I get a lot of pushback when I say we should all be making out with our friends more often, though to be fair I think a good portion of this pushback is coming from close friends of mine who just don’t want to be making out with me specifically.
I understand the sentiment of the message but I think it fails to acknowledge the awkwardness of physical intimacy for other people and how this enthusiasm over all things sexual can splinter close relationships especially those of the LGBTQ community. Almost all of the friends to lovers to enemies drama is in my queer friend community.
I always propose for people to do what they want as long as they don't harm others but the obsession with sex and physical interaction in modern day is the result of people's alienation. Looking to bone everyone you mildly connect with isn't how to bring people closer.
I think this essay is a very good take on examining relationship structures from a queer perspective. I'm, among other things, an aromantic t4t poly bisexual(?) transfem, and I've kissed (and sometimes fucked) a lot of friends and acquaintances at this point. I wholeheartedly agree that the line between friend and partner can be blurred, and that the two categories don't deserve the reverance we give them. At the moment, I'm in one romantic relationship, and in several something-or-other relationships with an increasingly interconnected polycule of t4t transbians. I'm not romantically attracted to people, but platonic attraction goes so hard, and I don't mind other people being romantically attracted to me. I love all my friends so much.
There are 2 major clarifications I want to offer, though. Firstly, while MOGAI's attempt to define all genders might have been problematic, I think it's misguided to generalize that to people using xenogenders for themselves. I spent a long time figuring out my romantic identity, and some of that time was spent on LGBTQIA+ wikis, trying to put words to feelings by reading about different aro-spec labels. There are a lot of aro-spec microlabels there, so it took a while to look through them all, but their existence helped me conceptualize my own identity. Labels help people understand their own experiences, because humans are complicated and we don't exist in a bubble. It's definitely problematic to force yourself to adhere to the labels you identify with, and labels become useless when they have no meaningful distinctions between them. But a lot of people use labels in a more positive, flexible way, as a tool to help them understand themselves. Calling the MOGAI project misguided is fine, but policing what microlabels people can use for themselves is only an exercise in respectability politics.
I think an earlier comment explains pretty well that the term "QPR" is both important and useful to a-spec people. I see why allo people might assume that a-specs or others who use the term "QPR" feel trapped in behaviors that are "typical" for a QPR, because, as you describe in this essay, that's how romantic and platonic relationship labels tend to be applied. However, from what I've seen, a-spec relationships tend to be far less prescriptivist than you'd assume. That's because the label isn't a result of hegemonic expectations of relationships. A lot of pressure to stick to friend or lover categories is societal, and that kind of pressure doesn't exist in the same way for QPRs. In my experience, QPRs take tons of shapes and have plenty of individual boundary-setting. QPRs are less about presenting a label to conform to much as they are about tearing down the division between relationship types. Interacting with other a-specs has taught me that for some people, QPRs are like a really close best friend, who you want to live with and marry for tax purposes. For others, it's more of a friend with benefits. The only real requirement is that a QPR is not a romantic relationship. A bunch of my close friends are poly a-specs, and they all take the approach of "relationships first, labels second". Several are relationship anarchists. I don't know anyone who's felt forced to ID their relationship as a QPR, or follow any related norms just because they label their relationship as a QPR. If two QPPs don't kiss, that's probably because they don't want to. I also don't know anyone who felt like their relationship was invalid, just because they didn't vibe with the term QPR.
A big part of coming to terms with my aromanticism was realizing that I would never be able to fit into the prescriptive rules that amatonormative society has set out for me. I never want to get married or even attend another wedding, I don't get romantic crushes or feel "sparks", and I'll never "find The One". Accepting myself meant I had to go through the process of understanding that I wasn't broken, I just didn't fit into those rigid social roles that were never designed for people like me. A friend/future roommate/kissing partner described the process of coming to terms with queerness, particularly aromanticism/asexuality, pretty well. "Being queer means there's no heteronormative standard to look up to", and therefore you get to find your own meaning and set your own boundaries in the relationships you form.
a lot of what you're saying here makes sense, but maybe as someone who is experience romantic and platonic attraction you are fundamentally misunderstanding the point or the spectrum on which QPRs exist. the only ways to form new bonds isn't just romantic, sexual or platonic and maybe we don't have the vocabulary for what that experience is exactly. I don't want to weigh in on the gender list cause I don't particularly feel strongly about gender or care for what people assume or address me as. but queer platonic is something more than friends but assuming that naturally means it's stepping or blurring the line between that and 'lovers' feels reductive. not everyone you form a bond with is friend, lover or even anything in between.
not to mention that it explains a lot about how I've felt for a long time as someone with big emotions for almost every situation/person. feels really nice to know there are people that feel love as big as i do :-)
I'm a current Illustration student going through my own dealings of non-monogamy and I really, really love and resonate with this article and have been thinking about it for a while now. I'd be interested in designing and distributing zines of this piece (for free, just for people to have) in the case that I would have permission from Miss Ella Yurman! I don't know where or how to reach out about that though.....
As a married gay man with a whole cavalcade of friends, some of whom are lovers, this piece really spoke to me. You write beautifully, Ella.
I understand the sentiment of the message but I think it fails to acknowledge the awkwardness of physical intimacy for other people and how this enthusiasm over all things sexual can splinter close relationships especially those of the LGBTQ community. Almost all of the friends to lovers to enemies drama is in my queer friend community.
I always propose for people to do what they want as long as they don't harm others but the obsession with sex and physical interaction in modern day is the result of people's alienation. Looking to bone everyone you mildly connect with isn't how to bring people closer.
This was a very refreshing take.
I think this essay is a very good take on examining relationship structures from a queer perspective. I'm, among other things, an aromantic t4t poly bisexual(?) transfem, and I've kissed (and sometimes fucked) a lot of friends and acquaintances at this point. I wholeheartedly agree that the line between friend and partner can be blurred, and that the two categories don't deserve the reverance we give them. At the moment, I'm in one romantic relationship, and in several something-or-other relationships with an increasingly interconnected polycule of t4t transbians. I'm not romantically attracted to people, but platonic attraction goes so hard, and I don't mind other people being romantically attracted to me. I love all my friends so much.
There are 2 major clarifications I want to offer, though. Firstly, while MOGAI's attempt to define all genders might have been problematic, I think it's misguided to generalize that to people using xenogenders for themselves. I spent a long time figuring out my romantic identity, and some of that time was spent on LGBTQIA+ wikis, trying to put words to feelings by reading about different aro-spec labels. There are a lot of aro-spec microlabels there, so it took a while to look through them all, but their existence helped me conceptualize my own identity. Labels help people understand their own experiences, because humans are complicated and we don't exist in a bubble. It's definitely problematic to force yourself to adhere to the labels you identify with, and labels become useless when they have no meaningful distinctions between them. But a lot of people use labels in a more positive, flexible way, as a tool to help them understand themselves. Calling the MOGAI project misguided is fine, but policing what microlabels people can use for themselves is only an exercise in respectability politics.
I think an earlier comment explains pretty well that the term "QPR" is both important and useful to a-spec people. I see why allo people might assume that a-specs or others who use the term "QPR" feel trapped in behaviors that are "typical" for a QPR, because, as you describe in this essay, that's how romantic and platonic relationship labels tend to be applied. However, from what I've seen, a-spec relationships tend to be far less prescriptivist than you'd assume. That's because the label isn't a result of hegemonic expectations of relationships. A lot of pressure to stick to friend or lover categories is societal, and that kind of pressure doesn't exist in the same way for QPRs. In my experience, QPRs take tons of shapes and have plenty of individual boundary-setting. QPRs are less about presenting a label to conform to much as they are about tearing down the division between relationship types. Interacting with other a-specs has taught me that for some people, QPRs are like a really close best friend, who you want to live with and marry for tax purposes. For others, it's more of a friend with benefits. The only real requirement is that a QPR is not a romantic relationship. A bunch of my close friends are poly a-specs, and they all take the approach of "relationships first, labels second". Several are relationship anarchists. I don't know anyone who's felt forced to ID their relationship as a QPR, or follow any related norms just because they label their relationship as a QPR. If two QPPs don't kiss, that's probably because they don't want to. I also don't know anyone who felt like their relationship was invalid, just because they didn't vibe with the term QPR.
A big part of coming to terms with my aromanticism was realizing that I would never be able to fit into the prescriptive rules that amatonormative society has set out for me. I never want to get married or even attend another wedding, I don't get romantic crushes or feel "sparks", and I'll never "find The One". Accepting myself meant I had to go through the process of understanding that I wasn't broken, I just didn't fit into those rigid social roles that were never designed for people like me. A friend/future roommate/kissing partner described the process of coming to terms with queerness, particularly aromanticism/asexuality, pretty well. "Being queer means there's no heteronormative standard to look up to", and therefore you get to find your own meaning and set your own boundaries in the relationships you form.
This was beautiful and articulated a lot of things I have been thinking and talking about with friends for a while 💕
a lot of what you're saying here makes sense, but maybe as someone who is experience romantic and platonic attraction you are fundamentally misunderstanding the point or the spectrum on which QPRs exist. the only ways to form new bonds isn't just romantic, sexual or platonic and maybe we don't have the vocabulary for what that experience is exactly. I don't want to weigh in on the gender list cause I don't particularly feel strongly about gender or care for what people assume or address me as. but queer platonic is something more than friends but assuming that naturally means it's stepping or blurring the line between that and 'lovers' feels reductive. not everyone you form a bond with is friend, lover or even anything in between.
Wow, you got me. I get it now.
this is so incredibly well articulated while still being so deeply personal.. it's so beautiful. one of my favorite articles ever i think
not to mention that it explains a lot about how I've felt for a long time as someone with big emotions for almost every situation/person. feels really nice to know there are people that feel love as big as i do :-)
hey op have you heard of the term amatonormativity i think this article is pretty closely talking about that concept
I'm a current Illustration student going through my own dealings of non-monogamy and I really, really love and resonate with this article and have been thinking about it for a while now. I'd be interested in designing and distributing zines of this piece (for free, just for people to have) in the case that I would have permission from Miss Ella Yurman! I don't know where or how to reach out about that though.....
hi! shoot me a DM on instagram :) @ella.yurman