Talk:Queerplatonic relationship

This article is obsolete.

This is exactly the same thing as a close friendship. 134.130.104.157 (talk) 08:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources to show that is the case?--Historyday01 (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article explains that queerplatonic relationships differ from close friendship by having the same structure and status as a romantic relationship, and are often said to involve a deeper and more profound emotional connection than friendship. Kilopylae (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I was hoping they would contribute some sources... but I kinda doubt they will at this point, to be honest. --Historyday01 (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by the article being obsolete? Besides doesn't it clarify how close friendship and a queerplatonic relationship is different Chipsahoy95 (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's the same as close friendship, there's no article for that specifically at the moment. Tazuco (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

makes no sense to have this page in the LGBT category

Queerplatonic relationships aren't inherently lgbt, whatsoever. Sexual slang is a better fit. Tdmurlock (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As described in "Making Sense in and of the Asexual Community: Navigating Relationships and Identities in a Context of Resistance" and Ace: What Asexuality Reveals About Desire, Society, and the Meaning of Sex, the term "queerplatonic relationship" has its origins in the asexual and aromantic communities. The asexual and aromantic communities are part of the larger LGBT community. Therefore, the term "queerplatonic" should be considered a LGBT term due to its origins in a subset of the LGBT community. Panian513 22:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panian513 (talk • contribs)

Exactly. It makes sense to put it in the LGBT category.Historyday01 (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can QPR's look like this?

 A romantic relationship where neither of the participants are romantically attracted to each other and they do things like kissing cuddling and hand holding. Cause as a cupioromantic I would love this, having a romantic relationship without needing romantic attraction. FruityWriting (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this talk page is reserved for discussing how to write the article (e.g. how to maintain compliance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view standards, discerning which categories the article belongs in, debating which sources to cite, etc.). And even then, Wikipedia simply follows what reliable, published secondary sources say on a subject. So I'd say that you'd find better luck asking a forum or social media when trying to discern the shape of your QPR (although, if you want my personal two cents, I say that you should find what you and your consenting partner(s) are happy with, and be happy with it). Panian513 21:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda 17 82.37.8.179 (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Origin

The article currently states:

The term "queerplatonic" was coined in 2010 by the writers s. e. cummings and Kaz.

attributed to a book by Angela Chen. I do not have this reference material. Can someone who does please verify that the first author does indeed refer to themselves without any capitalisation? If they do, I suggest adding the {sic} template to make it explicit that it's deliberate. If not, then MOS:TONE would discourage such bizarre formatting. Some googling has not turned up such persons to confirm or deny. 2001:8000:138F:C100:719B:8855:AB4B:91AF (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant page is available on Google Books' preview for free. Personally, I do not think a "[sic]" is necessary, and I would worry that it risks looking sarcastic or inappropriately judgemental; screen names and usernames are often in all lower-case, and personal names in all lower-case (especially amongst lefty writers) is hardly unheard of―look at academics like blake nemec or bell hooks. In this particular case, it's probably a reference to e e cummings. However, it's possible I spend too much time around lefty academics and have lost my sense of what is normal or surprising for the average reader, so I'm happy for other voices to weigh in on how to balance the risk of confusing the reader against the risk of appearing inappropriately judgemental. —Kilopylae (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]