I dont know if I’m misunderstanding this or not but I think if you’re attracted to each other, kiss, have sex, get married and have kids you cant really call it platonic anymore
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re asking with good faith here, though I hesitate to do so because the second half of your comment is a bit rude. But I’m going to assume that was unthinking/unintentional.
You are misunderstanding. The whole point here is that the norm that says “you can only x things with romantic partners, not friends” is harmful. The point is that you can pick and choose what goes in the relationship. If people are in something that fully meets the social expectation for a romantic relationship (including in terms of having romantic feelings for the other person/people), they’re not going to call it queerplatonic. Queerplatonic is specifically for relationships that don’t meet the social norms for either friendships or romantic relationships.
[Text from screenshot: in response to azariphale, @imaginationhyperload said: people can occasionally have sex even though they’re not sexually attracted to each other. I guess the definition of the relationship depends on the attraction?? End ID]
I think you’re trying to be helpful, but I already responded to azariphale, and to be quite frank, your suggestion basically amounts to policing the words people can use to describe their relationships.
What a particular set of people decide to label their relationship is determined by them, and them only. You seem to be suggesting that if people have sex while experiencing sexual attraction, that they cannot label their relationship queerplatonic. This is incorrect and harmful. The word queerplatonic has always and will always be open to people who experience sexual attraction to and/or have sex with their partner(s).
[Text from screenshot: @imaginationhyperload said: Um no that’s not way I was saying at all. I was pointing out that people don’t need to be attracted to each other to have sex. That’s pretty much it.]
Well besides that you also said “I guess the definition of the relationship depends on the attraction??” in response to someone who said “if you’re attracted to each other, kiss, have sex, get married and have kids you can’t really call it platonic anymore.”
Which to me sounded like you were saying if you have sex, whether or not you can call your relationship queerplatonic depends on whether or not you are sexually attracted to your partner. (Which, as I said, is false.)
But, taking you at your word that all you meant to say was that you can have sex without experiencing sexual attraction, why would that be relevant in this context? This person isn’t saying people can’t have sex without attraction, this person is policing people who have sex and feel attraction. So why are you defending something entirely different from what’s being attacked?
Ace and aro communities have a bad habit of excluding members of our communities that are seen as delegitimizing our identities in the eyes of bigots. People having sex with queerplatonic partners they are sexually attracted to? People whose lack of interest in sex or romance is related to a physical or neurological condition? Loveless aros? These kinds of folks are seen as acceptable sacrifices for the rest of our community to get validation. Our community says “we’re not like them” because we think it’s going to protect us, but it doesn’t.
When you say “people can have sex without being attracted to the other person” in response to someone invalidating people who have sex and are attracted to their queerplatonic partners, that’s a “we’re not like them” defense. It’s not good enough, because it leaves people behind.
I’m not faulting you, specifically, for this. This is a pattern and part of our community culture. I want us to do better. We can stand with these more vulnerable members of our community without trying to cut them off to save ourselves. We can do better. I’m askingour whole community to do better.
Edit: probably too late, but please don’t reblog this version of this post.
