EDIT: This is long and might need to be recategorized. I have no idea where to put it. In Braaaiiins? So there's this idea that's been gaining popularity, that I'm pretty sure is actually what Hussie intended with Dave and Karkat's relationship: "Karkat learns to accept romance outside the quadrants the same way Dave learns to accept romance outside heteronormativity". And the implication is that the quadrants are unnecessary, and that "feelings are more complex than what quadrants allow". Now, when I realized I was bisexual, I had literally no problems with it. I was actually happy that I could consider myself "in the not-straight club" on Tumblr. I actually went through a phase where I thought I was in the ace spectrum (I'm pretty sure I'm aromantic btw) but then I just said "no wait, I actually do feel sexual attraction" and that was a very "meh" moment for me... Yet that Davekat idea makes me extremely uncomfortable! Quadrants, to me, were a way to label emotions into recognizable categories. To figure out what I was feeling. To make shipping grids. To mentally tell myself the difference between different relationships I saw between different people. Saying that quadrants aren't necessary is almost like saying that all relationships are the same. That Karkat's relationship with Kanaya wasn't "pale", because there's no such thing as "pale"! That John never did feel black feelings, she just loved Roxy and Terezi in different ways, and that takes a lot of what made the shipping grid special out of it! Quadrants didn't constrain relationships; they added diversity! If you want to say that maybe it's a spectrum, and Dave and Karkat's relationship fluctuates, then that's very different! I can accept that! But don't say they're a lie! They're not! ...Sorry, this turned into a rant. I just have very strong feelings about quadrants, apparently. I wanted to ask, does anyone know why I feel this way? How I can help it?
I've read a similar theory. Or the same one and maybe we're reading them differently? The idea being that Karkat not actually being able to do the quadrant thing is more like being homosexual to us. So it's not that the quadrants don't matter. They very much do matter to certain trolls, like Kanaya and Porrim and the Meowrails. But Karkat just doesn't experience romantic inclination that way according to said theory. Basically some people are homosexual and others are heterosexuals and others still are some type of asexual. It's more like that. Just with...quadrants? Most trolls are quadrantsexual, I guess. But Karkat is aquadrantsexual. At least that is how I understand the theory. Anyway, maybe it's that you're worried that your way of figuring out these things isn't valid? Because let's face it we stigmatize a lot of things when it comes to sex and romance, and one of the big things normal romance wise is the idea that it isn't a thing you overthink. It just happens. Blah blah no charts those are for dumb nerds.
yep. it's like, trolls insist that quadrants work for everybody and are superior, which is how heterosexuality is considered in our culture. but, just like how there are humans who aren't heterosexual, there are trolls that aren't interested in quadrants - and/or aren't interested in all the quadrants. that doesn't mean the system is invalid. all it really means it is that it's not universal.
Yeah, it's a pretty widespread theory nowadays. One person did a post on it ("Karkat is not quadromantic", I think it was called) and one person did a 5-page MSPFanventures fic on it (a single Davekat conversation) and now everyone's loving this interpretation of events. I'm worried that... yeah, that the concept being pushed here is "classification is bad and emotions are complex and unclassifiable and every single bit of progress you've made to understand them over the past 3 and a half years was all a lie." Okay maybe not that last bit but it does feel that way. Like, human romance was understood through matespritship, right? Well, if you can't classify it as that, what do you classify it as? And I feel like the implied answer is "there's no classification, feelings are feelings, it's all complicated", which is... It just makes me so freaking angry and upset. Like, look at gender. Yeah, you had the old binary, right? And you had enough people who didn't fit in that that it needed to be reclassified. So the system changed. But there's still a classification! Instead of a point in a dichotomy, you now have a fluid region in a 2D male/female graph. Great! That's a system I can understand! I can categorize people based on that. In fact, I can classify what people mean when they categorize themselves! So what is the graph of what used to be quadrants? Is it fluid? Where does auspisticism fit in? Because previously it was its own category and things were rigid so nobody cared. Is there a platonic version of kismesissitude? What is it? Where does Davekat fit in? Where does Johnrezi fit in? Where does Karkat's relationship with Kanaya fit in? I mean, it can't be moirallegiance, can it? After all, Karkat's not quadrantsexual. So what is it? What's the precise difference between Karkat's relationship with Kanaya and his relationship with Dave? All this theory does is provide a coherent mechanism for fluid vacillation, which is good! It was desperately needed! But PLEASE! DEFINE YOUR TERMS! Also, what is Hussie and whoever wrote that theory trying to tell us? What are these people saying about the way we use these terms in our everyday lives? (the huge amount of people who have a moirail thanks to HS, for instance.) Is he saying that they're wrong for overthinking it? I guess my deep fear is the question: "is the moral that I'm supposed to take from Homestuck the fact that the way I use to understand the world is useless, harmful, and should be destroyed?" So, yeah. I just wrote in a full page of text what you summarized in your last 2 sentences. I'm sorry. How can I feel better about that? I'm thinking of making a post which recategorizes quadrants, and no, I'm not gonna include any of those sub-sub-subdivisions people made all the time. Thanks for listening, anyway. Sorry for doing nothing but ranting.
People do not always fit this model =/= this model is completely useless, throw it out. That's kinda black and white thinking there. And "this individual does not fit this model" -> "the way I understand the world is useless, harmful and should be destroyed" is a hell of a leap. I'm really not seeing where you're reading "this model is bad and wrong and should be thrown out" from what we're given in Homestuck.
I doubt it. It was always kind of a running joke that trolls have this rigidly defined system, and the part of the narration that says human romance is totally simple in comparison. This is very much not true for two reasons: human relationships tend to have aspects of two or more quadrants as part of them, and it's just as hard for us to figure out what exactly is happening in them, sometimes, as it is for trolls to figure out what quadrant they're in with another troll. The punchline to the joke is that the relationship systems are way more alike than they are different. The real difference is in the artificially enforced rigidity of the trolls' culture. This doesn't mean you're wrong or bad to use the quadrants to understand relationships better. It's an interesting and useful way to look at relationships. I know it's helped me figure out how to explain relationships that don't look like the kind of bland representation of friendship or romance that we often see in media. I think where the quadrant system could lead a person into trouble is if they insisted that relationships be divided along rigid boundaries and only rigid boundaries. This was already unhealthy for the trolls themselves, as it kept them worrying about their relationships above anything that would be inconvenient for the ruling classes, like personal freedoms and not being killed out of hand, and in a way kept them from forming attachments that were too deep and thus, kept the trolls less connected with each other and easier to control.
I guess what I'm saying is a model either works or doesn't. And Karkat proved that the model doesn't. And if the implication is that "feelings are too complex to be adequately represented by a model" then... yeah, that does kind of lead to "it's harmful to restrict your understanding of feelings to a mere model", which in turn, leads directly to "the way I understand the world is useless, harmful and should be destroyed". So... yeah, it depends on whether they mean to imply that or not. Thanks for this. If this is what these people are implying then yeah, I can understand it. I guess what I'm saying is I want to know what Hussie's implications are. What's the message he's trying to push. What are people getting out of Karkat's nonquadromanticism. And I'm still terrified that the message he's pushing is, as @Aondeug said, the idea that romance "isn't a thing you overthink. It just happens. Blah blah no charts those are for dumb nerds." I like my charts. They help me understand stuff. Thank you, the four of you. I feel a lot better now. Still a bit uncomfortable, but a lot better. I'm probably gonna go start making a new quadrant model now.
Even if the model only works for 90% of people, it's still a hell of a lot better than a model that works for 0% of people. Like, if you were 90% certain to get a good reaction from someone if you greeted them a certain way, you'd do it, right?
I want so badly to say "yes, absolutely, you're right", but I feel like I knew that from the start, and it's just that I want a way to not just approximate, but to truly understand these things. That's why I'm planning on probably making one at some point. I've come to really accept, understand, and take in the flaws in the model and how it can be improved. I'm okay with that. What I'm still worried about, though, is what Hussie wanted me to get out of the story. I'm still worried that the message he's trying to give us is "labelling feelings is harmful". It's a message I see way too often, and I honestly kind of hate it. Other than that, I'm 0kay with things.
Most neurotypical people model social behavior in a way that they can't reflect on. (It's a built in module of the human brain.) So they can't tinker inside the black box if it's wrong. Often, they insist that their model is right and that the other person right in front of them is wrong. We autistic folk know exactly what our social models are. This means that we can improve our social models on the fly. It's kind of necessary, since we start so far behind - but if you work enough at it, you can become as good as a neurotypical person. If you are observant and careful and smart, you might even be able to do better.
