RantQueerplatonic.... seriously?

submitted by TransspeciesUnicornI sexually identify as a mythical sparkly equine from self.LGBDropTheT

So I was browsing a subreddit that's completely unrelated to anything "queer"/gay/trans/whatever and I came across someone talking how they and some of their friends were in "queerplatonic" relationships. And I was like "queerplatonic? what the fuck is that?".

So I looked up a definition on urban dictionary and... ugh... look at this:

queerplatonic relationship A relationship that exceeds what is usually considered as a platonic relationship, in which two or more people have a strong emotional bond, but do not experience romantic attraction. They may hold hands, cuddle, kiss, have sex, etc. or may not. The limits are defined by someone and their zucchini or zucchinis, and them alone. Many people on the asexual or aromantic spectrum are in queerplatonic relationships, also called QPRs. Note: People do not have to be queer to be in a queerplatonic relationship, which is why it is also called a quasiplatonic relationship.

Seriously? We need a special label for people who are just really close friends now!? Why is it that the people who complain about how "restrictive" labels are are the ones obsessed with labelling everything?

And honestly, it's just kind of sad too. It's like demisexuality a bit. It's sort of sad how emotional closeness or desiring a bond is being pathologized by kweers like this.

And also there's this part:

do not experience romantic attraction. They may hold hands, cuddle, kiss, have sex

This is literally just Friends With Benefits. This doesn't need a special label either. Really.

Getting really sick of all these bullshit labels. Honestly, to me this is exactly why dropping the Q+ is just as important as dropping the T. This stuff just makes us look ridiculous. Not to mention it's kind of harmful how queerplatonic and demisexual are basically assuming that the default human doesn't want to have friends they have a strong bond with and that everyone is just DTF with any hot person. Wanting a strong bond with your friends or potential sexual partners is normal. It really doesn't need to be "othered" with special labels like this.

Has anyone else come across this term before? It was definitely the first time I saw anyone using it.

all 15 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]ArthnoldManacatsaman🇬🇧🌳🟦 20 insightful - 2 fun20 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

At first blush I would have thought 'queerplatonic' would describe the relationship I have with my best friend, who is a lesbian. I am a gay man, she is a lesbian, we are 'queer' (but neither of us refer to ourselves in that way) and we're total homosexual besties.

Alas, it was not to be. You're quite right that the obsession with labels is bizarre and hypocritical. I think it's narcissism, pure and simple. These people don't want to have 'friends' like normal, well-adjusted adults, they have to be in 'queerplatonic' relationships. They don't like casual sex, but they don't just dislike casual sex, they dislike it in a special, sparkly, demisexual way.

[–]SilverWolf 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Honestly your definition makes more sense

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth) 19 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 0 fun20 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Q is worse than t, because it’s where all the bullshit ideology comes from. Like this stuff.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Blech. Kill it with fire. Also: https://giphy.com/explore/banging-head-against-wall

This is just narcissistic kids who have figured out that what they don't possess in character qualities they can append with bogus terminology accessories. It's clown makeup.

[–]bluepadFemale and Super 9 insightful - 8 fun9 insightful - 7 fun10 insightful - 8 fun -  (0 children)

So they're fuck buddies but wanna be extra gender special about it.

[–]artetolife 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I remember when it was a progressive thing in movies and TV to show that a man and a woman could just be friends and nothing else needed to be said about them. Kweer people think they are so groundbreaking yet manage to end up decades behind the heteros they sneer at.

[–]TransspeciesUnicornI sexually identify as a mythical sparkly equine[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I feel like that's one of the most annoying things, actually. They're so smug, acting like they're coming up with these revolutionary and ground-breaking ideas. When really they're just smacking labels on stuff that's not all that unusual or new.

[–]INeedSomeTimeAsexual Ally 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A lot of shit gets either invented or watered down so a lot of people can claim to be one of the letters of the alphabet group. At this point anyone can claim to be gay, lesbian, bi or asexual. Been tired of it how words lose their meanings. It's ironically invalidating. The first time I found out about asexuality it felt that I finally found a good explanation for my experiences. But ever since this term is watered down and literally anyone can be asexual then the whole word no longer serves the purpose of explaining my experiences. If anyone can be asexual then who I am really?

If anyone can be a lesbian then why would a lesbian complain about homophobia since technically everyone can at this point? Do you see the problem which the kweers cause?

[–]7874 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It doesn't even specify that the two people are the same sex, so this just encompasses any and all FWB relationships.

[–]reluctant_commenter 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And honestly, it's just kind of sad too. It's like demisexuality a bit. It's sort of sad how emotional closeness or desiring a bond is being pathologized by kweers like this.

Completely agree.

This is literally just Friends With Benefits. This doesn't need a special label either. Really.

I wonder if some people want to call it a QPR because they feel like there is stigma or shame around the term "friends with benefits." It's a better spin.

This stuff just makes us look ridiculous. Not to mention it's kind of harmful how queerplatonic and demisexual are basically assuming that the default human doesn't want to have friends they have a strong bond with and that everyone is just DTF with any hot person.

Yeah, it's absolutely ridiculous! I think there's a lot of pressure felt among the younger generations (mine included) to have sexual experience, or to at least seem like you're having sexual experience, and so people start using these labels for themselves as a socially acceptable excuse for their otherwise very legitimate life experiences (or lack thereof).

[–]HelloMomo 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That was all the range on tumblr when I was a young teenager, like 2014 ish?

[–]Mermer 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It's not a term for a regular friendship or FWB, It's an equivalent of a long-term, exclusive partnership. Does it need a special label? Probably not, I doubt anyone ever would say queer platonic partner irl, but it does describe the specific nature of a relationship to discuss with some close friends or on the internet. Ppl irl just use the normal stuff like girlfriend, wife, partner etc. But within the right scapes there's no harm in having such label Imo. I doubt anyone would bother to explain that stuff to straight ppl.

Edit: I do not believe that asexuality or aromantism makes you part of LGB or not straight but that doesn't mean ace/aro ppl can't have their own labels to put on how they feel that is different from the norm and LGB people can also be ace/aro. (Safe your comments about aromantism to yourself, I've heard it all, I don't care if you don't believe in it, you do you.)

[–]TransspeciesUnicornI sexually identify as a mythical sparkly equine[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What you're describing literally just sounds like a romantic relationship. "Exclusive" implies that fidelity is expected. So we're talking about a relationship that probably involves sex or at least very strong feelings of commitment and the partners being faithful to each other? How is this not just a romantic relationship? What meaningful distinction is there?

[–]Lizzythelezzo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

My understanding is that it's different from typical romantic/sexual relationships because they don't kiss, makeout, have sex etc. So it's basically another term for a platonic life partner. I suppose you could just call it a very committed friendship, but most people don't share finances and raise kids with their buddies.

[–]TransspeciesUnicornI sexually identify as a mythical sparkly equine[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They may hold hands, cuddle, kiss, have sex, etc. or may not.

Right here it says they sometimes do make out or have sex though.