#queeragamic positivity

[queerplatonicpositivity]

Oh hey, I didn't know you created queeragamic! Small world. Honestly I've always appreciated the term since I'm sex-repulsed and would feel most comfortable using a term like that to avoid any possibility of someone thinking my QPR was anything else. I haven't used it since I'm honestly scared of the people who hate on the term but I wanted to let you know people really vibe with it.

Hi, Anon! Thank you so much for this message. There's a lot of things I'd do differently if I could go back and approach the idea of a term like this again, but the actual idea that there can be a term like this is very important to me. I'm really happy it resonates with you and with other people, too. 💜

[genderqueerpositivity]

A few attempts at queeragamic pride flag edits.

@queerplatonicpositivity

Bonus:

[shades-of-grayro]

Thoughts on “queeragamic”

So, I initially wasn’t going to weigh in on this, but it seems there’s been some community conflict surrounding it. The current conversation seems a bit unproductive, and I wanted to weigh in with a more middle-of-the-road opinion to hopefully help us work towards a solution. 

To be clear, I’m only interested in good-faith efforts to listen to what others have to say, share thoughts and feelings, and look to how we can improve things moving into the future. If you’re interested in anything else, this is not the post for you.

Synopsis

Synopsis of the conflict below. Note that I’ve paraphrased a bit of it, but please read people’s own words and don’t assume that my paraphrasing is exactly how they would characterize the situation themselves.

@queerplatonicpositivity coined “queeragamic relationship” to mean “non-sexual queerplatonic relationship.” This was received negatively by alloaros, including @quiet-times [here] and @aro-allo-positivity [here], because they felt that this word was created due to not wanting to be associated with alloaros. @queerplatonicpositivity responded to the criticism here, here, and here.

Summary

I think this was handled badly on both sides.

While I believe that people have the right to use whatever words they’d like to describe their relationships, the wording of the original post coining queeragamic did have echoes of exclusionary rhetoric, and it is important to address that. However, the response trying to address this issue definitely crossed a line.

Is queeragamic harming people who have sex?

Does @queerplatonicpositivity have the right to call their relationship whatever makes them feel most comfortable? Yes. If this were framed as “I recently realized that I need a word to call my relationship that is explicitly non-sexual, and so I’ve coined a word for it” then I’d have zero issue with it. But it was framed as “I’ve just realized that people use this word for their relationships that are sexual, and that makes me uncomfortable” which echoes a lot of other exclusionary situations I’ve seen.

Here are a couple examples:

When that person tried to create a new aro flag because they didn’t like that the actual aro flag had a grey stripe that explicitly included people under the grayromantic umbrella.

I once had someone tell me that they felt excluded by the definition of asexuality that says “a person who doesn’t experience sexual attraction and/or desire” simply because it includes people who identify as ace due to not feeling sexual desire, when they do feel sexual desire, but not attraction.

There’s a pattern here of feeling excluded because others are included, and your post read really similarly to these things, even though I don’t think that’s what your intention was. Not to mention the context of aces feeling uncomfortable in shared ace and aro spaces due to allo aros simply existing. 

You can’t remove yourself from this context, and the way your post is written certainly looks exclusionary. I’d consider re-writing it using a different framing. As I said before, something like “I recently realized that I need a word to call my relationship that is explicitly non-sexual, and so I’ve coined a word for it.”

On calling the criticism “hate”

Several criticisms addressed the fact that @queerplatonicpositivity called their responses “hate.” And I feel obligated to point out that “hate” can be based on legitimate criticism. What makes something hate is not the criticism necessarily being invalid (though it sometimes is), but rather the tone and method of addressing the issue. 

Sending anon messages that start with “do you hate [identity]?” is definitely hate. Using a belligerent tone might suggest that something is hate. Posting something knowing your followers are also going to send anonymous angry messages to the person is hate. Anything where your intent is to make the other person feel bad rather than understand what they did wrong is hate. 

Addressing an issue in a way that is not hate looks like:

Explaining why you feel hurt by the other person’s words with the intent of them understanding your side

Listening to how the other person feels, and trying to help them find better ways of expressing those feelings in the future

Ceding on points where the other person is right

Possibly having this conversation privately if possible.

And even if you still object to the word “hate” to describe this, I’m sure we can at least agree that it’s not a productive way of fixing the problem.

On “Oversharing”

I think the above section addresses most of my issues with the way this was handled, but I also want to address these points made by @aro-allo-positivity, in the context of listing things that are “wrong” with queeragamic:

“Needlessly gives other people private information about your sex life”

“Needlessly telling people it’s not sexual enforces the exclusionist rhetoric that aces overshare about their sex lives”

“Coiner also said something along the lines of being tired of having to explicitly state that their qpr isn’t sexual. Which like. You definitely don’t have to do.”

“Especially to people who didn’t ask.”

“How weird would it be to introduce a romantic partner to someone and then say “we don’t have sex” like………”

This is entirely inappropriate. You are not ace, and the only one reinforcing exclusionist rhetoric that aces overshare about their sex lives is you. 

Some aces are uncomfortable with people assuming that their significant relationships are sexual, and there is nothing wrong with those aces making it clear that their relationships are not sexual. Yes, there is a time and a place, but nothing about this particular situation says “wrong time or place”.

When we respond to hate, we need to make sure we’re not doing it on the aphobe’s terms, or we’re going to accidentally end up hurting people. The reason this is wrong is the same reason it’s wrong when allo aces respond to aphobes by saying “asexual doesn’t mean aromantic.” In this situation, it’s bad that aphobes conflate identifying as asexual with sharing about your sex life. It’s ALSO bad that they’re saying that it’s always wrong to share that information.

That’s the dangerous trap with responding to aphobes or when talking about stereotypes in general. Stereotypes are always bad for two reasons 1) they make a generalization, and 2) they imply that the stereotypical trait is a bad thing (it’s not, in most cases at least). A lot of people accidentally perpetuate part 2 when trying to address part 1, and I think that’s what happened to you here. 

I suggest thinking about how you wish allo aces would make amends when they do something similar, like saying “asexual doesn’t mean aromantic” in this type of context, and correct yourself the way you wish they would.

And also, calling people weird is just generally not a good thing, and if you’re about to say that in the future, I’d take a second look and make sure you’re not hurting people with what you’re going to say.

Other thoughts

I do have a few other thoughts about the word “queeragamic”. Disclaimer that in this section I am not trying to tell other people how they can label themselves, but I also just don’t like the word.

First, I just really don’t like the word itself. Like, I absolutely hate that the word makes direct references to asexual reproduction on purpose. Also, the word “queerplatonic” comes from “queering” the “platonic”, so… this doesn’t follow that format? So I’m confused as to why the prefix “queer” is there. Because “agamic” isn’t an existing social structure that you could “queer”. 

Second, I do have some concerns about reasons why people want to use a word that means “non-sexual qpr”. Sometimes people in qprs make the mistake of assuming that their partner is on the same page as them with regards to what activities they are going to do in their relationship. It’s important to talk about boundaries in relationships and make sure you’re on the same page as your partner! I’m vaguely worried that people will use this term as a replacement for actual communication - no single word will ever be able to communicate exactly what you want in a relationship, so make sure to talk about whether you want sex, hand-holding, or anything else in your partnership regardless of what you call it.

Also, genuine question: is there a reason it’s important to have a specific name for this rather than just saying “non-sexual qpr”, which is much more likely to be understood without giving a vocab lesson (where you’ll end up saying that anyway), and relatively short as well? 

[queerplatonicpositivity]

Sorry if this has been asked before, but what are some terms qpp’s use to refer to each other as (ie. boyfriend, girlfriend), I’ve heard of zucchini but are there any others?

Hi, Anon!  I just got another ask about this, too, so I’m going to paste it here and try to answer both together:

My queerplatonic partner and I have been together for a while and we’re still not sure what to call each other, like she’s uncomfortable with me calling her my ‘girlfriend’ to others (because of the romantic implications and stuff) and I think ‘zucchini’ sounds kind of,,, awkward. Do you have any recommendations for terms we could use when we talk about each other?

This is one of those things that can be highly personal.  Here are some things I’ve seen other people use:

partner

life partner

partner in crime

life mate

significant other / S.O.

bestie

friend-for-life

soulmate

companion

life companion

person

That last one might sound a bit odd, but I actually had a former colleague call me that once, after I was laid off.  She said, “Everyone has been so sad for me.  They know that you were my person here at work, the one I spent time with and vented to – the person who really got me.”

You can also put the term “platonic” in front of most of those terms to help allay any misconceptions about romance (e.g., “platonic life partner,” “platonic soulmate”).

I think what you use might depend on the context you’re in and how much follow-up explaining you’re willing to do.  Of course, you never have to explain anything you don’t want to.  But some of these terms will naturally lead to more questions, so that’s something to keep in mind.

My favorite, though, might be anam cara, an Irish phrase from Celtic history that means something to the effect of “soul friend” (link).  It’s the kind of term that is both meaningful and non-romantic, plus it’s more likely to steer the conversation in a different direction if you want.  People might be less likely to ask follow-up questions about exactly what your relationship involves and they might be more likely to delve into Celtic history and the over-arching concept of friendship as necessary to the soul.

[queerplatonicpositivity]

What would be the shortened version for a queeragamic relationship? Would it be qgr? And would said partner be a qgp? My (used to be) queerplatonic partner just agreed to use the term for our relationship (bc we don't want to fuck), and I'm trying to figure some things out 😅

Hiya, Anon!  That is a great question.  I’ve been wondering about that, because I was thinking qap (queeragamic partner) and qar (queeragamic relationship), but I could totally see qgr and qgp working, too.

And honestly, when I see “qar,” I think “quasar,” which is just… pretty cool, imho.  I just looked up the definition of “quasar” to check, and it apparently means: “a massive and extremely remote celestial object, emitting exceptionally large amounts of energy, and typically having a starlike image in a telescope. It has been suggested that quasars contain massive black holes and may represent a stage in the evolution of some galaxies.”

I feel like I could see myself using the term "my star” or “my galaxy” (or even “you little black hole, you!” if I’m mildly annoyed) to refer to my queeragamic partner (if/when I ever get one?), and “quasar” to refer to the relationship.  “Yeah, we’re in a quasar.” =P  I mean, if Kaz and s. e. smith could coin the term zucchini, then anything’s possible. xD

What are your thoughts about it?

Also, I am super honored that the term resonates with you and your partner.  (I did the dorky thing where I put my hands to my cheeks, like covering a blush, lol.)

[queerplatonicpositivity]

queerplatonic is a term with its origins for aros. It simply means a committed relationship with romantic elements and has always had the option to include sexual elements too because it was made with aros in mind & there are allo aros. you're fine to come up with your own term if you're uncomfy with that idea but some qprs being sexual is not a new concept at all and I'd prefer if you didn't act like that's the case in your post. The new idea of them being always nonsexual as well is arophobic.

Hi, Anon! I appreciate your perspective on this. I think it can be easy, as people from communities that regularly experience systemic oppression, to have an idea of what certain words or phrases mean (or should mean). Aro people and ace people (and I am both, btw) are often lumped together, and there has been some tension between our communities as we have tried to clarify who we are and what we want in ways that do not throw each other under the bus.

I used words in my description of “queeragamic” that make sense to me, to convey certain ideas. For example, I used the phrase “the resurgence I’ve seen of people saying queerplatonic relationships can be sexual. And, I mean, that’s valid.” By using “resurgence,” I thought I was communicating that this isn’t a new thing, because for something to resurge means it has to have been present before. I used “resurgence” because I haven’t seen many instances of people talking about sexual qprs lately.

I went on to say, “That’s something a big chunk of people in our communities have decided is a thing, and a thing that they want.” By using the past tense (“have decided”), I thought I was signaling that I know this is a pre-existing, established thing.

But that’s my specific perspective, and what means something specific to me doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing to other people.

What I *didn’t* do was expressly indicate that I know qprs have been sexual for some people since the inception of the concept (let alone the more recent coining of the term and then its popularization). I do know this.

I’ve never wanted a sexual qpr, and I’ve always been uncomfortable with using a term where I have to explicitly clarify to people that my version of the term does not include sex. But it wasn’t until this more recent experience of seeing multiple posts describing sexual qprs, that I realized I was uncomfortable enough that I didn’t want to use this term.

So to clarify for you, sexual qprs are not new. My disinterest in sexual qprs is not new. But my decision to create a new term is new.

[queerplatonicpositivity]

hey, the first anon about queeragamic here. thanks for clearing up what you meant in your post & I apologise if my ask came off as a bit aggressive. qprs have been popularised under them being an ace term & as an alloaro whose qpr includes sexual elements I didn't like the implication of the idea of sexual qprs being new when I've always seen the definition include them. thank you for clearing that up & no hard feelings. I hope queeragamic catches on for other aroaces/non sam aros/aces out there

Hi, Anon! Thank you for this follow-up message. I apologize, too, if I came across as defensive in my response. I wasn’t as clear as I could’ve been about my thoughts on the term queerplatonic, and its history, and how queeragamic fits into everything, and your message helped me explore that a bit more.

I really appreciate your kind words. 💚

[queerplatonicpositivity]

I'm sorry people are being mean :( could people say they have an agamic qpr? still use the flag and identity but that way people in qprs dont have to abandon the label entirely?

Hi, Anon! Yeah, it’s been a tough couple of days. I’m not used to the amount of outright hatefulness I’m getting.

But yes, definitely! The idea of queeragamic was always supposed to be a term I could use (and anyone else could use) to mean a subset of qprs. Like being genderqueer is a type of non-binary gender.

I’m not abandoning the flag or the community. I’m just saying that if I ever find the right person, I’ll be forming a queeragamic realtionship with them. But yeah, you could totally say you have an agamic qpr. At the end of the day, terms are about what resonates with you, so please feel free.

[queerplatonicpositivity]

Ok just to make sure I'm understanding it, the newer term is more specific in describing a nonsexual (and nonromantic?) relationship? So it could fall under the queerplatonic umbrella or simply overlap?

Hiya!  Yes, I was conceptualizing it that way.  Kind of like how non-binary is a specific type of genderqueer identity.

[queerplatonicpositivity]

Queeragamic really clicked with me. I went my whole life feeling awful because one of my best friends was completely phobic towards me since I define as aro. I love knowing others have similar experience and being able to read an identity and feeling deep down, "Yeah. That's me. I'm not alone!" This blog has also given me really great tips on establishing boundaries and understanding that each relationship works different, so there's no need to hold myself to someone else's standard

Hi, Anon!  I’m really happy that queeragamic clicked with you.  It can be really helpful to find a term that resonates with you.  And I’m really sorry that person was so hurtful toward you; you didn’t deserve to be treated like that.  You’re definitely not alone -- we’re all here with you and here to support you, too.

And thank you for that last part, too.  It’s a good reminder to me: each relationship works different, so there’s no need to hold myself to someone else’s standard.  Definitely important words of wisdom that are worth remembering. 💚

[queerplatonicpositivity]

can you help me understand what's going on with the term queeragamic and why some people are upset?

Hi, Anon!  This is a bit complex, but I’ll try to keep it short.  I’m demisexual and demiromantic, and I decided I wanted a term for a non-sexual queerplatonic relationship.  I talked about it with @genderqueerpositivity, and together we came up with queeragamic, and designed a flag.  I made a post about the term (link).  It wasn’t a perfect post.  I didn’t word things as well as I could’ve to fully explain what I was thinking and feeling.  I tried my best, but sometimes we can try our best at things and still have room for improvement.

There were a couple of allo aros (here and here) who messaged me on Anon to express concern over my wording, and I tried to answer those to the best of my ability.  Then there were also a few Anons who just messaged me with very mean insults, which I chose not to publish.  When I said I wouldn’t be responding to anymore angry allo aros about the Queeragamic post, I meant the Anons who were sending me insults.  I did not mean that I wasn’t going to read or respond to people who wanted to talk about their concerns.  I did get messaged by concerned people who wanted clarification, after those first posts, and I did respond to them (here and here and here).

I think what’s going on is a combination of me not wording things as best as I could, and people not giving each other the benefit of the doubt.  As I’ve posted about before (link), “This, I believe, is why traumatized communities struggle so profoundly with loving one another. We have been hard-wired for suspicion and terror of betrayal, which in turn feeds into the logics of disposability and incarceration: we come to believe that making a mistake — any mistake, whether big or small — makes someone bad and dangerous.“

Giving someone the benefit of the doubt is really difficult, even under the best of circumstances.

We’re at a point now where I have said (see links above) that I didn’t word things as well as I could.  I have also repeatedly affirmed the importance and validity of sexual queerplatonic relationships and allosexual aromantics.  If the fact that I created a new term is the issue for someone, then there’s not going to be a resolution, because I feel anyone has the right to create a new term.  If it’s the way I worded my explanation of the new term, then I’ve addressed that by clarifying and apologizing (see links above).  So for people who just don’t think there should ever be a different term, they’re always going to be upset with me.  For people who are concerned about whether I’m wielding the term in an arophobic way, hopefully the several asks I’ve responded to have clarified that, or they’re welcome to (constructively) come into my ask box.

The thing is, I’m just one person, and I’m human.  I have tried my best to address the concerns people have had.  I don’t have spoons to respond to cruel anon messages and I’m certainly not going to post them on a positivity blog.  I’ve seen blogs taking bits and pieces of my posts, screen-capping them, and reposting them as images, out of context.  At this point, I’m just tired.  I will do my best to continue to respond to people who directly engage with me in good faith.

Edited to add:

Q. Why haven’t you just edited your Queeragamic post, then?

A. 1. I feel like it’s important to have accountability, and even if it’s not my intention, editing the post could come across like I’m trying to pretend stuff didn’t happen. 2. I’ve been in spaces with people who experience psychosis and people who have experienced gaslighting, and they’ve told me that it’s very triggering to have things edited like that, because it messes with their sense of reality, so I’m trying to be mindful of that.

Q. Aspec people are already such a small percent of the population, and already experience a lot of discrimination in the broader community.  We don’t need another term that is going to further divide us.

A. Non-binary people are already such a small percent of the population, and already experience a lot of discrimination in the broader community (including from some binary trans people).  And yet we have hundred of terms (and flags) for non-binary genders.  And it’s beautiful.  People have a right to choose and/or create terms that resonate with them; it’s not their responsibility to identify in a way that does not resonate with them in order to somehow “unite the community.”

Q. The term queeragamic is going to lead to sex shaming.

A. We have a lot of different terms in different communities that could be considered “opposites” or the other side of the same coin, like femme lesbian and butch lesbian.  Queeragamic isn’t sex shaming anymore than butch lesbian is femme-shaming.  There is a lot of pain in some communities between people who have an over-arching shared identity (like lesbian) but a different sub-identity (like butch or femme).  It’s all about what the people who use the term say and do.  It is possible that someone who uses the term queeragamic will sex shame someone.  But if that happens, that will be squarely on the shoulders of the person who did the sex shaming, not on the term they chose to identify with.

Q. Have you thought about making queeragamic a sub-type of queerplatonic relationships?

A. Yes, I’ve actually said a few times that making it a sub-type was what I had meant all along.  Please see the links above for examples of when I have explicitly said I view queeragamic as a sub-type of queerplatonic.

Q. How does -agamic work as a suffix?  It doesn’t seem to make sense that you’re “queering” the “asexual” the way that “queerplatonic” means you’re “queering” the “platonic.”

A. I can only answer this as one person, but I get a lot of amatonormative societal messages that sexual union (specifically, heteronormative and cisnormative messages that penis-in-vagina sexual union between two cis het people) is the best possible thing that can happen and is the pinnacle of closeness in a relationship.  The whole “2 become 1″ thing.  (And yes, marriage is often conceptualized like that, but there’s an added layer of “consummating” it, so marriage by itself has historically not been enough to signify this “2 become 1″ thing, which positions sex as the necessary element.)  Anyway, to me, queeragamic means queering ideas of the separation of souls and what it means to have a union with someone else.  But it doesn’t have to mean that to other people.

[queerplatonicpositivity]

A beautiful blog you have here. Thank you for existing! ♡♡♡

Hi, Anon!  Thank you so much for the kind words. =)

I actually created this blog after I got laid off back at the end of June 2019.  I felt really sad and lonely, and I found myself with a lot of time.  I saw how much @genderqueerpositivity resonated with people, and I had been thinking about how much queerplatonic -- and now, queeragamic -- relationships mean to me, so I thought I’d try making a positivity blog, to kind of give myself some direction and focus (and as something fun to distract from endless job searching).  I never realized people would enjoy it like this, and it means a lot to get these kind words from you. ♡