āCompanionate loveā is mainly intended for people on the ace spectrum who have very deep platonic relationships, considering them on par with serious romantic relationships. It is intended as an alternative for queerplatonic, for aces who may feel uncomfortable with that term due to the use of āqueerā (which many people have an issue with). So an ace person who is looking for companionate love or has a companionate relationship with someone would call themselves a ācompantionate aceā, similar to how aces with non-aromatic orientations are called āromantic acesā.
Term coined by: thethinkingasexual.wordpress.com
[Image: Flag with 5 stripes: Pastel yellow, white, black, white, pastel pink].
Full size [Here]
Designed by: Anonymous and Mod Hermy
Color meanings: Pink and yellow at the top and bottom for the colors commonly associated with queerplatonic relationships. The white and black are to show a connection to the aro/ace spectrum, since those two are colors that are commonly found in a lot of flags on that spectrum.
[Note: the original design was yellow, pink, white, black stripes, but was changed because it looked too close to the Polar- designs]
Full pride gallery HERE! FAQ and ādictionaryā of genders, orientations, and other related terms HERE. Send any questions to Ask-Pride-Color-Schemes!
Hello! You reblogged a post decrying the erasure of other identities on the aromantic spectrum, one of which was cupioromanticism. However, I came across articles on thethinkingasexual (tagged cupioromantic) that make a case for cupioromanticism being an identity arisen solely from amatonormativity. If it really were born of the ingrained belief that only romantic relationships have true passion/value, would it still be a valid identity? What do you think makes an identity valid?
Disclaimer: Iām not cupioromantic or any kind of authority on the topic, I am simply presenting my own opinion, since thatās what was asked for.
I mean, first things first, I think most labels for oppressed groups arise from the fact that there is a system of oppression against them. After all, one of the biggest parts of privilege is not having to think about how privileged you are.
But to be clear, the argument that thethinkingasexual has made is that cupioromanticism - an orientation for those who do not experience romantic attraction, but still desire romantic relationships - cannot exist except in wishful thinking which originates from a desire to fit into an amatonormative world. This is because thethinkingasexual believes that no action is intrinsically romantic; relationships are only made romantic by the experience of romantic attraction from both parties. I agree that, under this definition, the idea of cupioromanticism makes no sense. Itās the definition of romance that I take issue with.
Unlike sexual activity, which is fairly well-defined (albeit a bit fuzzy around the edges), our culture is startlingly vague on what exactly constitutes romantic activity. Itās generally given a āyou know it when you see itā handwave, which of course means that everyone is left to piece together ideas from what other people seem to consider romantic and is left with a unique viewpoint on the topic. No-one quite agrees on the colour of the invisible elephant.
Defining romantic activities as those performed by someone experiencing romantic attraction is one way to get around the problem, and a perfectly reasonable definition at that. But that doesnāt mean itās the only definition. If you want to say that for you, only romantic relationships can involve kissing, or exclusive commitment, or candlelit dinners on Valentineās Day, then that also seems perfectly reasonable within our culture. Perhaps thatās because our culture has a skewed view of what romance is, but since romance is a cultural invention anyway, I donāt see any problem with using whatever definition your interalised amatonormativity has generated, just like everyone else in society does.
Thethinkingasexual argues that this devalues other relationship models by ignoring the possibility that these needs could be met by a queerplatonic or committed platonic relationship - which, frankly, I think is bullshit, in exactly the same way that same sex marriage can in no way ruin the marriages of those who define marriage differently. Labels are a very personal thing, and thereās nothing wrong with choosing one label over another which might suit for reasons of personal preference.
That said, I do think that thethinkingasexual has a good point about all of this, which is that you should model your relationships based on what you want, not what society tells you you want. Figuring this out can be a long, slow process because societal pressure runs deep, but itās important to be open to happiness wherever you might find it, and not cling to labels which are no longer helping you.
Which brings me back to the original question you asked: what makes an identity valid? For me, barring the odd messy situation of appropriated labels and so forth, any identity is valid where identifying that way improves the life of the person with the identity. That might be by granting understanding of your behaviour, or by giving access to a broader community of those with similar experiences, or simply by giving the peace of mind of āthereās a word for it.ā
In general, Iām in support of labels, and the freedom to move between them without judgement, just as Iām in support of the freedom not to use labels at all.
