A Relationship Anarchist Perspective on QPRs and Friendship

This post was written for the October 2021 Carnival of Aros, where the theme is “Friendship.”

Early on in my journey to understand my aspec identity, I came across the concept of queerplatonic relationships. As a baby aro, I found the concept of a relationship that is committed and intimate while also being wholly platonic incredibly liberating. Because of social programming, the thought that I could have intimacy and affection in a relationship without romance and sex had never occurred to me. I immediately knew that a QPR is something I wanted, and this started the long process of unlearning many of the social scripts I grew up with. As this process of deprogramming progressed and I opened my mind to what an interpersonal relationship is and what it can be, I eventually settled on relationship anarchy as the primary conceptualization scheme through which I understand the relationships in my life. However, as I began navigating relationships through the lens of relationship anarchy, the concept of a queerplatonic relationship started to become less and less intuitive to me, and I began to realize that the concept doesn’t necessarily map well to my conceptual model of relationships.

Many relationship anarchists choose to eschew labels in their relationships, as they consider labels to be a form of classification and classification a form of hierarchy. My approach to relationship anarchy has always been that I’m fine with labels as long as they’re descriptive as opposed to prescriptive, meaning that the label should describe the relationship rather than determine the boundaries and expectation of the relationship. Traditionally, people choose how they want to classify their relationship first and allow society to prescribe what relationships of that type should entail. I prefer to pick and choose what I want my relationships to entail independent of existing social scripts—using tools like the relationship smorgasbord—and then choose how we want to label it.

One would think that the concept of a queerplatonic relationship would be well-suited to this style of relationship anarchy; QPRs don’t really have any social scripts associated with them, both because the concept isn’t particularly mainstream and because the definition is vague and fuzzy by design. This means that “queerplatonic” can be adopted as a label for a relationship under relationship anarchy without prescribing anything about the nature of the relationship, and it can potentially be applicable to a wide variety of non-normative relationship styles. Despite this, lately I’ve been finding that “queerplatonic”—even as a descriptive label—isn’t as helpful of a conceptualization for me as it once was.

Since I don’t limit the amount of intimacy or kinds of commitments which are included in a relationship by how I classify it, the only concrete differentiator for me is the label we use to describe it. Still, for me, determining whether to label a relationship as a friendship or a QPR can become a sticking point because it’s hard to escape the notion that there’s some form of hierarchy there. While people in aspec communities do generally make an effort to clarify that a QPR isn’t necessarily “more than” a friendship and “less than” a romantic relationship, it’s difficult to completely escape this narrative when queerplatonic relationships are typically defined in terms of what they include that a friendship doesn’t and what they do not include which a romantic relationship does. There’s also generally an understanding that QPRs progress from close friendships, implying that it’s a sort of evolution or progression from a “standard” friendship. I always see QPRs defined as “transcending” friendship or going “beyond” friendship and usually as having more of something—like intimacy or commitment—than a friendship. It’s incredibly difficult for me to determine exactly when a friendship should be “upgraded” to a QPR, because I don’t measure the relationships in my life on a linear scale of “closeness,” and to me, there are many different kinds of intimacy and commitment.

One appeal of the “queerplatonic” label for me—along with terms like “partner”—is that it provides some social legitimacy for the relationship. Something I’ve found I enjoy in relationships is presenting as someone’s partner in a social sense—having our relationship recognized and fulfilling the social role of a partner. I want the depth of my relationships to be recognized by others, and calling someone my “friend” generally causes people to assume there’s an upper limit to how deep and intimate the relationship can be. Even though the term “queerplatonic” isn’t commonly understood outside queer communities, having a formal label for the relationship and distinct language for how I refer to that person goes a long way toward giving my relationship social legitimacy. My thinking is that if I can’t make other people understand the nuanced and unique relationships I have with each of the people in my life, I can at least pander to the rigid classification system they do understand to gain some social recognition.

Still, I feel like this approach of pandering to relationship hierarchies isn’t how I want to go about relationships. If we go back to the post where the term “queerplatonic” was first proposed, Kaz talks about eir feelings toward relationship hierarchies:

ALSO, I worry that by calling my relationship and desired relationship “in between friendship and romance” (which again feels a bit like I’m boxing it in) I’m trying to get relationship points from the hierarchy – that because I don’t want what I have with my not!GF to be dismissed as “just” friendship I’m calling it sort of romantic ish in a way in order to get some of the importance that gets accorded to romantic relationships in our society – when really I should be trying to break down the hierarchy altogether, point out that friendship doesn’t have to be “just”, and that there are more options than friendship or romance.

This stance really resonates with me; using “queerplatonic” to legitimize my relationships feels like what Kaz describes as “trying to get relationship points from the hierarchy.” I want people to recognize that my relationships are valuable to me, but I don’t want to have to impose a hierarchy them to do it. Unlike Kaz, however, I don’t think “queerplatonic” solves this problem for me. To me, labeling a relationship as “queerplatonic” kinda does feel like saying it’s “in between” friendship and romance. As much as aspec people insist that this isn’t the case, the common messaging around “queerplatonic” still gives me the impression that a QPR is in some way “more than” a friendship. Even if I could conceptualize QPRs as a distinct relationship category with no implied hierarchy, I’m still not sure “queerplatonic” would be a useful concept for me; my relationships are too varied and nuanced to fit into a binary, so trying to fit them into a ternary isn’t really much easier.

I’ve always hated the notion that friendship is inherently less valuable than other kinds of relationships, which is why I dislike phrases like “just friends” and “only friends.” Instead of using “queerplatonic” to legitimize my friendships, maybe I should focus more on defending the validity of intimate and committed friendships. Because to me, friendship is something special. There’s something delightfully subversive about labeling my intimate and committed relationships as friendships, like I’m challenging the commonly held notions of what a friendship is and what it can be. It almost feels like I’m reappropriating “friendship” from an amatonormative society to mean what I want it to mean.

None of this is intended to be a criticism of relationship hierarchies or the concept of queerplatonic relationships. Rather, this is more of a personal reflection on my struggle to reconcile “queerplatonic”—a concept I once found incredibly useful—with my tendencies toward relationship anarchy. I don’t think “queerplatonic” is necessarily incompatible with relationship anarchy or that relationship anarchy is necessarily a better approach to relationships than any other, and I do think that the existence of the term is a net positive. I just feel like as my personal attitudes toward relationships have evolved, I’m moving past the need for “queerplatonic.”

At one point, the concept of queerplatonic relationships was incredibly useful for expanding my conceptual model of relationships; “queerplatonic” gave me permission to seek out the kinds of relationships I’ve always wanted but never thought I could have. However, in retrospect, I was just trading one hierarchical classification system for a slightly less restrictive one. I now realize that I don’t need to classify my friendships as queerplatonic for them to be intimate and committed, and all the term did for me was force me to impose a binary on my platonic relationships where there didn’t need to be one. I do see appeal in the term for socially legitimizing my relationships, but lately my attitude has been that I would prefer to challenge the concept of relationship hierarchies rather than pander to them. I’m glad the term exists and that people find value in it, but I think I might let go of this conceptualization scheme moving forwards.

10 thoughts on “A Relationship Anarchist Perspective on QPRs and Friendship

  1. This all makes a lot of sense to me! Thanks so much for sharing.

    I think I land in a slightly different place when it comes to the term queerplatonic, mostly because most of my friendships remain normative enough and aren’t being artificially limited by societal scripts but what’s desired for the 2 of us in each friendship is within the realm of what people expect… And then queerplatonic is a term i can use as a descriptive tool to help describe the rare one outside those norms and not fitting neatly into a box if i have a friendship like that at that point in my life… So idk to me it still works out and makes sense.

    But I’m also not fully a relationship anarchist as much as i love the concept in theory. I can’t help but hold onto pieces of hierarchy as seeming useful to me, as long as carefully used and very intentionally and not “just the default”…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I think concepts like queerplatonic and relationship anarchy are most useful when people feel free to pick and choose the bits and pieces of them that they relate to. So it’s absolutely valid to appreciate the concept of relationship anarchy in theory while also wanting some degree of hierarchy in your relationships. And even if I’m shifting away from using queerplatonic, I absolutely see how it can be an incredibly useful concept for others.

      Thanks for your thoughts!


  2. Part of me is wondering that for an idea to become popular, does it need to get simplified (such that some of the nuance gets forgotten), neatly categorized, or placed in hierarchies? I’m thinking of concepts like SAM, QPPs. When they were first explained to me, they were simple concepts that made sense, but after I put more thought into them, they both started feeling inadequate or too restrictive. On one hand, being inadequate or restrictive is a problem, but on the other, the ideas might not become popular (or more known) unless they are made more, um, “easily digestible” … just a thought that occurs to me. Thanks for sharing this really thoughtful piece!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. That’s a good point! I do feel like a lot of concepts from aspec communities get distilled down and lose some of their original nuance to make them more digestible, particularly to allo people. I imagine one reason why the SAM has become so ubiquitous is because aspec educators latched onto it as a fairly straightforward conceptualization scheme they can use to explain aspec identities to allo people.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. I love this post! I totally resonate with what you say about moving deeper into an anarchist understanding of relationships and finding that naming and hierarchy of relationship forms becomes more and more, like, not gross and not even necessarily useless, but something you do on purpose, for reasons, seeing how the social construction functions.

    I’ve, uh, written more about this here, because I accidentally wrote a blog post in your comments section and then it turned out to be too long to post as a comment. So here it is https://thiro.dreamwidth.org/2778.html

    An anecdote on the diffusion of “relationship anarchy” as a concept in aspec spaces: I once engaged with someone who was asking how they could find an “anarchal relationship” partner – managing to force the “this is a discrete, named form of interpersonal relationship with its own rules and implications” model onto the very philosophy of not engaging with relationships in that way.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. I saw your thoughts on my post but it looks like in the days it took me to reply your account was terminated and the comment became unavailable?

        I wanted to reply to you with this poem, on the subject of relationship “failure”

        Failing and Flying
        By Jack Gilbert
        Everyone forgets that Icarus also flew.
        It’s the same when love comes to an end,
        or the marriage fails and people say
        they knew it was a mistake, that everybody
        said it would never work. That she was
        old enough to know better. But anything
        worth doing is worth doing badly.
        Like being there by that summer ocean
        on the other side of the island while
        love was fading out of her, the stars
        burning so extravagantly those nights that
        anyone could tell you they would never last.
        Every morning she was asleep in my bed
        like a visitation, the gentleness in her
        like antelope standing in the dawn mist.
        Each afternoon I watched her coming back
        through the hot stony field after swimming,
        the sea light behind her and the huge sky
        on the other side of that. Listened to her
        while we ate lunch. How can they say
        the marriage failed? Like the people who
        came back from Provence (when it was Provence)
        and said it was pretty but the food was greasy.
        I believe Icarus was not failing as he fell,
        but just coming to the end of his triumph.

        (source: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/48132/failing-and-flying)

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Pingback: Carnival of Aros – October 2021 “Friendship” – Round Up of All Submissions – From Fandom To Family – The New Home of luvtheheaven!

  5. Pingback: Why do people want romantic relationships? – sildarmillion

  6. Pingback: Plotting My Queer Identity on the Convergence-Divergence Spectrum – Nothing Radical

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s