that feel when you finally have a use for relationship terminology, but none of it makes sense to you because all of it is predicated on the assumption that you subscribe to the dichotomy of “romantic” vs “[queer]platonic”– not to even mention the equally taxing concept that is “alterous”.
anonymous said: Is the concept of a qpp common in the Japanese ace community? in so far as i’m aware, no. i’ve never heard of anything that could be considered to correspond to the concept of (a) queerplatonic partner(s) (QPPs) or queerplatonic relationships (QPRs) in Japan. which isn’t necessarily to say that the concept itself does not exist at all, just that if it does i don’t think it’s common and i have not seen a single word or phrase used to describe such a concept… yet.
minamina0013: queerascat: minamina0013: queerascat: …as much as i love this thread of posts in theory, my tired ass can’t help but sit here wondering why anyone need even get married at all to do or have any of the above things, the few actual legal matters that were mentioned aside. also, this uplifting of “aromantic relationships” and marriage as “the New Platonic Ideal” feels incredibly uncomfortable… @queerascat I agree I think a lot of those things could be achieved by simply being roommates. It’s pretty funny that what they’re dubbing as “the New Platonic Ideal” already has a name, it’s called “friendship”. Aromantic relationships could be called friendships if that’s how you want to label it but personally as an aro I would consider a relationship with another aro as queer platonic. Our relationship may not be romantic but I wouldn’t say that my QPP(s) and I are just ‘friends’ who…
