New rule 23

@DustWolf taken from web: "Queerplatonic relationships (QPR) and queerplatonic partnerships (QPP) are committed intimate relationships which are not romantic in nature. They may differ from usual close friendships by having more explicit commitment, validation, status, structure, and norms, similar to a conventional romantic relationship."

(2024-04-17 19:59)wolfdogmisty Wrote:  @DustWolf taken from web: "Queerplatonic relationships (QPR) and queerplatonic partnerships (QPP) are committed intimate relationships which are not romantic in nature. They may differ from usual close friendships by having more explicit commitment, validation, status, structure, and norms, similar to a conventional romantic relationship."

This tells me absolutely nothing.

I stand by my original question.

LP,
Dusty

It's not exactly very surprising to me that this rule was made. A lot of members have created drama by being in romantic relationships, or have caused problems by excessively talking about/to their partner. While this rule will barely affect me, I do appreciate that it was made, since something definitely needed to happen to help prevent Further issues.
Thank you, TG staff members.

(2024-04-17 20:25)DustWolf Wrote:  

(2024-04-17 19:59)wolfdogmisty Wrote:  @DustWolf taken from web: "Queerplatonic relationships (QPR) and queerplatonic partnerships (QPP) are committed intimate relationships which are not romantic in nature. They may differ from usual close friendships by having more explicit commitment, validation, status, structure, and norms, similar to a conventional romantic relationship."

This tells me absolutely nothing.

I stand by my original question.

LP,
Dusty

apologies, i thought you were just looking for info on QPRs.

i can't know for certain what Shipaxe was trying to ask, but i'm assuming that, considering the nature of QPRs, they wanted to know if talk of queerplatonic partners would also be prohibited for members under 16.

for example, would someone under 16 be allowed to discuss their queerplatonic partners in their journal, or be allowed to form QPRs with other members of TG, seeing as QPRs can often appear romantic despite their lack of romance.

hope that's a little more helpful, i'm trying :sob: /lh

I have some questions about this rule for staff to answer, do you want me to post them here or write to staff?

(2024-04-17 20:25)DustWolf Wrote:  

(2024-04-17 19:59)wolfdogmisty Wrote:  @DustWolf taken from web: "Queerplatonic relationships (QPR) and queerplatonic partnerships (QPP) are committed intimate relationships which are not romantic in nature. They may differ from usual close friendships by having more explicit commitment, validation, status, structure, and norms, similar to a conventional romantic relationship."

This tells me absolutely nothing.

I stand by my original question.

LP,
Dusty

I’m curious as to if it’d be allowed due to it being “more” than typical friendship but not romantic. E.g., two people with no romantic attraction to each other referring to each other as partners and going on dates and kissing- but it isn’t romantic. The level of intimacy varies, but it typically looks romantic to outsiders. I’m asking because while it isn’t romantic, it could seem as such.

Actually, now that I think about it, how does this apply to silly crushes on fictional characters? Is that exempt?

Dusty or any other staff that are willing to answer my following questions, please do so (if you want to). I have a few questions with this new rule that I like a lot.
My questions are the following

=====

1. If non-pups are talking about romantic relationships, should pups refrain from joining that conversation?
2. Are pups allowed to join in on the conversation of romantic relationships if the subject was brought up by an older member.
3. Can pups pm other members about romantic relationships to one another if they need help (Irl relationships since online are not allowed for pups).
4. How many warnings do pups get if they break the rule multiply times?
5. And on already exciting posts talking about partners, etc. Do those need to be edited/deleted though they happened before the rule was implied.

======

These general questions I have, and others I believe. So best if somecritter asked.

(2024-04-17 20:37)wolfdogmisty Wrote:  apologies, i thought you were just looking for info on QPRs.

i can't know for certain what Shipaxe was trying to ask, but i'm assuming that, considering the nature of QPRs, they wanted to know if talk of queerplatonic partners would also be prohibited for members under 16.

for example, would someone under 16 be allowed to discuss their queerplatonic partners in their journal, or be allowed to form QPRs with other members of TG, seeing as QPRs can often appear romantic despite their lack of romance.

hope that's a little more helpful, i'm trying :sob: /lh

(2024-04-18 0:50)Shipaxe Wrote:  I’m curious as to if it’d be allowed due to it being “more” than typical friendship but not romantic. E.g., two people with no romantic attraction to each other referring to each other as partners and going on dates and kissing- but it isn’t romantic. The level of intimacy varies, but it typically looks romantic to outsiders. I’m asking because while it isn’t romantic, it could seem as such.

We have this exact issue when people talk about therianthropy by using exotic terminology that is sometimes made up on the spot... And I always tell you to not use the fancy terminology but just describe the experiences instead. The abstract definition is a contradiction in terms and is meaningless. Your example is as well, because it's not specific enough.

If people are referring to each other as partners and going on dates and kissing it's a romantic relationship. You can't make it into a "but platonic", because it isn't, regardless of what they're calling it.

If we're talking about a hypothetical that you haven't experienced, then I won't bother answering the question because the person who does experience it can explain it when the situation comes up and we can decide about it then.

---

(2024-04-17 22:56)Ace on pawrs Wrote:  I have some questions about this rule for staff to answer, do you want me to post them here or write to staff?

Please read the other posts, to see if it was already answered.

For example, you haven't read this:

(2024-04-16 11:12)DustWolf Wrote:  If any of you have questions about this rule feel free to ask in this thread.

If you have questions about a specific violation you can post it in Write to Staff instead.

LP,
Dusty

@DustWolf

most people in QPRs don't go on dates or make out or any of that stuff. i'm gonna be honest, i don't know where Shipaxe has come under that impression—i agree with you, what they've described is just romantic.

typically, queerplatonic partners are effectively "very close friends who might as well get married at this point".

what i think Shipaxe may have been trying to reference in terms of QPRs sometimes being mistaken for romantic relationships actually has to do with the structure and extent of the relationship: people in QPRs will typically have more explicit commitment, validation, status, structure, and norms that are similar to a conventional romantic relationship, but explicitly without the romantic—or sexual—aspects, such as romantic dates, making out, etc.

[this has to do with the history of the term as it originated in asexual and aromantic spaces in the queer community and always was meant to be a boundary-pushing example of how close friends can honestly be without the relationship being romantic or sexual in nature.]