A/romanticism and the idea of "the one" (rant)

[Cimmerian]

I don't get the QPR thing. At all. The closest I get to comprehending it is, you want to live with your best friend but give them a specific title. Anything beyond that seems to fall into "relationship" territory to me.

Okay, (in the most general terms) the distinctions for relationships or with the "final goal" re: living situations, there is: 1) traditional "romantic relationships" 2) less/non-"romantic" relationship but still easily identified by the masses as relationships 3) happy with ultimate singleness but wanting a good/best friend or roommate to live with 4) happy singleness not seeking relationship or anyone to live with.

And by "not seeking relationship" I do not mean temporarily. I mean long-term there's no-partner wanted/sought, so it's not the "romantic single" state where you're happy without a partner and not seeking one at the time or the foreseeable future.

QPRs confuse me because I see people describe them as a mix of 2 and 3. As far as I'm concerned the first two fall under "romantic" relationship even if there aren't "traditional" romantic gestures because there is life being intertwined and you want someone in all/most aspects of your life. I'd be happy with both of those as a romantic relationship regardless of the lack of stereotypical romantic interactions because you get a long-term committed partner with a certain unique emotional connection beyond closest-friend-ever (but no, I can't describe the distinction between emotionally close friend and partner to save my life :P ). The 3rd and 4th seem aromantic to me because you might have someone around, but you keep separateness and aren't dependent (for lack of a better word) on the other and it lacks that "committed partner" quality of the first two.

3 hours ago, Snow Cone said:

But: seeking a permanent relationship with a committed partner as a life goal is not all that different from romance. How is the absence of a need for a permanent relationship with a committed partner not part of aromanticism? If that is something a person is actively seeking to fulfill a purpose in their life, it goes beyond the scope of a QPR.

Snow's distinction is the main difference I see between romantic and aromantic.
----

Skullz, you can miss people you don't even like? Do you have an example? I'm still wracking my brain looking for an instance of where I've done that and as of yet can't come up with one, so I'm curious.

[Sage Raven Domino]

59 minutes ago, Cimmerian said:

3) happy with ultimate singleness but wanting a good/best friend or roommate to live with

Living together is not a criterion of being in a relationship. I know this sounds weird, but some people (myself included) like to have so much personal space that they wouldn't live together with anyone, even with someone who they'd cuddle with regularly; rather, they prefer the format of 'living apart, together' (at different physical locations but together spiritually), which has become easy after the advent of VoIP and webcams.

Quote

you keep separateness and aren't dependent (for lack of a better word)

Dependency is not a criterion of a relationship either. Moreover, it's advisable not to be dependent on the partner but just to have common values and mutual respect. Dependency is often a glue that holds a 'ship together, but those 'ships are the ones done wrong and may eventually lead onto a psychotherapist's couch.

[Cimmerian]

No, I know. That's why I said in the most general terms. :) There was no way to take into account all the specific distinctions in a relationship and keep the post fairly concise. Every time I try it gets much too frustrating and typically makes the post long and goes off-topic too easily.

I'm actually quite fond of my own personal space and have a quirk to the idea of living together also, although it's different.

[Sage Raven Domino]

1 hour ago, Cimmerian said:

Skullz, you can miss people you don't even like? Do you have an example? I'm still wracking my brain looking for an instance of where I've done that and as of yet can't come up with one, so I'm curious.

I tend to miss my arch-enemies a lot, even develop a sort of an intimate connection with them - they become so familiar that I can't imagine my life without them  After all, even Christ told to love our enemies, didn't he? (I don't believe in him, though, just recognise him as a historical figure).

[Snao Cone]

Something like this?

 

[Star Bit]

@Cimmerian

You are correct in that they're just best friends; but abnormally so; almost romantic but with nothing non-platonic. They dont nececerily want to give them a specific title, but it can be needed because people go "you're too close to just be friends" or such.

A queerplatonic relationship (or one sided, a 'queerplatonic squish' aka 'queerplatonic crush') is a platonic relationship that has (or is desired to have) the characteristic(s) associated with a romantic relationship (excluding non-platonic things like sex and making out, although chaste kissing can be platonic depending on how it’s done). This kind of relationship can include an importance/closeness stronger than the best friend norm and/or displaying platonic physical contact above the norm. Some describe it as "super best friends." It’s also known as romantic/passionate friendship, life partner, Boston Marriage, and bromance/womance (latter aka shemance, sismance, and less popular due to clash with other words; hermance). They may or may not have monogamy, live together, sleep in the same room, have kids, or be mistaken for a couple. Romantics and Aromantics can have QPRs. An example would be Turk and JD from Scrubs. (other examples here)

[flesh-pocket]

I agree that as someone who identifies as aromantic-ish, when i imagine a QPR its basically the same thing as a romantic relationship with no sexual component-- i.e. we are not attracted to each other. I think id like to have something like that with someone, someday, but as it stands, whenever someone i know likes me the overwhelming feeling i have is annoyance. I've now given myself a rule to not take up anyone on a romantic offer unless i actually feel something for them too. im 22 and this 'liking someone back' thing hasnt happened yet, but maybe this will all come to a head when im in my mid-twenties.

QPR seems to me to be more like a concept that people toss around than a practical way of actually arranging relationships. it also seems to be used as a word for when people in the media of conflicting sexual/romantic orientations become as close as people normally associate romantic partners as being. many peices of media just use heteronormativity to make it seem like 2 very close same-gender people could not possibly have romantic feelings for each other.  like the example with Turc and JD-- if they were described as actually gay in the show no one would think they were in a QPR, right? the joke of their relationship is that they are 2 full grown straight men that act like a couple, like they would be the perfect couple if they were only gay. if they were described as gay or bi there would be nothing remarkable about that relationship, on QPR terms.

or QPR is used for very close male/female friendships... which i mean, dont have to be QPR's either. as an aromantic-ish person, whats so impossible about a male and a female having a close platonic friendship? 

i think QPR comes down to being 2 people, in love, but are not attracted to each other. i would say not 'sexually/romantically' attracted, if anyone knew what that means. this would cover all completely non-sexual romantic relationships, but maybe theres a finer line that can be met... like a heteroromantic male/female asexual couple is romantic, but two heteroromantic asexual women together is a QPR. if only they were attracted to each other, theyed be in a romantic relationship, but since they're not and they want to build their lies together anyway, they call it something else. perhaps this can happen with people of 'matching' orientations if they're not attracted to each other for whatever reason, but that does seem to hold more weight for sexual people than asexual people, just because for asexual people, it only works with the split attraction model.

of course 'in love' isnt a crystal clear concept either, i think anyone can say they love their close friends.... but my point is, i think the crux of the QPR is that the people are not attracted to each other being in a relationship anyway. so, someone who seeks out a QPR would be basically seeking out a relationship with no attraction involved, and now we have come full circle. 

i dont know if it can be said that QPR is anything new. in my view, it may just be a construct that came about to fill a void made by the split attraction model.

if two people can be in a non-sexual romantic relationship, or a sexual non-romantic relationship, and sexual attraction is on an equal but separate continuum as romantic attraction, then there must be a corresponding relationship form that is committed but not sexual or romantic. this is analogous to all the split attraction orientations that we use:

asexual romantic people, -----> non-sexual romantic relationships

sexual/romantic people, -------> sexual romantic relationships

sexual/aromantic people, -----> sexual non-romantic relationships (fuck buddies, friends with benefits ect.)

asexual/aromantic people -----> non-sexual, non-romantic relationships (QPR)

just because the split attraction model puts it on a higher pedestal doesnt mean its a practical or a new concept, but it also doesnt mean that in all of human emotional compacity it doesnt exist. this is why we have people who identify as aromantic but say they want a committed relationship, because if we are using the split attraction model then actually desiring a relationship isn't what makes you ace/aro, as we are defining the terms. that might not be fair or useful for those who dont desire committed relationships, but it is the system we have built for ourselves and to change it, we'd have to at least rethink how we use the split attraction model. that, or completely change how we define asexuality/aromanticism, which hasnt happened.

[Snao Cone]

2 hours ago, flesh-pocket said:

 

if two people can be in a non-sexual romantic relationship, or a sexual non-romantic relationship, and sexual attraction is on an equal but separate continuum as romantic attraction, then there must be a corresponding relationship form that is committed but not sexual or romantic.

This "must be" is just based on a mental desire for conceptual symmetry without much regard for practical differences. If that model is going to be used there has to be a huge caveat for aro ace "relationships" that they are going to be extremely uncommon among aro ace people - at least those that are beyond regular friendships. The emotional desire for a committed partner is essentially romantic. It is different than the desire for a close friend.

[butterflydreams]

@Snow Cone I think I'm hearing what you're saying here. For a time, I think I fell into that expectation of aromanticism myself. I'm very *meh* about romantic gestures, and most of that stuff weirds me out anyway...but that's just the traditional kind of expected stuff. I realized that much like so many things, romance is what you make it, and what you want from it. At least, in a very broad sense.

Once I started laying out for me what would be romantic things (often not the kind of textbook stuff you described) I realized I was looking for the same feelings as most romantic people. I just wanted it through different things. For example, I realized one of the most romantic and sweet things someone could do for me, that would just make me melt...driving me home when I'm tired. Seems stupid. That's not romantic. But to me it is. Because I don't trust other people to drive ever, and 99% of the time, I'm alone and have to drive myself around. So having that kind of bond where I trust someone enough to let them drive me home? To me, that hits on all my "romantic" needs.

Basically the more and more I read about and talked to aromantic people, the more I realized I'm not on the same wavelength as them. They seem to see and experience things differently, regardless of whether or not my "romance" is the stuff you read about in fairy tales.

[Star Bit]

9 hours ago, flesh-pocket said:

this is why we have people who identify as aromantic but say they want a committed relationship, because if we are using the split attraction model then actually desiring a relationship isn't what makes you ace/aro, as we are defining the terms.

Uh, no, asexuals cannot desire sex and aros cannot desire a romantic relationship; that's the very point of the orientations.

[Guest]

23 hours ago, DiamondAce said:

I tend to miss my arch-enemies a lot, even develop a sort of an intimate connection with them - they become so familiar that I can't imagine my life without them  After all, even Christ told to love our enemies, didn't he? (I don't believe in him, though, just recognise him as a historical figure).

Yeah, pretty much this. For example, I miss Tarfeather!

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Snow Cone said:

This "must be" is just based on a mental desire for conceptual symmetry without much regard for practical differences. 

That's like 90% of AVEN. It's always bugged me how some people insist on a symmetry that simply doesn't exist in reality. For instance, comparing sexual attraction with romantic desire. They aren't mirror images of each other!! 

[Snao Cone]

1 hour ago, Hadley167 said:

@Snow Cone I think I'm hearing what you're saying here. For a time, I think I fell into that expectation of aromanticism myself. I'm very *meh* about romantic gestures, and most of that stuff weirds me out anyway...but that's just the traditional kind of expected stuff. I realized that much like so many things, romance is what you make it, and what you want from it. At least, in a very broad sense.

Once I started laying out for me what would be romantic things (often not the kind of textbook stuff you described) I realized I was looking for the same feelings as most romantic people. I just wanted it through different things. For example, I realized one of the most romantic and sweet things someone could do for me, that would just make me melt...driving me home when I'm tired. Seems stupid. That's not romantic. But to me it is. Because I don't trust other people to drive ever, and 99% of the time, I'm alone and have to drive myself around. So having that kind of bond where I trust someone enough to let them drive me home? To me, that hits on all my "romantic" needs.

Basically the more and more I read about and talked to aromantic people, the more I realized I'm not on the same wavelength as them. They seem to see and experience things differently, regardless of whether or not my "romance" is the stuff you read about in fairy tales.

Yeah, for sure, it's not the motif but the motive. I'm an incredibly difficult person sometimes because I don't want basic favours or simple kind gestures. They don't have the same meaning to me as they do to other people. I don't want to have someone who will do anything for me without thinking twice because I'm part of their purpose. I don't feel empty from not being That Person for someone and there is no void from not having a That Person for myself. Even if you never wanted flowers or to dance barefoot in the sand at dusk, if you have a need to feel intensely around someone, whether it be whimsical or comfortable, that sounds pretty romantically oriented to me.

[Snao Cone]

5 minutes ago, Skullery Maid said:

Yeah, pretty much this. For example, I miss Tarfeather!

Be careful, Skullz...

[Cimmerian]

23 minutes ago, Skullery Maid said:

Yeah, pretty much this. For example, I miss Tarfeather!

I should've expected something like that. xP

[butterflydreams]

35 minutes ago, Snow Cone said:

Even if you never wanted flowers or to dance barefoot in the sand at dusk, if you have a need to feel intensely around someone, whether it be whimsical or comfortable, that sounds pretty romantically oriented to me.

This exactly. Can I blush a little bit here? I was so wrapped up in following The Script in my late teens/early 20s, that I was completely blind to the feelings right in front of me with my best friend. I remember once I was staying at his house. I was 20. It was hot and he had air conditioning, his parents were away, so we had the house to ourselves. I insisted on sleeping on the floor in his bedroom, even though there was another bed in his brother's old room. Why? Because I was just so comfortable around him. I wanted to be close to him because I trusted him completely. I don't relax like that around most people. I think that's something worth paying attention to when it comes to discussing romance.

Wow, did I just write all this down?  Hopefully he never sees this. Maybe someday I'll tell him. I'm sure he wouldn't be bothered hearing it.

[SpeedinThroughSpace]

If that's the essence of relationships, something is weird about my friendships (or at least my relationship to my best friend). I do the commitment thing with him. We're chosen family to each other. We can share everything with each other. We're each other's emergency contacts. I want us to be part of each other's lives for the rest of our lives. I seriously can't imagine my life without him.

But there is nothing romantic about our friendship. It's a friendship, a very close and emotionally intimate one, but a friendship nonetheless. Can someone explain to me what the difference between this and a QPR would be? Apparently living together is not required.

I've never been looking for a partner of any kind. I don't know if I am romantic to any degree or not. When I occasionally, experimentally entertain the idea of a relationship, I come up with a best friends with cuddles and hand holding kind of thing. But obviously, the difference can't solely be the absence of cuddles, right? There has gotta be a difference in how you feel about a partner and a best friend.

@SnowCone... Isn't every relationship of any kind full of gestures? Your friends might get you a little gift when they come back from a holiday because they saw something they just thought you'd enjoy. Your buddies might wait for you after work or school to drive home together, even if they would be faster without taking the extra round to your neighbourhood. When you're visiting a friend, they know exactly how you like your tea or coffee without having to ask. Small gestures of any kind are just how you show you care about someone, in whatever way, amirite?

Also, in vague reply to what Skullery Maid said on the last page, I am entirely emotionally excited about my friendships (all friendships) and I find there is very little actually rational thinking involved in my reactions and thoughts about friends.

[Guest]

On 23-11-2016 at 1:37 AM, SkyWorld said:

Personally, I just always called it companionships. That's not a new term that most people understand.

But that's how i call it too! Just companionships. I have noticed that people in my enviroment find that one easier to understand then when you tell them you prefer a QPR it's just the same thing to me.

[Snao Cone]

@SpeedinThroughSpace I'm not clear on your point with the gestures. Do you not think there's a distinction between those gestures for friends and deeper gestures for partners? If a friend invites me over because I haven't seen them in a while and serves my favourite food for the occasion, that is quite different from a partner going to lengths to show my happiness is a priority of theirs (which makes me squirm, personally).

[Guest]

@SpeedinThroughSpace First of all, the likelihood that you and your friend will remain that close until you die is slim. Not impossible, but slim. Second, friends are often like family, and that's normal and accepted. Unless you and your friend do things that mimic relationships... buy a house together, refuse other primary relationships due to a commitment between the two of you, etc, then it sounds like you just have a bro friend. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Snow Cone said:

@SpeedinThroughSpace I'm not clear on your point with the gestures. Do you not think there's a distinction between those gestures for friends and deeper gestures for partners? If a friend invites me over because I haven't seen them in a while and serves my favourite food for the occasion, that is quite different from a partner going to lengths to show my happiness is a priority of theirs (which makes me squirm, personally).

Hey! My gestures almost always say "I want to make you happy so long as it's incredibly convenient to me and something I enjoy doing anyway," and it definitely seems like lots of AVENites engage in those gestures with their friends, or get upset when their friends don't reciprocate. That seems more like a personality thing than an orientation thing? 

[Snao Cone]

1 minute ago, Skullery Maid said:

Hey! My gestures almost always say "I want to make you happy so long as it's incredibly convenient to me and something I enjoy doing anyway," and it definitely seems like lots of AVENites engage in those gestures with their friends, or get upset when their friends don't reciprocate. That seems more like a personality thing than an orientation thing? 

Personality certainly factors in, but to suggest that there aren't different depths of intention between gestures of friendship and gestures of commitment seems like a stretch. Buying a gift for a friend because you stumbled upon something that reminded you of them =/= going to great lengths to find the perfect gift to please someone who matters the world to you. (And of course that isn't the defining criteria of what is a relationship and what isn't, but if your dedication to a companion goes that far then it's not merely a platonic relationship.)

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Snow Cone said:

Personality certainly factors in, but to suggest that there aren't different depths of intention between gestures of friendship and gestures of commitment seems like a stretch. Buying a gift for a friend because you stumbled upon something that reminded you of them =/= going to great lengths to find the perfect gift to please someone who matters the world to you. (And of course that isn't the defining criteria of what is a relationship and what isn't, but if your dedication to a companion goes that far then it's not merely a platonic relationship.)

I'm curious to see what others think. It's been my experience that some friends expect those kind of gestures from me, and it's part of what's made me ultimately avoid friendships. Some people want to be far more... comingled and emotionally attached than I can do (or want to do). I don't know. There seems to be a fair number of people who engage in romance with their friends... I have lots of opinions on what that means about them, but.  

[SpeedinThroughSpace]

@SnowCone I'm unsure if a friend doing something for you is inherently different from a partner doing it. If you're uncomfortable about favours being done for you in a romantic context, what sets it apart from a friend's attentiveness? That's what I wondered about. I don't think I phrased it so well...

 

@SkulleryMaid I know that the statistic likelihood for livelong friendship is slim, yes. That doesn't change the fact that this friendship in this form has existed for nearly ten years and that at this time the wish for its continuation and the associated commitment exists. Also statements about romantic ships can always only be made at a specific time. All the couples that want to be together forever can't KNOW if they will be still together. They wish for it to be forever right now.

And I'm convinced I have a bro friend. :-) But I still don't get what a QPR is supposed to be in comparison, if not an asexual romantic relationship.

[SpeedinThroughSpace]

29 minutes ago, Skullery Maid said:

I'm curious to see what others think. It's been my experience that some friends expect those kind of gestures from me, and it's part of what's made me ultimately avoid friendships. Some people want to be far more... comingled and emotionally attached than I can do (or want to do). I don't know. There seems to be a fair number of people who engage in romance with their friends... I have lots of opinions on what that means about them, but.  

I seem to have the kinds of friends you avoid. My closer friends and I have these very complex gifts for Christmas or birthdays that involve a lot of thought and effort to get (or create, as self-made things are particularly awesome). Nobody in my closer friend circle would simply buy the others socks. Thoughtful gestures (small and big ones alike) are a thing friends do, for me (us). The people you get something random for when there's a reason to get gifts are called acquaintances. ;-)

[butterflydreams]

30 minutes ago, Skullery Maid said:

I'm curious to see what others think. It's been my experience that some friends expect those kind of gestures from me, and it's part of what's made me ultimately avoid friendships. Some people want to be far more... comingled and emotionally attached than I can do (or want to do). I don't know. There seems to be a fair number of people who engage in romance with their friends... I have lots of opinions on what that means about them, but.  

I think it varies between different people. I've occasionally had friends who expected those kinds of gestures from me, but IMO, they're still far from romantic in nature. The bigger surprise was realizing that I was actually expecting romantic gestures from friends...and then becoming really upset when they didn't deliver, or when I was cast aside for "real" romantic relationships. It's actually what led me to asexuality. I always seemed to place friends (the really close ones anyway) on this slightly higher than "just friends" tier. Anyone looking at it from outside would certainly not say it's romantic, but it's not just friends either.

And from all this I've learned two things:

1. I will always be disappointed because friends are going to fail to deliver these things I'm expecting.

2. Most people aren't actually expecting this kind of dynamic in a friendship. This has been really important for me to learn and understand, because it's taught me that I need to look to romantic relationships to find what I'm looking for, and I need to figure out how to make that stuff work. Most friends will always fall short of meeting my needs in this realm simply because that's not how most people operate.

So really, I seem to occupy this weird space between friendship and romance, but I understand that in order to get what I need, I have to push myself up into romance. 

[Snao Cone]

1 minute ago, SpeedinThroughSpace said:

@SnowCone I'm unsure if a friend doing something for you is inherently different from a partner doing it. If you're uncomfortable about favours being done for you in a romantic context, what sets it apart from a friend's attentiveness? That's what I wondered about. I don't think I phrased it so well...

The degree a person goes to can make me uncomfortable regardless of the level of feelings they have for me, but it's definitely going to feel weirder from people who feel romantically. Their hope for reciprocation - or worse, some return on investment by winning me over - is loaded with higher expectations. If someone who's in love with me says they are only doing a rather large favour or gesture for me out of friendship, it's entirely reasonable for me to still be more uncomfortable with it than I would be if a friend or family member did it.

Granted, I can be a very difficult person to do nice things for, which isn't aromanticism itself, but happens to fit in well with my lack of need for a partner or companion.

[Star Bit]

On 11/24/2016 at 7:09 AM, SpeedinThroughSpace said:

If that's the essence of relationships, something is weird about my friendships (or at least my relationship to my best friend). I do the commitment thing with him. We're chosen family to each other. We can share everything with each other. We're each other's emergency contacts. I want us to be part of each other's lives for the rest of our lives. I seriously can't imagine my life without him.

But there is nothing romantic about our friendship. It's a friendship, a very close and emotionally intimate one, but a friendship nonetheless. Can someone explain to me what the difference between this and a QPR would be? Apparently living together is not required.

I've never been looking for a partner of any kind. I don't know if I am romantic to any degree or not. When I occasionally, experimentally entertain the idea of a relationship, I come up with a best friends with cuddles and hand holding kind of thing. But obviously, the difference can't solely be the absence of cuddles, right? There has gotta be a difference in how you feel about a partner and a best friend.

@SnowCone... Isn't every relationship of any kind full of gestures? Your friends might get you a little gift when they come back from a holiday because they saw something they just thought you'd enjoy. Your buddies might wait for you after work or school to drive home together, even if they would be faster without taking the extra round to your neighbourhood. When you're visiting a friend, they know exactly how you like your tea or coffee without having to ask. Small gestures of any kind are just how you show you care about someone, in whatever way, amirite?

Also, in vague reply to what Skullery Maid said on the last page, I am entirely emotionally excited about my friendships (all friendships) and I find there is very little actually rational thinking involved in my reactions and thoughts about friends.

Sounds queerplatonic to me. As said, a QPR is just above the best friend norm in closeness/importance and/or physical platonic affection. A QPR is not a non-sexual romance because neither feel romantically. There are many things that apply to both platonic and romantic relationships and these are the things done in QPRs. Best friends with cuddles and hand holding can be a romantic relationship or it can be queerplatonic (more so if they're not both women); all depends on romantic feelings; which really arent a definable thing as they're emotions and differ greatly from person to person. For some romantic feelings greatly differ from platonic ones and for others they're weak; like just a desire for emotional closeness.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

I strongly disagree with having limits on the things you and your friends do which determine romance; it is the internal feelings that are involved, not actions. I've been asked if I'm going out with my best friend because we text each other a lot and I smile when I read her texts... if that's romantic then jeez.

[Star Bit]

But there are a set of things that are and aren't platonic.