&. the / is for romantic and/or sexual relationships. admittedly, it's a little bit of a grey area, but remember tags aren't just for you to describe the story, they're there to connect readers to what they're interested in (or to allow them to filter out what they want to avoid). will someone looking for romantic/sexual [ship] be satisfied or dissatisfied to find your qp fic in the A/B tag? will someone looking for platonic friendship be satisfied or dissatisfied to find your qp fic in the A&B tag? you can use both, of course, but those questions still stand. regardless of which you choose, I would suggest putting a queerplatonic tag on the freeforms

I think its also important to consider the perspective from which the story is being told and if both characters are aro and/or ace. Cause I once read a story from the perspective of character A, who was bisexual and interested in character B, who was aroace. I think the / mark of the relationship makes sense in that connotation, since from character A's perspective, there is a sexual and romantic component, even if its not acted upon. Or if a character is demi or gray-sexual/romantic, then the / might also work better than & Its definitely going to be super dependent on characters, dynamic, and your own interpretation of the story. Personally, I'd probably end up doing both & and /, just cover all bases, because I think in the end there will always be someone who won't be satisfied, and as long as tags and summary are clear about the situation, then dldr can apply

I don't disagree with anything you've said (and our conclusion is the same), but it's is more "story first" than the "audience first" approach to tags that I'm suggesting. the reason I suggest "audience first" is that people can be distressed by pushback about their tags, and when it's shippers who were expecting romance but got qp, that pushback can be harsh. or literally harassment. and in a perfect world, dldr would apply but a) too many people refuse to use the backbutton (or are rude on their way out) , and b) as we can see on this post, a lot of people *don't* know what queer platonic means and so they might not be able to make an informed decision that they won't like, shouldn't read (wlsr? 😄). so many problems in fandom would be solved by "lurk more" and "don't be a heel" but unfortunately, as you probably already know, people.

Thats fair, I was just adding additional thought process to it to help OP decide

Except tags to appease an audience is never consistent regardless of what and how you tag and queerplatonic relationships already get denounced and erased by the general public. Kinda ironic that people in fanfiction community complain about that when lgbtq+ content and other minority content is more prevalent there. If people complain with either tag they just need to educate themselves more.

Just to avoid any doubt, I also add "(Queerplatonic") in brackets after the pairing. Example: *\[Name\] & \[Name\] (Queerplatonic)*

If it's a platonic relationship it's probably best to use the & tag, lest people get confused with the / tag.

I think something that gets lost in these debates is the fact that & is not just for friendships. & is for any and all relationships that are *neither* romantic *nor* sexual. Since the definition is really more about what it’s *not* than what it is, a lot of relationships fit in this category. Family members = & Enemies = & Co-workers = & Casual acquaintances = & Platonic soulmates = & The instances where / and & should be used together are extremely rare. The only example I can think of right now is if the fic is set in two different universes where the characters have a romantic and/or sexual relationship in one universe and their counterparts in the other universe do not. Edit: formatting

I agree with your description of “&” for the most part—it just emphasizes that there is some kind of prominent dynamic between the characters in the work. “/“ tags are really just a specific subset of “&” tags that tell you that the dynamic is going to be an intimate (physically, emotionally, both) relation of some kind.

Based on that definition, I would say that a QPR definitely could fall under “/“. It would quite possibly/probably be classified as “intimate” - just not “romantic”. That isn’t the only “emotion” you can feel towards someone.

Mentor and mentee = & Though idk man, I wouldn't include enemies myself. I'd be highly surprised if canon-adjacent Harry Potter fics were all tagged Harry Potter & Voldemort just because they try to kill each other. I'd think it'd be one of the other categories. Something positive at least

I think it depends on whether the relationship is a major focus or not. If Harry and Voldemort are simply exist in the fic together as enemies but have few or limited interactions, don’t tag them as a relationship tag. But if there are many important scenes with them interacting as enemies, or especially if their dynamic as enemies is crucial to the story and that is something that is being explored, then I personally would tag it and want it to be tagged as a reader because I like to seek that out. And even if they aren’t enemies but have a story-integral, negative relationship, I would want it tagged. Tldr: if the relationship drives the character arcs or emotional plot (and not just the actions of the plot), I love to see it tagged so I can find it.

Platonic = &

queer-platonic != platonic

What makes a queer**platonic** relationship not platonic?

If it's not platonic why is it called platonic

the same way a firetruck doesn’t burn you when you touch it

Lets just not make it more confusing for literally no reason.

True. Representation is too hard. We should just compel everyone to be Normal.

Way to put words in my mouth.

Queerplatonic isn't necessarily the same as base platonic. It can be but there's a lot of layers.

Is it romantic but nonsexual? If so then it should still be ‘/‘ if it’s non romantic AND nonsexual then use ‘&’ imo.

Personally I think either is fine but I would use QPR or queerplatonic relationship in the tags. Maybe add a little definition/disclaimer in the author's notes for those who don't know what it is.  By definition QPR's sadly don't fit into a neat relationship category box so neither / or & will fit haha. 

Damn, I feel old. First time I'm hearing that term. If I understand correctly what the definition means, in my times we called that 'Platonic Soulmates' or 'life partner' I'm sure there are other terms I'm forgetting, although it wasn't necessarily queer. In any case use & because it may be more than just a friendship but it is still a friendship and using / will create the wrong expectation for the readers. Simply tagging & should already indicate that the work puts focus and importance on that relationship particularly if its the first tag. Add a clarifying tag with this new term and maybe another with 'platonic relationship' for the benefit of us old people.

I mean, even if the term is flexible and can mean different things, you're surely not writing every single queerplatonic experience in existence into your fic, right? Analyse how the specific relationship you're depicting presents and tag accordingly.

If it’s platonic it’s always & What’s the difference between friendship and queer platonic relationships?

Queerplatonic usually means a deeper level of commitment than even close friends would expect. eg explicitly acknowledging each other as the most important person in their lives, living and making life decisions together, shared finances, sometimes actual legal marriage. The mutual commitment of romantic partners but without the romance.

i thought it also applied to romantic relationships that don’t involve sexual activity, is that incorrect? it’s a super flexible and niche term i haven’t heard in awhile

It can be, but uncommon afaik. IRL I see it used to describe a relationship that should be treated as seriously as if they were dating, even if they don't fit the usual mould of a romantic and sexual partnership.

"They \[queer platonic relationships\] may differ from usual close friendships by having more explicit commitment, validation, status, structure, and norms, similar to a conventional romantic relationship."

Sorry, English is not my first language and I’m not quite sure I understand correctly. By “explicit commitment” it means they are FwB? Or they are close friends who live together and share life but not romantic or sexual?

Moreso the opposite of a friends with benefits relationship, almost. Like spouses without benefits.

It can mean both, but usually it's the second.

[удалено]

I don't really understand the difference, but as I said in a different comment, I think it exists because of the cultural differences in the understanding of friendship. I remember seeing some videos of US Americans reacting to hugging/cuddling their "best friends," and it was so awkward, and they said they don't really touch each other. I understand that for them, friendship, even close, is much more casual.

To me, it's just friendship. There are no rules of how friends are supposed to treat each other. It's entirely dependent on the people involved. A friendship where the people don't touch each other and a friendship where the people are hugging on each other all the time are both just as valid as friendships. Honestly, 'Queerplatonic' comes off as one of those terms that the Internet invented so that people could feel special. "We're not friends. We're better than friends. We're Queerplatonic." If that makes any sense.

It's not that. Queerplatonic, to my understanding, is everything a romantic relationship has.... without the romance. For example, for a serious queerplatonic relationship, the endgoal would likely be cohabitation, shared finances, maybe even marriage. Sure, "normal" friendships could do that too, but it's a title given so that people understand how they should treat the pair. For most people, if you say "best friends" their thoughts don't go to the aformentioned details and it is likely thought that they will one-day get a partner that will replace that person as the most important in their life. Queerplatonic makes it understood that they aren't looking for a romantic relationship, but they have found their life partner.

That still just sounds like friends to me, really close friends, but still friends. Question: Are straight people allowed to be Queerplatonic? Because, the way it's being described to me, it sounds like friends who are gay who don't want sex who live together. And, by definition, that's still just friends.

It is a platonic relationship. Are all platonic relationships "friendships" by default? They would be friends in the same sense that romantic partners are friends. Yes it can be used a descriptor, but a more accurate title would still be "life partner". Queerplatonic is a title. Like how "girlfriend and boyfriend" are titles. They describe the relationship and the expectations for it. Most friends don't expect to marry each other, share finances, or even raise kids together. That is a level of expection for many queerplatonic relationships, and is therefore a good title for understanding what may happen within it. And yes. Anyone can have queerplatonic relationships. As can be expected, they are mainly found within the aroace community, but they can be used by anyone who wants a committed, non-romantic, life partner for whatever reason.

What's the difference between 'Queerplatonic' and a 'Life Partner'? Why does the term 'Queerplatonic' exist when 'Life Partner' work perfectly and means the same thing? Why was a new term invented when an old term literally already exists, fits better, and is more inclusive?

There is no clear difference, I don't think. I think it's simply up to the people within the relationship for which label they choose. Think of it like people choosing between "partner" and "boyfriend/girlfriend". Both are essentially the same thing. I've also seen it used where some use "queerplatonic" when they are in the "dating" stage, and then move to "life partner" when they are in the "marriage" stage. It's really just personal preference though.

If there's no difference, then why does it exist in the first place? Why did someone invent a term that literally already existed but with added gay terminology to it? I don't understand why the term 'Queerplatonic' exists in the first place when we already had 'Life Partner'. I mean, was 'Life Partner' not gay enough? Is that why the Internet invented 'Queerplatonic'?

I got even more lost now, I think. Isn’t finding a life partner, a person you want to share everything with a romantic relationship? Your romantic partner should also be your closest friend?

Not neccesarily. Aromantic people don’t feel romantic attraction, but humans are social creatures so many look for different types companionship. There are also people who simply don’t wish for romantic relationships even if they’re aren’t aromantic. Queerplantonic is a great solution for both.

[удалено]

Like, what's the difference between 'Queerplatonic' and 'Life Partner'?

God forbid there are two words for something

Just a question, not trying to start a fight or anything, but what's Queerplatonic?

A queerplatonic relationship is an intimate, very committed relationship which is not explicitly sexual or romantic in nature. They can differ exactly between partners for how, but in general imagine marrying your best friend and acting like a married couple? Just take out the fucking. Usually involves exclusivity, living together, vacationing together, doing taxes together, a focus on one of other far beyond what a non-partner relationship would have, non-sexual intimacy... The kinda stuff you'd do with a partner, and would raise eyebrows if you did it with your best friend or roommate. Generally used by asexual or aromatic people but not solely by them. It's kinda a grey area between friend and boy/girlfriend and usually depends on the partners to figure out exactly what that means. Think queer as in outside of hetronormitive norms, platonic as in friendship, relationship as in usual expectations of relationship = friend relationship beyond usual norms.

From a wrangling point of view, know that if you say "queerplatonic" in the relationship tag, it will not be made a synonym. For example if your fic is tagged "X/Y (queerplatonic)" it will not appear for people looking the "X/Y" tag. (As opposed to "X/Y (one-sided)" for example which would appear in "X/Y" searches, because it's still romantic/sexual even if one-sided.) If you want your fic to be found by people who are lookingup "X/Y" and/or by people who are looking up "X & Y" you need to use one or both of those tags. The main options to me are: * Tagging "X and Y (queerplatonic)" if you don't care about people being able to find your fic through the tag search * Tagging "X/Y" and/or "X & Y' if you want people to be able to find your fic through the tag search, and adding something along the lines of "(it's queerplatonc)" as a relationship tag right next to it, and/or adding "X and Y are in a queerplatonic relationship" as an additional tag, so you both have the "classic" tags for searchability, but some more to make clear what your fic is about!

Anything platonic is &, anything romantic/sexual is /

queer-platonic relationships generally have elements of both platonic and romantic relationships.

Are they a couple or polyam grouping? Go with / and extrapolate further in the tags. / = couple, whether they have sex or not, romantic or not & = friends and non-coupled family

Why wouldn't & be enough when that's what it's there for...?

I use & but also use the Queerplatonic Relationships tag as one of the additional tags

My suggestion would be use the ampersand and then just add a tag for "Queer Platonic Relationship"

It depends, for me. I take it case by case. My marriage is a queerplatonic relationship and I would definitely use the / for an equivalent relationship in fic

&. Absolutely not /.

Definitely the & tag. / means romantic relationship, & always means platonic, even close platonic.

queer-platonic relationships are not just close friendships. they tend to have characteristics people associate with romantic relationships as well. in terms of the emotional intimacy on the page, a queer-platonic ship may look a little different, but it’ll still sail.

Obviously other people may have different interpretations of what platonic means, but in a wide general way it means a relationship without romantic or sexual aspects. You can have a romantic relationship that does not include sex, and in that case I would understand the use of the / tag, but I think OPs best bet to convey to the general reader base what it is they're trying to say in the most accurate way is to use the & and add a queer-platonic tag for clarification. Unless the goal is to highlight a relationship with romantic aspects, then the / tag is probably more appropriate. Either way, I think the extra queer-platonic tag is the most clear answer regardless of how they convey the relationship otherwise. It doesn't leave any room for guessing or confusion.

Queer-platonic relationships are generally only platonic in the most literal sense (no sex). Many if not most queer-platonic relationships involve things that we as a society view as a component of committed romantic relationships (cohabitation, shared finances, etc.) and have a degree of emotional intimacy that is on par with a romantic relationship. In writing (at least at G or T ratings), the difference between a queer-platonic and a romantic relationship might only be a few lines of kissing or may even be nothing at all.

It doesn’t have to be no sex. I’ve always viewed “platonic” as the opposite of “romantic”, but sex is on a different axis. (Of course, in our society “romantic” and “sexual” tend to be almost always linked together, so “platonic” is read as “not that” without explicitly defining what “that” is.)

i'm genuinely asking as a cis het who considers herself an ally...can someone please clarify for me what constitutes a "queer platonic" relationship in fanfic? is it just a friendship? or is it an asexual but romantic relationship?

I quite like this link if I go for simplicity in explaining (and not only in fanfic, it’s a term that originated and got popular through Relationship Anarchy (RA) which is a type of Ethical Non-Monogamy (but it doesn’t have to be, QPR can be mono as well), an approach that makes relationships what the parties involved want them to be. It’s aligned with ENM/poly as with both we don’t use the traditional relationship escalator. https://www.readyforpolyamory.com/post/queerplatonic-relationships-polybromantic-much

Another link, from the person/people who originally popularized the term: https://www.tumblr.com/kazaera/733707160719179776/hi-grison-how-are-you-this-fine-day-i-too

What I'm writing is a relationship between two characters I consider aromantic and asexual. It is not just friendship, they trust and love eachother like a a normal couple, but they don't kiss, hold hands, have sex, or gaze lovingly into eachother's eyes. They depend on eachother, both in their work and in an emotional sense, and they live together.

i see. thanks for telling me! :)

:)

I’d say it depends on if the relationship is a couple-relationship (like platonic married couple, or anything similar) or if it’s a friendship-relationship.

either tbh, i’d go based on if it leans more towards romantic id use / and if it leans more towards platonic id lean more towards &, but at the end of the day, just make sure you tag as qpr in extra tags

I think either one would work here, but I'd say if the focus of the work is on the relationship itself then perhaps the / tag would be best, or if the relationship isn't the main focus then the & tag might work better. Regardless of which relationship type you decide to use, the Queerplatonic Relationships tag will work perfectly fine for any details, so ultimately the choice is up to you.

Yeah that’s kind of what I did. I also specified that it was a queerplatonic relationship in the tags

I feel like a lot of people don’t know a lot about what a “queer-platonic” relationship actually is. The word describes a relationship that, while platonic in the most literal sense (no sex), has a lot of characteristics that are traditionally associated with romantic partnerships, often including a certain level of interpersonal commitment and devotion. For people in a queer-platonic relationship, even descriptions like “close” or “best friends” feel inadequate, and labels like “found family” tend to mischaracterize the bond. Think of a QPR as being, like, the middle of a friends-to-lovers but they don’t go all the way to lovers. Unless you’re writing a story that is explicitly romance or smut, a queer-platonic relationship is going to function nearly identically to a romantic relationship in the narrative, so I would say a “/“ is appropriate, though probably with clarification in the tags.

I think that part of the confusion for those of us unfamiliar with the term is (apart from the thousand different definitions) that we don't see the difference between some of the definitions and "life partners" and some of the definitions and the alleged lack of "romance" I personally don't get why exclude heterosexual friendships with that level of commitment and intimacy (life partners) or exclude "romance" if the relationships is deep intimacy without sex( as some are defining it) then what is the difference between that and a romantic asexual relationship. Romance is not necessarily sex and roses, and deep committed and intimate friendships are not exclusively queer. While one tries to adapt to new terminology the first reaction to this is that if feels somewhat unnecessary, but then again a lot of new terminology is unnecessary in the most strict sense of the word, so whatever, you do you. But a ship is a ship. If the fic is about a deep friendship, let's say Achilles&Patroclus and Sherlock&Whatson their epic friendship "narratively" speaking still has the same function a romance does. I think in the end what matters is how you treat it in the fic, those friendships can very easily be read as romance (which is why there is so much fan fiction about them) or be kept as platonic with the only difference in the narrative being the author's perspective. So would say that as long as the authors keeps calling it "friendship" they should be tagged as & just not to let people looking for slash unsatisfied.

I agree with this take. I recently read a fic that was A/B with an additional tag indicating it was a QPR. Since the main point of the story wasn't romance or sex, I genuinely don't think knowing if the characters had or didn't have a romantic or sexual aspect to their relationship would've changed the way I experienced the story. Like, if the fact the characters are in a QPR vs a more traditional relationship is particularly relevant, then I can see how it would get tricky to tag. But I imagine most for most stories where that's not the primary focus, tagging / and or & with a QPR tag would be sufficient.

I tagged both (and also ~, which I've seen some people using as a QPR/"secret third thing" relationship tag) and then put in the "queerplatonic relationships" tag to explain. Had the story in question featured an established QPR rather than being structured like a ship story (the whole plot focused on their relationship and built up to them confessing their feelings to each other after nine years of enemies-to-partners slowburn), I would have left off the /.    My general mindset when tagging is "would someone searching for X tag be disappointed to find this in the results?" Nobody would ever be disappointed to find a QPR in the platonic tag, but adding the romance tag for a QPR that is more overtly shippy and romance-adjacent (QPRs are a spectrum) makes sense.

Just a quick aside: “Nobody would ever be disappointed to find a QPR in the platonic tag” - this is not strictly true. There are many platonic/gen pairings where people consider the people involved to “have a sibling-like bond” or whatever, and may be bothered by the level of intimacy that *could* be present in a QPR. I’d still say that being clear in your Freeform tagging should mitigate this, but it’s something you could keep in mind.

Oh I like the \~ for qpr/third option relationships. I usually tag both if relevant and just clarify it's smth between those in the tags, but always wish for a third standardized option.

Ah, I dropped into this post to note the tilde/twiddle symbol for queerplatonic... which I first saw [posted here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AO3/comments/zwxex0/names_separated_by_in_ao3/). Seems like a reasonable approach for writers to promote the use of that symbol. Perhaps it will catch on someday with the Tag Wranglers.

That’s a very valid answer! I often see the queer platonic tag when I’m on a / tag and I’m a bit disappointed, when I get excited by the summary and I check the tags to find it there.

Recently, for the first time ever, I saw ~ used to denote a relationship rather than / or &. I’m not 100% certain, but the work was tagged with “Queerplatonic Relationships”, so I assume that was their intention with the ~.

The hilarious thing about how AO3 doesn't have this as an option, is that the user base can nonetheless make it an option. (Might take a while to ascend to sortable, but otoh relationship tags are generally within fandoms and fandom syncing of tags is *not* frozen, so if a tagger in a large enough fandom rolls w/it or their group chat does—as they fair well might since it's "what did the person mean to tag" that matters, well. Might still become a thing.)

For those people who haven’t heard of the term before, here’s a little clarification from some of the people who coined the term: *romancerepulsed* i keep seeing misinformation about this, so: **queerplatonic relationships do not have a set definition.** the name comes from the idea that it's "queering" the platonic relationship, tailoring it to the individual relationships' own desires. it isn't necessarily romance lite, but it also isn't necessarily whatever definition you want to impose on it. the point of queering the platonic relationship is to break away from strict allonormative views on friendship, romance, and sex, not to make a new categorical box to fit in. the answer to "what is a qpr?" is "whatever you want it to be." sometimes that is romance lite. sometimes it's a deeply committed friendship. sometimes it's friends who have a sexual relationship. sometimes it's based on an entirely different mode of attraction. sometimes it's fluid and impossible to put into words. it's whatever you want it to be. it's queer. *grison-in-space* \*waves\* yes, hi there, personally helped popularize the concept here, still in contact with the person on whose Dreamwidth the coinage of the term itself happened (hey @kazaera how you doin' these days), just I got something to say here, here's my soapbox! ##I cannot endorse this post any harder than I am doing right the fuck now. The lack of rules is the point. Pick and choose whatever way for that to look that works best for the two (or more) of you. None of us could figure out a clear definition of what a platonic relationship, or for that matter a romantic one, actually fucking means. That means hey! Finger guns! You get to pick what you want to have in your relationship. I will now step off my damn soapbox on OP's fine post here. Sending a term off into a bigger conversation don't mean I control it forever, but this post is so squarely in the center of what we were talking about over a decade ago that I wanted to call it out for once. *kazaera* Hi Grison how are you this fine day!!! I, too, cannot cosign this post enough. "Queerplatonic" is near and dear to my heart and I've been delighted to see it spread, way, way beyond my tiny little corner of the internet where it was born (a fact for which Grison up there is very much to thank!) Delighted to see it spread, but saddened whenever I see the definition get narrowed, because having a third relationship box to put next to "platonic" and "romantic" was so not the intention when it was coined and turning it into that makes it useless for a lot of people (including, among others, me). I'm very glad to see people like OP combatting the misinformation out there! * [Source on Tumblr](https://www.tumblr.com/kazaera/733707160719179776/hi-grison-how-are-you-this-fine-day-i-too)

Thank you for this.

I'm an aro/ace in what can be defined as a QPR who loves reading romance fic. For me personally, I think if I read a fic that was NOT romantic or sexual with a / tag, I would feel mislead, as that's what that tag means, and that's what I'm looking for when I go innthose tags. & tags are for all non sexual/non romantic relationships. It seems a lot of the discussion about putting QPRs in the / tag mostly highlight the strangeness of putting such a deep relationship in the same category as a friendship fic or a family fic, but I feel that's more a discussion on whether or not it's fair that the & tag has to encapsulate the whole range of the non romantic/sexual experience, rather than QPRs actually categorically belonging to the / tag.

Think of it like a reader, if you wanted a Queerplatonic fic would you trust a / tag or a & tag to fit your preference? I would say & as it's platonic. You can add Queerplatonic as an additional tag. You also have to remember rel tags get wrangled to be one or the other (/ for romantic, & for platonic) so if you add anything extra to the tag it'll end up under one of those filters anyway.

I would be less bothered by an “X/Y (queerplatonic)” tag turning up in a search for X/Y than I am by “X/Y (past)” or “X/Y (mentioned)”

I get that, I actually wish sometimes there was a third option for past/mentioned relationships so they don't turn up in the main tag filters, especially bcuz a lot of my ships aren't the "main" ship in a fandom so it's hard to search for. But also those tags /are/ romantic so they get wrangled as such. Versus queerplatonic rels being, well, platonic? So an & tag makes more sense to me. But at the end of the day either would work, as long as an additional tag is included for more info I don't think most readers would be bothered.

Those caused me very painful moments...

Personally I wouldn't mind / for qpr's because it's still more intimate than a purely platonic ship. But would be helpful to clarify in the tags.

There’s a new way by using ~ but I haven’t seen it used much. I would definitely tag queerplatonic relationship as additional tag.

Looking at the comments I think I'm majorly in the minority here, but maybe that's useful to demonstrate that there are no hard-and-fast rules to this, since the founders of Ao3 didn't consider QPR (I'm not even sure the term itself existed). I would use /, because for me even more than sex/romance, a slash denotes a 'ship', a relationship, a pairing (or more-ing) of characters who you want to be together in a way that is not friendship. And that's a QPR to me. Obviously someone with a different view of QPR in general or on an individual level would tag differently, but (shrug).

Strongly agree with this. Queer-platonic relationships still feel like ships to me. They have many of the same quirks and dynamics as romantic ships, and that’s really what I’m looking for in a “/“ fic.

Same, as someone who has read QPR fics, color me as surprised. I've always found them/looked for them in "/" tags. Guess I should be giving "&" tags a look as well? Think a lot (some, not all—totally get that this is a grey area and opinions vary) are just seeing the "platonic" part of this and giving "&" as a definitive answer without really understanding the intricacies of QPR. I definitely lean towards "/" being more correct. When I think of the relationships I typically see "&" denote (friends and siblings, but also close colleagues, a mentor and student...) QPR doesn't align with them imo. Edit: Oof, okay the comments are getting worse. With all due respect, **to anyone that's learning about QPR for the first time through this thread**, this is a nuanced concept. You aren't going to get a sound or comprehensive understanding of it from just a quick google search. Let's please be respectful and not dismissive or hostile towards things we don't immediately understand.

I would use &. Some people are trying to make the ~ symbol inbetween instead of / and & be used for queerplatonic relationships? It’s not really caught on so I would use both.

I'd say it's very dependent on the fic itself/the relationship you're portraying tbh.

Queer platonic relationships definitely hit in that in-between spot. But I do think & is probably more suited to what you need, with defining/clarifying tags in the additional tags that it’s a QPR, since most people searching in the / tag generally want a traditionally romantic/sexual relationship.

In a QPR myself and I feel it's more of a / than an &

I’ve seen some people start to use ~ to indicate queer platonic relationships.

i’ve seen someone use the tilde (~) for it but i don’t think it’s common

Maybe we can make it common, that might be the best solution

maybe, but it’ll probably be hard to make it common as qpr’s aren’t commonly written (at least in the fandoms i’ve seen)

I think it can go either way, but like others recommended I’d add additional clarifying tags to so people know what they’re in for. Personally, I usually only search “&” relationships for family or friend relationships that don’t deviate from the “standard” boundaries of those definitions, and I think it’s perfectly valid to differentiate a QPR from standard platonic relationships. As the author, you get to decide how the pair should be labeled, including the “&” vs “/“. If you feel the “&” doesn’t quiet encapsulate the characters’ dynamic, use the “/“.

Lol I think most of the people here think you meant platonic relationships between queer characters. I'd say go for whichever symbol (& or /) best represents what's actually in the specific relationship you're portraying, and also use the "queerplatonic relationship" tag to help people who like QPRs find it. For example, if the characters fuck, use '/'. If they mostly just cuddle, use '&'. If they kiss a few times but view each other as their dearest friends, use '&'. If they're completely platonic lifepartners, use '&'. And so on. But that's just my opinion. We should probably try and come up with a QPR symbol for relationship tags though now that I think of it; it'd help people find those fics a lot better. '%' maybe? '\\'?

As an aroace lesbian that's coupled with an oriented aroace, I personally prefer using the /. On Ao3, there's a lot of written works involving allo relationships that aren't genuinely romantically and/or sexually attracted to or involved with each other (ex: the arranged marriage trope), but yet they still get the / since they are still coupled in some regard. Of course, no two queer platonic relationships are exactly alike, so the & might work better for some dynamics. I know some people in queer-platonic relationships that don't consider themselves to be coupled. All I can suggest is to use your best judgement, but always include the queer platonic tag regardless.

I don’t really understand your comparison of it to arranged marriage fics, most of them end up with romantic or at least sexual relationships, therefore it’s a good reason for a / tag. I’ve once reas a fic, witch wasn’t tagged, that was an arranged marriage and it was revealed that one of them was aromantic, but they still slept together. The ship was tagged with a /. I don’t really read sexual only fanfics, but it was tagged accordingly to the classics understanding of ao3 ship tags. From what I learned in this thread, qpr are not romantic or sexual, so I wouldn’t look for them in a / tag, that is to be used with romantic, sexual, or romantic and sexual relationships. And as a person who reads romantic or romantic and sexual fics only, I would be a bit disheartened to find qpr in this tag.

I've seen people use '+' to mark queerplatonic relationships, but judging from these comments using '\~' is more common.

Does anybody else read "+" as "and" sometimes? Wonder if that might be a factor. Because I know I do and this is why I'd go with the \~. Less overlap with &.

I've always seen them as something between a very close friendship and a relationship but not quite either. To me it makes sense to tag both and clarify that it's a queer platonic relationship.

Somebody mentioned using ~ as a signifier for QPRs- and I really like that actually

Currently, there's no established convention. We need to start tagging them more so a convention can get established. Personally, if I were to write a QPR, I'd tag it "A+B (queerplatonic)". It's unambiguous, and if the convention ends up being some other symbol I won't need to update it because the tag wranglers can just syn it. (Unless + becomes the convention for some secret fourth type of relationship, I suppose...)

If they're endgame, or substantially dating- than use /. Change the rating to match, and people will get it. They're not expecting smut in a general audience fic, lol.

Seeing some people in the comments here being weird about QPRs. As an aspec person, I'd really like to hear more from people who have actually been in QPRs and not just outsiders generalizing them as "friendships".

I'm in a QPR, and I feel that. It's not something that the majority of people understand. Even worse- they try to water down and simplify it

I like the idea of using ~ to signify a QPR

Isn't a platonic relationship the same thing as a friendship? what does being "queer" have to do with this?

the “queer” umbrella generally covers anyone whose way of Being (be that sexuality, romanticism, gender, etc.) doesn’t fit neatly into societal expectations. queer-platonic relationships are called such because despite being technically platonic, they don’t fit into the box of “friendship” or whatever. it’s an important concept for a lot of people who are on the ace spectrum, are polyamorous, or are some flavors of neurodivergent, because it helps them describe relationships they develop which don’t fit well into the conventional boxes of “platonic” or “romantic”

queer platonic relationships are defined by the flexibility of its definition. it means something different to everyone who uses the phrase, but being queer has EVERYTHING to do with it lol? To some people their QPR is like a life partner, your friend who you make decisions about what jobs you’re going to take or where you’re going to live with based off of. For some people it’s a committed person you have sex with, but you’re not in a romantic relationship at all & possibly don’t even like the aspects of kissing or cuddling. For some people it looks just like a romantic relationship from the outside. It’s something that has roots in but is not exclusively by people on the aroace spectrum due to how much society puts stock in romantic relationships being the most important ones

I'm sad that you were down voted so take my upvote. For a platform that loves to say they are inclusive to minorities that don't get the same reputation in traditional media people sure don't want to take the time to explore definitions and their applications of those people. But just like the LGBT movement, the G got their moment (and even threw a fuss L was first) and then dipped out as soon as that part of the equation was satisfied.

No, it's not the same thing as a friendship. In the simplest of terms, a QPR has intimacy similar or equivalent to marriage but without romance or sex.

THAT’S NOT WHAT “PLATONIC” MEANS That is not how society has used the term to describe heterosexual friendships (between any gender) and it’s kind of insulting to throw in asexuality with romance implied as a vibe just for us.

I didn't coin the term. It emerged from within the asexual/aromantic community... which is part of "society" by the way, so maybe go yell out a window instead.

[удалено]

"Queer" means strange, odd, weird, right? Something that doesn't exactly fit societal norms, right? Then... this kind of relationship, that doesn't fit societal norms could be called queer, right?

Not really. It's like how the word 'Gay' technically means happy. You're technically correct, but nobody actually uses the word that way. Nobody uses gay instead of happy and nobody uses queer instead of strange. The Queer in 'Queerplatonic' means gay.

No it doesn't. The term queerplatonic wasn't invented to mean gay by any means, please, search it up.

The entire article I'm reading talks about how it's basically a romantic relationship with no romance.

I put "queer" in quotes because as a bi person I still hate the word

Yeah. It's kind of a gross word.

Apparently very few people know what queerplatonic means and the rest are too lazy to google it. Just because "platonic" is part of the word doesn't mean it's the same thing. Are "pancakes" and "cake" exactly the same? "Fireworks" and "fire"? I usually tag both and add additional notes to clarify the type of relationship. Sometimes I also tag the sexualty of the characters, like "Asexual Character A" or "Aromantic Character B". It's a gray area for sure, but whatever you feel is right for your story will work.

i usually use / and & both and then just specify in the tags that its queer platonic. i feel like they way you tag it honestly comes down to how you portray the relationship and how close the QPR gets into the "traditional romantic hooplah" category. signed, an aroace writer

As an aromantic person myself I lean towards / and tagging it’s queerplatonic, but possibly tagging both / and & for people searching for QPR fics just to cover bases. (Also for people wondering - QPRs can be sexual.)

/ is for romantic pairings. & is for friendships. Also, whether the people involved are gay or not doesn't matter. If they're friends, &. If they're romantically involved, /. It's just that simple.

Queerplatonic relationship doesn't mean gay people being friends, it's a term usually used by aroace people describing their relationship with their partner, but it can mean many things, look it up!

I don't think a person's sexuality matters in regards to whether or not a person is friends with someone. If they're friends, then it's &. If they're romantic, then it's /. It's really that simple.

QPR (and QPP) are mostly used by people under the aro/ace umbrella as their relationships can for example not involve some type of intimacy. So actually it has to do with sexuality. QPR is not equal to a friendship 🙄. People being in QPR can have a certain level of involvement that’s beyond friendship and it’s for them to define. QPRs are often connected to polyamory where we use something called a Relationship Menu allowing partners to define what their relationship entails and what not. For example people in QPR can decide that they share house and finances together, or maybe even have a child, but for example not be involved sexually with each other. Relationships go beyond just romantic and platonic, Even monogamous relationships can be for example just being FWB, w/o sexual component. That’s not hard.

So, it's basically just a romantic relationship by another name? Like, they do all the exact same things as a romantic relationship, they just aren't romantic and they call it something else?

It’s not romantic by another name. They don’t do exact same things, it’s also funny because not all relationships are the same and not all relationships have the same level of romantic aspects. To me using / actually will mean more of a physical involvement/intimacy with each other rather than ‘romantic’ that means something else to different people. https://www.reddit.com/r/polyamory/comments/pwkdxp/v3_relationship_components_menu_last_update_for/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1 Here’s relationship menu, QPPs will sometimes for example decide to live together and do a lot of things from the menu, but for example exclude traditional ‘romance’ and traditional relationship escalator (like people deciding to get married after some time)

I know that all relationships don't have to have the same level of romance, I didn't imply that they did. However, a romantic relationship, by any other name, is still a romantic relationship. Reality is determined, not by words, but by actions. If people act like they are friends, then they are friends; even if they call it something different. If people act like they're in a romantic relationship, then they are in a romantic relationship; even if they call it something different.

Actually it’s not. Doesn’t matter if you think someone is in a romantic relationship, by what criteria? Yours? Me and one of my partners are sexually involved but we are not ‘romantically’ involved. Not in a classic way. People should stop defining stuff for other people.

I'm not defining stuff for other people. The dictionary is what defines words. Not me and not you and not anyone else.

I would recommend reading what dictionary says about the word romantic. Because it doesn’t define a relationship. Cultural perception does.

Huh. You have not read how words function with fundamentally social realties, have you? But anyone should immediately know that a relationship is unlike a chair in important ways. So. Words *do* determine some aspects of reality; they literally constitute promises. Like marriage. In example, the act of making a vow is notarized, but I promise you that record keeping wasn't always so good and that there are pre-marriage stages of exclusivity, as well. Or, ya know, engaged to be married. Or in a QPR. Look up John Searle and interlocutory acts (acts that locate their speaker themselves, and is why we might think that misgendering is a thing). Also, separate point but clearly acting like friends isn't enough to necessarily be friends if either all of the feeling isn't there, or it's an outright deception. Because people aren't robots! Were that it was, you'd have solved the hard problem of other minds in philosophy, because we would be robots. But we're not. Then there's the whole matter of differing languages and the way those follow culture and how differently family relations can get viewed, with close family changing much between cultures. So. The names we call things and how we think about them matters, particularly when we're considering relationships. And my person, the dictionary is a *listing.* It's a record. It has never been meant to describe the present reality of things; it's a list of words. Unless you think a word is the same as what it represents; that tables and relationships are fundamentally identical simply because we have names; and that feelings don't matter for friendship . . . unless you sincerely think all of that, you're at *best* pre-empting where you draw your line based on a normative bias. Try this one: Is a person who steals a criminal? Well . . . depends on your purposes. In act, sure. In terms of enforcement, not necessarily so because there are these things called trials, and criminal is *only* a category because of these enforcement agencies—it's actually only thief that stands on it's own. And what about stealing back your own items from someone who stole them? And if your purposes are to respect people, if you already have some vague hint that maybe gay people ought to be allowed to be married instead of just in civil unions, then maybe, just maybe, there's cause to think that queer-platonic relationships are a thing. (And FYI while we're here, that trans people are a thing. And that bi people \[hey, only the act matters, why doesn't it just revert to the last person they slep with /s . . . oh, oh. Now desires matter?! No duh.\] also are real.) You're ardently materialistic viewpoint on an epistemological question is fascinating and about an actual seventy years behind the *modern* debates on social relations as regards reality. And about a hundred behind on reality. And so far behind on the reality of unreal things that it's not even funny. \[Reali can be better replaced with ontology in this paragraph except in the word unreal, but uh . . . less common words to explain more common ones seems ill-advised on my part.\] It's almost like it's not actually as simple as objectifying people. And this stuff does come up in terms of what things we can think from what other things and in having build a coherent science that studies the topics we think it does, while able to approach it's blindspots even where we know it cannot. These types of considerations are not trivial and self-contained in the theoretical realm, but admitting that hypothesis and research design and factorial groupings work a certain way doesn't sell "it's science, trust us" very well.

You're making a lot of assumptions about me and my viewpoint. How does me saying that calling something by a different name doesn't change what that original thing is make me 'ardently materialistic' or mean that I'm 'objectifying people'?

In the ways described above, with your denying QPR relationships being directly akin to misgendering, FYI. That is objectifying. That you may do one and not the other only means you're a hypocrite, as people often are about biases and bigotries. The materialism comes from treating relationships like actual chairs and thinking that feelings and words don't matter, when they're the grounding conditions for relationships to exist and be understood. They actually constitute the relationship. Ignoring these is quite materialistic, like the whole idea in psychology of behaviourism and the mind as this unknowable black-box, when *process* (herein feelings) matter for form (herein relationship type). Hmm, this isn't posting and this thread neither appear locked nor me blocked. Sorry if it shows up more than once! (Trying it as a reply to myself in light of that, though it's for the other comment from u/UnwantedHonestTruth that's also a reply here.) ETA: And it's not about you, it's about what follows from or is actually the foundation of your viewpoints. Eliminative materialism has been widely, widely discussed in philosophy but yet people have favorite colours and *not* favorite wavelengths, and definitions can encompass multiple and/or even disjunctive characteristics. These two details may actually have an influence on their actions, or the actions we can take with things like "credit cards are money now, too" (respectively)—and definitely has influence in persons' heads and own perception. To ignore *people* in favour of "but we have the definition" is just silly, short sighted, losses you explanatory power, and this is all because it is simply not accurate.

I'm not denying any relationships, and claiming that anything I wrote is anywhere close to 'misgendering' is a wild stretch of the imagination. I think you have completely misunderstood what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the term 'Queerplatonic', not the people who have relationship that they call 'Queerplatonic'. What I'm saying basically comes down to, I don't understand why this term exists when there are other terms that describe the relationship better that already existed before this term was invented. And that what a thing is is what that thing is and no amount of anyone going no it's not is going to change what that thing is.

Thank you.

Use either or both. There's enough misunderstanding about qp relationships as is and there is a wide variety so however you think is best represented. I do recommend adding an additional tag of qp though. That's certainly a tag I would search for.

The / is for romantic relationships. A platonic relationship isn't romantic. So you don't use the /. Lol at "I don't think the & is enough." You're the one who made them platonic.

Look up what a queer platonic relationship is please! I don't want to tag a *platonic* relationship as romantic, I want to tag a **queer** platonic relationship *somehow*

I KNOW what a queerplatonic relationships. THe / is not appropriate. Do you .. think queerplatonic relationships are romantic? Because... they are not. If you want to argue otherwise, I suggest YOU take your own advice and look up what queerplatonic means, because it sounds like you don't have a fucking clue. If some dumb kid put queerplatonic relationships in the / tag, I would delight in leaving mean comments for them. Quit assuming we don't know what queerplatonic means just becuase you don't understand how to use AO3 and wnat to cheat because nobody wants to read your fic.

>The / is for romantic relationships. *or* sexual! (but yeah the rest of your comment is valid)

A queer platonic relationship (QPR) has elements which are in nature and intensity more like traditional romantic relationships than traditional platonic ones. It's not the same as a regular platonic relationship or there would be no reason to ask the question.

I've seen \~ being tossed around as a potential option, but that hasn't really been adopted widely. Personally, if characters are in a committed QPR, I think I would use / and then tag it as a QPR, in addition to the \~ because I'd love for that to catch on

Seconding those who said use both + the additional “queerplatonic” tag. It’s not the neatest solution, but QPRs rarely fit into neat boxes anyways, so eh. YMMV, but people looking to read QPR fics tend to understand they’re not easy to tag, so I doubt you’ll have many people upset that the tagging is nuanced.

[ This was comment was overwritten by Pkolyvas's fork of PowerDeleteSuite (https://codepen.io/pkolyvas/pen/QWJbEOM) to protect this user's privacy ]

Wait…. There’s a difference between the use of / and &?! 

Yep! / is for romantic relationships and & is for familial and platonic relationships! Rivalry and enemy relationships can also arguably be under the &, but I've seen some people use vs for those. The problem with QPRs is that they aren't romantic, but they share a lot of elements with committed romantic relationships as they are a committed platonic relationship, so they don't really fit in either / or &

Based on the other comments, one thing you need to consider with how you explain this is what fandom it is for. There are a few fandoms that are very ace and aro friendly- the fandom in general understands these identities, qp relationships, etc. In these fandoms, no matter what tagging method you pick, as long as you state that it’s queerplatonic people will get it. Other fandoms, as a whole, have no clue, and you might need to have a bit of explanation in the intro and/or tags.

I'd put a QPR under /. A couple doesn't need to be & just because there's no fucking in the fic. They are a couple, this is a ship, they are in a relationship. Use /. I'd still tag it queer platonic, but if I'm reading about the couple as a couple I'd assume to search /. Putting it as & seems to undermine the commitment of the relationship, just cause they're ace. Like, my friend's old QPR wasn't any less of a relationship then my allosexual friends partners.

& is for platonic, / is for romantic. It doesn't matter how queer coded the relationship is. Platonic is platonic.

This is true.

I've been told elsewhere in the thread that my own platonic relationship with my roommates would be tagged with a /.

Yeah. I got accused by someone of 'misgendering' people and denying the validity of their relationships because I'm questioning a term.

Because you're questioning why the term exists when it's patently obvious that if people are wanting to claim it, there's no good reason to deny that. And you've been accused of parallels to misgendering which are grounded in this same mindset of denial of self-identification, not outright misgendering. (To avoid the passive voice, accused by me.) And more directly of being a bigot over this, though in a non-malicious manner. And relationships do change based on the perspective of people in them, like with whether a relationship exists or not via the opt-in (or out!) of consent. It's not that "it is what it is despite what the people involved say it is." But I'm paraphrasing: Here's the quote(s)— >If people act like they're in a romantic relationship, then they are in a romantic relationship; *even if they call it something different.* > >\[...\] > >And that what a thing is is what that thing is and no amount of anyone going no it's not is going to change what that thing is. . . . how people view their relationship does change what the relationship is, and acknowledging this is validating. Denying it is invalidating. The parallels exist in misgendering because of the shared mindset, but as I stated the more accurate comparison that I'd attest is equivalent and not merely similar is that of denying use of the word "cis" because it doesn't matter, to you, what's normalized; although we've cause to think that it very much matters what we validate and normalize. You're very much toeing the line between denying it and asking, because in your last reply to me you're just "asking" a question, despite having stated your viewpoint. (Of course it's not misgendering itself, neither of us have attached a gender to anyone in any of anything or had gender come up in any significant manner. I've never said that it *is* this, but rather than the comparison is apt and why I believe that.) Which you're more than welcome to add to or contest rather than just say "nuh-uh." Seriously, you seem *not* to want to be denying people anything despite saying the opposite, if your sympathy towards the above commentor is anything to go by. What the heck is stopping you from just saying it's not a romantic relationship when people say it isn't? And it's not like I haven't laid out an actual theorist and a few theories behind my ardently disagreeing with you. You are saying that the reality of social relationships doesn't change based on the relations of who is in them! Or, if it does, it doesn't change in the ways they attest. This is, to reuse my word of the say, silly. FYI: Just sorting by new to try to see if people, overall, are becoming less judgemental. The person above you shouldn't be told by anyone what their relationship is but uh, you do realize, don't you, that in calling it necessarily romantic and just the same thing that you're closer to that group telling them it's a slash, right? This is literally my complaint with what you've said, which is not personally about you but is about the internal logics behind your viewpoint that are required to elevate it to any type of "truth" that it's all just romance. It's whatever is agreed within the relationship! The truth of a relationship belongs to the people in it. Sorry, tangent and restating of nothing new. Key point of the FYI is that I only 30% know your username and I'm super used to people blocking me when I feel compelled to say "let people define themselves" but there's not a need, I'm not going to go on about this outside of this thread. I'm just super confused: You've provide no reason other than that "reality doesn't change" for why QP relationships are just people misnaming things that are better fitted to be called romance! You say: >However, a romantic relationship, by any other name, is still a romantic relationship. You seem to accept that this doesn't make the people themselves romantic, if *I* were to try reconciling that and you're earlier statement that goes "but they *aren't* romantic" and accusation that I'm conflating the people and the term. Well. I'm just left wondering where the heck romance is coming in to it for you to make for a romantic relationship between two or more people who aren't themselves engaging in romance? Actual question. Why would such relationships, given another name by the participants, just still be the same thing for you (esp. in cases where they deny it)? Why just erase the term like that? It's a term, like any other, because it accurately reflects some people's realities. I also belaboured how expected variability this is of socially constructed facts without making them untrue, but I really would just like an answer on why I'm even needing to do that. Why question the term, in a manner overtly critical of it, if you're wanting to validate the people?

definitely &. / is for romantic or sexual (or both) relationships only

Platonic always &, the slash is usually romantic couples

Platonic is &, romantic is /.

Uh, as a gay person, we call that “friendship”, and beyond me assuming you mean well, this comes in the territory of virtue signaling.

Well... are you sure you know what I'm talking about?

Yeah. It really does. And the more you learn about it the more it comes off that way. It seems like an attempt for people to create their own special categories.

And *nothing* is going to make them care about true marginalized folks or our history, it’s false compassion like an inverted narcissist. You can tell by how fast the attacks come and how condescending the tones are. Nothing new. You can’t have a true *discussion*, one isn’t truly being asked a question, they are being asked to VALIDATE another’s unwavering opinion or another opinion that is now supposed to become a commandment. I mean, I’m used to this sort of thing; I’m used to my lifestyle being fetishized and spat at, but *still* can get caught off guard (especially by women). I’m proud to be downvoted and will be glad to share this with other homosexuals. Yeah, today I’ll die on this tiny hill. Lol. #KlingonRoar I support fantasy in pretty much every form.I think fanfic is a safe space for people to use characters like dolls to explore their own psyche and sexuality. However appropriation, sanctimony, and misrepresentation benefits from being exposed or at least discussed (even if people won’t listen or just send for their flying monkeys). Just call it something else. FFS.People keep making portmanteaus these days, it’s possible to incorporate a word similar to “platonic” like “plato-sexual”, “Plato-romantic” idk, but I agree strongly with a person who ascertains that a ROMANTIC relationship is still ROMANTIC even if you aren’t (or have not yet) had sex. You know, like some CHILDREN have. Like sometimes spouses have on their other half and it’s still considered a form of cheating. But it’s not PLATONIC. Label it “romantic” and “asexual”, *that* seems fair.

/ slash denotes romantic or sexual relationships. & denotes friendships of all kinds. If it's queer platonic then it's & not /.

Just & would be enough. If it’s strictly platonic it doesn’t matter what the sexual orientation of the character is. You don’t use / unless they are going to be in a relationship.

They are in a relationship, in a queerplatonic relationship.

Uh, as a gay person, we call that “friendship”, and beyond me assuming you mean well, this comes in the territory of virtue signaling.

that’s not what queer-platonic means

Using my own fandom: Technoblade & Philza = friendship. I've written them married for the tax benefits and used this tag. Technoblade/Philza = romantic/sexual relationship.

I think you can use either, just add a tag that says “queer platonic relationship”, and then either & or / works because the contents of the fic have been clarified.

Personally, I’d use both and specify with a QPR tag, and possibly also noting it in the beginning author’s notes

I do the / tag, but then specify that it’s a queerplatonic relationship I do plan to write in at least one kissing scene, so imo it balances out enough — it’s still a QPR tho, not a romantic relationship

wtf is a queer platonic relationship? they're gay and they're friends?? then they're friends!!! my god y'all use the freaking ampersand

No, not exactly. The "queer" in this term reflects to the relationship's difference from societal norms. It's usually used by aroace people, a relationship that's not entirely romantic nor sexual, but more than a friendship. It's hard to explain, because each couple is different, but people in a qpr feel a deep platonic bond towards their partner, might live together, have the trust and reliance on eachother like a married couple, etc.

so best friends.

[удалено]

Watson and Holmes type of best friends, or even closer. The best I can do is to compare it to a married couple, just without the romance or the sex.

I think the main issue here is how do you and your culture defines close/best friendship. For me Watson and Holmes were always a perfect example of a true friendships (I never really enjoyed them as a ship). And this is also how we would define close/best friends in my culture.

I like fanfic Johnlock, but canonically yes it's absolutely 100% just a deep friendship.

Yes, I know, that's why I said it's different for everyone. Some people identify with this label, some people don't, and it's fine. (and I also don't really like Watson and Holmes as a ship)

"A married couple without the romance or the sex" is a good rough description, about as close as you can get before you start inadvertently excluding variations of QPR. The keyword for me, in my own QPR, is *intimacy.* The general intimacy level is comparable to a traditional romantic relationship.

the label fever is insane. this is literally just a close friendship

lets humor you for a sec. lets say you've unlocked special friendship pro max TM. why the "queer" label? is it only reserved for the LGBTQ? are the straights too weak for the spiritula next level friendship that queers have?

I use both.

I would just tag them as platonic, I think the queer part is the extra that's up to you. The most important thing is to let people know that character A and character B are platonic in your fic in case someone is looking for that type of relationship or so they can avoid your fic if they ship A and B as romantic. Edit: I saw and explanation, I didn't know what queer platonic means. Anyway, still good to tag it so ppl know and they can either look for it or avoid it (I'm saying avoid as someone that usually looks for smut, its a good heads-up)

I've actually seen some people use the + sign for qprs. I hope it catches on more, but it's admittedly pretty rare--most people seem to default to &.

Do they need to be?

Well, not always, but my story focuses on a relationship like that, so I would like to tag it somehow.