cute kitty Meow! Mewo! Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 edit: to new interest joining the conversation, the conversation grew to be about how the popular opinion is not always the most accurate, and then to suggest alternatives to "qpr" that fit a partner scenario more often then a friend scenario. suggestions so far are "cupioromantic" and "companionate" when a QPR is something that is primary, is there really a difference? isn't a primary qpr a cupioromantic relationship? just because it isn't sappy and there's no attraction doesn't mean the relationship isn't... well, romantic. two people living their life together? that's a romantic icon! that doesn't change just because me and my (theoretic) partner personally don't see the point in talking about romance. I mean everything about an aromantic person falls in line with me - but the majority of the other aromantic people literalyl are just looking for friends. I don't want anything "romantic" and certainly don't feel romantic attraction - and I would definitely be happy single NBD. but I still feel interest in having some kind of companion as a significant part of my life - not just a good friend, but a partner. maybe I am just grey or cupio? or is there a kind of aromantic like me - the type that is certainly not romantic or even cupio - but somewhere between aro and cupio.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodecahedron314 Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 What it comes down to is how the people involved choose to define their relationship. If nobody in the relationship feels that there's a romantic component, then it doesn't really make sense to categorize that relationship as romantic, regardless of what the rest of society says romance is or isn't. The only reason that two people living together are automatically seen as romantic is amatonormativity, plain and simple. Just because the bond you feel with someone feels like it would be better described as partnership rather than friendship doesn't mean that it has to necessarily be romantic, despite the insistence of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zema Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 I always felt a bit iffy with the term cupioromantic. To me they just seem like aros who have gotten too caught up with amatonormativity and can't see that there may be another kind of relationship, other than a romantic one, which can satisfy their needs. Of course this is only my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassiopeia Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 No, not really. A cupioromantic relationship is romance, where there the aro person would perform the roles of a romantic partner despite not being in love. I don't think I could do that...again? Of course, I am physically capable of behaving that way, but it would not be a healthy thing. I just can't really bend and twist myself enough to fit into that role without feeling trapped. Also, it feels like a lie. Any close personal relationship should be ideally built on honesty, and me trying to lie about my feelings and building up this facade isn't exactly honest. I tried it, and I felt like I'm not enough and the whole thing was too much at the same time...I felt both pressured to give more, be more and suffocated at the same time. It had nothing to do with the other person, and more with the type of thing we were having. Instead of acting and faking it, I'd rather be myself, love and be loved the way I'm comfortable to. I would like a partner, but why would that have mean instantly romance? Our definitions of relationship types are so rigid, and they raise so many questions. What is primary? Can a relationship fluctuate between primary and secondary? Is there a point of ranking them that way? People typically view queer relationships through their straight lensed glasses. Two femme women together? Friends (a tease). Two butch women together? Dykes (too ugly to get a man). Two transboys together? Dykes (only does it to get the attention of a gay man/too ugly to get a real man). A transwoman and a ciswoman together? Straight couple (cis girl must have a fetish or be secretly straight). A transwoman and a cisguy together? Gay couple (at least the cis guy must be bi or something, she must be a prostitute etc). A butch guy and an effeminate guy together? The butch guy might be bi, but the other is super homo gay. Just because people see our relationships a certain way, and they put us into boxes accordingly, we may still not fit those oxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cute kitty Meow! Mewo! Posted June 30, 2016 Author Share Posted June 30, 2016 "the idea that it's seen as romantic is amatonormativity" wait what? no, it's an observation. if I see that most romantic people would on first-glance say it is romantic, and observe that, it is nothing but a factual observation. this is why I get confused - a small group of people tell me it isn't romantic, but a large group of people tell me it is romantic. "cupioromantics just seem like aros who can't see there might be another kind of relationship" but it's the same relationship regardless of how it's classified. Maybe it's better to think about it like this - that it is aromantic in one way, but it is still romantic in another way - the fact it is a dedicated partnership for mutual support is romantic. denying that only confuses the idea of what is and isn't romantic. after a year of pondering this very question - the only way it possibly makes sense to me is if a pairing between two people is romantic by classification, even if two aromantic people are in it. it isn't the same thing as emotions or the people itself - it's a different subject - with different rules of classification. the trend is to call something "romantic" or "not romantic" based off of observation of its behavior. our feelings are the behavior of our emotions - at least for the most part - and so when we feel a certain way we call it romantic and when it doesn't feel that way we call it aromantic. that's straight-forward by my eyes. when a person doesn't feel romantic attraction we call them aromantic - at first I accepted that, but it always felt a little presumptuous, because a person can be observed by more than just their feelings. then I was told that some partnered relationships are aromantic - and that didn't make sense to me, because partnering is romantic. people said it is a QPR and that gave it a name and a description, so at the time I accepted it. but when I heard about "cupioromantic" being someone who is aromantic who pursues a romantic relationship - that's when all my hesitation was answered, and things really made sense to me for once! after all, "queerplatonic" means "more than normal platonic" - and that "more than" is the closeness that only usually occurs in a romantic relationship, and/or the mutually dedicated partnership that is normally only seen in a romantic relationship. it is not really "fully romantic" but it is "partly romantic" and that to me is important to note - it's why we make sure to call it "queerplatonic" right? so if we look at the orientations - aromantic, cupioromantic, greyromantic, demiromantic, lithromantic, and finally, romantic - it fits best in the "cupioromantic" part because it shows some signs of being romantic, even though no romantic attraction is felt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cute kitty Meow! Mewo! Posted June 30, 2016 Author Share Posted June 30, 2016 or maybe there is this new word I am seeing more often. I even out of humor picked it up for myself - but I thought it was just another cute fantasy word that wouldn't kick off like "aromantic" and "cupio" have. companionate. maybe this is just what we need to do - shift away from the wordy "person who wants a QPR" and use "companionate" and then replace "QPR" with "companionship" I just saw it after I made the other post, someone else had used the word in another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omitef Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 16 minutes ago, SwankyPants said: then I was told that some partnered relationships are aromantic - and that didn't make sense to me, because partnering is romantic. Why must partnering be romantic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paporomantic Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 11 hours ago, Dodecahedron314 said: What it comes down to is how the people involved choose to define their relationship. Then it also makes sense for people to reject labels altogether, as in, 'our relationship is not exactly sexual or romantic or platonic, it's just our relationship™ and what's happening inside it is not others' business'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cute kitty Meow! Mewo! Posted June 30, 2016 Author Share Posted June 30, 2016 [deleted post, unsure and not ready to reply] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omitef Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Just now, SwankyPants said: it's what is the culture when I look at the culture... it's like the epitome of the romantic scene, well second to dating. sure some people get all into sappy romance, but most people aren't into the sappy stuff actually. but everyone romantic wants a partnership. saying that a partner isn't a romantic thing just doesn't make sense! But our culture is built around amatonormativity, which states that all partnering is inherently romantic. Amatonormativity in our culture doesn't accept that there can be non-romantic forms of coupling, so all other, aromantic forms of coupling, are often ignored or dismissed as romantic. I personally experience this when I'm with my squish; we are not formally in a QPR, but we have a close friendship that makes other people think that we are dating. I've had to explain many times that she and I never will date, but people just think the two of us are in denial. It's very frustrating. And actually, unless you are referring to only alloromantics, no, not everyone romantic wants a partnership. I'm lithromantic and I usually don't want a relationship with the people I have romantic feelings for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paporomantic Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 The fact that 'romantic' can mean both 'committal' and 'emotional' ('sappy') is confusing. Commitment and 'chemistry' can exist independently of each other, so there should be a split-orientation model distinguishing the potential to have crushes from the potential of desire for a non-contractual relationship. I'd be 'lith-heteroemotional' aplatonic then (not exactly lithro because I didn't want to serve the girls I crushed on, in fact, I hated most of them objectively). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rising Sun Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 It's saddening to hear that primary relationships can only be romantic, which is denial that deep affection can exist without any feelings of attraction / limerence. I'm aware that some people are appropriating terms describing platonic relationships to describe unconventional romance, but OTOH friendship and family love are belittled and erased by romance one more time And that shouldn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cute kitty Meow! Mewo! Posted June 30, 2016 Author Share Posted June 30, 2016 I think, the thing that confuses me most, is looking at aromantics who dislike partnerships altogether. they are different from me, and people like me are different from them. and then I see people who are in between us, that are indifferent either way. But yet, we are all the same? and there is not really good language to talk about that. I wish there were something less confusing than "qpr" to differentiate. not some new label, one that is already in use. "cupio" would be like that, but you are right... it really is true that the considerations of the many are not necessarily accurate, just popular. a month ago I saw someone say "companionship" and "companionate" and i jokingly took it on as a label. but then I saw someone else use that last week, and saw a post just now in another thread. it seems most common for someone to talk about a QPR as a best friends scenario more often than not - hanging out and talking, but living independant lives except for the emotional support of a friend. a companionship can describe that too - but has the air of sounding more like a partnership, which is the kind of word I want. and while "companionate" hasn't actually been a word yet - "companion" and "companionship" are - so it is not really a new label. should we grab hold of this word and champion it? promote it? I kind of like it, do you? I didn't talk about it at first because I thought it'd just disappear like all the other labels. but it is more popular than that so far... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paporomantic Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 @SwankyPants The term 'companionate' has been coined in an influential blog 'The Thinking Aro', so it's already sort of 'official'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rising Sun Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 I think the word sounds more consensual, and people who aren't part of the community can certainly understand it more easily. And as (at least right now) I've seen no one appropriating the word for unconventional romance, that would probably be a good idea to switch to "companionate", yes. Especially as now the need to differentiate unconventional committed friendship from unconventional romance is urgent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paporomantic Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 I prefer it because 'queerplatonic' sounds unnatural if applied to a friendship between a male and a female who're both cis-het (aka 'the friend zone'). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassiopeia Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 When I say I want a QPP, I don't mean best friends as people would define it. I want something different. The queer part means that it's weird, unusual, unconventional. Not as a synonym for homosexual/homoromantic/homo in general. Queer does no mean gay. That ereases so many people... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rising Sun Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 22 minutes ago, Cassiopeia said: The queer part means that it's weird, unusual, unconventional. Not as a synonym for homosexual/homoromantic/homo in general. Queer does no mean gay. I agree, but many people still don't dare using the word because of what "queer" means nowadays. If they're straight, that's too awkward for them to make them feel confident enough to use "queerplatonic", no matter what the word actually means in this context. It's somewhat the same with "genderqueer" too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassiopeia Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Just now, Rising Sun said: I agree, but many people still don't dare using the word because of what "queer" means nowadays. If they're straight, that's too awkward for them to make them feel confident enough to use "queerplatonic", no matter what the word actually means in this context. It's somewhat the same with "genderqueer" too. I think demonising and gatekeeping that word is part of this ereasing campaign. They literally scrub out that word and replace it with another. Using the word companion to describe the person I'm with...well, I'm a nerd. The two first things that'd come to my mind were Firefly and Doctor Who. Nice, I like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cute kitty Meow! Mewo! Posted June 30, 2016 Author Share Posted June 30, 2016 1 hour ago, Rising Sun said: I think the word sounds more consensual, and people who aren't part of the community can certainly understand it more easily. And as (at least right now) I've seen no one appropriating the word for unconventional romance, that would probably be a good idea to switch to "companionate", yes. Especially as now the need to differentiate unconventional committed friendship from unconventional romance is urgent. why do you say "companionate is more consensual than qpr" and you say "no one is appropriating the word for more unconventional romance" I'm not sure I understand what you mean? for me personally, I do not have any particular desire for a romantic or sexual partner. but I do want some kind of partner. as in, I see it as beneficial, and hope to have a partner. If I would call myself "companionate" I would mean it to say "I am looking for some kind of companion to share my life with, I have only platonic interests in such a companionship but could be open to romance or sex if my partner wanted that" so if I would use "companionate" I could potentially be in an "unconventional romance" right? but I don't desire one. is that counter to what you're saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rising Sun Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 55 minutes ago, Cassiopeia said: I think demonising and gatekeeping that word is part of this ereasing campaign. They literally scrub out that word and replace it with another. Using the word companion to describe the person I'm with...well, I'm a nerd. The two first things that'd come to my mind were Firefly and Doctor Who. Nice, I like it. Yes, the word is shamed to the point where people don't dare using it, because they're afraid of being judged. +1000 for the Doctor-Donna reference Best QPR ever ! 49 minutes ago, SwankyPants said: why do you say "companionate is more consensual than qpr" and you say "no one is appropriating the word for more unconventional romance" I'm not sure I understand what you mean? for me personally, I do not have any particular desire for a romantic or sexual partner. but I do want some kind of partner. for me, if I would call myself "companionate" I would mean it to say "I am looking for some kind of peer to share my life with, I have only platonic interests in such a companionship but would be open to romance and sex if my partner wanted that" so if I would use "companionate" I could potentially be in a unconventional romance. but I don't desire one. and I would say, an aromantic partnership may not be a romance, but it would definitely be an "unconventional romance" in a sence because it looks like romance but is not romance. right? so I'm not sure if I follow you, but it sounds like you are agreeing with me, so I'm a little confused. "Companionate" is more consensual than "QPR" because many people are afraid of using "QPR" because of the "Q" inside As I tried to explain before (sorry if my texts are a bit messy sometimes), I find saddening that words describing platonic relationships are appropriated by a few people for unconventional romance. Because this gives a reason for QPR skeptics to say "You see, QPRs aren't truly platonic relationships, you're just denying that you're in a romantic relationship and attracted to each other" without even knowing if the person is actually in a completely platonic relationship or an ambiguously romantic relationship. This is erasure and for this reason, I think that this is important to have separate words for completely platonic relationships (not open to romance), for unconventional romance, and for relationships that are open to both. There should be at least one word for platonic relationships that are clearly, without a doubt, 100% emotionally platonic (no matter how they're expressed, as what matters is feelings IMHO), so that QPR skeptics won't say "You see, this isn't really platonic, the concept of QPRs is BS because they're romantic in denial". See what I mean ? Very often, my posts don't really agree or disagree, they're more bringing a few personal thoughts to the topic, as new things to discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cute kitty Meow! Mewo! Posted June 30, 2016 Author Share Posted June 30, 2016 ah! I understand better now. sometimes with pronouns I get confused and feel daft yeah I completely agree. I kind of feel silly for the way I opened my topic, but I feel clearer now about what I meant when I wanted to talk about this! that, a qpr for a friendship is different than a qpr that's more quasi-romantic. I think star bit was talking about that once, but it didn't kick off. I was confused by their post when they brought up quasi. wait, I am digressing! so yes, if we are taking qpr to be more like "close friendship" and companionate to mean, "platonic partnership", that just feels more clear and less overlapping. some people are happy with either or both of course! but somehow it feels more natural for both types of a platonic close peership to have a word that covers them moreso than the other word. er, did that make sense? ps. hmm... but then I still feel uneasy about the term "qpr" it seems like a qpr isn't a "relationship" in the traditional sense, and that I am just erasing the term. Personally, if I think of a qpr as a close friendship.. I think of my college roommate. we still talk even though it's been over 4 years but I wouldn't use the term "QPR" I would just say "best friend" or "close friend" or even just "friend" or "roomate" or something. I just don't think of my friendship with them as a "relationship" anymore... I used to call everything a relationship but then I confused my friends too much and stopped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kojote Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 I'm down for companionate. I always felt like QPR or squishes sounded wrong, because they always sounded, like you wanted to imitate a romantic relationship just not really (probably just my interpretation?) so I always used the word "bromance" Companionate is really the better word, since it's way more to the point and easier to remember/more accessible to non-aros, which is always great if you want to go for visibility x3 Though I'm pretty sure that QPRs always meant "platonic partnership" aka it was very much the same as your new word. At least I'd never use QPR to mean close friends either, because there's already plenty words for that aka best friends! besties! best mates! It's a relationship, of course, in the broad term that everything involving people is a relationship, but it's not one in the "only these people"-meaning of the word. And QPR was a word born from the aro desire for a term defining a relationship between friends and romantic partners. I always like to pull out Finn and Jake (Adventure Time) or Turk and JD (Scrubs), whenever someone says that a QPR/Companionate is really a romantic relationship in denial. Because these guys lived together, shared their life together, always had each others back, supported one another, even hugged and cuddled from time to time, but no one would ever imply, that their relationship is actually romantic in a non-sarcastic way. Sure, Scrubs had plenty jokes about them behaving gay, but they never implied, that they really were romantically involved. Because there's a difference between partnership and romance. Doctor Who makes great companions, too =D Like Donna and 10 or Amy&Rory and the 11th. Really loved the married-couple + doctor dynamic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.