Relationship of your dreams vers. ace (QPR)

[naakka]

6 hours ago, kiaroskuro said:

Huh? Two people who commit their lives to each other when there's no mutual love ... that makes no sense to me.

 

I understood LionStar meant no romantic/sexual love ("the Valentine's day type" of lovers' love). Obviously there's some kind of attachment or platonic love, if you want to spend a lot of time with the person 

[kiaroskuro]

14 hours ago, naakka said:

I understood LionStar meant no romantic/sexual love ("the Valentine's day type" of lovers' love). Obviously there's some kind of attachment or platonic love, if you want to spend a lot of time with the person 

Yeees, sure. I know. It's just that ... I personally don't see platonic love as less (valid, or valuable) than romantic love. Besides, the line between those types of love often gets blurred, anyway. Especially for chronically confused people like me.

[naakka]

22 hours ago, kiaroskuro said:

Yeees, sure. I know. It's just that ... I personally don't see platonic love as less (valid, or valuable) than romantic love. Besides, the line between those types of love often gets blurred, anyway. Especially for chronically confused people like me.

Again, I don't think anyone said platonic love is less valuable (if a relationship can even be based on it)? But when we talk about love (the word "love" alone), the most common association is romantic/sexual love? Or maybe I can't really tell, as English isn't my native? Anyhow, as an aroace person, the difference between platonic and romantic love is quite clear for me - even if I confused my platonic attraction for romantic one semanticly speaking before I learnt it's possible to experience one without another. But after that there was nothing unclear to me. The same as allosexual people think that romantic and sexual attraction can't be distinguished while the difference is clear for the ace people. I think the difference only becomes clear to those, who lack the experience of one type of attraction but not another. For me, romantic love is you wanting to get physically close, do lovey-dovey cuddling stuff, wanting to flirt, etc. while platonic love is strong mental attachment without desire to get physically close or do other romantically motivated things. For someone who experiences both, the difference might won't be that clear. I think 

[SkoomaPipe]

This is actually really hard...
Someone who I can come home to, listen to their problems, share my own if I have any, snuggle with if one of us needs to. 
Someone to share a bed with, not sexually, just sleeping next to someone is only part of either of the brief relationships I've been in that I actually enjoyed (only time I've been able to cuddle with someone without provoking strange behavior....feel kinda creepy now...)
Someone who can motivate me out of my comfort zones, get me out of my house 
If were talking ideal dream situation here, this is a person I can sit with in the forest next to the river for hours on end not doing anything (this is my quiet place, it sounds really nice to find one person I can let in without it ruining the peacefulness of it all)
Mostly i just want a best friend with cuddle benefits...that sounds far more plausible than I thought it would...

[Andrea KF]

On 8/4/2019 at 9:27 PM, naakka said:

1. In what type of place you'd meet your QPP (queer platonic partner)?

2. What would make you realize it's more than friendship? What makes them attractive to you?

3. What would make you want to have QPR with them? Why isn't friendship enough?

4. Would your QPP be allo/ace/aro or does that matter?

5. What would you love to do together every day/occassionally/on special occassions?

6. How you'd deal with difficulties inside/outside the relationship?

7. What would be one cool future goal you'd like to have with them?

 

Great topic for a friday night! 😀

 

 

It's not very important how I'd meet my qpp, but likely shes's a co-worker. Not necessary in the same team, just someone further down the corridor who I may meet at coffe-breaks.

I probably need to get to know her better during a year or so. Shes' been working at the office for longer than me and helps me around the place. She invites me to After-Work and other events outside of the office environment. She's fun, foul-mouthed and share some of my interests.

 

We help each other when needed. We're travel-buddies (but I need my own hotel room) and occaisonally go on not-so-romantic-dinners together.

We don't live together but at a walking distance. Maybe once a week, we're at home of any of us and cuddle, after any of the mentioned events. Listening to atmospheric music. (No romantic bullsh*t, but instrumental Space Music.) The cuddles doesn't lead to anything else. Alternatively we play board- or videogames or just hang out, like any friend.

If boardgames, we'll invite more friends. The more the merrier.

When it gets late I/she leaves for my/her place.

 

About question six. Why must I deal with difficulties when I'm daydreaming?

 

Let's continue imaginening: I've transitioned and also am a female. Then maybe it would be OK with us being gray-sexual.

 

Also, there should be a Cat somewhere in this scenario.

 

 

I just realised I had kind of a qpp years ago but we haven't stayed in touch since I moved to another town. 😓

[Galactic Turtle]

On 8/4/2019 at 3:27 PM, naakka said:

1. In what type of place you'd meet your QPP (queer platonic partner)?

2. What would make you realize it's more than friendship? What makes them attractive to you?

3. What would make you want to have QPR with them? Why isn't friendship enough?

4. Would your QPP be allo/ace/aro or does that matter?

5. What would you love to do together every day/occassionally/on special occassions?

6. How you'd deal with difficulties inside/outside the relationship?

7. What would be one cool future goal you'd like to have with them?

1. Working on the same gig, probably.

2. My QPP wouldn't be "more than" a friend. We'd just be good friends who want the same thing.

3. Friendship is enough, but if what we have in mind for the future matches up it would be interesting to just kinda say "hey, let's be a team."

4. I think they'd have to be asexual and aromantic. If they weren't, I'd just be holding them back from their ideal situation.

5. Just living life.

6. Same way I deal with difficulties in any of my relationships: talk.

7. Doing a run of stadium shows together.

[Janus the Fox]

No personal relationship goals or dreams.  I was approached for a relationship and things developed from there.  The BF has big dreams, despite being unrealistic regarding circumstances.  He’s not able to understand the full implications.  Goes with the territory with a person with signifiant cognitive, language and learning difference. 

[0000000000]

On 8/4/2019 at 4:57 PM, naakka said:

There's some questions for the start, no need to use tho

1. In what type of place you'd meet your QPP (queer platonic partner)?

2. What would make you realize it's more than friendship? What makes them attractive to you?

3. What would make you want to have QPR with them? Why isn't friendship enough?

4. Would your QPP be allo/ace/aro or does that matter?

5. What would you love to do together every day/occassionally/on special occassions?

6. How you'd deal with difficulties inside/outside the relationship?

7. What would be one cool future goal you'd like to have with them?

[naakka]

On 11/29/2019 at 9:31 PM, Andrea KF said:

About question six. Why must I deal with difficulties when I'm daydreaming?

You don't have to 😊 this question was important for me personally, to be able to come up with a living relationship of any kind. I guess I'm the type of person who likes to think about realities even at their dreams lol 😀

[naakka]

On 11/29/2019 at 9:37 PM, Galactic Turtle said:

2. My QPP wouldn't be "more than" a friend. We'd just be good friends who want the same thing.

This is an interesting viewpoint! I've always had a feeling of wanting to have that "special" someone, even if I wish no sexual nor romantic stuff would be included in the relationship. My motivation would be to still have some sort of special feel to it, compared to relationships even with my friends. But lately I've been wondering, if that's just because of I have some sort of romanticized picture of satisfying relationship in my mind, thanks to allonormative society? Or if just haven't had strong enough connection on any of my friend relationships yet to feel completely content? If I just don't trust people enough to feel comfortable etc.? 😶

 

On 11/29/2019 at 9:37 PM, Galactic Turtle said:

4. I think they'd have to be asexual and aromantic. If they weren't, I'd just be holding them back from their ideal situation.

I think the same. For a long time (even before I knew I was aroace) I felt like it would be selfish for me to date anyone. I'd ask for their companion, while they wouldn't get what they needed in return. Realizing my orientation has been a huge relief, since I no longer feel guilty, I just need to make sure that our needs align. It still feels often even impossible to find anyone to even try dating, but that's still a better feeling than unexplainable guiltiness.

 

Btw, is there a word for "aroace dating"? I feel like dating leads too much to sexual/romantic associations, but I don't know what other verb to use...

[Galactic Turtle]

1 hour ago, naakka said:

This is an interesting viewpoint! I've always had a feeling of wanting to have that "special" someone, even if I wish no sexual nor romantic stuff would be included in the relationship. My motivation would be to still have some sort of special feel to it, compared to relationships even with my friends. But lately I've been wondering, if that's just because of I have some sort of romanticized picture of satisfying relationship in my mind, thanks to allonormative society? Or if just haven't had strong enough connection on any of my friend relationships yet to feel completely content? If I just don't trust people enough to feel comfortable etc.? 😶

I've read before about the concepts of partner-based intimacy vs. community-based intimacy. Over one's life I think most people experience both and given the popularity of QPRs in the aromantic community it makes sense that many aromantic people still desire partner-based intimacy as well perhaps in preference to any other alternatives. Personally I fall very heavily if not exclusively on the community-based intimacy side of the fence so having a "special" someone doesn't feel natural or necessary to me.

 

That's why it's more like... if someone in my group of friends who I value happens to be like me, as everyone else in our friend group pairs off and if it makes sense for our situation, voicing some sort of established companionship or understanding is something I'd be open to. But it's not really something I'm seeking after. I figure it is something that would need to happen organically. There are some friends I have who I know I'd never want this with but there have been two people in my life who I feel like I click with more. Friendships, after all, can be as diverse as any other sort of relationship. Each of my friends have different needs, different priorities, and different expectations. It's kind of like for the typical person just because they're friends with someone doesn't mean they'd make good roommates, you know?

 

Still, I have a history of good relationships with friends. I've never had a "friend breakup" or anything. I don't come to consider someone a friend thinking about an inevitable day where we no longer speak to each other. A lot of times when people think of partnership, they bring up that partnership guarantees some sort of longevity or lifetime commitment. For me, that in some ways is friendship. I accept that life is crazy and for some chapters of it I might talk to some people more or less, but I value the time I spend with those I get on well with... not out of some professed obligation or heartfelt dedication, but because I don't view friendship as something disposable or contentious. Friendship is natural from how it forms to how it can fade with time and distance. I haven't spoken to some of my high school peers for years but if I ran into them in the grocery store we'd catch up with each other amicably before continuing on our way.

 

1 hour ago, naakka said:

I think the same. For a long time (even before I knew I was aroace) I felt like it would be selfish for me to date anyone. I'd ask for their companion, while they wouldn't get what they needed in return. Realizing my orientation has been a huge relief, since I no longer feel guilty, I just need to make sure that our needs align. It still feels often even impossible to find anyone to even try dating, but that's still a better feeling than unexplainable guiltiness.

 

Btw, is there a word for "aroace dating"? I feel like dating leads too much to sexual/romantic associations, but I don't know what other verb to use...

Aligning needs is important for compatibility, particularly when speaking about partnership and I think a lot of people forget that or simply incorrectly assume that everyone's needs and expectations are the same as theirs. You can see this even in friendship.

 

There's a term for everything these days. I guarantee you it's floating around on Tumblr somewhere. XD

[naakka]

On 12/1/2019 at 4:34 PM, Galactic Turtle said:

I've read before about the concepts of partner-based intimacy vs. community-based intimacy. Over one's life I think most people experience both and given the popularity of QPRs in the aromantic community it makes sense that many aromantic people still desire partner-based intimacy as well perhaps in preference to any other alternatives. Personally I fall very heavily if not exclusively on the community-based intimacy side of the fence so having a "special" someone doesn't feel natural or necessary to me.

In that case, I think I fall more to the partner-based intimacy? Even with friends, I'm not very extroverted, and I rather enjoy time with a smaller than a bigger group of people.

On 12/1/2019 at 4:34 PM, Galactic Turtle said:

But it's not really something I'm seeking after. I figure it is something that would need to happen organically. There are some friends I have who I know I'd never want this with but there have been two people in my life who I feel like I click with more. Friendships, after all, can be as diverse as any other sort of relationship. Each of my friends have different needs, different priorities, and different expectations. It's kind of like for the typical person just because they're friends with someone doesn't mean they'd make good roommates, you know?

Yea, I feel that way too. I'm not huge fan of dating apps, or letting people around me to know I'm looking for someone in the first place. Rather I'd feel comfortable with a relationship where we just naturally grew close to each other. And yea, friendship is quite a broad term. In Finnish we actually have two words for friend, less close friend, acquintance is called "kaveri" and a closer, more personal friend is called "ystävä". It can also be a cultural thing who one calls a friend.

On 12/1/2019 at 4:34 PM, Galactic Turtle said:

Still, I have a history of good relationships with friends. I've never had a "friend breakup" or anything. I don't come to consider someone a friend thinking about an inevitable day where we no longer speak to each other. A lot of times when people think of partnership, they bring up that partnership guarantees some sort of longevity or lifetime commitment. For me, that in some ways is friendship. I accept that life is crazy and for some chapters of it I might talk to some people more or less, but I value the time I spend with those I get on well with... not out of some professed obligation or heartfelt dedication, but because I don't view friendship as something disposable or contentious. Friendship is natural from how it forms to how it can fade with time and distance. I haven't spoken to some of my high school peers for years but if I ran into them in the grocery store we'd catch up with each other amicably before continuing on our way.

You have very good points. I'm not ready to call someone a friend if I don't have a feeling we would call each others friends after years of not seeing each others. Friendship (as any relationship) can't be forced.

 

I started to wonder if I wanted a partnership for "quaranteed relationship". Well, I've always cringed to "caught into marriage" type of jokes and mindset, I think I couldn't enjoy someone's company if they didn't enjoy mine. Rather I feel like I wanted to have QPR for practical reasons, to share the practical and most intimate social aspects of my life with someone in the current moment. But I wouldn't want to commit to a relationship if the other person wouldn't want to do that as well. Do you get what I mean? I'd want to commit, but not to "own" someone, but to feel it's a think we agree and share. Respectively, if the things would change and one of us didn't feel like committing anymore, I'd rather go separate ways (while remaining good friends) than to keep it going. So maybe I'm looking more for current practical commitment than a promise of "certain" future.

On 12/1/2019 at 4:34 PM, Galactic Turtle said:

Aligning needs is important for compatibility, particularly when speaking about partnership and I think a lot of people forget that or simply incorrectly assume that everyone's needs and expectations are the same as theirs. You can see this even in friendship.

 

There's a term for everything these days. I guarantee you it's floating around on Tumblr somewhere. XD

Absolutely. I think everyone of us thinks that way until we grow and learn to see ourselves and others as individual human beings. I have to admit, I still sometimes struggle to believe what the needs of allopeople can be 😅 In any case, you just need to be good at communication to learn how different/similar you are with another person. And I think even if two people had the exactly same romantic and sexual orientations, there's still going to be differences in the desired and undesired things.

 

Probably lol. Or maybe aroaces should use the word "dating" more to broaden the meaning 😆

[Galactic Turtle]

1 hour ago, naakka said:

I started to wonder if I wanted a partnership for "quaranteed relationship". Well, I've always cringed to "caught into marriage" type of jokes and mindset, I think I couldn't enjoy someone's company if they didn't enjoy mine. Rather I feel like I wanted to have QPR for practical reasons, to share the practical and most intimate social aspects of my life with someone in the current moment. But I wouldn't want to commit to a relationship if the other person wouldn't want to do that as well. Do you get what I mean? I'd want to commit, but not to "own" someone, but to feel it's a think we agree and share. Respectively, if the things would change and one of us didn't feel like committing anymore, I'd rather go separate ways (while remaining good friends) than to keep it going. So maybe I'm looking more for current practical commitment than a promise of "certain" future.

I think that is a common sentiment amongst those who want a QPR. And as I said before while I'm not opposed to that sort of arrangement, for me it just seems more natural given the rhythm of my life that the person I talk to the most about stuff changes. In school I had folks I'd talk to daily but only one friend who shared all my interests. Naturally I'd talk to her more because of it. There days I have a good friend who is on the same career path as me so we confide in each other about things related to that, I have a friend who likes the same K-pop group as me so we talk about that, I have a friend who has related but not similar interests as me and works in a similar but not the same industry as me. There's the most overlap there so right now I just happen to talk to/confide in her the most along with my parents. Now that I'm older I have a feeling the landscape of people I talk to won't change all that much, but I'm certain I'll grow close to others over the next several (hopefully) decades of my life. Naturally, the person I feel closest too my level out over all that time, but there's no guarantee they'll be aro ace or even unmarried. 

[naakka]

7 hours ago, Galactic Turtle said:

I think that is a common sentiment amongst those who want a QPR. And as I said before while I'm not opposed to that sort of arrangement, for me it just seems more natural given the rhythm of my life that the person I talk to the most about stuff changes. In school I had folks I'd talk to daily but only one friend who shared all my interests. Naturally I'd talk to her more because of it. There days I have a good friend who is on the same career path as me so we confide in each other about things related to that, I have a friend who likes the same K-pop group as me so we talk about that, I have a friend who has related but not similar interests as me and works in a similar but not the same industry as me.

Yea, I thknk it's pretty rare to find someone who shares exactly the same interests and needs in life. Anyhow, I don't necessarily think that needs to be the case even at QPR? You don't need to share exactly the same interests, you don't need to spend all the time together, you don't even need to have all the same friends if that doesn't happen to be the case. Personal space ond personal interests can even be important for keeping the relationship "breathing". I'd just like to share the practical everyday stuff, planning and preparing with someone, and have someone around I could casually talk and ponder with anytime 🙂

[naakka]

@Galactic Turtle I just watched a video on youtube, and I think it sums up a lot of what we've been talking about. That there's different levels of friendships, and for someone the status of friend might be more a "kaveri", a disposable relationship, while for others it might more be "ystävä" more committed and socially more intimate relationship. I think that video also sums up some of my struggle and why I'm probably wanting to have a QPR: as a lot of people indeed perceive friendships quite superficial, I feel like friendship on the level that most people are ready to commit to, is too light to me. And if I tried to fit to the status of friend that most people expect you be, I'd feel too clingy. I mean, under the status of QPR, it would be clear to both partners that being socially more intimate could be expected.

 

Edit. I now finished watching the video and she actually mentioned being on QPR before 😅 she said she's no more interested in QPR since she doesn't like the idea that intimate platonic relationships aren't expected in the society on the terms of friendship and QPR is there to fix that (that's what I understood she meant). But I like to live among the realities; if QPR is the term you need to explain people (and yourself) what you need, it's fine by me. I don't have enough revolutionary spirit to try and boardem people's associations on term "friend".

[Galactic Turtle]

7 hours ago, naakka said:

Edit. I now finished watching the video and she actually mentioned being on QPR before 😅 she said she's no more interested in QPR since she doesn't like the idea that intimate platonic relationships aren't expected in the society on the terms of friendship and QPR is there to fix that (that's what I understood she meant). But I like to live among the realities; if QPR is the term you need to explain people (and yourself) what you need, it's fine by me. I don't have enough revolutionary spirit to try and boardem people's associations on term "friend".

Haven't watched the video yet but those sort of reflect my thoughts on the matter too. I dislike how "romantic-coded" lots of vocabulary in the aro community is. On the other hand I know some humans tend to be more super clingy with friendship and when they talk of something like a QPR it makes sense that it is romantic-coded. For my purposes though it has no function. If you go back to Plato and even more so Aristotle, you can see how wide ideas of friendship could be. Of course since then the institution of marriage and romance in a cultural sense have taken over and people forget/don't think strong friendships are possible because they really are that rare.

[naakka]

2 hours ago, Galactic Turtle said:

Haven't watched the video yet but those sort of reflect my thoughts on the matter too. I dislike how "romantic-coded" lots of vocabulary in the aro community is. On the other hand I know some humans tend to be more super clingy with friendship and when they talk of something like a QPR it makes sense that it is romantic-coded. For my purposes though it has no function. If you go back to Plato and even more so Aristotle, you can see how wide ideas of friendship could be. Of course since then the institution of marriage and romance in a cultural sense have taken over and people forget/don't think strong friendships are possible because they really are that rare.

What you mean by romantic-coded? I feel like I didn't understand 😁

[Galactic Turtle]

1 hour ago, naakka said:

What you mean by romantic-coded? I feel like I didn't understand 😁

Stuff like squish, qpp, etc. all seem to have a 1:1 romantic equivalent which is tiresome when you're someone like me who is simply interested in strong friendships rather than exclusive partnerships. From my point of view having to assign these words to things further delegitimizes the value of friendship. Like "oh no, this person is of great value to me, there's no way they could just be my friend!" Of course I understand that most people who use these words do want some sort of exclusive relationship situation heavily reflective of what typical dating looks like at least from the outside. However because it is so prevalent in the aromantic community of all places, it can be frustrating at times. Kind of like in ace spaces you get people talking about how important sex is for emotional connection. Similar to your OP I believe it said something along the lines of "what makes this more than friendship" which is again bringing in the amatonormative relationship hierarchy of sorts. But yeah, aromanticism doesn't mean "lack of desire for partnership." It's just jarring to always walk into aro spaces and see those pining for partnership as the most talked about thing. XD 

[frostboot]

Ooh! Ever since I was a teenager, and realized that relationships can be whatever the hell you want them to be, I've wanted to get platonically married! Just find some nerdy ace and move into an inner-city apartment with separate bedrooms. I'm getting tired of my friendship coming second to my friend's romantic partners, or friends expecting "more than friendship", as if I'm not already giving my all. So to just be able to go this is my person and we'll die together sounds like a dream to be honest. On our wedding night we could invite our friends over for some DnD! 

[naakka]

14 hours ago, Galactic Turtle said:

16 hours ago, naakka said:

What you mean by romantic-coded? I feel like I didn't understand 😁

Stuff like squish, qpp, etc. all seem to have a 1:1 romantic equivalent which is tiresome when you're someone like me who is simply interested in strong friendships rather than exclusive partnerships. From my point of view having to assign these words to things further delegitimizes the value of friendship. Like "oh no, this person is of great value to me, there's no way they could just be my friend!"

But does terms such as "squish, QPR" have to be exclusive to friendship? QPR could also be your best friend? Squish would describe you being excited to find a sister soul? Just easier way to explain these things? I think no-one has the same level of affection to every friend they have, so why wouldn't it be okay to come up with specific words for specific type of friendsips? Wouldn't that be what helps people to better perceive friendships and recognize their importance? I agree a lot of words have roots on allonormative words, but that does not mean the meanings have to, too.

 

This is just so that human's understanding develops in relation to language. We can better process things we have words for, so the phenomenons that already have a name will lead our perception, at first at least. A good example of this is me learning I'm aroace. I had no words for them, the only terms I knew were "late boomer", "shy" and "insecure", so these were the words I described myself with, no matter how poorly they fitted to my perception of myself. After learning about aro and ace, it seems obvious that these words need to exist. But before I learnt them, I couldn't really even describe myself that well. When the time goes by, no doubt there will also be aro/ace-specific terms created that allo-community does not have equivalent to. Aro/ace community describing different types of attractions and allo community being a huge questionmark on that, is one example of it already happening.

 

14 hours ago, Galactic Turtle said:

Of course I understand that most people who use these words do want some sort of exclusive relationship situation heavily reflective of what typical dating looks like at least from the outside.

Yea, at least for me, QPR, represents sharing a lot of daily practical stuff, such as financial stuff, housekeeping, future planning etc with your partner. Still, I think this radically differs from an allorelationship on many aspects, and is indeed closer to a good friendship with many aspects rather than allorelationship. It's "a friendship with shared everyday life". For an allo person, my picture of QPR could seem very much like "the basic relationship" on the outside. But still, when it comes to physical intimacy, it's anything but.

 

14 hours ago, Galactic Turtle said:

However because it is so prevalent in the aromantic community of all places, it can be frustrating at times. Kind of like in ace spaces you get people talking about how important sex is for emotional connection. Similar to your OP I believe it said something along the lines of "what makes this more than friendship" which is again bringing in the amatonormative relationship hierarchy of sorts. But yeah, aromanticism doesn't mean "lack of desire for partnership." It's just jarring to always walk into aro spaces and see those pining for partnership as the most talked about thing. XD 

I agree "more than friendship" wasn't best way to put it. Anyhow, with my current vocabulary, I don't know how to say it better. "A living together/ sharing a lot of everyday stuff experience with your closest friend"? 😆 I'm not claiming that there was no importance on friendships in general. Rather I think QPR can be just one manifestation of a really good friendship. Does that make any sense?

[Galactic Turtle]

3 hours ago, naakka said:

But does terms such as "squish, QPR" have to be exclusive to friendship? QPR could also be your best friend? Squish would describe you being excited to find a sister soul? Just easier way to explain these things? I think no-one has the same level of affection to every friend they have, so why wouldn't it be okay to come up with specific words for specific type of friendsips? Wouldn't that be what helps people to better perceive friendships and recognize their importance? I agree a lot of words have roots on allonormative words, but that does not mean the meanings have to, too.

 

This is just so that human's understanding develops in relation to language. We can better process things we have words for, so the phenomenons that already have a name will lead our perception, at first at least. A good example of this is me learning I'm aroace. I had no words for them, the only terms I knew were "late boomer", "shy" and "insecure", so these were the words I described myself with, no matter how poorly they fitted to my perception of myself. After learning about aro and ace, it seems obvious that these words need to exist. But before I learnt them, I couldn't really even describe myself that well. When the time goes by, no doubt there will also be aro/ace-specific terms created that allo-community does not have equivalent to. Aro/ace community describing different types of attractions and allo community being a huge questionmark on that, is one example of it already happening.

QPR could be your best friend. Your spouse could and often is also your best friend. This is pretty common with partnership. But both of these tend to denote exclusive partnership which makes sense because to the rest of the world that shifts one's understanding of your relationship with someone. For me friendship is more than enough to describe my relationship with those I value. I don't wish to call it something else to make it seem more legitimate to those who only see partnerships to be relationships of significance. It's easier to make a new word than to convince the world that friendship matters. It's easier to associate that word with the vocabulary of romantic partnership to further drive that sentiment.

 

But again, that's just because I'm not really interested in partnership. For those who do want an established partner it makes tons of sense. Still if an aro ace person came along and said "I have a huge squish on you, will you be my QPP?" I'd recoil the same way as if someone asked me out because the way everyone describes what their idea of a QPR is varies dramatically from person to person. Anything from "letting my best friend know they're my best friend" to "friend I move in and raise kids with." 

 

For some reason great friendships are relegated to fiction and to the past. Harry and Ron (Harry Potter), Sam and Frodo (Lord of the Rings), Han and Chewie (Star Wars), literally everyone on the core cast of the TV show called Friends where they all live in a nice apartment and tackle the world together (or at least I think that's what it's about, I've never actually seen it). Aristotle wrote of "friendships of virtue" or "friendships of the good," which are friendships that are rare to happen upon but is also the type of friendship that I think many people desire at some point in their lives. Those are the types of relationships I desire and by itself is entirely removed from the structure of partnership.

 

Again I'm not saying squish/QPP are bad words, they're words that simply often reinforce a structure I have no interest in and for that reason can at times be frustrating. 

[naakka]

11 hours ago, Galactic Turtle said:

For me friendship is more than enough to describe my relationship with those I value. I don't wish to call it something else to make it seem more legitimate to those who only see partnerships to be relationships of significance. It's easier to make a new word than to convince the world that friendship matters. It's easier to associate that word with the vocabulary of romantic partnership to further drive that sentiment.

I wish I don't sound arrogant, but I still quite don't get your issue, apologizes ^^' If calling the relationship with your friends a friendship is enough for you, what's exactly your issue? If you can't convince the world that friendship matters (which has at times been my experience as well), wouldn't it be enough to just talk more about friendships, to make these relationships more visible? I wouldn't call a relationship with someone QPR just to make it appear more significant to the outsiders. I'd call it QPR to let people know that I perceive that friendship/relationship practically committed and relatable.

 

Whether or not you like it, "friendship" is a very broad term. I don't understand why it's wrong create subterms to describe different kind of things. Just like we have "ystävä" (a really good friend) and "kaveri" (a person you're fine to hang out with) here in Finland. It's a good thing to make people better recognize the "the person I know well and trust very much" meaning, but on the same time, it's not semanticly incorrect if they also associate anyone they know a little bit with but dln't have a strong bond with, with the word "friend". If you want people to understand you mean exclusively a very close friendship, you need a new term or a more specific definition of what kind of friendship you're talking about. It doesn't change the nature of friendship to have new terms to describe it, it just makes the specific type of relationship exclusively more visible.

 

11 hours ago, Galactic Turtle said:

But again, that's just because I'm not really interested in partnership. For those who do want an established partner it makes tons of sense. Still if an aro ace person came along and said "I have a huge squish on you, will you be my QPP?" I'd recoil the same way as if someone asked me out because the way everyone describes what their idea of a QPR is varies dramatically from person to person. Anything from "letting my best friend know they're my best friend" to "friend I move in and raise kids with." 

Well, isn't that the case with any relationship tho? To be friends with someone has huge difference in meaning to different people. To start dating means for one person carefree time together with a specific person and to another person it means the first step to promise live the rest of your life together. Marriage means for one person the promise to have family with children and to another person finally making official you're with them. Whatever relationship we talk about, you can never expect anything from the said relationship without discussing about your expectations.

 

11 hours ago, Galactic Turtle said:

Again I'm not saying squish/QPP are bad words, they're words that simply often reinforce a structure I have no interest in and for that reason can at times be frustrating. 

I see. I think you're suffering from being a minority inside minority, aromantic person who also does not wish to live with anyone? I don't know if that's a minority within the aro community tho, since I've met a lot of people who actually think aros don't wish to have any contact with anyone? So from that experience I can understand why terms that debunk that myth, would be underlined in the aro community. I think it's the same struggle that any minority has, for people expect us all to be the same stereotype. "No ace wants to have sex" type of assumptions will make aces who are fine with or enjoy sex to pop up and so on. 

[Galactic Turtle]

18 minutes ago, naakka said:

I see. I think you're suffering from being a minority inside minority, aromantic person who also does not wish to live with anyone? I don't know if that's a minority within the aro community tho, since I've met a lot of people who actually think aros don't wish to have any contact with anyone? So from that experience I can understand why terms that debunk that myth, would be underlined in the aro community. I think it's the same struggle that any minority has, for people expect us all to be the same stereotype. "No ace wants to have sex" type of assumptions will make aces who are fine with or enjoy sex to pop up and so on. 

I'm fine living with people. I've lived with people my whole life. I was just voicing my thoughts, going off the ending of that video you previously linked, of lots of aro language following amatonormative structures since this is a topic that does pop up in aro spaces from time to time. That's really it. 

[naakka]

3 minutes ago, Galactic Turtle said:

I'm fine living with people. I've lived with people my whole life. I was just voicing my thoughts, going off the ending of that video you previously linked, of lots of aro language following amatonormative structures since this is a topic that does pop up in aro spaces from time to time. That's really it. 

Oh I see. Maybe I got the wrong impression of this being a greater issue to you than it actually is? Anyhow, I thank for the conversation

[Galactic Turtle]

1 minute ago, naakka said:

Oh I see. Maybe I got the wrong impression of this being a greater issue to you than it actually is? Anyhow, I thank for the conversation

It's not an issue, it's just a statement/topic that I thought of after you linked the video. If anything it's just ironic. XD

[naakka]

2 minutes ago, Galactic Turtle said:

It's not an issue, it's just a statement/topic that I thought of after you linked the video. If anything it's just ironic. XD

I see, you could have said that earlier, ;D I don't know if I answered to any of your points or if I even got your points right lol. Anyhow, good nights!