poll on relationships

[cute kitty Meow! Mewo!]

 a friend of mine was recently frustrated with how, for them, it seemed that too many aromantic people were in relationships and how "aromantic" didn't have enough meaning of "I am single and happy don't bother me"

 

and I personally was surprised, because for me as someone who is somewhat interested in a QPR I find it the opposite - too many aromantics are friends- only, and since it's a online community that's actually difficult for me since for me friendships need person-to-person contact to feel real. 

 

so Anyway this is a poll meant to see what people want - at least members of this particular community - are we more of us "full" aromantic, or somewhere in the grey area? are people generally looking to be partnered up - or looking to live the single life? are people who talk about qpr's really only talking about roomates and friend situations, and the amatanormative language makes saying this difficult?  or is it more that qpr is referring to platonic partnership?

 

I hope my poll is detailed enough to show this well, but not too detailed to be confusing or frustrating to take. (it's definitely way too detailed lol ) 

 

 

a warning! you can only pick one answer, so if there are multiple you're forced to pick the best answer sorry if that's frustrating tho...

[Louis On Air]

I put othr for question 3 because what interests me are legal benefits (i.e. immigration)

[NullVector]

I did the poll  

 

2 hours ago, cute kitty Meow! Mewo! said:

are people who talk about qpr's really only talking about roomates and friend situations, and the amatanormative language makes saying this difficult?

 

Um, can you go a bit more into why you felt the need to include the word only in that sentence? I'm not too clued up on what a qpr concretely means to different people. I guess from the inclusion of only that you consider there to be more to it than 'just' long-term close friendship and co-habitation? What would the extra things be? Does the 'platonic' in 'qpr' preclude sex? Or can qprs include sex? Etc.

[Mark]

3 hours ago, cute kitty Meow! Mewo! said:

 a friend of mine was recently frustrated with how, for them, it seemed that too many aromantic people were in relationships and how "aromantic" didn't have enough meaning of "I am single and happy don't bother me"

 

and I personally was surprised, because for me as someone who is somewhat interested in a QPR I find it the opposite - too many aromantics are friends- only, and since it's a online community that's actually difficult for me since for me friendships need person-to-person contact to feel real.

I'd tend to agree with you. The "arelational" POV seems quite common on aro forums, IME.

With question 2 I went with "other". Since I'm uninterested in things like cohabiting. Whilst being interested in QPRs in ways which arn't singular or exclusive.

Also "other" with question 3. Not wanting to be lonely is part of it. As is sharing hobbies, activities and interests (sexual things could also fit there). But without things like exclusivity/monogamy/etc.
 

1 hour ago, NullVector said:

Um, can you go a bit more into why you felt the need to include the word only in that sentence? I'm not too clued up on what a qpr concretely means to different people. I guess from the inclusion of only that you consider there to be more to it than 'just' long-term close friendship and co-habitation? What would the extra things be? Does the 'platonic' in 'qpr' preclude sex? Or can qprs include sex? Etc.

This is something I wrote on the subject yesterday elsewhere,
 

Quote

There isn't a simple answer. Since it's an umbrella term for lots of different types of relationships.
The only common thing is one isn't a romantic relationship or a platonic friendship.
It could be exclusive or not.
It could be closed or open.
Someone could have one or many.
It could include sexual behaviours or not.
It could include sensual behaviours or not.
It could include affection or not.
It could include cohabitation or not.
It could include merger of personal finances or not.
It could include merger of legal identity or not.
It could include "dating" or not.
It could include candle lit dinners or not.

 

[Dodecahedron314]

You just had to include the found family option to make it challenging, didn't you  It would help if I had any idea where the line between found family and a poly QPR situation would be, but... *shrugs and makes clueless hand gestures* 

[Acciuga]

Grey-romantic. Currently in a relationship. Want a relationship because I still feel some romantic attraction towards people (hard to explain). Grey-romantic because [too much to explain].

[NullVector]

1 hour ago, Mark said:

This is something I wrote on the subject [qpr] yesterday elsewhere,
 

Quote

There isn't a simple answer. Since it's an umbrella term for lots of different types of relationships.
The only common thing is one isn't a romantic relationship or a platonic friendship.
It could be exclusive or not.
It could be closed or open.
Someone could have one or many.
It could include sexual behaviours or not.
It could include sensual behaviours or not.
It could include affection or not.
It could include cohabitation or not.
It could include merger of personal finances or not.
It could include merger of legal identity or not.
It could include "dating" or not.
It could include candle lit dinners or not.

 

Thanks, that helps

 

So, perhaps it's more useful to define 'qpr' by what it isn't than by what it is? i.e. it's a term to denote a rejection of the 'amatonormative dichotomy' of either romantic-sexual relationships or platonic friendships (a 'small box', as I recall you said elsewhere...) With the 'queer' third of the triad standing for: nope, not that normative 'platonic' (friendship) thing. nope, not that normative (romantic) 'relationship' thing, either. Guess again! But then, what it actually is is left rather open-ended and thus open to personal interpretation/discovery.

 

So, maybe we could just think of 'qpr' as: a whole new world; a new fantastic point of view (sorry, couldn't help myself )

[cute kitty Meow! Mewo!]

5 hours ago, NullVector said:

I did the poll  

 

 

Um, can you go a bit more into why you felt the need to include the word only in that sentence? I'm not too clued up on what a qpr concretely means to different people. I guess from the inclusion of only that you consider there to be more to it than 'just' long-term close friendship and co-habitation? What would the extra things be? Does the 'platonic' in 'qpr' preclude sex? Or can qprs include sex? Etc.

when reading other people talking about QPR's, sometimes it seems more like the person is having a partnership in mind, while other times it seems like the person is talking about an important friend who isn't a partner. 

[Mezzo Forte]

I can't say that I'm the kind of person who actively vies for a specific kind of relationship. I never really had interest in the concept of a QPR, but I suppose some of the things I value in close friendship could be QPR-like, minus the label. My different interactions all meet different social needs of mine, be they emotional, intellectual, or otherwise, and I'm currently in a good place in that respect. 

 

I will admit though that I'm experiencing an abnormally strong attachment to one of my friendships as of late. This is the second time I've had this happen in my entire life, and the first time ended in a particularly painful way for me. That was six years ago though, back when I assumed myself a straight girl, so I think I'm better equipped to sort through my thoughts than I was back then. Still, I don't think these feelings translate to a need for a QPR, as I think friendship is a more appropriate title even in my more unusual scenarios.

[NullVector]

8 hours ago, cute kitty Meow! Mewo! said:

when reading other people talking about QPR's, sometimes it seems more like the person is having a partnership in mind, while other times it seems like the person is talking about an important friend who isn't a partner. 

 

Okay. So, what sorts of things (emotional needs?) would a 'partner' provide that a 'friend' wouldn't - or couldn't - provide? How are the two different, or separated, in your head? Does this go back to fears that a lot of conventionally 'romantic' people's notions of 'friendship' can imply a very low-maintenance relationship, one inferior to a romantic relationship, with few to no reciprocal commitments being made? (e.g. see this rant). So, by saying 'partner' not 'friend', you're explicitly rejecting those (normative) expectations around what the (non-romantic) relationship will be? I kind of get that; but could an equally valid approach here be to broaden the definition of 'friend' to be a good deal less restrictive than what is typically implied by it? Reclaim the depth and importance of friendship? (and to challenge people more on the narrowness of its conventional interpretations - and its perceived inferiority to romantic relationships?)

 

I hope I'm not coming across as pushy here, asking all these questions . I'm just interested in learning more about QPR and hearing other people's perspectives on them.

[aussiekirkland]

I never thought too hard about what kind of relationships I want, since it's rare to find people who are more open to a friendship outside of the platonic/romantic dichotomy (if that makes sense).

 

I currently do have a friend of that description but I'm much more comfortable with letting it progress naturally than trying to bring up QPR's, since I'm pretty happy with where we're at, anyway (except for the part where she's in Europe for the next 2 weeks haha)

[cute kitty Meow! Mewo!]

I don't really know how to answer those questions, @NullVector

[Mark]

18 hours ago, NullVector said:

So, perhaps it's more useful to define 'qpr' by what it isn't than by what it is? i.e. it's a term to denote a rejection of the 'amatonormative dichotomy' of either romantic-sexual relationships or platonic friendships (a 'small box', as I recall you said elsewhere...) 

The most obvious problem with defining something by what it is not is that the result can be (very) ambiguous. Thus you can easily have the term QPR describing several different type of relationship which don't have much in common (even being mutually incompatible)
 

18 hours ago, NullVector said:

With the 'queer' third of the triad standing for: nope, not that normative 'platonic' (friendship) thing. nope, not that normative (romantic) 'relationship' thing, either. Guess again! But then, what it actually is is left rather open-ended and thus open to personal interpretation/discovery.

 

So, maybe we could just think of 'qpr' as: a whole new world; a new fantastic point of view (sorry, couldn't help myself )

In some ways it's a pity that an entirely new word wasn't coined.
 

4 hours ago, aussiekirkland said:

I never thought too hard about what kind of relationships I want, since it's rare to find people who are more open to a friendship outside of the platonic/romantic dichotomy (if that makes sense).

In contrast I was aware of this dichotomy from an early age. Spending a lot of time thinking about what I actually wanted. Then being stuck with no words to describe this to anyone else.

[Dodgypotato]

Okay, so I'm aromantic, friends only (2nd option), and I prefer no partnerships. I want to live alone. I really love doing things by myself, and being by myself.

[SoulWolf]

Some days I feel like I really want a close friend/partner who lives with me. Other days I just want all humans to leave me alone. So... I'd like a close friend/adopted family to live with as long as they leave me alone most of the time?

 

Part of the reason I want someone to live with me is because I'm terrible at organizing household-related things. Literally the only reason our house isn't a complete mess is because my friend I live with actually gets stuff done. I help, too, but if he didn't bring it up it'd probably never happen. If I really had to, I could probably find some way to be better at this I guess... But I still like the idea that there is some friendly company nearby most of the time.

[omitef]

I'm formally involved in a queerplatonic friendship (QPF) now and I think I prefer it to stay a friendship, as opposed to a "relationship" or "partnership." The terms "relationship" and "partnership" are too romantically-loaded for me, and I think it's more radical to have intimacy with a friend without having to relabel the friendship as something else. For me, "queerplatonic" is just an adjective for a certain type of friendship--in my mind, friendship is a spectrum ranging from [normative] friend, best friend, to queerplatonic friend. For me, "queerplatonic" is the highest level of friendship, rather than a separate relationship dynamic entirely.

So I don't really "pursue" QPFs--they tend to just happen to me over time, if the feelings among me and my squishes are right. Also, I don't want to have a QPF for any other reason besides being platonically attracted to my squishes.  In fact, as a relationship anarchist, I don't even have a specific structure that I want my QPFs to look like--because each QP friend's individual needs are going to be different. For example, while I've lived with my QP friend, and am currently rooming with my squish, I don't think I'd live long-term with my squish, because my QP friend tends to be more responsible and observant of agreed-upon rules, which I absolutely need for long-term cohabitation. Rooming with my squish has frankly been a headache and I'm glad it'll be over next semester. 

 

Intimacy also drastically differs between my QP friend and squish. My QP friend and I tend to have a "Brokeback Mountain" style of intimacy, where we are super intimate for a short burst of time, and then go long stretches of time without showing any affection towards each other. Verbal affection generally never happens. Physical affection also doesn't exist. But we maintain these gaps of verbal and physical affection because it works best for us. She's not the best with words, and although I'm a poet, I don't think that regular verbal expressions of affection are necessary for intimacy. I think intimacy is best shown through action, which we do when we regularly make time for each other, stay honest with each other, and and openly communicate with each other about boundaries in a way we never have to with other friends (since those friends never reach those boundaries). As for physical affection, both of us think it's unnecessary. We're both touch-repulsed and are perfectly content with staying at least an arm's length away from each other 24/7. Sex is completely out of the question, since she's ace. Meanwhile, my squish is outwardly intimate, and also wants outward intimacy from others, regardless of level of friendship. They gush over every verbal bit of affection, no matter how cheesy or simple the compliment is. They even hug all their friends goodbye (except me, because I told them not to). Being intimate with them, especially physically, is always amusing, because I'm generally not an outwardly intimate person and they're confused and don't understand that I'm acting more affectionately because it makes them happy. My squish is possibly grey-ace, so I'm actually not sure what they'd want in terms of sex, if we ever got into a QPF.

 

I think that it's hard to come up with a strict definition of QPF/QP partnership, because of how much variability there is in QP feelings and individual boundaries. My way of defining QPF solely by mutually QP feelings probably doesn't work for everyone. If I were to offer some guidelines for defining QP partnership, it would be: mutuality of QP feelings, level of commitment/dedication to each other, and level of communication about intimacy/boundaries (that don't usually happen with other friends).   

 

[Mark]

On 13/12/2016 at 6:47 PM, Dodgypotato said:

I want to live alone. I really love doing things by myself, and being by myself.

I don't especially want to share my living space or live with anyone. Except in the "loosest" of ways.
Some times and for some things I like to do things myself. In other situations I want company and to do things with people.

[Jade]

One comment right now, I might go more in-depth later: I really wish I was able to choose more than one option. Making choices is hard.

[Cassiopeia]

I'm aro and I hope for or want a queerplatonic partnership. 

 

I have put 'other' on question number 3. 

Because I want an emotional and sensual connection, perhaps with sexual stuff. 

[Apathetic Echidna]

Aro, don't need a QPR as I am close with family and have some good (though distant) friends and that is fine for me BUT I can't live alone. I need another living thing in the house, be it a family member, a friend, or a flatmate, or a pet. I literally go paranoid ga-ga crazy.

[aro_elise]

i'm completely aro and unsure about qprs.  if i were to enter into one or more (i'm poly), it would be a sort of a friends with benefits situation.  there would have to be a fair amount of both platonic and sexual attraction, otherwise it would be a friendship or a hookup, respectively, not that i'm at all opposed to either of those.  my hypothetical qpp(s) would pretty much have to be aro, i think.  i've been in a relationship with an allo and it was, well, disastrous.  i guess i'm open to trying again now that i know myself--my aromanticism--better, but i'm sure not going to go looking for a situation like that.  under ideal circumstances like those i described, i'm favourable to the idea.

[Guest]

.

[Mark]

On 16/10/2017 at 3:45 AM, aro_elise said:

i'm completely aro and unsure about qprs.  if i were to enter into one or more (i'm poly), it would be a sort of a friends with benefits situation.

One thing I've noticed that the allo definition of "Friends With Benefits" seems to be more like a series of hookups. Even trying to avoid any kind of relationship with.
Whereas to aros it's more a case of a friendship (or friendships) including sex and/or other things you would typically not find within a purely platonic friendship.
 

On 16/10/2017 at 3:45 AM, aro_elise said:

 my hypothetical qpp(s) would pretty much have to be aro, i think.

How would you find other aros? With whom you have mutual attractions and interests.
 

On 16/10/2017 at 3:45 AM, aro_elise said:

 i've been in a relationship with an allo and it was, well, disastrous.  i guess i'm open to trying again now that i know myself--my aromanticism--better, but i'm sure not going to go looking for a situation like that.  under ideal circumstances like those i described, i'm favourable to the idea.

It's tricky.
On one hand allos are by far the majority. So people with whom you do share some attraction/connection with are very likely to be allo.
On the other hand it can take a lot to teach the average allo how to have a good meaningful relationship without romance.

[aro_elise]

16 hours ago, Mark said:

How would you find other aros? With whom you have mutual attractions and interests.

idk man.  i don't really have a plan because i'm happy being single.  if a promising opportunity comes up, ok, but i'm not really looking for anything.  kind of the same with new friends, i just let it happen organically, which often means nothing happens, but i'd rather be by myself than with someone i don't actually really like.