Jump to content
parodace

Guide to attraction types

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

No, but one scale can reinforce that idea. Especially when you're presenting something that is supposed to teach them about relationships.

Anyway, since you're so concerned about presentation, I figured I'd put my graphic design degree to good use. Here you go.

135617956_Relationshipsfixed.png.1de8c8ff37286cbd9d0394fe1540e520.png

I think one person figure for each of these, seven. terms would be a better. Having them in a circle might also imply a lack of hierarchy.
As this stands someone could interpret the list of the right as hierarchical.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mark said:

I think one person figure for each of these, seven. terms would be a better. Having them in a circle might also imply a lack of hierarchy.
As this stands someone could interpret the list of the right as hierarchical.

True! I'm not going to do another take because I already put too much effort into something for someone who clearly isn't interested, but you make some good points that would definitely be worth considering if someone were to do another revision.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, nonmerci said:

I read what to say. If I didn"t, how could I have response to it? I may not remember everything you said, but I did read it and explain why I think your arguments don't work. Then you aswered me with the same arguments you used before, as if I didn't get it the first time.

And yes, I did said you don't take criticism because basically, all you do is to justify yourself. I'm sorry but this is true. I don't see anywhere in your post somewhere that shows that you take criticism into account and try to understand why people are hurt by what you are saying. You get angry about and said we didn't answer your argument after @eatingcroutons did respond to your argument. Excuse me, but yes, that part made me think that you don't want to hear what we have to say and just ignore our arguments. In other words,that you don't take into account the criticism we are making.I have experience in beta-reading, and what you say remind me of some people I see that were not reading to admit they may have done something wrong and refuse to listen yet because they need time to accept whatwas said. Sorry if this was not the case.

 

Also, I want to point how pointless the discussion is right now. We are talking about how the message can be hurtful, but you answer by talking about infographic technics. Basically, it seems like you say that yes, the message is amatonormative, but you don't care because it serves your infographic purposes. Maybe that's not what you mean, but that's why I get from your message. Do you confirm?

I was just trying to prove my point and stand myself. You ask me the same questions, I answer with the same answers. 

I explained couple of times why it wasn't such a bad thing and said how it helps for people to understand things. Because as you said art is hard. 

Well, yes it's pointless. I again just keep saying the same things. The scale isn't the main thing of the guide and people outside aspec community don't care about amatonormative it is or not because they already live in amatonormative society. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, parodace said:

Well, yes it's pointless. I again just keep saying the same things. The scale isn't the main thing of the guide and people outside aspec community don't care about amatonormative it is or not because they already live in amatonormative society.

But that reinforces why aromantic awareness important. That not everyone abides by an amatonormative frame work and those who don't are able to have complete and fulfilling lives without romance/ romantic attraction/ romantic relationships. The fact that we can have meaningful relationships people without romance entering the equation is an important concept that people outside the community do not understand easily. Like @Mark said, wouldn't showing a lack of hierarchy in relationship types help establish this idea in non-aspec people?

I understand that you have a concept that you tried to demonstrate and not everyone (myself included) has agreed with how it is represented in your graphic. But I have to ask and I apologize if my question comes off as callous, when you uploaded your graphic did you want input/ feedback on how well your message was received and how to present the best version (or at least a better version) of that message or did you not want that? Most everyone above has explained their take on the spectrum of relationship types and some have offered up an idea on how the variety of relationships types could be better represented.

Ultimately, it is your graphic and if you choose to leave it as is, then any critiques it invokes are something you can consider or ignore. As a creator and a member of the community, wouldn't you rather make a graphic that furthers awareness and tries to facilitate understanding rather than misrepresent how aromantics see the relationships they have with other people and how people outside the community should understand aromantics?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

IMO the graphic is perfectly understandable and pretty without the scale. I actually think it's more confusing with it, because I'm not entirely sure how it's supposed to showcase that everyone sees relationships differently when there's only one example.

Especially since people who see the infographic are unlikely to read every word, it really seems to me that the presence of this scale would enforce harmful ideas about relationship hierarchies--that QPRs are "more" than friendships (untrue), and that romantic relationships are "more" than QPRs (also untrue).

Also:

Quote

I explained that I used oversimplified amatonormative scale to explain things to people who live in amatonormative society.

This logic is flawed. What if I said, "I used a racist concept to explain things to people who live in a racist society"? This seems obviously problematic to me. If you want to be a good ally to POC, you would not use racist concepts to explain things even in situations not directly related to race. If you want to be a good ally to people affected by amatonormativity--aromantics, for example--you would not use amatonormative concepts to explain things even in situations not directly related to aromanticism. The problem is that you are actively enforcing a harmful idea, and you aren't listening to people who have expressed hurt. I'm not saying you are a bad person; nobody's perfect or never harms anyone ever. I would just appreciate it if you removed the scale from the infographic.

Edited by kernsing
extra info
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, parodace said:

I was just trying to prove my point and stand myself. You ask me the same questions, I answer with the same answers. 

And I expressed why your answers don't convince me and sometimes don't actually answer to the point I made.  You gave me the same answers again so it doesn't convince me more. We could continue hours like this, but at least we will agree that it will be pointless so let's stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to keep the argument going but I'm also going to recommend you not to spread this around.
I understand that it's easy to feel defensive when people are criticizing your work but I assume you made this guide because you want to do right by the aromantic community, which is why it confuses me a bit when you don't listen to the people you want to represent. The problem here isn't that it's a bad infographic or that we can make a better one ourselves, but rather that your guide as it is right now is contributing to the harmful notions we're fighting. I don't think that an argument "not going anywhere" is an excuse to let that slide.

It may seem like a small, inconsequential detail to you, but I feel like the idea that relationships exist in some sort of set hierarchy affects me every day, and we as a community need to work extra hard to change that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ironically no matter what I open the infograph on the text is blurred and all I can read is the relationship hierarchy because the standalone relationship titles aren't lost in a mass of text lmao. 

With no context I am curious what the scale is meant to represent. I can't read anything but the title of the infograph "Types of attraction" and the scale, but I think people would generally agree that there's no attraction towards strangers or acquaintances. And by the logic you've used - which looks like this is supposed to place queerplatonic partners on the ""normal"" relationship hierarchy - then I'd expect to see family on there. So I assume this scale is talking more about types of relationships rather than types of attraction? Except again family isn't on there and that's a ""normal"" relationship most people have. 

If family were listed on the scale I doubt it would look so much like a build up of Most Importance Relationship from strangers to romantic partners. You could just move romantic partners onto the left side of the scale and put family at the top of the right scale. While I think a hierarchy is inherently flawed as they are subjective, you seem to be committed to it and I imagine that would change the tone. It would still imply that queerplatonic relationships are less than and probably make people wonder why the person on the left doesn't have any family. All of which distracts from your point. That seems to be what people are saying here - the scale distracts from your overall point and, depending on the reader, undermines it. 

Wish I could read the rest of it haha

 

EDIT: "I think people would generally agree that there's no attraction towards strangers or acquaintances" is bullshit. My logic is flawed here. I do think having family on the scale would stop it looking like all the criticisms being made in this thread, but again only if there has to be a scale. 

Edited by Scoop
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Scoop said:

Ironically no matter what I open the infograph on the text is blurred and all I can read is the relationship hierarchy because the standalone relationship titles aren't lost in a mass of text lmao. 

With no context I am curious what the scale is meant to represent. I can't read anything but the title of the infograph "Types of attraction" and the scale, but I think people would generally agree that there's no attraction towards strangers or acquaintances. And by the logic you've used - which looks like this is supposed to place queerplatonic partners on the ""normal"" relationship hierarchy - then I'd expect to see family on there. So I assume this scale is talking more about types of relationships rather than types of attraction? Except again family isn't on there and that's a ""normal"" relationship most people have. 

If family were listed on the scale I doubt it would look so much like a build up of Most Importance Relationship from strangers to romantic partners. You could just move romantic partners onto the left side of the scale and put family at the top of the right scale. While I think a hierarchy is inherently flawed as they are subjective, you seem to be committed to it and I imagine that would change the tone. It would still imply that queerplatonic relationships are less than and probably make people wonder why the person on the left doesn't have any family. All of which distracts from your point. That seems to be what people are saying here - the scale distracts from your overall point and, depending on the reader, undermines it. 

Wish I could read the rest of it haha

 

You could find link to a better version and my explanation why didn't I include family in my post and comments. 

7 hours ago, Atlamillia Pixie said:

But that reinforces why aromantic awareness important. That not everyone abides by an amatonormative frame work and those who don't are able to have complete and fulfilling lives without romance/ romantic attraction/ romantic relationships. The fact that we can have meaningful relationships people without romance entering the equation is an important concept that people outside the community do not understand easily. Like @Mark said, wouldn't showing a lack of hierarchy in relationship types help establish this idea in non-aspec people?

I understand that you have a concept that you tried to demonstrate and not everyone (myself included) has agreed with how it is represented in your graphic. But I have to ask and I apologize if my question comes off as callous, when you uploaded your graphic did you want input/ feedback on how well your message was received and how to present the best version (or at least a better version) of that message or did you not want that? Most everyone above has explained their take on the spectrum of relationship types and some have offered up an idea on how the variety of relationships types could be better represented.

Ultimately, it is your graphic and if you choose to leave it as is, then any critiques it invokes are something you can consider or ignore. As a creator and a member of the community, wouldn't you rather make a graphic that furthers awareness and tries to facilitate understanding rather than misrepresent how aromantics see the relationships they have with other people and how people outside the community should understand aromantics?

Again aromanticism isn't the main topic in the guide. The scale is just a tool, not a message itself. 

People on reddit liked it, I met only one comment about scale, I explained and they didn't answer. Also some people asked what can be considered romantic (this is kinda vague too as definition just uses word love). Other users explained based on their experience. 

It's not about aromantics, everyone can be in QPR. There are no mentions of aromantics but just aspec community. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay yeah, that is a handy infograph and now with context I'm still not sure what the scale is attempting to say. Everything else has a title or a question above it, can I ask how you would title the scale?

Also I'm sorry lmao I literally said "I think people would generally agree that there's no attraction towards strangers or acquaintances." I'd like to state on the record, your honour, that that's bullshit. People do indeed feel attraction to strangers and acquaintances. I personally feel sexual attraction, but since that doesn't seem to fit on here and I couldn't apply this scale that reads like a Least to Most Important Relationships guide to myself I started thinking real abstract about it lmao. Again I apologise haha

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kernsing said:

IMO the graphic is perfectly understandable and pretty without the scale. I actually think it's more confusing with it, because I'm not entirely sure how it's supposed to showcase that everyone sees relationships differently when there's only one example.

Especially since people who see the infographic are unlikely to read every word, it really seems to me that the presence of this scale would enforce harmful ideas about relationship hierarchies--that QPRs are "more" than friendships (untrue), and that romantic relationships are "more" than QPRs (also untrue).

Also:

This logic is flawed. What if I said, "I used a racist concept to explain things to people who live in a racist society"? This seems obviously problematic to me. If you want to be a good ally to POC, you would not use racist concepts to explain things even in situations not directly related to race. If you want to be a good ally to people affected by amatonormativity--aromantics, for example--you would not use amatonormative concepts to explain things even in situations not directly related to aromanticism. The problem is that you are actively enforcing a harmful idea, and you aren't listening to people who have expressed hurt. I'm not saying you are a bad person; nobody's perfect or never harms anyone ever. I would just appreciate it if you removed the scale from the infographic.

Well, it's your opinion and I have mine. The thing is, again, to explain something to user who never heard about aromanticism and these definitions. 

Also QPR is really vague, so there's no true definitions. You can Google it and some sources clearly state that it's more than friendship. I just showed why some people think of it as a friendship and some not. This was the main message. 

Again, guys, you exaggerate, most of users won't even notice it or change their mind. It doesn't work that way. To bring the real message we have to make another infographic where aromanticism will be the main topic. But even that may not help. 

4 minutes ago, Scoop said:

Okay yeah, that is a handy infograph and now with context I'm still not sure what the scale is attempting to say. Everything else has a title or a question above it, can I ask how you would title the scale?

Also I'm sorry lmao I literally said "I think people would generally agree that there's no attraction towards strangers or acquaintances." I'd like to state on the record, your honour, that that's bullshit. People do indeed feel attraction to strangers and acquaintances. I personally feel sexual attraction, but since that doesn't seem to fit on here and I couldn't apply this scale that reads like a Least to Most Important Relationships guide to myself I started thinking real abstract about it lmao. Again I apologise haha

Read more slowly, you will notice that this scale illustrates one of the questions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I'm even more confused haha, which question? Also I assumed my message would be one and done, which it clearly it hasn't been so now I think I'm just distracting you from answering the v valid criticisms being made. You can tell me which yes or no question the scale is supposed to illustrate and I'll definitely read your response, but I think I've said all I need to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scoop said:

Now I'm even more confused haha, which question? Also I assumed my message would be one and done, which it clearly it hasn't been so now I think I'm just distracting you from answering the v valid criticisms being made. You can tell me which yes or no question the scale is supposed to illustrate and I'll definitely read your response, but I think I've said all I need to. 

It' s a secret, you have you to do it yourself ;) Look at key words. 

Well, I said my opinion, people continue to write, I answer to some people. I've never had such a big company, so why don't talk a bit. I just don't like saying the same things again and again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I think I've said everything I wanted, really everything. If you wanna continue arguing, just reread all my previous comments (because I see that some people don't do this). 

The only proper criticism I received (not in easy way) was from nonmercy and I answered all the questions. 

Guys, who came recently, you are really late. Yes, I know you think your opinion is really important but you just say the same thing as other users.

Have a nice day and move on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, parodace said:

I explained that I used oversimplified amatonormative scale to explain things to people who live in amatonormative society.

So you admit the scale graphic is amatonormative? That's a start, at least. 

On 8/22/2020 at 5:47 PM, parodace said:

It's an image explaining queerplatonic and platonic relationships to everyone including people OUTSIDE aspec community.

So you're using an amatonormative image to describe non-romantic relationships to people who aren't familiar with the aspec community?

That is a problem.

What your graphic is doing, is telling people outside the aspec community that relationships exist as a hierarchy. That there is a spectrum of relationship closeness/strength that goes from "stranger" at one end to "romantic partner" at the other.

That idea is deeply, deeply harmful to aromantic communities and people.

Your graphic reinforces the idea that "romantic partner" is objectively a closer/stronger relationship than "queerplatonic" or "friend". Your graphic perpetuates the extremely harmful and amatonormative idea that relationships exist in a hierarchy where "romantic partner" is an endpoint, a pinnacle, the strongest and closest kind of relationship that can exist.

Again, you've got some good infographics here. But the graphic you yourself admit is an "oversimplified amatonormative scale" is not one of them. It's not helping anyone. It's not teaching anyone anything new. It is, in fact, perpetuating harmful amatonormative ideas.

Edited by eatingcroutons
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you keep saying that the infographic isn't about aromantic communities specifically, so its ok for you to reinforce amatonormativity which...doesnt make sense to me? amatonormativity isnt a concept exclusive to aromantic communities,, it doesnt matter if youre specifically talking about aromantic people or not, amatonormativity affects alloromantic people as well, especially alloromantic people that might be in qprs or other significant non-romantic relationships. i think in an infographic talking about qprs and such, it might be important to understand amatonormative implications? i know your intention wasn't to harm anyone and you feel that people are taking what youre saying the wrong way, but intention doesn't dictate what your words actually mean, whether objectively or subjectively in the eyes of others. i otherwise really like the infographic though; its really well done other than a few minor typos but thats not really a big deal anyway lmao

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, parodace said:

Yes, I know you think your opinion is really important but you just say the same thing as other users.

Apologies for hoping that having all these people saying that something is harmful might make you care.

7 hours ago, parodace said:

Again, guys, you exaggerate, most of users won't even notice it or change their mind.

But all of us noticed it. I don't see how you think that a big section of the infographic with "romantic partner" at the top is something that won't be noticeable. Did you not make it to be noticed?

6 hours ago, parodace said:

So I think I've said everything I wanted, really everything. If you wanna continue arguing, just reread all my previous comments (because I see that some people don't do this). 

The only proper criticism I received (not in easy way) was from nonmercy and I answered all the questions. 

1. We read it, your arguments are just unsatisfying.

2. This is not a quiz. "Answering all the questions" in a problematic way doesn't make any of the issues go away.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/23/2020 at 11:11 AM, parodace said:

The only proper criticism I received (not in easy way) was from nonmercy and I answered all the questions.

I am the one who details the most my remarks and analysis (not my questions), but I am not the only one who made valid points. It took me at least an hour to write my message, you can't expect all people to be that invested. In particular as you never take our arguments into account and just repeat what you already said ad if we don't have counter arguments. Or sometimes you don't even answer it, the arguments of people you don't.

 

Worst, you literally said that our hurt has no value because "people have different opinions, accept that and move on". Proof :

On 8/22/2020 at 10:06 PM, parodace said:

8. People now can be insulted by everything, so I'm not surprised. I was irritated by the fact that we couldn't have a some kind of dialogue. 

9. We're talking about subjective things. Some aros can think that's OK or just really don't mind it. Just accept that different opinions exist and move on.

You are denying people suffering by saying they are too sensible (people can be insulted by anything), pretend that the hurt caused by amatanormativity is subjective so no problem (I suppose because the place that romance has in people life depends on people; but that doesn't mean amatonormatiity is a not a hurtful idea even for the people who think that) and called feeling an "opinion". Would you have done that if we said that your scale was for instance about the importance of life? If we were in the 60's, that someone made a scale that put white lives in top of black lives, because the importance that people give to black lives are "subjective" and that we already live in a country that think white matters more thanblack, so it is easier to speak to them by using this perspective? Would you have called the hurt of people an "opinion" and said that you won't change it to show that black lives matter as much as white because "your scale is not about black culture"? That it is not a problem because some black show the scale and see no problem?  That your scale won't change people mind anyway? Or would you have recognized that your scale was objectively hurtful for black people?

I know my comparison may seem hard. But I only took your argument and applied them to something that we all know is racist, to show why people keep telling you they are hurt and that your argument doesn't work. It could have been applied to other things : woman intelligence, feminity of transwoman, normality of homosexual relationship... All phobic things. You probably think that amatonormatvity doesn't hurt like tacism so you don't care about it. And yes, probably, people don't kill people for being aromantic as they kill black people for being black. But it still hurts. Amatonormatvity is still a pretty knew concept so people don't get how, and don't get well why we have to fight it.They don't get how it makes people feel broken. Worthless. How it telling them that their lives has no value if their no romance in it. Spread the idea that we have to sacrifice everything for romance, encourages abusive relationships because romance worth it. Amatonormativity hurts people a lot, without they even realizing it, because they are so much in this society that values it that they don't notice how it affects them.

You will say that I am exagerating. That your scale is not about that. But understand that it participates to that culture that oppresses us everyday.

 

Anyway, I get more far than what I wanted to do in the first place lol. I just wanted to explain why people are not spending all their time telling you what is wrong with your scale, after you tell them their suffering doesn't matter. It is very clear for me that no matter what everything you say, you won't change your mind. You talk to us as if we were bad guys who don't even read what you said, that we are too sensible. So yeah, people don't spread hours analyzing your scale, because all they get from the begining of this thread is denial of there feelings and analysis.

You will probably be hurt by what I said. That I am putting in your mouth things you never said. That we are bullies and that you'll stop responding. Maybe it will because you are understanding, and that anger and denial at the first step, like with mourning. Or maybe it will be because you think Iwhat I am saying is unjustify and that I should shut my mouth instead of talking. Or maybe you will get what we are al saying and whay we keep telling you you are doing harm. I don't know.

But I needed to say it. Explain why I was hurt by your messages, by the fact that you are making willingly an amatonormative scale without seeing the problem. That you even deny that amatonormativity is a problem, and see no wrong to spread it. It hurts even more because it come from an a-spec person, someone who should know that amatonormativity is a big problem of society, and not use it because it made easier to make a scale.

 

Now, I think I said all I wanted. I can move on in peace from this conversation, because I have nothing more to say and did all I can to make you listen to the things I said.

Edited by nonmerci
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...