seen from Sweden
seen from China
seen from Canada
seen from China
seen from Netherlands
seen from United States
seen from T1
seen from Italy
seen from Netherlands
seen from Austria
seen from China
seen from Australia
seen from Russia
seen from Italy
seen from Mexico
seen from Mexico
seen from Netherlands
seen from Kazakhstan
seen from Thailand
seen from Netherlands
How much interpersonal "drama" would you say there is in your life?
Tons/constant drama
A lot/frequent drama
Some/occasional drama
Not much/infrequent drama
Very little/rare drama
None
It's complicated
I don't understand the question, show results
We ask your questions anonymously so you don’t have to! Submissions are open on the 1st and 15th of the month.
"Ragatha is manipulative and evil!"
WRONG
She THINKS she is manipulative and evil. That's what mental illness like trauma and Bpd will do to a brain. Make you believe that you are the scum of the earth and that that's why your relationships never work out. That it's your fault no matter what is really going on.
"like she sees through all my tricks" some thought she literally meant that she was tricking Pomni. She THINKS that by being a normal person reaching out to Pomni that means she was being seen as "tricking her". Cause again, she sees herself as manipulative even if she isn't because that is what was done to her. Probably with her mother. And constantly blames herself for any small problem in a two sided interpersonal relationship. Even if there is no tangible problem at all.
Kinger involved her in a self reflecting conversation that was perfect for her to realize other perspectives besides blaming herself all the time.
Today I got a question I never got asked before and while I should have always understood its importance, having it asked while in a cis-het environment when I'm not out there genuinely put into perspective how important it is the idea is normalized.
The woman asked casually(converstionally) if I was in a relationship and I said nope, single as a Pringle *which is what I always say the underlying symbolism means nothing*.
But the she looked at me without judgement or critique or pressure and gently asked: Do you want to be?
She asked it with more weight than the first question. Like that was the question that really mattered.
And I realized it's the first time I think in my whole life that someone actually asked me what I wanted for myself as far at any future relationship holds.
And while I genuinely don't know, because the last romantic interest I had ended so catastrophically and painfully the idea of someone romantically pursuing me or even touching me makes me want to trash like a trapped animal and vomit, I also still am hungry and longing for that deep connection and intimacy that still comes with a romantic relationship.
But I had never been asked if I wanted to be in a relationship before. If I told someone I was single I was always told "well you'll find someone eventually" or "you shoul find yourself someone nice" or whatever other pressured and pushed idea of "ope can't have you being alone, that won't do" that seems to invade everyone's minds to the point it feels obsessive.
I love that someone asked, especially someone I know for damn fact wasn't trying to pursue me or guage interest, it was simply a conversation.
I really would love for that question to be normalized more when people talk about relationships because while I do fall on the ace spectrum (demi) I'm not anti-romantic relationship but see how important it is that question is asked for those who don't want anything.
Honesty time: I don't think self hatred leads to effective activism, or effective anything for that matter, based on my own experiences with people.
Those who hate themselves, tend to project that hatred onto others. Those who are unhappy with their own lives, tend to make others unhappy. Misery loves company. Those who are miserable tend to want to make others miserable.
I have had friendship after friendship go up in flames, because I simply can't help those who don't want to help themselves, and they were dragging me down and down with them and with their unhealed shit. And this goes the other way around, too: there's no being there for others, if you're not here for yourself.
“The here and now is a prison house. We must strive, in the face of the here and now’s totalizing rendering of reality, to think and feel a then and there… Queerness is that thing that lets us feel that this world is not enough, that indeed something is missing.” — José Esteban Muñoz, Cruising Utopia
“I want a world where friendship is appreciated as a form of romance… I want a world where our worth isn’t linked to our desireability, our security to our monogamy, our family to our biology.” — Alok Vaid-Menon
Our Manifesto
Romance is inherently queerphobic
The organisation of queerness around the celebration and pursuit of romantic desires and pleasures reinforces queer oppression
Queer liberation must abolish romance as its long-term goal
it really feels like there's this culture right now on Tumblr like
"be okay with friends and loved ones not talking to you! be okay with friends and loved ones leaving you for months on end! don't ever expect anyone to text you back! omg you want friends to actually CONTACT you? you feel hurt when you're always the one reaching out? wow just say you hate mentally ill people and go!"
I've seen a lot of folks saying that it's your responsibility to work on abandonment issues if you have them, and that's true. but nobody ever says "maybe work on not abandoning people, too"
‼️PSA‼️
HOW TO IDENTIFY RELATIONSHIPS
Because ya’ll apparently need a refresher and I am happy to help 😙
All definitions in this post are courtesy of our lord and savior, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
First, let’s start with a few key words and their definitions.
Platonic (adjective) - of, relating to, or being a relationship marked by the absence of romance or sex.
Romantic (adjective) - of, relating to, or involving love between two people.
Sexual (adjective) - of, relating to, or associated with sex [or the sexes].
The three words above are not synonyms (they are not interchangeable—you cannot use one in substitution of another).
It is important to note that while the word ‘romantic’ itself is not defined as ‘a relationship marked by the inclusion of sex’, it is, like the word ‘sexual’, still an antonym (opposite) of the word ‘platonic’.
Based off these definitions, we know the following facts respectively to be true:
Fact 1 - Relationships that include sexual activities cannot be classified as platonic.
Fact 2 - Romantic relationships can include sex but do not have to in order to be defined as a romantic relationship.
Fact 3 - A sexual relationship cannot be platonic; it can be further described as romantic but is not automatically romantic by itself.
Now, lets take a look at the definition for the word ‘friend’.
Friend (noun) - person who has a strong liking for and trust in another.
Please note that nowhere in the definition above does it specify the type of relationship.
The word ‘friend’ is a noun, which is a person, place, or thing. You will notice that the definitions of ‘platonic’, ‘romantic’ and ‘sexual’ all state that they are adjectives, which are words that can be attached to a noun to further describe it.
According to these rules, each of the different scenarios listed below are all correct.
Person A and person B are friends. They are not dating and they do not have sex with each other. They are not in a sexual or romantic relationship. They are in a platonic relationship.
Person C and person D are acquaintances. They are not dating and they do not have sex with each other. They are not in a romantic or sexual relationship. Their relationship with each other is platonic.
Person E and person F are friends. They are dating and they do not have sex with each other. They are not in a platonic or sexual relationship. They are in a romantic relationship.
Person G and person H are friends. They are dating have sex with each other. They are not in a platonic relationship. They are in a sexual and romantic relationship.
Person I and person J are friends. They are not dating and they have sex with each other. They are not in a platonic or romantic relationship. They are in a sexual relationship.
Person K and person L are acquaintances. They are not dating and they have sex with each other. They are not in a platonic or romantic relationship. They are in a sexual relationship.
Next, let’s take a look at the definition for the word ‘family’.
Family (noun) - 1: a group of persons of common ancestry; 2: a group of individuals living under one roof; 3: a group of people united by certain convictions or a common affiliation
As seen above, the word ‘family’ has a few different definitions: one refers to blood relations, while the second refers to a household. The third refers to the fellowship and choice of the people involved in the relationship.
It is important to note here that these definitions do not contradict each other. They can be taken in harmony or as individual definitions.
Like the word ‘friend’, the word ‘family’ is a noun, meaning that it can be modified or further defined by an adjective.
Platonic, romantic, and sexual are all adjectives we learned earlier. However, there is another adjective we can add to this list:
Familial (adjective) - of, relating to, or suggestive of a family.
So, we actually have another type of relationship to add to our repertoire here: familial relationships.
It’s important to note here that the word ‘familial’ is not considered an antonym to any of our other three adjectives. In fact, based on context, it can be used synonymously with any of them.
Let’s take a closer look at some contextual examples, then.
Per the definition of the word ‘family’, the different scenarios listed below are all correct.
(In Harmony)
Person M and person N are roommates and cousins that share the same grandparents. They are family (relation) because they are related by common ancestry (grandparents) and they are family (household) because they live under the same roof.
(Individual)
Person O and person P are siblings. One of them lives in the east and the other lives in the north. They are family (relation) because they are related by common ancestry (parents).
Person Q and person R are roommates who are not related. They are dating each other. They are family (household) because they live together.
Person S and person T are roommates who are not related. They see each other as siblings. They are family (household) because they live together.*
Person U and person V are roommates who are not related. They are not dating each other and don’t see each other as siblings. They are family (household) because they live together.*
Person W and person X are adopted siblings. While they are not related by blood, they are family(relation) because they share parents.
*The validity of the scenario involving persons U & V is based on the context of their relationship with each other. It is equally true that two people sharing the same roof may not consider each other as family in the emotional sense, but are still considered as a ‘family’ (which, in this specific case, is being used as a synonym of ‘household’).
Below are some other scenarios that fall under the 3rd definition of the word ‘family’— ‘a group of people united by certain convictions or a common affiliation.’
Person Y and person Z are not related and they do not live together. They see each other as siblings. They are family(fellowship) based off their platonic relationship and choice.
^Alternatively: Person 1 and Person 2 are not related, are not dating, do not live together, and do not see each other as siblings. They are still family(fellowship) due to their platonic relationship and choice.
Having examined the different definitions of the word ‘family,’ we know the following facts respectively to be true:
Fact 1 - two people who are considered siblings, parent and child, or other familial relationship (by blood, by law, or by emotional attachment) can be defined as being family.
Fact 2 - two people who have a romantic relationship can be defined as being family.
Fact 3 - two people who have a platonic relationship but not a familial relationship can be defined as being family.
In conclusion: stop mislabeling relationships as ‘sibling coded”/“parent-child coded” and making up fake rules about what relationships are ‘allowed’ between the fictional characters in the fictional media about fictional events that are not real and didn’t actually happen.
She is not the ‘mom’ of the found family, she’s a member of the group who just cares about her friends.
He is not her brother, he is her non-familial friend and their relationship is platonic.
That’s not ‘basically his dad’, they’re in the same friend group and one is slightly older/taller than the other.
It’s a found family but that JUST means that it’s a group of friends who care about each other. Thats it!
They aren’t siblings, they are not parent and child, they are not related, they’re friends. Maybe in the same found ‘family’ (aka FRIEND GROUP), sure. But they can date each other and it isn’t illegal or immoral or wrong or bad or a sin or what have you. Please touch grass.
Honorable addition: Just because they’re fucking doesn’t mean they’re in love, and just because they’re not fucking doesn’t mean they don’t love each other.
On the subject of monetising hobbies, hustle culture really feeds into the commodification of friendships.
I meet someone at a cooking class, we bond over a metal band and 19th c. literature, and we become friends. Even when we don't share in a particular hobby, both of us are happy to listen to the other talk about it.
Then they publish a self-help book, or start selling dog treats or essential oils for extra income. Our dynamic changes from friends on equal terms to include seller and potential consumer.
Our nonmonetised hobbies, shared or otherwise, the very things that brought us together, are affected, too. Common interests were enough when we were bonding over a free activity, but now there's a price attached, the expectation is that a good friend, someone who cares, will pay it.
Is it enough to buy the ebook instead of the paperback? Do I get a pass on buying dog treats if I don't have a dog? If I have no money but I tell five or ten or thirty people about their essential oil range, am I being supportive? If I buy a similar product elsewhere, even if I'd been doing so for years before we even met, am I actively sabotaging their livelihood?
Am I a good enough friend? Am I a good enough consumer?
