Jump to content

Is A Queerplatonic Relationship Acceptable if You're Family?


ProbablyAsleep

Recommended Posts

ProbablyAsleep

Title says it all. I was trying to explain what a QPR is to my little sister. She says it just sounds like close friendship, but couldn't understand that there's more to it than that. Society seems to think that there's close friendship, and that the only step up is a romantic relationship, which is dumb.

 

But my sister asked if two siblings had a QPR, would that be considered incest. I don't know, and Google won't give answers. She also asked if that is considered incestuous, then is a QPR between two people of the same gender considered gay?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ProbablyAsleep said:

two siblings had a QPR, would that be considered incest. I don't know, and Google won't give answers. She also asked if that is considered incestuous, then is a QPR between two people of the same gender considered gay?

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be considered incestuous, but a QPR between two people of the same gender is often considered gay...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Galactic Turtle

I would not personally describe a family member as my "partner" even though I think family can potentially be the strongest bonds you have in the world. You are also getting caught up on amatonormative relationship hierarchies. A QPR is just one of many words one could use to describe a type of partnership. It is not greater or lesser than any other partnership, it just implies the basis of or reason for the partnership is different from others.

 

If the basis of the partnership is a mutual romantic interest one might use the word "boyfriends."

 

If the basis of the partnership is a mutual sexual interest, one might use the word "fuck buddy."

 

If the basis of the partnership is monetary on one end, one might use the word "sugar baby."

 

If the basis of the partnership is of a mutual platonic interest, one might use the term "QPR."

 

But all of it is partnership and all these other terms are optional. I think just because you switch out the term won't set off less alarms when it comes to using it to describe a relationship between family members or a relationship between an adult and a minor. If you're getting married no one is thinking about if the basis of the partnership is romantic, sexual, monetary, or platonic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also wonder if it would hypothetically be appropriate to have a QPR if you are...say...25 and the other party is 17.  I dunno, it just seems like this would throw age of consent laws for a loop here.  Because if you outlaw those, would you also be outlawing every friendship between a child and an unrelated adult?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Skittles87

There's nothing inherently wrong with it. Some people in QPRs have a very sibling-like bond and even refer to their partner as "brother" or "sister", so a QPR between actual family members makes sense in that respect. No sex=no incest.

 

However, I think it could potentially cause big problems. Family dynamics are complicated enough already without introducing committed relationships with their risk of "break ups", or being pressured into a relationship that's not right for you. It's also pretty likely that other family members would have a problem with it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the word queerplatonic is necessary to communicate why you're close to siblings, and why you might connect to the level of integrating daily lives. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snao Cone (me) said:

I don't think the word queerplatonic is necessary to communicate why you're close to siblings, and why you might connect to the level of integrating daily lives. 

Wise point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ProbablyAsleep said:

But my sister asked if two siblings had a QPR, would that be considered incest. I don't know, and Google won't give answers. She also asked if that is considered incestuous, then is a QPR between two people of the same gender considered gay?

Personally if I saw two people in a committed partnership-type arrangement my first thought would be they're gay. If I was corrected on that and told it was a "QPR", I'd... probably still think they're gay. Just being earnest. I also don't think two siblings declaring they're "partners" would really be taken well.

 

Quote

Title says it all. I was trying to explain what a QPR is to my little sister. She says it just sounds like close friendship, but couldn't understand that there's more to it than that. Society seems to think that there's close friendship, and that the only step up is a romantic relationship, which is dumb.

Not really nice to call "society" (which includes me, incidentally) dumb because they don't recognise a muddy concept. 

 

At the end of the day people's points of reference for any kind of relationship are going to be the ones they've seen already. You can't blame anyone for that. They're going to liken it to what they've seen before. There are some people on here who describe QPR as basically just synonymous with a romantic relationship except they don't want to call it that. There's others for whom it's more of a "super best friends". I've seen others who describe it as being people who are fond of each other and share living arrangements but not with the level of intimacy of a married couple. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Skycaptain

Should a QPR be considered incestuous is answered in one word

 

No

Link to post
Share on other sites

It may seem like an odd question to some, but I find it relevant, as I have actually wondered if the term applied to my situation, technically speaking (not that I think using it would be necessary). 

 

My sister and I both happen to be on varying degrees of the asexual and aromantic spectrums. We are very close and probably more invested in each other’s lives than the average adult siblings may think normal, in the sense that instead of contemplating potential relationships as we might have if we didn’t have each other, we instead chose to live together as life partners of some sort. There’s no romantic element, obviously, but our commitment level is pretty much the same as in any primary relationship, given that it involves all the major decision making about property, pets, finances, daily activities, future plans and more. The only difference in a typical QPR would be different last names, honestly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its normal in some cultures for siblings to live together and be committed... my coworker and her sister share a house and have no romantic relationships to speak of and no one really bats an eye cause they are from a Hispanic culture with heavy family ties. Its just some cultures where it is considered weird. 

 

I mean I get the label QPR to separate a casual friendship you are meh whatever about from a person you're committed to. But, it kinda is just a super close friend with a new label. Though given some people have sex and kiss and stuff within a QPR maybe don't use that label for siblings if you don't want people to think you're into incest 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, familial is not the same as platonic in my eyes, so I'd say it couldn't be a QPR. Not incestuous, just weird. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
ProbablyAsleep
On 5/18/2020 at 8:46 PM, BeakLove said:

Not really nice to call "society" (which includes me, incidentally) dumb because they don't recognise a muddy concept. 

My apologies. I didn't mean to refer to society as dumb, but rather the way of thinking that much of society has regarding QPRs, and the way that relationships are treated as if there is no in-between when it comes to frienship or dating. If this way of thinking does not apply to you, then I wasn't talking about you. And if it does apply to you, I wasn't calling you dumb. Just that way of thinking. If that makes sense. My goal is not to offend anyone, I'm just asking a question my sister asked me, because I did not have a good answer for her.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MaryPenelope

I think it depends on how you define incest. Technically, incest is sexual is nature, but most people would probably find romantic relationships between siblings to be equally problematic (in part probably due to society's tendency to conflate sex and romance). QPRs aren't sexual or romantic, but most people tend to regard them as comparable to romantic relationships, which is probably why my (and, I assume) most people's initial reaction to this idea is aversion.

Technically, though, no, it's not incest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess a close bond with a sibling could be on the same lines as a QPR, and since there is no sexual relationship, there's no incestuous issue, but I don't see the need to call it a QPR either. you're always going to be family, no matter how close your bond. I see sisters as well as close (girl)friends physically close all the time, holding hands, hugging and kissing. So no need to throw a title on it to confuse everyone else.  in my opinion a QPR is a very close relationship between two people that exceeds friendship and shares similar qualities with a marriage (minus the sex part). And being siblings makes it neither queer nor does it need to be described as platonic. Most people would get it if one said, that's my sister who's also my best friend. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2020 at 8:22 PM, ItsAlwaysPrideDay said:

QPRs are committed relationships. I personally think that siblings shouldn’t be in a QPR but I’m not going to stop anyone.

On 5/18/2020 at 8:29 PM, Galactic Turtle said:

If the basis of the partnership is of a mutual platonic interest, one might use the term "QPR."

On 5/18/2020 at 9:44 PM, Skittles87 said:

Some people in QPRs have a very sibling-like bond and even refer to their partner as "brother" or "sister",

On 5/21/2020 at 3:20 PM, Serran said:

QPR to separate a casual friendship you are meh whatever about from a person you're committed to. But, it kinda is just a super close friend with a new label. Though given some people have sex and kiss and stuff within a QPR...

On 5/23/2020 at 5:28 PM, SithEmpress said:

Well, familial is not the same as platonic in my eyes, so I'd say it couldn't be a QPR. Not incestuous, just weird. 

On 5/25/2020 at 6:48 AM, MaryPenelope said:

QPRs aren't sexual or romantic, but most people tend to regard them as comparable to romantic relationships

15 hours ago, Nima said:

in my opinion a QPR is a very close relationship between two people that exceeds friendship and shares similar qualities with a marriage (minus the sex part).

What's a QPR? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
MaryPenelope
1 minute ago, BeakLove said:

What's a QPR? 

A QPR, or 'queerplatonic relationship' is a relationship between 2 people that exceeds the usual depth of a platonic relationship, typically with the kind of devotion and life-sharing usually associated with romantic relationships - only without the romance. Queerplatonic partners (also known as QPPs or zucchinis) often live together, raise children together, make important life decisions together, etc. To my knowledge, they originated in the aspec community and are most common here, but there are QPRs where all parties are allosexual/romantic as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MaryPenelope said:

A QPR, or 'queerplatonic relationship' is a relationship between 2 people that exceeds the usual depth of a platonic relationship, typically with the kind of devotion and life-sharing usually associated with romantic relationships - only without the romance. Queerplatonic partners (also known as QPPs or zucchinis) often live together, raise children together, make important life decisions together, etc. To my knowledge, they originated in the aspec community and are most common here, but there are QPRs where all parties are allosexual/romantic as well.

Hi Penelope, thanks for your reply, although your definition seems to contradict some of the other ones. Do you think, for example, a relationship where two self-described partners have kids together and possibly get married could be described as like a "brother" or "sister" - a "sibling like bond". Do you think that a QPR can include a sexual element as Serran suggested above? Do you think the view of it as similar to being a marriage (without sex) is compatible with the view of it as super close best friends who sometimes have sex? It's just hard to get a handle on what's actually being described. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
MaryPenelope
22 minutes ago, BeakLove said:

Hi Penelope, thanks for your reply, although your definition seems to contradict some of the other ones. Do you think, for example, a relationship where two self-described partners have kids together and possibly get married could be described as like a "brother" or "sister" - a "sibling like bond". Do you think that a QPR can include a sexual element as Serran suggested above? Do you think the view of it as similar to being a marriage (without sex) is compatible with the view of it as super close best friends who sometimes have sex? It's just hard to get a handle on what's actually being described. 

It's a difficult concept to understand both because it's not what we're used to in society and because it depends so much on the individuals in it.

For example, maybe someone has a QPP whom they regard like a sibling, but the two get married because of the societal benefits it provides (next of kin, insurance, etc). Them being married doesn't automatically make it incestuous to consider each other siblings - because again, incest is specifically sexual, and more specifically,  sex with a (usually biological) close relative.

(Sexual relationships with adopted family members are also often considered incestuous, but I think that's more of if it's your kid or a sibling you grew up with)

Sexual and romantic aspects can be included in a QPR, however. Zucchinis can have sex with each other, and plenty of them kiss or go on dates - activities typically viewed as romantic. Again, it's all about the individuals involved and what they want out of the relationship.

In many ways, QPRs are both more complicated and flexible than romantic or platonic relationships, as there are less expectations and 'rules', and therefore more room for negotiation between participants. 

Mind, this is all my understanding and interpretation of QPRs. Other people will have other ideas about them. It's the curse of these kinds of things - feelings and relationships are subjective after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

2 hours ago, MaryPenelope said:

In many ways, QPRs are both more complicated and flexible than romantic or platonic relationships, as there are less expectations and 'rules', and therefore more room for negotiation between participants. 

 

Er. Romantic relationships are entirely flexible. There are no rules beyond what the two people in the relationship set. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
MaryPenelope
9 hours ago, Serran said:

 

 

 

Er. Romantic relationships are entirely flexible. There are no rules beyond what the two people in the relationship set. 

 

Please note the use of quotations around the word rules. The fact is that society has a lot more ideas about what should and should not be present/acceptable in romantic relationships than QPRs, due to the fact that romantic relationships are more commonplace

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, MaryPenelope said:

Please note the use of quotations around the word rules. The fact is that society has a lot more ideas about what should and should not be present/acceptable in romantic relationships than QPRs, due to the fact that romantic relationships are more commonplace

They are... but society at large isn't in the relationships. And society at large will dismiss QPRs as romantic or just friends, if we are worried about what society as a whole thinks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
MaryPenelope
1 hour ago, Serran said:

They are... but society at large isn't in the relationships. And society at large will dismiss QPRs as romantic or just friends, if we are worried about what society as a whole thinks. 

You're getting caught on technicalities. All I'm saying is that society has a clear idea of what a romantic relationship is, unlike with QPRs. Obviously not everyone strictly adheres to the usual 'standards' of a romantic relationship, but it doesn't change the fact that those expectations are there.

And of course society as a whole tends to misunderstand QPRs and cast them as either romantic or strictly platonic. Society, in case you haven't noticed, has a really big thing for binaries.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alejandrogynous

Yeeah, this would really weird me out personally. I'm extremely close with my sister and we lived together for years (still would if not for some logistical issues), and there's nothing unusual about that that warrants its own label. I'm ace/functionally aro but she's not, she dates and currently has a boyfriend, but even if she didn't and we decided to live our lives together like two old maids forever, I still wouldn't call us "life partners" or our relationship a QPR. Given that we're sisters, therefore obviously platonic, and last I checked, there's nothing "queer" about being close to a sibling.

 

The majority of society will assume a QPR is romantic by default anyway so trying to frame a sibling relationship that way sounds like it would just invite unnecessary confusion, and yeah, sound a little incestuous. Even if it's technically not. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MaryPenelope said:

You're getting caught on technicalities. All I'm saying is that society has a clear idea of what a romantic relationship is, unlike with QPRs. Obviously not everyone strictly adheres to the usual 'standards' of a romantic relationship, but it doesn't change the fact that those expectations are there.

And of course society as a whole tends to misunderstand QPRs and cast them as either romantic or strictly platonic. Society, in case you haven't noticed, has a really big thing for binaries.

There's a lot of reference to the idea that "society" doesn't understand what this relationship is. But how can the rest of us (in "society") have any chance at understanding it when we cannot even explain what it is. We can't simultaneously have a definition that's solely "whatever the people in it decide", and complain that society at large doesn't understand it. I was being a bit tongue in cheek when I posted the long list of quotes, but notice every single post on this thread has a brand new definition... like, are any of us even discussing the same thing... for all we know, we're discussing nothing!!! Even since I posted that, new definitions have popped into existence:

 

4 hours ago, ItsAlwaysPrideDay said:

It’s definitely hard to describe but I think of it as a relationship that breaks a few social norms of friendship and the label is used by the people involved.

This could be a fair way to characterise a QPR, but I would ask what specific social norms are you thinking of here. For example, some other posters list key qualities of a QPR things such as:  getting married, child-rearing together, living together on a permanent basis, having sex, being partners, being committed. Certainly, these break the norms of what a friendship is, but it's functionally equivalent to a romantic relationship. A better, and more widely-accepted example, would be a friendship that breaks the specific norm of being non-sexual. It already has the well-known verbiage: friends-with-benefits or more crassly, as @Galactic Turtle said, a "fuck buddy". Regardless of the individual feelings involved in such a relationship, we all understand what that entails, and we can have a sensible conversation about them e.g. pros/cons (mostly cons!!!)

 

For QPR to be useful as a term, and to help everyone understand it, we have to specify what boundaries of friendship a QPR necessarily breaks. Various others have specifically ruled out both sexual activity and romantic feelings, which are the two main elements associated with a non-friendship. I've seen others refer to the abstract notion of being "closer than typical friends", but surely the qualifier of "close friend" or "best friend" or "good friend" already covers that. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
MaryPenelope
3 hours ago, BeakLove said:

I've seen others refer to the abstract notion of being "closer than typical friends", but surely the qualifier of "close friend" or "best friend" or "good friend" already covers that. 

Not necessarily. An essential part of a QPR is a mutual commitment to the relationship. You can be really good friends with someone, but if the two of you haven't discussed it and agreed to be in a QPR, you aren't. It's only when you agree to that you become zucchinis.

The fact of the matter is QPRs are just difficult to define. A bit, I suppose, like attraction. Its very hard for allos to describe attraction in a way that makes sense to those of us who have never experienced it, after all. I think QPRs might just not make much sense to an outside observer.

And that's ok. Relationships are different for everyone, even more 'conventional' ones. In the end, definitions can only give you a starting point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Galactic Turtle
4 hours ago, BeakLove said:

For QPR to be useful as a term, and to help everyone understand it, we have to specify what boundaries of friendship a QPR necessarily breaks. Various others have specifically ruled out both sexual activity and romantic feelings, which are the two main elements associated with a non-friendship. I've seen others refer to the abstract notion of being "closer than typical friends", but surely the qualifier of "close friend" or "best friend" or "good friend" already covers that. 

Just chiming in because I was mentioned! I see this thread has grown a lot.

 

Like many terms in this corner of the internet, there is no consensus on what "QPR" means... just like there is no consensus on what "asexual" means. So like everything else in this corner of the internet, the search for a concrete answer will only result in feelings of frustration at best and concluding that none of these things mean anything at all and are as a result useless. Because of that, you really do need to just sort of think of it all as a general concept. 

 

The concept of asexuality. The concept of platonic partnership.

 

"Platonic partnership" means different things to different people. For some it means it lacks exclusivity and is secondary to non-platonic partnerships in someone's life. It's that special friend you want to commemorate for being so special. A lot of times I'll see someone point to their best friend and say "this if my QPP" while that best friend also dates and gets married to someone else. It's not rare to see a QPR being described as "more than" friends but "less than" romance, that stubborn relationship hierarchy making itself known. For others who consider themselves to be monogomous, partnership inherently means the relationship is an exclusive one. Others argue that if it is exclusive, then how can it be platonic? Some use it in an attempt to differentiate the contents of their partnership because it is "less romantic" or "less sexual" than the "norm." But many think those differences are completely arbitrary and do not matter in the grand scheme of things so why make a whole new term for it?

 

In some ways I do believe it is all just sort of an amatonormative reflex, a way to highlight a relationship to give cultural value, a retaliation against the phrase "just friends." A lot of societal clout and legitimacy comes when someone is given the title of "partner" in your life. At the same time, many might wonder why people don't work harder to inject this same clout and legitimacy into friendships. Most of the world would find such a sentiment to be ridiculous. Many romantic aces on AVEN admit as much. Friends are just... "different." They inherently cannot provide them with what their partners can. Because of this, in their view friendship and partnership cannot intersect so "platonic partnership" is an oxymoron. 

 

At the end of the day I just sort of divide the world up into "people who want partnership" and "people who don't want partnership." For people who want partnership, there are likely to be an abundance of terms out there to direct them to the same neighborhood of folks who are looking for what they're selling. Just look at all the dating sites, hookup apps, fetish communities, and sugar lifestyle forums that are just a click away. It makes sense when the alternative to finding a partner is thought of, by default, to equate to living and dying alone surrounded by all your "just friends" and "just family" if you're lucky.

 

For me, partner is a title. In this era it presumably means that sexual and romantic attraction are involved but that is by no means always the case. Historically it was more for security assisted by reproduction. But back to the OP... I think incest by definition means you're having sex with someone you're related closely with enough that you are "forbidden to marry." This is just another instance of sex, marriage, and children all being bundled up into one. But if you were to change it to partnership with someone that you are by law "forbidden to marry." Then yes, a QPR (one of many terms for a partnership) with a sibling would be incestuous. Will you go to jail for saying your brother is your partner? No. But it will definitely garner attention of the not positive variety. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MaryPenelope said:

In the end, definitions can only give you a starting point.

We don't even have the starting point - that's the problem. You keep saying it's "difficult to define", which still implies it's possible to do so. Do you actually mean it's impossible to define?

 

3 hours ago, MaryPenelope said:

An essential part of a QPR is a mutual commitment to the relationship. You can be really good friends with someone, but if the two of you haven't discussed it and agreed to be in a QPR, you aren't. It's only when you agree to that you become zucchinis.

What is the element of the friendship that would necessarily prompt someone to ask to define the relationship differently? What are the attribute(s) of QPR that are not comfortably accommodated within friendship? For romantic relationship that's easy: romantic feelings - i.e. deeply loving someone - and wanting to build a long-term partnership that facilitates said love.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MaryPenelope
48 minutes ago, BeakLove said:

What are the attribute(s) of QPR that are not comfortably accommodated within friendship?

.... you know there are threads that specifically talk about this stuff, right? And that you can start your own if you're really curious?

You just seem really fixated on this point and I don't know if discussing it in this thread is really useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anthropologically speaking, the modern American ideal of everyone living in a nuclear family household is a historic artifact of increased wealth and mobility after WWII. My grandparents all had extended-family households at different points in their history including aunts/uncles and cousins. That's still the case today in many communities. So at least in my opinion, a fraternal/sororal household (in the kinship sense, not college organization) would be neither incest nor QPR. That's just one flavor of an extended-family household, and arguably a model that we should be encouraging for reasons of sustainability.

 

I'm moderately a skeptic of QPRs as a concept. I think if you look beyond the aspirational propaganda of mass media, people engage in a wide diversity of long-term relationships for a wide variety of reasons. Not all of those are sexual. I'd rather re-normalize marriage-for-companionship, marriage-for-economics, and marriage-without-sex than to say all of them are automatically "queer." 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...