>>But usually when people say queerplatonic, they mean something deep and permanent, a primary partnership not based on sex. This might last, but it doesn't seem primary.<<
It's a bit more flexible than that- though, admittedly, I am talking from a polyamorous perspective and honestly have no exposure to how the monogamous part of the community handles it, so take this through that lens. I've known people who's QPP's are basically their spouses- my QPP and I have legit discussed getting married if our family leaves the country to make things easier. Others, in poly groupings at least, just treat their QPP like any of their other partners- if they have a primary partner, it might be the QPP, or they might be one of the stabilizing branches of the polygon instead.
...Come to think of it, I bet there's an essay in that, on how polyamory casts a new lens on relationship dynamics in general, but I digress.
What Shiv and Gray have matches roughly with what I had for a long time with someone who I've since fallen out of contact with. It's not primary- neither of them seem interested in moving in together, or fitting neatly into their lives like a puzzle- but it's a form of trust that at least in Shiv's case, he isn't prone to giving anyone else. He shares things with Gray that he wouldn't share with anyone else, and while it's not primary, it's also not exactly casual, either.
(He's given similar *levels* of trust, to Graham and Lucy and Tolliver, but those are different forms too. I find the distinction to be important.)
>>The general use tends to claim that sexual urges mean not asexual.<<
You'll be pleased to know that that particular definition has been falling out of relevance for at least half a decade now- by the time I went looking for info, it was cited as a 'popular misconception'. The primary feature, these days, is a lack of sexual attraction, or a low level of it. The terms 'sex-repulsed' and 'sex-neutral', and other similar, have started coming into use- I'm somewhere in the sex-repulsed range, except it's not a conceptual issue for me, it's a physical issue. (Fluids and squish and heat and 'ick'! >n<)
These days, what I see bandied around the most is something to the tune of, "If our label feels useful to you, come have a seat at our fire. And if it ever stops feeling useful, that's okay too."
There'll always be pockets of gatekeeping, but I think this micro-generation of the community is so tired and furious at the gatekeeping from the larger queer community that we have a reflex reaction of trying to be more welcoming in response.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
Re: *sympathy wince*
Date: 2020-04-21 07:14 am (UTC)It's a bit more flexible than that- though, admittedly, I am talking from a polyamorous perspective and honestly have no exposure to how the monogamous part of the community handles it, so take this through that lens. I've known people who's QPP's are basically their spouses- my QPP and I have legit discussed getting married if our family leaves the country to make things easier. Others, in poly groupings at least, just treat their QPP like any of their other partners- if they have a primary partner, it might be the QPP, or they might be one of the stabilizing branches of the polygon instead.
...Come to think of it, I bet there's an essay in that, on how polyamory casts a new lens on relationship dynamics in general, but I digress.
What Shiv and Gray have matches roughly with what I had for a long time with someone who I've since fallen out of contact with. It's not primary- neither of them seem interested in moving in together, or fitting neatly into their lives like a puzzle- but it's a form of trust that at least in Shiv's case, he isn't prone to giving anyone else. He shares things with Gray that he wouldn't share with anyone else, and while it's not primary, it's also not exactly casual, either.
(He's given similar *levels* of trust, to Graham and Lucy and Tolliver, but those are different forms too. I find the distinction to be important.)
>>The general use tends to claim that sexual urges mean not asexual.<<
You'll be pleased to know that that particular definition has been falling out of relevance for at least half a decade now- by the time I went looking for info, it was cited as a 'popular misconception'. The primary feature, these days, is a lack of sexual attraction, or a low level of it. The terms 'sex-repulsed' and 'sex-neutral', and other similar, have started coming into use- I'm somewhere in the sex-repulsed range, except it's not a conceptual issue for me, it's a physical issue. (Fluids and squish and heat and 'ick'! >n<)
These days, what I see bandied around the most is something to the tune of, "If our label feels useful to you, come have a seat at our fire. And if it ever stops feeling useful, that's okay too."
There'll always be pockets of gatekeeping, but I think this micro-generation of the community is so tired and furious at the gatekeeping from the larger queer community that we have a reflex reaction of trying to be more welcoming in response.