What does a QPP mean for you

[DannyArchery]

See above. 😁 

[NoraGrace]

What do you mean by QPP? What does it stand for?

[DannyArchery]

5 minutes ago, NoraGrace said:

What do you mean by QPP? What does it stand for?

Queer platonic partner

[Auld_Mulk]

Quebec Pension Plan

[Galactic Turtle]

If I had one they'd be a friend who agreed to be my partner though I wouldn't call them my QPP... they'd just be my partner.

[DannyArchery]

6 minutes ago, Auld_Mulk said:

Quebec Pension Plan

You googled that 😂

[Guest]

I used to have a friend I'd cuddle with. No kissing. I guess that. 
But then she had to go and get a boyfriend and ruin it. 💔

[Auld_Mulk]

45 minutes ago, DannyArchery said:

You googled that 😂

Or I could be ( wait for it)     ...Canadian, eh?

 

I have be dropping clues the size of beaver lodges today. 

[A. Sterling]

I don't really understand it yet, but people tell me that it's my idea of a romantic relationship (no kisses, etc.), exclusivity (maybe, for me there would be), living together, owning things together, raising a pet or child together maybe. You know, doing life together but, like, none of the nonsense.

[Star Bit]

19 hours ago, A. Sterling said:

I don't really understand it yet, but people tell me that it's my idea of a romantic relationship (no kisses, etc.), exclusivity (maybe, for me there would be), living together, owning things together, raising a pet or child together maybe. You know, doing life together but, like, none of the nonsense.

A QPR wouldn't be romantic unless it has romantic attraction, and thus not a QPR anymore. A low-key romantic relationship is different from a QPR because it involves romantic attraction. Most people do know QPRs under a different title; bromance (and its female and opposing gender equivalents). As for understanding QPRs, I have a thread on them in media (link) which defines it and gives examples.

[Lichley]

Quadratic Polynomial Permutations huh? I’m not sure I know much about those, it’s quite a complex mathematical subject 🤔

[BeakLove]

4 hours ago, A. Sterling said:

I don't really understand it yet, but people tell me that it's my idea of a romantic relationship (no kisses, etc.), exclusivity (maybe, for me there would be), living together, owning things together, raising a pet or child together maybe. You know, doing life together but, like, none of the nonsense.

 

3 hours ago, Star Bit said:

A QPR wouldn't be romantic unless it has romantic attraction, and thus not a QPR anymore. A low-key romantic relationship is different because it involves romantic attraction. Most people do know QPRs under a different title; bromance (and its female and opposing gender equivalents). As for understanding QPRs, I have a thread on them in media (link) which defines it and gives examples.

I looked at your definition. I get that it's trying to encapsulate the notion of something "beyond friendship", but the proposed definition is you linked to is actually much broader than simply a bromance or BFF kind of thing. Your QPP definition actually permits a relationship that sounds very much like the one @A. Sterling describes as their ideal romantic one:

 

Quote

 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.

Most people would suggest that If you are monogamous with one another, live together, sleep in the same room, and have kids, you are no different to being a couple. Of course all relationships are different, but surely at some point one's own personal concept of their relationship has to interface with the generally accepted social one. They cannot be, to my mind, so extremely divergent otherwise it's not useful. 

 

So it begs the question: what is the factor that stops something like the above from simply being a couple relationship? You suggest a lack of romantic attraction is how we delineate.  I'm struggling to see the scenario where you would happily have monogamy, live together, sleep in the same room, have kids together, and act in a way that easily mistaken for a couple with someone you're not, for lack of better word, "into" - attracted to in at least some way. If you accept that asexual relationships can exist - that you can have potent love in a relationship context without the sexual element - and that they can either be as gooey or as low key as you like, why is it not simply that? 

 

Perhaps you can be "into" someone platonically versus "into" someone romantically but still have that same deep, rich emotional connection. Well at this point, essentially we are left with two relationships: a close romantic one and a close platonic one that look exactly the same: equivalent feelings and the same relationship mechanics. The problem rests, in my opinion, on the fact that platonic is defined here as the antonym to "romantic", but in common parlance it just means non-sexual. Once you decouple sex and romance, what exactly does platonic mean? Well, non-romantic of course! What does romantic mean? Well it's the spark or that feeling - that romantic attraction that takes it "beyond friendship". But this takes us back to the beginning! Queer-platonic is defined the same way:
 

Quote

a platonic relationship that has (or is desired to have) an importance/closeness stronger than the best friend norm and/or displaying platonic physical contact above the norm (so no sex or making out, but chaste kissing can be platonic depending on how it’s done).

To answer the OP, "what does a qpp mean for me"... well, I often see people use it to try and describe relationships that don't neatly fit. I personally think that you can experience "romantic feelings" - idealised feelings, fantasy, deep attachment, love, whatever you wish to call it - for close friends as well as partners, with or without an associated sexual element (though let's be honest: much of the time it isn't very far from sex). I can see why someone may wish to have a moniker for that. But ultimately being in a romantic relationship: being a partner, has a social meaning and a legal meaning, as well as the various personal meanings and boundaries we associate with it. If you are not in a relationship with each other, you are just friends. 

[iff]

Moved from Welcome Lounge to Asexual Relationships.

 

iff,

moderator

[Star Bit]

On 5/18/2019 at 6:42 AM, BeakLove said:

Your QPP definition actually permits a relationship that sounds very much like the one @A. Sterling describes as their ideal romantic one:

Except I repeatedly use platonic in the definition which excludes romantic attraction. Yah, you can have a low-key romantic relationship that's virtually a QPR but factually isn't because it involves romantic attraction.

 

As for it actually being a romantic relationship void of romantic attraction, that's only possible if non-platonic actions take place; then it's not platonic i.e. a QPR. To which I get people replying with "if there's no romantic attraction there's no romantic relationship." To which I go "if there's no sexual attraction/sexual desire is it now not sex?" But we do actually have a problem with ppl misusing QPR and aromantic when they want these kind of relationships that include non-platonic actions and insist it's void of romantic attraction (RA), which just makes me ask if they know RA isn't Romeo and Juliet. If you look up queerplatonic on YouTube it's actually that. 😬 The same problem actually goes for asexual; where the line is. For example, some are going "I only want phone sex so I'm asexual because I don't wanna physically do it with anyone."

 

If there are platonic actions it's a platonic relationship. No matter how close BFFs are or how much people think they're a couple, they're still not no matter what people think. There's actually a show where a couple breaks up but still resides in the same house and raises their kids. The only difference is that they don't sleep together anymore. They're now platonic no matter how normal/married they may look on the outside.

[BeakLove]

5 hours ago, Star Bit said:

Except I repeatedly use platonic in the definition which excludes romantic attraction. Yah, you can have a low-key romantic relationship that's virtually a QPR but factually isn't because it involves romantic attraction.

If I am presented with two low key relationships, both non-sexual, and each involving the same set of actions: living together, raising kids together, and tackling life together, and expressing love for one another, how am I meant to tell which one is romantic and which isn't. For that matter, how are they meant to tell? How is romantic attraction identified?

 

Or to put it another way: what is the demarcater of a QPR? You've defined what it isn't: a relationship that comprehends sex or romance. But what is the essential quality of a QPR that distinguishes it? If it's merely being close friends, then surely remarking that people are great friends is sufficient. I think "bromance" and "BFF" cover the superlative territory for friendship sufficiently already.

[firewallflower]

Qualified Personal Penguin*, of course! 🐧

 

... but anyway. Fair warning: My mental state is all over the place right now, so I'm probably not going to be at my best when it comes to wording/communication of my thoughts.

 

As someone whose ideal relationship at this point (albeit, unfortunately, not something I'm overly optimistic about ever happening) looks very much like what would probably be considered a QPR (although I'm not particularly attached to the label specifically), to me, a QPR is simply a platonic partnership. A sort of "best friend forever"/permanent roommate combination. A life partner, same as any other sexual/romantic life partner... except that we don't happen to have sexual or romantic feelings for one another. Nothing sexual—non-sexual physical contact limited to the sort one might have with, say, a close sibling or other close friend—but emotional intimacy, mutual trust and caring and support and platonic love. Exclusivity and commitment. The sharing of a life. All that good old jazz, minus sex and romance.

 

From an outside perspective, I doubt it would be noticeably different from a more typical romantic relationship beyond the fact that we'd be remarkably chaste in public. (And in private, but how is anyone else supposed to know that? ) I'm not too hung up about the terminology when it comes to public usage—but the key difference, understood within the relationship, would be the absence of sex and "romance" (whatever the latter is). Best friends who chose to partner up without being romantically attracted to one another. (What is romantic attraction? I'm not quite sure, which is likely a sign that I've never experienced it, which is in turn perhaps a sign that I am incapable of experiencing it, but many of those who experience romantic attraction report that it's very recognizable, clearly distinct from strong platonic friendship—so I'll take their word for it. 😊)

 

*Sandra Boynton? Sandra Boynton? Anyone?... never mind 😂

[AspieAlly613]

1 hour ago, firewallflower said:

*Sandra Boynton? Sandra Boynton? Anyone?... never mind 😂

Did Sandra Boynton write about a qualified personal penguin?  It sounds like the sort of thing she'd write about, but I've never read that one.

 

1 hour ago, firewallflower said:

The sharing of a life. All that good old jazz, minus sex and romance.

This is where my definition of romance differs from yours.  I distinguish romance from platonic friendship by whether or not your lives are shared.  As for QPP,that's where some significant aspects of personal life are shared and others aren't.

[Star Bit]

@BeakLove You're not supposed to be able to tell the difference. No one's (probably) gonna yell at you for mistaking BFFs for a couple (e.g. Turk and JD from Scrubs). I think alot of people do that, especially when they're the opposite sex. Or a divorced couple as married when they act positively publicly and still attend the same school events and whatnot for their kids. It just takes a simple correction/question. As for Bromance and its other terms, yes, that can suffice. I'm pretty sure queerplatonic was coined before Bromance became a popular term. But BFFs won't suffice because QPRs go past the BFF norm.

[BeakLove]

1 hour ago, Star Bit said:

@BeakLove You're not supposed to be able to tell the difference. No one's (probably) gonna yell at you for mistaking BFFs for a couple (e.g. Turk and JD from Scrubs). I think alot of people do that, especially when they're the opposite sex. Or a divorced couple as married when they act positively publicly and still attend the same school events and whatnot for their kids. It just takes a simple correction/question. As for Bromance and its other terms, yes, that can suffice. I'm pretty sure queerplatonic was coined before Bromance became a popular term. But BFFs won't suffice because QPRs go past the BFF norm.

Y'know, all of the examples of QPR you've given are either cartoon characters or people who've divorced. Like, would anyone in their right mind actually consider amiable divorcees to be a stronger relationship than best friends? And were you to inquire and ask with a simple question, as you put it, they might respond, "oh we couldn't make it work as a couple, but we've made it work as more-than-friends (a QPR)" which I think would confuse basically anyone. It reduces friendship - even best friendship - even best friend forever friendship [!!] - to being nothing. Divorcees with life entanglements did not choose to have a house together, kids, etc. as friends or a "QPR", they did so as partners. Accidentally ending up with those things with someone with whom you're friendly, but couldn't make the relationship work with, is not the same thing as positively entering into that relationship state and doing so. It's an accident of history, and making the best of a bad situation.

 

Quote

 

You're not supposed to be able to tell the difference. 

 

What's the point in the word then? It's defining a category for which there are no distinct membership evaluation criteria: it's useless!!!

 

Also: no one would mistake JD and Turk for being a couple, unless they were looking to do so. 

[Star Bit]

1 hour ago, BeakLove said:

What's the point in the word then? It's defining a category for which there are no distinct membership evaluation criteria: it's useless!!!

The same can be said of simply defining BFF. There is no one marker, just a vague encompassment. (just to clarify, I was saying you're not supposed to tell the difference at face value, but there is still a difference/line)

[BeakLove]

12 hours ago, Star Bit said:

The same can be said of simply defining BFF. There is no one marker, just a vague encompassment. (just to clarify, I was saying you're not supposed to tell the difference at face value, but there is still a difference/line)

But "BFF" is just a qualifier for a friendship, whereas QPP is spoken of as a separate relationship category. But no one really seems able to actually define it. How is it a useful concept if no one can explain what it means.

[secrethamster]

I agree with @Star Bit that the term is vague and this has it's benefits. Romance and platonic feelings are different, but no two people or relationships are the same. Maybe we can generally group some into being "more platonic" or "more romantic" in nature, but feelings are not strictly definable for the population as a whole. Only an individual can decide if the attraction they feel is more platonic or romantic. Actions can also be interpreted as one or the other based on culture and a million other factors.

 

In general, a QPP is a platonic partnership where the individuals involved feel closer to each other than with their other friends, but these feelings are not romantic in nature. As long as they understand each other, does it really matter if their relationship doesn't fit a perfect, one-size-fits-all definition for a QPP?

[Homer]

On 5/21/2019 at 10:20 PM, BeakLove said:

But no one really seems able to actually define it.

As I understand it, a QPP involves a level of commitment a friendship (even a "best friendship") does not have. I'd be cool with my best friend having other people they'd be very close to no problem, but I can see a QPP working differently.

 

(Still, the terms "more than friends" and "beyond friendship" piss me off to no end.)

[firewallflower]

On 5/19/2019 at 10:10 PM, AspieAlly613 said:

Did Sandra Boynton write about a qualified personal penguin?  It sounds like the sort of thing she'd write about, but I've never read that one.

I added the "Qualified" so the Q would stand for something (and after all, who would want an ununqualified personal penguin? 😛) but she did indeed write a book entitled Personal Penguin. Quality literature right there; can't beat Boynton board books! There's a version set to music too.

[AspieAlly613]

So, would a QPR be a qualified personal rhinoceros?

[BeakLove]

On 5/22/2019 at 1:52 AM, secrethamster said:

I agree with @Star Bit that the term is vague and this has it's benefits. Romance and platonic feelings are different, but no two people or relationships are the same. Maybe we can generally group some into being "more platonic" or "more romantic" in nature, but feelings are not strictly definable for the population as a whole. Only an individual can decide if the attraction they feel is more platonic or romantic. Actions can also be interpreted as one or the other based on culture and a million other factors.

  

In general, a QPP is a platonic partnership where the individuals involved feel closer to each other than with their other friends, but these feelings are not romantic in nature. As long as they understand each other, does it really matter if their relationship doesn't fit a perfect, one-size-fits-all definition for a QPP?

What's a "platonic partnership"????? How do you tell that apart from a romantic partnership?

 

On 5/22/2019 at 10:54 PM, Homer said:

As I understand it, a QPP involves a level of commitment a friendship (even a "best friendship") does not have. I'd be cool with my best friend having other people they'd be very close to no problem, but I can see a QPP working differently.

 

(Still, the terms "more than friends" and "beyond friendship" piss me off to no end.)

But this definition is just a negation... it's more commitment and more exclusivity than even the best of friendships. Well, presuming that a best friend is still a meaningful relationship under this model, where is there to escalate, that doesn't effectively turn it into a relationship? Exclusivity is basically the defining feature of relationships in general. 

 

Most anyone can tell apart a friend from a romantic partner. Sure, there'll make mistakes now and then, and there are edge cases (such as this site), but there are generally obvious indicators of the type of relationship. What qualities or characteristics does a QPP uniquely have that distinguish it from (a) friendship, (b) romance. What does it cover that those don't? Or, alternatively:

 

What is it that stops a better-than-best friendship, referred to as a "partnership" by @secrethamster , with exclusivity boundaries and commitment, from simply being a relationship? 

 

[Homer]

1 hour ago, BeakLove said:

Exclusivity is basically the defining feature of relationships in general. 

No, it's not. A friendship is one of many forms of a relationship. The fact that have a friendship  with person A does not mean that I can't also be similarly close to B, C and D. That does not apply to most romantic relationships, as monogamy is still a thing.

[secrethamster]

On 5/25/2019 at 2:58 AM, BeakLove said:

What's a "platonic partnership"????? How do you tell that apart from a romantic partnership?

...

What is it that stops a better-than-best friendship, referred to as a "partnership" by @secrethamster , with exclusivity boundaries and commitment, from simply being a relationship? 

 

Feelings.

 

The diverse nature of relationships makes them impossible to strictly define in a way that would apply to all of them. If you don't like the term, don't use it. But some people will and they will use it to describe relationships that others would classify differently, and that's ok.

[firewallflower]

On 5/23/2019 at 8:47 PM, AspieAlly613 said:

So, would a QPR be a qualified personal rhinoceros?

Now there's a deep, philosophical question.

[AspieAlly613]

Drat, did I send a thread in my own forum off-topic?  Let's revert back to statements that address the question at hand.