Alterous relationships?

[verymelancholic]

As someone who doesn’t completely understand attraction, even more this one, what does it feel like being in one, alterous, specifically?

[gaogao]

What is an alterous relationship?

 

A google search says that it's an emotional relationship that is neither platonic or romantic, but somewhere in between... but isn't that up for interpretation between two people? I don't fully understand ... 

[banana monkey]

8 hours ago, gaogao said:

What is an alterous relationship?

 

A google search says that it's an emotional relationship that is neither platonic or romantic, but somewhere in between... but isn't that up for interpretation between two people? I don't fully understand ... 

Possibly, I imagine its the same with QP (queerplatonic) relationships, given that what is queerplatonic and what is plain platonic is open to interpretation. 

[Feyre]

To me alterous means either between romantic and platonic, or changing between those two depending on the situation. Since I cannot decide whether I am aromantic or not, I find alterous also quite fitting for me. I might be wrong, correct me if so

I've never been in such a relationship though, so I can't answer that.

[gaogao]

On 5/25/2018 at 7:40 PM, banana monkey said:

Possibly, I imagine its the same with QP (queerplatonic) relationships, given that what is queerplatonic and what is plain platonic is open to interpretation. 

Hmm... I always thought that QP meant that the partners involved consider their relationship to be platonic, but that it involves an emotional connection / exclusivity that may be associated with non-platonic relationships. My thought was that what was important in a QPP is that that the relationship is understood to be platonic despite any conventionally romantic components or appearances. I might be wrong though? (( This definition made sense to me... it was what I wanted for myself, though my life has had other ideas XD ))

 

On the other hand, an Alterous relationship sounds like it differs because the partners involved consider their relationship to be both platonic and romantic depending on situation? (Thank you for your explanation @Feyre ;;!!) My question though is... how does that work? How would one know whether the relationship was romantic or platonic at any particular time? Do both parties have to agree about it or does it sort of straddle that line? How does this differ from a romantic relationship between friends? Is it more casual? etc. or am i thinking too much ....

[Feyre]

1 hour ago, gaogao said:

Hmm... I always thought that QP meant that the partners involved consider their relationship to be platonic, but that it involves an emotional connection / exclusivity that may be associated with non-platonic relationships. My thought was that what was important in a QPP is that that the relationship is understood to be platonic despite any conventionally romantic components or appearances. I might be wrong though? (( This definition made sense to me... it was what I wanted for myself, though my life has had other ideas XD ))

 

On the other hand, an Alterous relationship sounds like it differs because the partners involved consider their relationship to be both platonic and romantic depending on situation? (Thank you for your explanation @Feyre ;;!!) My question though is... how does that work? How would one know whether the relationship was romantic or platonic at any particular time? Do both parties have to agree about it or does it sort of straddle that line? How does this differ from a romantic relationship between friends? Is it more casual? etc. or am i thinking too much ....

Yeah, QP is probably what you said for some of people It's like a friendship to me, but I consider having some emotional bond with my friends x) Otherwise they're just acquaintances ? :-)

 

Well, I have never been in an alterous relationship, but I think it's some mix of both, and it doesn't really matter when it is platonic and when it is romantic. In any relationship (sexual, romantic, platonic, friendship ...) the terms of what can be done or not should be known by both parties (even if they are not often stated). Like when you become friends with someone, you don't need to tell them that kissing is off the table, it comes naturally xD In an alterous relationship, sure, you need to communicate to be sure you're on the same page, that nobody does anything s.he doesn't want to. It is also the case in a romantic relationship, a QPR or a sexual relationship Communication is the key!

 

A romantic relationship between friends, as I understand it, is just a romantic relationship ... but with someone who started as being your friend, I guess x)

[gaogao]

1 hour ago, Feyre said:

I consider having some emotional bond with my friends x) Otherwise they're just acquaintances ? :-)

Well of course, all relationships of any type involve an emotional bond - whether they are friendships or familial or romantic relationships. I'm only talking about a type of exclusive and intense emotional bond that people normally associate with romantic relationships, not the type that you have with your regular friends or family, which people will always understand to be platonic...

 

1 hour ago, Feyre said:

I think it's some mix of both, and it doesn't really matter when it is platonic and when it is romantic. In any relationship (sexual, romantic, platonic, friendship ...) the terms of what can be done or not should be known by both parties (even if they are not often stated). Like when you become friends with someone, you don't need to tell them that kissing is off the table, it comes naturally xD In an alterous relationship, sure, you need to communicate to be sure you're on the same page, that nobody does anything s.he doesn't want to.

Of course, I agree that communication is key - but in that case how does an alterous relationship differ from a romantic one if it is acknowledged that romance is a component sometimes? The things people do with their partner are not always romantic things, after all... and as an asexual lesbian, my partner and I don't look very different on the outside from people who are just close best friends, though there are also people who know that we're together and therefor romantically involved. I Know my gf dislikes it when people think we're just friends, but I don't tend to care if we are perceived as just friends (unless it's motivated by homophobia)... Is this the difference?

 

😖

 

[Feyre]

2 minutes ago, gaogao said:

Of course, I agree that communication is key - but in that case how does an alterous relationship differ from a romantic one if it is acknowledged that romance is a component sometimes?

I guess it doesn't differ, it is the definition of an alterous relationship It can "alternate" between romantic and platonic.

All relationships are different in the end, and all couples experience them differently, have different "romantic" components and different "platonic" components.

[gaogao]

7 minutes ago, Feyre said:

I guess it doesn't differ, it is the definition of an alterous relationship

But then (and no offense meant by asking this question) why would someone in an alterous relationship call it "alterous" and not "romantic", if they are the same thing?

 

If one agrees that romantic relationships can have some components that are romantic and some that are platonic (and that these differ between couple to couple) there still should be something that sets "alterous" apart from "romantic", otherwise no one would feel the need for such a label...

[Feyre]

4 minutes ago, gaogao said:

But then (and no offense meant by asking this question) why would someone in an alterous relationship call it "alterous" and not "romantic", if they are the same thing?

 

If one agrees that romantic relationships can have some components that are romantic and some that are platonic (and that these differ between couple to couple) there still should be something that sets "alterous" apart from "romantic", otherwise no one would feel the need for such a label...

They would call it alterous to not mean completely romantic, nor completely platonic.

I didn't mean alterous was the same as romantic. It can have some romantic components, that's all :)

[gaogao]

2 hours ago, Feyre said:

They would call it alterous to not mean completely romantic, nor completely platonic.

Hmm. I don't really understand what a "completely romantic" relationship looks like when I've always understood that a romantic relationship already is a blend of both platonic and romantic components in general.

 

Is being in a "completely" romantic relationship taking what people perceive to be "platonic components" and calling them romantic (in the way that a QP would take commonly perceived "romantic components" and call them platonic), whereas an alterous relationship separates the two cleanly? 

[banana monkey]

On 5/29/2018 at 10:00 AM, gaogao said:

Hmm... I always thought that QP meant that the partners involved consider their relationship to be platonic, but that it involves an emotional connection / exclusivity that may be associated with non-platonic relationships. My thought was that what was important in a QPP is that that the relationship is understood to be platonic despite any conventionally romantic components or appearances. I might be wrong though? (( This definition made sense to me... it was what I wanted for myself, though my life has had other ideas XD ))

 

On the other hand, an Alterous relationship sounds like it differs because the partners involved consider their relationship to be both platonic and romantic depending on situation? (Thank you for your explanation @Feyre ;;!!) My question though is... how does that work? How would one know whether the relationship was romantic or platonic at any particular time? Do both parties have to agree about it or does it sort of straddle that line? How does this differ from a romantic relationship between friends? Is it more casual? etc. or am i thinking too much ....

I suppose it depends on how you define the queer part of queerplatonic. If you define it as different from expected or strange then that could mean having romantic components. II mean, I once thought I could be in a QP purely because our platonic relationship had romantic components ie the romantic components was what was queer about it.  suppose what I am trying to say maybe that an alterous relationship could therefore be a queerplatonic relationship. ie it is the romantic components in the platonic alterous relationship (or vice versa) that makes it queerplatonic. 

[Jacob Howard]

So to start, I’m a homosexual, and I’m Androalterous; which means that I’m alterous but exclusively with guys.

 

A lot of people seem confused as to what it means to be alterous and what it feels like. So I thought I’d help clarify it.

 

Alterous is a deep love and longing of the heart that cannot be satisfied by sex or romantic entanglement. Trying to do so can be maddening because it feels like it should satisfy that yearning in your chest, but it just doesn’t. The only way to satisfy it is with emotional closeness.

 

 

What does that mean?

 

 

It means that I want to know him on a profoundly intimate and personal level. I want to know his struggles and his pains, and I want to know his hopes and ambitions. I want to know that he doesn’t think he’s worth loving. I want to know that he’s proud of the fact that people think he’s funny. I want to know that he doesn’t like grilled mushrooms, and that he loves Hawaiian shirts. I want him to breakdown in my arms after hard days, and I want him to rush into my room to tell me all about his good ones. I want to know that something will hurt his feelings before it even happens. I want to know when his smile is genuine, and when it’s only masking his hurt.

 

 

I want to be there for him. I want to protect him from anyone who would cause him harm. I want to hold him in my arms and comfort him when he’s hurt. My heart glows every time I make him smile, and I’m excited to make secret sacrifices so that I can make his day. 

 

 

Sounds pretty extreme, but it could still fall under the category of platonic, right? Well... not quite. 

 

There’s a second side to it.

 

 

I’m physically attracted to him. I don’t say sexually attracted, because I don’t want sex with him, I just long for his touch.

 

Let me explain.

 

My body reacts to him the same way it would to someone I’d want to have sex with. I get the same chemicals and feelings and what not. However, these specific physical desires cannot be fulfilled through sex, kissing, or other such acts.

 

Now, I’m sexually attracted to men, and let me tell you that I definitely have a sex drive. However, people can either satisfy my desire for sex, or the longings of my heart. I must be physically attracted to the person for it to work either way, but no one can fill both rolls for me.  You are either one or the other; trying to make someone into both gets real messy real fast.

 

So if sex doesn’t satisfy the longing my body has for him, what does?

 

I know it sounds strange, but you can need someone’s body without it being sexual.

What really hits the spot for me is giving him long, deep hugs. Despite my significant attraction to him, there is nothing physically arousing (if you know what I mean) about it. Instead, it’s the intimacy, comfort, trust, and vulnerability of it all that fills that physical desire. To be honest, I prefer it to sex.

 

There is a massive yearning inside of me to touch him. Again, not in a sexual way, I literally just want to be touching him. For example, when our knees are touching while we sit next to each other, or when I have my arm draped around his shoulders. I like to rub his back or his knee when we sit next to each other. I like it when I can feel his pulse, or the rise and fall of his chest as he breathes.

 

I need him like I need air. It’s pure bliss to know he’s there, and to have him close to me. His presence is a soothing reminder that everything is going to be okay.

 

 

Doesn’t sound so platonic anymore does it? 

 

It can’t quite be called romantic either, as that is destinctly characterized by the presence of sexual need and fulfillment. Even Asexuals (who can still feel the sensations and enjoy The physical pleasure of sex, by the way) in romantic relationships still engage in and enjoy sex with their respective partners.

 

[I got this information straight from my multiple Asexual friends, some of whom are in romantic relationships and/or married. So don’t attack me.]

 

So any romantic partner would be deeply unsatisfied and disappointed by the relationship, but a mere friend would not be able to bare the burden of such a deeply invested, and even physical, love. Especially since the desire for reciprocation is there.

 

It’s a completely unique, but very real and intense, form of love.

 

Naturally, this a very difficult thing to express in a concise definition. I actually think whoever wrote it did a pretty good job, all things considered. Hopefully this helps clear up the confusion that everyone has about what it means to be alterous.

 

Jacob Howard

 

P.S.

 

When I think of the epitome of an alterous relationship, I think of Sherlock Holmes and John Watson. There is no canon evidence to suggest that they were having sex or making out, but anyone who’s seen them knows there’s something more to it than just a platonic friendship. No matter where Sherlock goes, John will always be his home. And John can’t live without Sherlock in his life. Whatever else happens in their lives, these two need each other and long for each other with all their hearts.

[lilyofthevalley]

2 hours ago, Jacob Howard said:

It can’t quite be called romantic either, as that is destinctly characterized by the presence of sexual need and fulfillment

Is it? 

[Jacob Howard]

13 hours ago, lilyofthevalley said:

Is it? 

You know, that is a fair point. 

 

I think it’s worth noting that attempts to define romantic and platonic feelings, as well as what makes them different, goes back all the way to Aristotle and Socrates. It is a philosophical discussion that has been around for literally thousands of years. Even psychologists can only make educated guesses, and they don’t all agree.

 

I think that’s one of the things that makes romantic orientation so difficult to pin down. We’re all trying to define something that no one has been able to define in thousands of years. One persons idea of romantic might fit into another persons idea of platonic, and vice versa.

 

From my, admittedly, subjective view, the base of any relationship is platonic love. Other forms of love come from aspects that are added in addition to that. Romantic love would add aspects of “physical intimacy” such as kissing, having sex, and other distinctly romantic things. Likewise, familial love would add aspects such as commonality (wether that be genes, household, or experiences), a sense of duty to one another, and the idea that you have been tied together whether you like it or not.

 

To me, alterous is another form of love. It’s based in platonic love like the rest of them, but it has it’s own needs and additions. It doesn’t fulfill the aspects of any commonly recognized form of love. Likewise, no commonly recognized form of love can fulfill all the needs of alterous love. They can fill some aspects, but there’s always large, important chunks missing.

 

Alterous, as the definition says, is characterized by emotional closeness. The level of physical intimacy involved may vary from person to person (as it does in romantic love as well), but it is important to note that a physical attraction is part of it. Otherwise, no one would have felt the need to put it on the romantic spectrum at all. They could have just stuck with aromantic, but there was something there. It’s not a sexual orientation, but it’s not romance either. Yet there’s still a physical attraction accompanied by a deep longing for emotional intimacy.

 

 

Now, my apologies, but I’m gonna use my own personal story to illustrate.

 

 

Before I knew what alterous was, I admit, I was skeptical of the whole romantic spectrum. Okay, so maybe I thought it was a joke. I’m not proud of it.

 

However, I was having an ever-more pressing issue where I couldn’t see myself being happy alone, but I also couldn’t see myself being happy in any kind of relationship I could think of. I’d try to explain what I wanted to my close friends, but I’d just ramble in circles. At the end of it, I’d always come down to the same things.

 

- I want it to be with someone I’m attracted to.

- I don’t actually want to have sex with them.

- I do, however, want to be very ‘touchy’ with them.

- But most of all, I really want to have extreme emotional Intimacy with them.

 

 

Yes, I actually used the words ‘emotional intimacy’ as the defining characteristic of the relationship I wanted before I’d ever even heard of alterous. Which is why one night, when I began to look through the romantic spectrum—partially as a joke and partially because I was desperate—I stumbled across the definition of alterous and was absolutely stunned. 

 

 

I just remember thinking “Crap. Wait, no, this was supposed to be a joke. I wasn’t actually supposed to find the exact definition of everything I’ve been trying to describe my whole life!”

 

I mention this because I notice a lot of skepticism over wether or not Alterous is a real orientation, or just for people who’re confused about where the line is between platonic and romantic. I assure you, it is most definitely it’s own thing. And I think if more people understood it—or knew it existed—we’d find there are more of us out there than we thought. People who are struggling because they can’t figure out how to shove their feelings into the only two options they’ve been given—platonic and romantic.

 

It’s actually quite distressing because it feels like you’re losing your mind. You don’t want a romantic relationship, but you can’t get what you want from a platonic one. So what’s wrong with you? Are you just broken? Are you just cursed so that you’ll never be able to get the love that you long for? Are you simply going to have to face a lifetime of loneliness because no one can love you the way you love them? After all, you’re feelings must broken if they aren’t either romantic or platonic.

 

I wish it was more widely known and accepted so that no one else would have to go through that traumatizing experience like I did.

[Tunes]

As an asexual romantic, I will point out that romantic attraction has nothing to do with any kind of physical intimacy. It's purely emotional. I don't enjoy sex, ever, and I would not be willing to have sex with my partner no matter how much I loved them romantically. Some asexuals CAN have sex with their partner without experiencing the attraction themselves. Some can even enjoy sex with their partners without having that attraction themselves. But how comfortable you are with sexual activity has nothing to do with romantic attraction. 

 

Physical intimacy that is sexual in nature results from sexual attraction. Physical intimacy that is not sexual in nature results from sensual attraction. You can experience either one to any degree in a romantic relationship. 

 

I agree with the view of platonic love as a base that other types of love are... I don't want to say "added to", exactly, because that could imply that they involve MORE in some important sense, and that purely platonic attraction is thus lacking. And that's not what I mean. But it's like looking through glass and then the other types are like looking through some kind of tinted glass, like stained glass. It twists the love into a different form, changing the colors - it's not that you don't see colors when looking through clear glass (you see plenty of colors), but just that the colors look different through tinted glass. And honestly, I think we meant the same thing - I don't think you were trying to imply that platonic love was lacking in any way either. I'm just looking for an analogy that feels more comfortable to me. I think we are on the same page here.

 

But anyway, the romantic lens affects your emotional attraction, not physical. And I would say that emotional closeness is a very important part of romantic attraction too. Probably the most important part. And as far as what types of stuff you want out of it, I have not found a way to distinguish that. For example, I am in a QPR with my aromantic partner. We kiss (peck on the lips, no tongue), we cuddle, we give backrubs, we sleep together, we plan to live together when we can (external circumstances are complicated). I view every one of those things as romantic gestures - I would never kiss someone on the lips unless they are a romantic interest for me (including family - parents that give their kids a peck on the lips makes me feel VERY uncomfortable!), but my partner views a peck on the lips with me the same way those parents view it with their kids - it's an intimate gesture, but not necessarily a romantic one. Kissing with tongue is something that she views as romantic and she is uncomfortable with it, but I view it as sexual, not just romantic, and am thus also uncomfortable with it, for a different reason. I tend to like my space and feel cramped and crowded with people who are close to me platonically near enough to touch me. My partner has an entire friend group that lays around in cuddle piles just because - nothing intimate about it; just comfy. Backrubs - she's the only one I'm comfortable giving them to, but it's very commonplace in her family; everyone gives backrubs to everyone and no one bats an eye. Sleeping together, living together - that's stuff siblings do, and that can also be viewed as platonic. But for me, I live with people platonically because of external circumstances that make that arrangement more convenient, whereas I feel like external circumstances prevent me from living with a romantic partner; my goals are opposite: live with someone platonically if you have to, but live with someone romantically by default. For my partner, though, she'd live in one giant house with everyone she has ever cared for all living together, if that were possible. There is no distinction for her. They are all the same actions, but the perspective of those actions is completely different. And that difference, that lens, is what I perceive as romantic attraction.

 

Our relationship is a QPR because although the reciprocated feelings are purely platonic (as she does not return my romantic attraction - which is something I accept and can do without), the social structure of the relationship looks too much like a romantic one to be labelled on the outside as "just a friendship". We are committed to each other in a way "just friends" are not. We have a much deeper emotional intimacy than "just friends" do. We are not "just friends", even if our relationship is not romantic. Thus it is a quasiplatonic relationship - an exceptionally deep friendship.

 

I understand all that. That's fine. But I don't quite grasp what an alterous attraction is. I see how it goes beyond "just friends", but that doesn't mean it can't still be entirely platonic. I see how it includes a deep emotional bond without any necessary sexual contact - but that's exactly what romantic attraction feels like too. I can't see how a person can feel an attraction that's in between platonic and romantic. I don't doubt that it exists, I just can't wrap my head around what exactly that means. And while I can easily see how a relationship can be somewhere in between a platonic and romantic relationship, isn't that what a QPR is? So how would an alterous relationship differ from a QPR? I'm just not sure where alterous attraction fits. 

 

Based on the description here and the emphasis on emotional intimacy, I would guess that alterous attraction is the emotional version of sensual attraction - it's not a type of love but a matter of how comfortable you are with a certain aspect of love. For example, some people have sexual attraction AND sensual attraction, some people only want touch when it's in a sexual context, some people don't want sexual touch at all but do crave touch of a sensual nature, and some people don't crave either one. And all of those different types of people can be either romantic or platonic - it is a completely different spectrum. That's where we get things like regular one-night-stands or prostitution - you don't want to be friends, you don't want a romantic relationship, your relationship is purely sexual. In which case, you could be alterous or non-alterous (need emotional intimacy highly or not crave emotional intimacy at all), and still be in either a platonic or romantic relationship - instead of how "touchy" you are, it's about how "dependent" you are emotionally. But then it's not in between romantic and platonic - it's on a completely different spectrum entirely. Which seems to contradict the official definition, so that can't be right. 

[SpinyNightjar]

I don't know if it answers your question, but I am definitely in love with my best friend. I adore him. We talk every day, and I love to hug him. However, I don't want sex, and I don't want an actual relationship. Relationships have too many emotions and too much drama. I want to be close with him, and I want to touch him, but that's all.

[Guest]

I don't get it....

 

What @Jacob Howard is describing is what I would call romantic attraction when I feel it. My romantic attraction most of the time doesn't come with any sexual component (only once has a sexual component happened). Romance and sex are totally not required to be together. A lot of romantic aces simply want to hug, or cuddle. But, their feelings are very intense for their romantic partner all the same. I don't see why romantic feelings would be defined by what sexual acts you want with them...

 

43 minutes ago, SpinyNightjar said:

I don't know if it answers your question, but I am definitely in love with my best friend. I adore him. We talk every day, and I love to hug him. However, I don't want sex, and I don't want an actual relationship. Relationships have too many emotions and too much drama. I want to be close with him, and I want to touch him, but that's all.

That doesn't help make it clearer cause I don't get why you can't just deeply love a friend in a platonic way ... or even in a romantic way without wanting to act on it for external reasons (like relationships are drama, would ruin the friendship)? What makes it different to someone who has a great best friendship (like say Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan) ? Or a romantic attachment to a friend they arent willing to act on for the reason the friend means a lot and relationships could risk the friendship due to drama ? 

 

Or is it just a way of saying "I am super close to this person, but no sex or kissing allowed"? 

 

[Nima]

Alterous. this is an interesting word that totally reflects what I feel towards my partner .

I might keep that word. I like it.