Wow this is some next-level aromantic erasure.
From an aromantic person currently in a QPR, here are most of the misconceptions in this post:
Queerplatonic is a primarily aromantic community term, not an asexual community term
QPRs are intimate, committed, and non-romantic, not non-sexual
– Just like how some romantic relationships are sexual and some aren’t, some QPRs are sexual and some aren’t
QPRs are not “a more “formal” form of friendship,”
They are not “a less physical form of romance” (romantic relationships without the typical physical bits are still romantic relationships)
They are also not “a cross between a best-friendship and a romantic relationship
QPRs are their own unique type of intimate relationship based primarily on platonic feelings
“How is a QPR different from […] marriage?” Queerplatonic partners can get married too y’know, it’s not like there are psychic marriage police out making sure everyone who gets married is in a romantic relationship
“QPRs tend to maintain a romantic-level of commitment between members.” This sentence kinda implies that strong commitment is primarily a characteristic of romantic relationships and is a thing to be remarked upon when it’s found in non-romantic relationships.
“It is often a desirable option for asexuals, polyamorous individuals, and others with varying interpersonal inclinations” True, people of any orientation can be in a QPR, however QPRs are primarily very much an aromantic community thing, and presenting them like an option to be picked out from a buffet of relationship types feels frankly degrading, especially since:
Aromantic people are not mentioned once in this post. This, a post about queerplatonic relationships, a term primarily by and for aromantic people, and you do not mention aromantic people ONCE.
Please!! Don’t erase aromantic people!!
2087
origamiaround
blakekathryn
discoholicmusic
gamechangershow
