anyone else feeling rather... annoyed at the way ppl have come to define and use queerplatonic and qprs? So many times I see ppl talk abt qprs saying they're "friendship but Deeper" or "a relationship strictly between friendship and romance" or "essentially romance lite/romance for aromantics" and like. A qpr definitely can be all that if the participants want that, but to say that this is THE definition of queerplatonic is actually going directly against the very goal for which the term was created. Queerplatonic was supposed to give us a word to be able to talk about relationships that don't fit neatly into the "romantic" and "platonic" boxes, whilst also deconstructing the relationship hierarchy and the idea that friendships are fundamentally lesser than romantic relationships. So can we please stop using qprs as a way to once again make friendships seem like a lesser form of relationship and to reinforce the relationship hierarchy? Please?
Afaik the original definition of a qpr was smth along the lines of "a relationship that doesn't fit the traditional boundaries of a friendship". By that definition? A loveless friendship would be a qpr. A "friendship" between two aplatonics would be a qpr. A friendship where they specifically feel less emotionally connected to one another than is expected of a "normal" friendship would be a qpr. Just like how queerness isn't fundamentally about love, queerplatonicism, i.e. queering the platonic, isn't fundamentally about "putting more love" into friendships. It can be, but it doesn't have to be.
