexuals?
 

[deletingthisaccount]

On 3/16/2020 at 11:30 AM, Coyote said:

For the third link--

 

Oh! haha, um, this-- @Ace_of_Spades7 I'm not sure if you know this, but Meloukhia is the coiner of queerplatonic. Here's the first usage that appears on the internet, in their Dreamwidth comment from 2010.

 

I mean, that doesn't mean they're totally above criticism in how they write about it, of course, but uh, well, I don't think you can position this as a pollution of the original meaning when the original meaning came from this person themselves.

 

I didn't know that. I'm new to both AVEN and Arocalypose (although I've known I was aro-ace for about 4 1/2 years now), so I'm not very up-to-date on the terms yet. Thank you for clarifying that and educating me on this topic. I guess the way the article was written made QPRs sound like that. Although overall, each platform seems to have varying definitions of QPR, so I think that's where my confusion is coming from.

 

Also, this quiz here: https://lonerwolf.com/asexuality-test/. At the end of the quiz (not the quiz itself), it gives a description of what asexuality is like. Here's the paragraph about romantic vs. aromantic:

 

"Asexuals embody a wide spectrum of people: they range from flat-out Asexual's who enjoy the companionship and romanticism of being in a relationship (and will even have sex to produce a child or please their partner, but not for their own pleasure), as well as those who are completely Aromantic, where the thought of intimate physical contact with another person makes them feel ill." 

 

So the difference between "romantic" and "aromantic" is being portrayed as dislike of physical contact rather than not experiencing romantic attraction/desire. This isn't directly related to QPRs, but I think some misunderstandings of (a)romanticism, particularly in ace media (although not directly AVEN), might factor into people's understandings of QPRs. 

 

(Also, just to clarify, I am not basing my identity as an aro-ace on this definition - it's because I don't experience romantic or sexual attraction/desire lol)

[deletingthisaccount]

On 3/18/2020 at 11:39 AM, Mark said:

On 3/17/2020 at 12:04 PM, Coyote said:

 

Point of clarification -- I think the "I Don’t Mean to Baffle You, But I Do" post was more about the author's own relationships, but before that, in 2011, they posted this, which specifically says "a queerplatonic relationship can be sexual." (I don't know why use the term "platonic" in the term then, but that's what they did.) So technically speaking, that's not a recent development.

I've always found this kind of statement oxymoronic.
Even reading the post from 2011 it's unclear what it's intended meaning and audience is.
Could it be intended for sex favourable asexuals rather than allosexuals?
 

I doubt sex-favorable aces would use QPR to refer to a sexual relationship (at least from what I've seen). "Sex-favorable" just means that they are willing to compromise sex within a relationship if their partner is sexual. So typically, this would mean a romantic relationship. And if a sex-favorable ace is in a relationship with another ace, then usually sex wouldn't be part of the relationship.

 

If interested, here's a brief explanation of that: https://www.asexuality.org/?q=attitudes.html.

 

On 3/18/2020 at 11:39 AM, Mark said:

Is this an allo ace (or AVEN) thing?
AFAIK allo allos in mainstream society just use "(romantic) relationship" regardless of if they kiss, cuddle, have sex, etc.

I think it's a bit of both. Many romantic aces will still call their relationships romantic regardless, but others will say that their relationship isn't "romance" without it.

[Coyote]

5 hours ago, Ace_of_Spades7 said:

So the difference between "romantic" and "aromantic" is being portrayed as dislike of physical contact rather than not experiencing romantic attraction/desire.

 

Yeah, that's... badly written.

 

On 3/18/2020 at 10:39 AM, Mark said:

Could it be intended for sex favourable asexuals rather than allosexuals?

 

Who knows. The person who wrote that's not really around anymore to ask.

 

5 hours ago, Ace_of_Spades7 said:

"Sex-favorable" just means that they are willing to compromise sex within a relationship if their partner is sexual.

 

That's not necessarily how they'd all describe it, I don't think. For reference, here's some stuff on sex-favorable aces:

• Reflections on the Use and Boundaries of Sex-Favourable Asexual as a Term
• Living as a Sex-Favourable Asexual
• 20 narratives of aces who like sex

[Coyote]

Well, since this thread has built up to a few pages now, and in case there's anyone else who'd rather skip to the end like Spade did, here's a very loose summary of the situation, as it stands.

 

In the post linked at the beginning, I explained the context of QPR misinfo and then said this:

 

Quote

Unfortunately, it can’t be all take and no give, because an honest conversation about aro-ace community relations needs to involve some honesty about how the aro community itself has made people feel unwelcome, too. That includes me, but not just me. I just happen to be part of the visible tip of the iceberg, speaking for myself but also relaying what I hear spoken in whispers, private messages, and viewlocked posts.

 

Aros who are gunshy of the ace community, I know you’ve been burned before, so I understand if you don’t believe me when I say this: Some of us are ready to listen.

 

Are you?

 

And over the past four pages or so, the impression I've gotten here mostly is "No."

[Lokiana]

2 hours ago, Coyote said:

And over the past four pages or so, the impression I've gotten here mostly is "No."

 

I think saying no one is ready to have that conversation might be an unfair representation. This has been a very long thread and at some points has gotten very heated, so people might have muted or ignored it (like I did for a while) because that's not something they're prepared to deal with.

 

It seems to me that there are segments of both communities that are working very well together right now and are listening to each other, and there are portions that are very hostile to each other, intentionally or unintentionally. The aro antagonism I've seen from a lot of aces is ridiculous, but I'm starting to see more ace antagonism rather than pushback against aro antagonistic ideas from other aros, and it makes me very uncomfortable. 

 

Saying no one is ready to have that conversation based on one thread seems to be largely ineffective, seeing as this conversation has gone four or five different directions. Imo, separate, smaller threads and conversations would be more effective.

[bydontost]

1 hour ago, Lokiana said:

 

I think saying no one is ready to have that conversation might be an unfair representation. This has been a very long thread and at some points has gotten very heated, so people might have muted or ignored it (like I did for a while) because that's not something they're prepared to deal with.

 

It seems to me that there are segments of both communities that are working very well together right now and are listening to each other, and there are portions that are very hostile to each other, intentionally or unintentionally. The aro antagonism I've seen from a lot of aces is ridiculous, but I'm starting to see more ace antagonism rather than pushback against aro antagonistic ideas from other aros, and it makes me very uncomfortable. 

 

Saying no one is ready to have that conversation based on one thread seems to be largely ineffective, seeing as this conversation has gone four or five different directions. Imo, separate, smaller threads and conversations would be more effective.

oh my gosh, so much this lol

 

to me it seemed mostly a discussion about qprs...?? i'd actually really like to talk about antagonism in various parts of a-spec circles, but maybe on a thread that is specifically for that..??

 

eta: im gathering my thoughts on a thread like that

Edited March 25, 2020 by bydontost

[nonmerci]

46 minutes ago, bydontost said:

to me it seemed mostly a discussion about qprs...?? i'd actually really like to talk about antagonism in various parts of a-spec circles, but maybe on a thread that is specifically for that..??

Same. Personally I don't really care about QPR. I was glad to know it was not created by the aro community, but for the rest I don't consider it is my business. I mean, if I see someone doing misinformation, I would correct them, but what else?

 

That doesn't mean I am not interested in the tensions between aros and aces, on the contrary.

[bydontost]

I said i'd like to talk about antagonisms in various parts of the a-spec communities, but what was on my mind recently was acephobic antagonisms in the aro communities, so...

 

[Coyote]

3 hours ago, Lokiana said:

6 hours ago, Coyote said:

Quote

Some of us are ready to listen.

 

Are you?

 

And over the past four pages or so, the impression I've gotten here mostly is "No."

 

I think saying no one is ready to have that conversation might be an unfair representation.

 

What I said was "ready to listen," not "ready to have that conversation," but this is certainly one of those areas where I would be glad to learn that my previous impression was wrong.

 

What am I overlooking?

[Lokiana]

1 hour ago, Coyote said:

What am I overlooking?

 

Lack of accessibility, in my opinion, but also intercommunity cooperation. As long as I've identified as a-spec, there's been some tension between aces and aros - not bad tension always, but a clash of priorities and ideas.

 

Personally, I think a lot of people are willing to listen when conversations are held well, but when conversations become heated or intense, they become a bit of a struggle to keep up with. There's a lot of community collaboration in some spaces, and some conversations are being held in good faith: I distinctly remember having the conversation about the phrase "dirty allosexuals" with someone because they were using it in aro spaces, and they listened. 

 

While some whispers are bad, and some conversations are not productive in the least, and some people are well, people,  I'm starting to see a culture grow of more collaboration and listening to each other in many spaces, and it gives me hope that some people are listening, or are willing to listen if approached right. 

[Coyote]

1 hour ago, Lokiana said:

Lack of accessibility, in my opinion, but also intercommunity cooperation.

 

Wh.... Okay, I take it I didn't word my question clearly enough, because it sounds like we're not on the same page about what I was trying to ask there. Understandable, since the word "here" is pretty ambiguous and wasn't really emphasized. I will try again.

 

Referring specifically to this Arocalypse thread, I've gotten the impression that (up to that point) the answer to "Are you ready to listen?" has been mostly/disproportionately a "No." If you have a different overall assessment of this thread, or if your impression of it is mostly "Yes," then -- in this thread -- what am I overlooking?

 

[Lokiana]

13 hours ago, Coyote said:

 

Wh.... Okay, I take it I didn't word my question clearly enough, because it sounds like we're not on the same page about what I was trying to ask there. Understandable, since the word "here" is pretty ambiguous and wasn't really emphasized. I will try again.

 

Referring specifically to this Arocalypse thread, I've gotten the impression that (up to that point) the answer to "Are you ready to listen?" has been mostly/disproportionately a "No." If you have a different overall assessment of this thread, or if your impression of it is mostly "Yes," then -- in this thread -- what am I overlooking?

 

 

No, you weren't clear, and that's a consistent problem this thread seems to have.

 

And as far as initial discussions...there was a discussion happening. You yourself even said  " I'm glad I posted this here then! When a lot of people are saying it and it seems to add up, it's easy to just take their word for it." Mark asked, "I was thinking about this kind of issue. In terms of aplatonic along with squish and alterous. Were these also coined in an "ace-first" environment? I think it's also worth asking which terms originate from the "aro community"?". 

 

Personal things started being brought into it. You yourself cited something incorrectly, which leads to more distrust, especially when talking about misinformation. There wasn't any discussion of the actual topic other than "correct misinformation, people need to be better about understanding correction, and here's the correct information" past a certain point, so people got argumentative and personal in the middle. The infographic thing is a good idea....but there were like 4 maybe 5 people that seemed to be active by that point.

 

Even then, people were being cooperative and still having a discussion throughout the thread...maybe not everyone was arriving at the same conclusion and maybe not everyone had the same opinion, but people were listening, is the overall impression I get. 

 

(Also, regarding your question: aro tumblr is a mess nowadays. It's developed into multiple factions and groups as far as I can tell, the hivemind thing is only slightly a joke, and there's a lot of conflict. Because aros can't agree on anything and especially not now.)

[Coyote]

29 minutes ago, Lokiana said:

Even then, people were being cooperative and still having a discussion throughout the thread...maybe not everyone was arriving at the same conclusion and maybe not everyone had the same opinion, but people were listening, is the overall impression I get. 

 

*squints* ......I wish I could understand how you're coming to these conclusions. If I turned to one of my friends, linked to this thread, and said, "So as you can see, people listened and were cooperative," they'd think I was being sarcastic.

 

31 minutes ago, Lokiana said:

(Also, regarding your question: aro tumblr is a mess nowadays. It's developed into multiple factions and groups as far as I can tell, the hivemind thing is only slightly a joke, and there's a lot of conflict. Because aros can't agree on anything and especially not now.)

 

I don't think that's an aro-specific thing. Or rather -- I get what you're saying in calling aro tumblr a mess, and I'd agree with that assessment -- as in, it's messier than just a baseline "people don't always agree with each other" -- but I'd attribute that (in part) to some additional contributing factors involved.

 

But in any case: okay, then what are the factions?

[Ch0c0]

 This seems like an important topic but sadly I can't contribute. The few pages that I have read have made me so confused about the QPRs... I thought it was simple when reading the platonic definition on Merriam Webster.

Not a very active follower on Tumblr and almost never on Discord, I don't get all the drama about aropolitics.

If there is any sensible and tolerant content on these platforms I can help promote it.

[Lokiana]

On 3/26/2020 at 12:39 PM, Coyote said:

*squints* ......I wish I could understand how you're coming to these conclusions. If I turned to one of my friends, linked to this thread, and said, "So as you can see, people listened and were cooperative," they'd think I was being sarcastic.

 

Was this part really necessary? Like truly, really necessary? All you did was discourage me from continuing the conversation.

 

On 3/26/2020 at 12:39 PM, Coyote said:

But in any case: okay, then what are the factions?

 

I won't name any specific people, or any specific blogs, but as far as I can tell the divisions are mostly defined by:

(and some people fall into multiple factions or associate with multiple groups)

-purely positivity blogs 

-identity (ie: aroallos, aroaces, non-SAM aros, greyromantics, romo aros)

-how people prioritize and group identity (ie: some aroaces prioritize aroness or aceness, some aroallos consider their identities inseparable, etc. and i could go on but...)

-Discord servers (people in the same small groups tend to organize, so you can usually tell who's chatting outside of Tumblr)

-shipping discourse

-discoursers and former discourse blogs (generally very combative blogs)

-when they began to id with the community (flags and terminology are generally a big indicator of this)

-a couple more "official blogs" (the AUREA blog, for example, or the ASAW blog)

-and some people are really just ~vibing~ trying to follow whoever they find interesting