Thread for Relationship Anarchy & Love without Category

May 28, 2013

I know there are only a few of us on the boards who currently identify as relationship anarchists and who holds views and desires for love and relationships that don't follow the traditional Romantic Ideal or the romance/friendship dichotomy, and I wanted to create a space especially for us, so we can talk to our hearts' content about RA and romantic friendship/passionate friendship and asexual polyamory and nonromantic primary life partners and all other types of love and relationship that's considered "unconventional" or "out there." Personally, I think we should devote more time to getting excited about our ideas of love, our ideal relationships, etc.

First of all, this is my personal definition of relationship anarchy: http://thethinkingasexual.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/relationship-anarchy-basics/

I look forward to the days when there are more "official" or published resources about RA, in the same way there are now a handful of books about polyamory and an ever-growing group of poly people in the world. Don't you? I sort of think that this kind of dialogue we'll have with each other is very important because this kind of discussion is what leads to the evolution and expansion of a lifestyle like RA or polyamory.

I've seen a few instances around the internet of polyamorous sexual people using "relationship anarchy" as an interchangeable term with "polyamory," and I disagree and dislike this because there's a very clear and sometimes significant different between RA and polyamory, as far as I'm concerned. What are your thoughts?

Finally, because RA can be lived in an infinite number of ways, please specify as much as you can what your personal RA looks like! How many relationships do you want, what are their defining characteristics, is there a difference between what I call "common friendship" (the kind the average person has) and a more serious friendship in your social network to the point that some of your friends are common and some are romantic or passionate or just "more," or do you want all your friendships to be romantic/passionate--or all relationships more like common friendships?

May 28, 2013

I've heard about RA before but I never knew what it was. Your article/blog post was really interesting and informative. :D I don't really have that much of an opinion on the polyamory/RA thing as I don't know any more about the subject, but I think RA sounds like a really cool way of having relationships.

Can't really say I'm RA as I've never been in any sort of relationship, and I've only ever had one squish even.

May 28, 2013

I think I love you.

I have a relationship with my ex-boyfriend, he still has feelings for me but he understands that I'm incapable of romantic attraction and that I can show my "love" and appreciation to him in other ways. We have sex, cuddle and generally pretty comfortable around each other. I help him whenever he's feeling down and he does the same for me. We're there for each other. I think we fit the passionate friendship model but the lack of sex thing clashes with what he and I do lol. It's not even really a romantic expression of love kind of sex, it's just casual fucking.

I have an online friendship with a girl. She's in a serious relationship with someone else but she is romantically attracted to me, whereas I don't feel anything for her. (Am I missing something? People get sexually/romantically attracted to me and I don't at all. Fuckkk.) I help her release her sexual tension by participating in cyber sex but lately, have been withdrawing from it because she doesn't let her partner know and what she and I are doing is essentially cheating and it makes me feel disgusting.

May 28, 2013

That blog post was very informative, thanks to it i think i,ve found a name for my perception on relationships.

I can't say for sure because, like pilvi, i've never been in a romantic relation before and because i would like to know a bit more before i decide if the term really fits

May 28, 2013

Someone pointed out to me a few days ago that there's a very strong undercurrent of relationship anarchy in a lot of the stories I write. Why I never realized that is beyond me, but there's a lot of stuff I write that stomps on the face of social norms and I never realized it before. I really live up to my hair color sometimes I guess.

I'm rather unsociable and introverted, not to mention suffering from a severe case of 'living in a city full of idiots', so my form of RA is primarily a open-ended ideal. I have no actual desires for any kind of relationship and my current partner seems to be a strange one-off, but the kind of relationship that shows up in a lot of my stories is certainly something I'd be amenable to. I tend to abuse the phrase nakama, which loosely translated would mean something akin to 'brothers in arms' or 'closer than blood', because I've never found a simple English equivalent and that is exactly what I want. I guess Dom and Brian's "family", especially in the two most recent Fast and Furious movies, is the ideal that I would most like to have. Epic cars included. :p

May 28, 2013

I'm glad that you started this thread, aceofhearts. I've been following your blog for quite some time. Your blog posts are very refreshing and thought-provoking. :)

I agree that poly and RA are different. I think all RA's are poly, but only some polys are RA. I got to know about poly much earlier than RA, so I'm more certain about my poly identity, but I think I'm somewhat of an RA too. My own version of RA includes:

1) Not all my relationships have to have the conventional "package deal" - sex, living together, sharing finances, spending time IRL regularly, etc. What defines my significant relationships is emotional intimacy (and physical affection if possible); everything else is optional and should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Basically, I don't have an "all or nothing" mindset about relationships, e.g. I won't say things like "either we move in together/get married in X years or we break up". As long as there's emotional connection and commitment, I'll cherish each relationship for what it is, even if it seems "incomplete" by mainstream standards.

2) Because of 1), some of my relationships may look like a "normal" friendship on the surface, but all my relationships are equally significant, no matter whether we live together or not, or how much / little time we spend IRL. I hate terms like "secondary partner" or "relationships on the side" because they're so demeaning and imply mono-normativity, even though they're used by poly people. If someone is in a relationship (no matter what kind) with me, they'll never be "secondary" or "on the side". I won't give up a romantic friendship for a life partner.

How many relationships do you want, what are their defining characteristics, is there a difference between what I call "common friendship" (the kind the average person has) and a more serious friendship in your social network to the point that some of your friends are common and some are romantic or passionate or just "more," or do you want all your friendships to be romantic/passionate--or all relationships more like common friendships?

I want at most one life partner (I already have one, but I'd be fine living alone too) and an indefinite number of romantic friendships or non-primary relationships ("non-primary" is different from "secondary"). Though I doubt I can have a lot of such relationships, because my time is limited and it's difficult to find people who get poly/RA. As I said above, the defining characteristics of my relationships are emotional intimacy and physical affection, but in the case of LDR it's okay to go without the latter. I hope all (or some of) my partners / romantic friends and metamours can become a circle of close friends, but that's not mandatory.

I have at least three kinds of "friends": "common friends" or acquaintances if you use a more strict definition of "friends"; close platonic friends; romantic friends. There can be in-between kinds of friends as well. Romantic friendships are what I consider intimate relationships, but close platonic friendships are important to me too.

May 28, 2013

I figured someone would make a thread one of these days. Maybe this will keep us from derailing the others with our tangential RA-related discussions (probably not). :lol:

I've seen a few instances around the internet of polyamorous sexual people using "relationship anarchy" as an interchangeable term with "polyamory," and I disagree and dislike this because there's a very clear and sometimes significant different between RA and polyamory, as far as I'm concerned. What are your thoughts?

I don't think they're equivalent terms either. I think there can be some overlap, perhaps between non-hierarchical polyamory and RA, but not all forms of poly are RA (and vice versa). Hierarchical polyamory especially seems to clash with the with the RA ethic. I consider myself both poly and RA, although I'm sure some people would disagree with me about the validity of that. However, I still make a distinction between the two.

There's a caveat here - as RA seems to be relatively new, there are a lot of slightly different definitions floating around regarding what it means to be RA. This is just my own personal take on the matter; your mileage may vary. I tend to favor somewhat open-ended definitions of polyamory and RA.

Finally, because RA can be lived in an infinite number of ways, please specify as much as you can what your personal RA looks like! How many relationships do you want, what are their defining characteristics, is there a difference between what I call "common friendship" (the kind the average person has) and a more serious friendship in your social network to the point that some of your friends are common and some are romantic or passionate or just "more," or do you want all your friendships to be romantic/passionate--or all relationships more like common friendships?

This post of mine does a pretty good job outlining some of the basic requirements that apply to any intimate relationships I would have.

Other than that, it's actually pretty open-ended. It could go a number of ways, depending on how the relationships in my life materialize. Ideally? I'd have a circle of close friendships, some of which are "normal" close platonic friendships and others that I consider romantic/affectionate friendships (I imagine around 2-4 of those). Not all of my friends need to know each other (it'd be cool if they did, though). I'd prefer to live alone, although it'd be nice if I could spend a lot of time at my friends' homes, just hanging out and perhaps spending the night occasionally. I'd like for my romantic/affectionate friendships to be characterized by high amounts of emotional, intellectual, and nonsexual physical intimacy, more than might typically be expected of "just" friendship. I'm open to the possibility of forgoing the physical component indefinitely and having an LDR in some cases. Still, I'd like to have consistent sensual contact (cuddling!) in at least one of my relationships, though it probably wouldn't need to be that frequent if I knew I could count on it. Also, I'm totally open to having at least one intimate friendship with an aromantic, perhaps even in a nonexclusive QPP-type scenario if the relationship evolves that way. That would be pretty neat. ^_^

Of course, that's just how I envision it in my head. It might end up looking completely different! Who knows? One of the fun things about RA is the sheer number of possible configurations, some of which I probably can't even wrap my head around right now. I'm willing to see where it takes me, with the "customized commitments" and all.

May 28, 2013

Ooooo, I was just waiting for a thread like this! :D

I was actually thinking of writing a blog post about some ideas I've had about this lately, but I guess for now I'll give my quick summary here:

For me a large part of why I'm embraced (my version of...) RA is that romantic and platonic feelings aren't completely separate and distinct with me. At least when it comes to women (I'm heteroromantic). It's similar to the way Law of Circles described it at various times: the way it feels to me is that all emotionally intimate connections with women are essentially friendships, but some have more or a less of a romantic "flavour" than others. If I recognise this and allow myself to think this way, I actually find that I can love more freely and honestly, without feeling like it's "wrong" to feel a certain way about someone because she's "just a friend" - as well as not getting obsessive unwanted limerence for any one person (urgh!). Of course, in most cases she is functionally "just a friend", in the way society would generally look at it. But then there are others whom I could have something like a romantic friendship with (if we're both on the same page of course), which again, is just a logical consequence of being honest to feelings, rather than suppressing them because society says you can only share a certain kind of emotional affection with one person at a time.

I think for me a lot of this also comes from how the connection between love and sex isn't really direct and intuitive. Being affectionally attracted to someone really is just that for me. The baseline is something along the lines of romantic friendship, not a desire for sex and for riding the relationship escalator up to a full-on "life partnership" with the person. Sexual interest is something that evolves slowly, and how much I'm willing to share here is also a bit of a sliding scale. I mean, let's face it - even with cuddle buddies there will be things like spooning turning into sporking ( :P), but due to my internal demi inclinations - as well as the practical considerations - I'm not exactly "easy" about sex in the usual modern hookup culture ways. In fact, I'm pretty sure I might be viscerally intercourse-exclusive. But I'm not going to attach too much stock to that belief. Just in case it turns out not to be true in the future in some very special circumstances. I definitely take that level of contact very seriously though, speaking in a conscious decision sense now.

The way RA comes into it for me - other than this recognition of love not being a zero-sum game - is actually mostly the "customised commitments" idea. I like the idea of setting up commitments and boundaries which are completely organic and natural to the two people involved. Social norms regarding romance seem to be more like "fixed templates", which everyone is expected to follow in a certain rigid way, and I think this just frustrates the development of natural relationships with natural boundaries. It maybe works well for people who are wired in a fairly standard romantic-sexual fashion, I guess, but for people like me it's extremely frustrating, unnatural and limiting.

All that said, if I found someone who made sense as a proper primary life partner for me, I'd probably be happy to set up customised commitments with her which look very much like a "normal" life partnership. The difference would mostly be in the emotional setup. I'd never want to pretend like there is something extra "magical" going on in my head there - the base feeling is much the same as I can have for other romantic friends - both new and old. It's the practical level of commitment which is different, and much more extensive.

This, ironically, actually makes it easier to commit to things consciously. I think a lot of people (in mainstream relationship thinking) rely on feelings too much (expecting feelings to remain very tightly exclusive and romantic), which is why so much cheating happens. Because they expect never to fall in love or get attracted to someone else again. I just kind of accept upfront that this will happen, so the commitment to a given relationship is more of a choice and less reliant on expecting fickle emotional states to last forever.

My ideal situation in a nutshell: Mostly just not having to stress about boundaries when it comes to close friendships having some level of affectionate and "romantic" flavour to them. That's basically it. If everyone I'm connected with can accept that, I'm happy. Having a primary relationship is an option, not something I'm really looking for actively. But if I do find one, there's quite a bit I could probably commit to it which would look pretty normal really. At least on a practical level on the surface.

May 29, 2013

For me a large part of why I'm embraced (my version of...) RA is that romantic and platonic feelings aren't completely separate and distinct with me. At least when it comes to women (I'm heteroromantic). It's similar to the way Law of Circles described it at various times: the way it feels to me is that all emotionally intimate connections with women are essentially friendships, but some have more or a less of a romantic "flavour" than others. If I recognise this and allow myself to think this way, I actually find that I can love more freely and honestly, without feeling like it's "wrong" to feel a certain way about someone because she's "just a friend" - as well as not getting obsessive unwanted limerence for any one person (urgh!). Of course, in most cases she is functionally "just a friend", in the way society would generally look at it. But then there are others whom I could have something like a romantic friendship with (if we're both on the same page of course), which again, is just a logical consequence of being honest to feelings, rather than suppressing them because society says you can only share a certain kind of emotional affection with one person at a time.

This should come as no surprise, since you even referenced me in this part of your post, but... yes, very much this! :cake:

As I've mentioned before, I have these "low-level romantic feelings" for most of my close friends. I've realized recently that this doesn't usually apply to people I'm not particularly close to (whom you might call "acquaintances" or "casual friends," depending on your definitions), so it might be possible for me to have "purely" platonic feelings at that level. With me, though, increasing emotional closeness and intimacy in friendship tends to result in romantic greyness. I wouldn't call it full-on romantic attraction; it's more subtle than that. It probably sounds really strange, but this seems to be the way I'm wired, so to speak.

Now that I acknowledge and accept the existence of this phenomenon, I feel so much freer and more natural in my close relationships with people. Although I don't tend to express the low-level romantic emotions I feel in close friendships, the sole fact that I understand and accept their existence has made the way I relate to people feel much more intuitive. Even if it's considered strange, I'm not going to push it away anymore. For me, that comes too close to banning feelings of affection in general (hence why I'm opposed to being in an emotionally exclusive relationship - it wouldn't be fair for anyone involved).

Of course, I don't act on these feelings without being certain that I'm on the same page as the other person. From the outside, the way I relate to my close friends looks no different from the way most people do. Thus far, the only difference has been internal. If I'm ever in a situation where it's in line with what the other person wants, though, I could see something like this forming the basis for a romantic friendship someday.

May 29, 2013

Now that I acknowledge and accept the existence of this phenomenon, I feel so much freer and more natural in my close relationships with people. Although I don't tend to express the low-level romantic emotions I feel in close friendships, the sole fact that I understand and accept their existence has made the way I relate to people feel much more intuitive. Even if it's considered strange, I'm not going to push it away anymore. For me, that comes too close to banning feelings of affection in general (hence why I'm opposed to being in an emotionally exclusive relationship - it wouldn't be fair for anyone involved).

Yeah, this is actually something I went back and forth with a few times. And in fact - I sometimes wonder if it isn't just subjectivity that makes it seem like I'm wired much more differently to the norm.

Basically - when I imagine what a potential "primary" relationship of mine might be like, and the sort of commitments I'd be willing to build with such a person, it might look almost identical to a mainstream functionally monogamous relationship. So then this seems like a bit of a semantics game - ie Why not just call it that? But just have the caveat in place that cuddle buddies and a certain degree of affectionate sharing with close friends has to be allowed. From the outside that's actually pretty accurate in how it would look to society anyway.

But no, I don't like it. Mostly because it seems to presume some kind of unique and unshakeable state of mind in that primary relationship. Which isn't really how it works with me - as you say - it's not fair to anyone involved, to promise something that's not emotionally accurate in my head. Which is why I always talk about practical boundaries being set and maintained regardless of how you feel at any given moment. This is where I can appreciate what people say about "working through rough patches" in their relationships and such.

Maybe the best way to put it is that affectionate friendship (or "romantic friendship" if you like) is sort of a baseline for all my relationships which might have a potential for being something "more", in a romantic bonding sense. But then if one of them is going to be "more" - that part should be mostly a conscious decision. More or less disconnected from any particular unique emotional state, that's felt differently for that person as opposed to other close affectionate friends. Of course, it's inevitable that when you live with someone there'll be a different kind of domestic intimacy that will grow, as opposed to with someone whom you see over more of a distance. But again, I don't feel that the presence of a "romantic" flavour to more than one relationship needs to be a source of drama. Which is where people like us clash fundamentally with the mainstream - because in the mainstream even the existence of any trace of feelings for other people (beyond strictly platonic friendship) seems to be seen as a big problem.

.....or maybe I've just gotten myself completely mentally derailed. :D

May 29, 2013

Basically - when I imagine what a potential "primary" relationship of mine might be like, and the sort of commitments I'd be willing to build with such a person, it might look almost identical to a mainstream functionally monogamous relationship. So then this seems like a bit of a semantics game - ie Why not just call it that? But just have the caveat in place that cuddle buddies and a certain degree of affectionate sharing with close friends has to be allowed. From the outside that's actually pretty accurate in how it would look to society anyway.

My primary relationship looks very "normal" from outside, but I've never had the "why not just call it a monogamous relationship" thought, because regardless of what it looks like to outsiders, we're absolutely not monogamous (and I'm not just saying so because my partner is sexual and will definitely have sexual relationships with others if possible). Polyamory is defined by multiple intimate relationships, not by having sex or living with multiple people. Actually I'd imagine my romantic friendships are not that different from most (sexual) poly people's non-primary relationships, except in the sex department. But then again, sex is irrelevant in defining poly for me.

But I think if you have a primary relationship which is romantic, and have strictly platonic affectionate friends, then calling it monogamous or polyamorous would be more of a semantics game. :P

May 29, 2013

But I think if you have a primary relationship which is romantic, and have strictly platonic affectionate friends, then calling it monogamous or polyamorous would be more of a semantics game. :P

Absolutely. But that's exactly what makes me a bit of a freak case. The fact that there is no such thing as "strictly platonic" with me when it comes to intimate friendships with females. At least in my mind. Most of them are as good as, for sure (and I can keep them non-creepy in terms of outward expression absolutely), but I find it extremely unintuitive to use affectional feelings as an absolute measure of anything, in terms of what the relationship is worth - especially in terms of it being a unique black and white state of emotion for a primary romantic partnership vs other affectionate friendships. This makes mainstream mono people nervous. :lol:

So yeah, this is why I don't want to go down that route of calling it "monogamous, but....", because it's too fuzzy and emotionally inaccurate, and clashes with mainstream assumptions about what monogamy is - even on a purely emotional level.

May 30, 2013

I'm glad that you started this thread, aceofhearts. I've been following your blog for quite some time. Your blog posts are very refreshing and thought-provoking. :)

I agree that poly and RA are different. I think all RA's are poly, but only some polys are RA.

See, this is the sticking point for me...I have done some reading about Relationship Anarchy (and agree that the linked blogpost was very nicely written). I like the ideas in theory--just not with a lot of the assumptions/associations that seem to go along with it. And it's sometimes hard to separate the assumptions from the original philosophy. For instance, why are all RA's poly? I have a cousin whose mother is polyamorous, and some of his best friends are polyamorous. He started out in an open relationship with his current wife, and both of them intended to keep it that way because they were philosophically polyamorous, if that makes sense, but eventually had to admit that they had become functionally monogamous, because as the relationship progressed they both found they were simply not interested in having romantic or sexual relationships with anyone but each other. So, they decided to roll with it and have been happily monogamous for nearly 20 years. I would consider my cousin and his wife to be at least as much of "relationship anarchists" as I am, in that they believe that relationships should evolve naturally in whatever form works best for the people involved. For some people, monogamy works best.

And then some aspects of Relationship Anarchy seem to involve not labeling relationships as "romantic," "platonic" or anything else, and while I agree that there can be a lot of gray areas, I do find distinguishing between these feelings can be useful in many situations. For many people, the feelings are distinct, separate experiences, not because society tells them they are, but because that's just how they feel, and being able to describe that is important. I find that far more people can wrap their head around the idea that I can be highly affectionate with my friends and the feelings involved can still be entirely platonic, than are likely to jump on the polyamorous/RA bandwagon and declare that it doesn't matter if the relationship I have with, say, their SO, is platonic or romantic. :P I do agree that romantic relationships should not be viewed as somehow inherently superior to platonic ones.

So, I don't know, I hesitate to call myself a Relationship Anarchist...But I'd like to learn more before reaching a final verdict. :)

My "ideal" situation: lots of friendships (and continued close ties to my family, of course). I want friends of varying ages, political affiliations and creeds, some casual and others practically family. Some of my friendships may appear quasi-romantic at times, but I consider that pretty irrelevant. I go back and forth about whether I want to live alone, or have my own room (and preferably bathroom) in a shared household with good friends. There could be turnover of friends or even households. I wouldn't be looking for lifelong commitment from any of these people, at least not a commitment to live together...I'd want to find some happy medium between a casual housemate situation and an "intentional community" type set up. Oh, and I want cats. ;)

EDIT: Okay, somehow the previous two posts about polyamory vs. monogamy being a game of semantics at a certain point hadn't shown up when I was writing this...So I'm going to add more on that later. XD

May 30, 2013

And in fact - I sometimes wonder if it isn't just subjectivity that makes it seem like I'm wired much more differently to the norm.

I go back and forth about this a lot too. It reminds me of something else I've been thinking about lately...

The in-between headspace is really hard to define, and sometimes I wonder if I'm not just making it overly complicated by "choosing" not to define it as strictly platonic or romantic. There is definitely some subjectivity involved about where to draw the line (or where not to draw the line ;)), and I know I've said before that I could probably define all of my feelings as strictly platonic without issue. I could label myself as a sensual aromantic who desires solely platonic relationships, file everything I don't like about conventional relationships under the "romance" label, and still be internally consistent. In fact, I've read posts before that have almost convinced me to do just that.

Thus, in my head, I know that to some extent I'm choosing to label my experiences in certain ways (although I still use more of a sliding scale measure than a strict binary). Given that, couldn't I just lump my "low-level romantic feelings" in the platonic category without issue? On the other hand, what makes my slight romantic tendencies in close friendship any different from the average romantic crushing on their friends? Are my experiences really qualitatively different from the norm, or does it only seem that way because of the way I've chosen to describe them? I mean, I've got plenty of seemingly valid reasons for defining things the way I do, but sometimes it seems awfully inefficient and abstract to invoke so many grey areas. Sure, that's what feels intuitive to me, but at times I wonder if it's really necessary.

In any case, it seems like the semantics here really start to fall apart once you do away with the usual external cues for telling different types of relationships apart (sex, marriage, living together, having children, etc.). It's not like I can jump into another person's head to compare subjective experiences, so there's always going to be that element of uncertainty. It seems the best I can do is define things in whatever way makes sense to me and try to remain internally consistent.

How much agency do I really have in making these decisions, anyway? It's impossible for me take apart everything that's been socially constructed in my mind. And at some point I have to admit that my intellectual conceptualizations are always going to diverge somewhat from my actual emotional experiences.

Good grief. I've obviously given this way too much thought. Maybe I've also gotten completely mentally derailed. :lol:

May 30, 2013

See, this is the sticking point for me...I have done some reading about Relationship Anarchy (and agree that the linked blogpost was very nicely written). I like the ideas in theory--just not with a lot of the assumptions/associations that seem to go along with it. And it's sometimes hard to separate the assumptions from the original philosophy. For instance, why are all RA's poly? I have a cousin whose mother is polyamorous, and some of his best friends are polyamorous. He started out in an open relationship with his current wife, and both of them intended to keep it that way because they were philosophically polyamorous, if that makes sense, but eventually had to admit that they had become functionally monogamous, because as the relationship progressed they both found they were simply not interested in having romantic or sexual relationships with anyone but each other. So, they decided to roll with it and have been happily monogamous for nearly 20 years. I would consider my cousin and his wife to be at least as much of "relationship anarchists" as I am, in that they believe that relationships should evolve naturally in whatever form works best for the people involved. For some people, monogamy works best.

I think all RA's are poly because part of RA philosophy is that love is infinite rather than a limited resource, which is the same as the poly philosophy. But this is just my personal interpretation, which may not be correct. :) If a couple are romantically and sexually monogamous but believe in RA philosophy, can they still be RA? I'm not sure. Perhaps that still counts as RA if they have platonic friendships that are equally significant as their romantic-sexual relationship, but then again, it comes back to the question "Are you mono or poly if you have platonic affectionate friendships besides a romantic-sexual relationship?" :P

And then some aspects of Relationship Anarchy seem to involve not labeling relationships as "romantic," "platonic" or anything else, and while I agree that there can be a lot of gray areas, I do find distinguishing between these feelings can be useful in many situations. For many people, the feelings are distinct, separate experiences, not because society tells them they are, but because that's just how they feel, and being able to describe that is important.

Yeah, this is why I say I'm "somewhat" of an RA, rather than 100% RA. If RA means not labeling relationships as "romantic" or "platonic", I'd probably fail at that. For me, romantic feelings must develop on top of platonic ones, but once romantic feelings are in my head, I'll label the relationship as "romantic", even if it looks like "just a close friendship" from outside. Also, I naturally only desire physical affection with people I'm romantically attracted to, so intimate / affectionate relationships = romantic relationships (including romantic friendships) in my book.

But as Law of Circles mentioned before, RA is such a new concept that there is no single standard definition. So I think there can be some flexibility when it comes to each individual. :)

Thus, in my head, I know that to some extent I'm choosing to label my experiences in certain ways (although I still use more of a sliding scale measure than a strict binary). Given that, couldn't I just lump my "low-level romantic feelings" in the platonic category without issue? On the other hand, what makes my slight romantic tendencies in close friendship any different from the average romantic crushing on their friends? Are my experiences really qualitatively different from the norm, or does it only seem that way because of the way I've chosen to describe them?

Yeah, I have "low-level romantic feelings" for some of my friends too, but I just see them as the average romantic crushing on friends, so I don't really have the "is it romantic or platonic?" dilemma. :P Then again, we can only be certain of our own feelings, so I don't know if my "low-level romantic feelings" are the same as yours. In a word, this is all highly subjective.

May 30, 2013

The "Love and respect instead of entitlement" thing is actually quite central to it all for me.

The mainstream pop culture language of love speaks like this: "I have romantic feelings for you now, therefore you owe me a romantic relationship, with such and such rigid closed boundaries that I want to come with it!". Piss off! Says who?

I'm talking about myself above, by the way. That's how I remember feeling when in the throes of limerence for people in the past. It's extremely selfish and unpretty I think. But unfortunately this is what seems to be easily mistaken for "love" these days. The kind of "love" that enduring relationships should be built on. No wonder the relationships success rate is so dismal these days.

The above mentality pretty much comes down to just hoping that a kind of "mutual selfishness" will stay balanced and work itself out over time. But when you stop expecting a particularly rigid structure, where people are going to feel "trapped" in things for no good reasons, then a lot of the stress and inflexibility goes away.

May 30, 2013

Thus, in my head, I know that to some extent I'm choosing to label my experiences in certain ways (although I still use more of a sliding scale measure than a strict binary). Given that, couldn't I just lump my "low-level romantic feelings" in the platonic category without issue? On the other hand, what makes my slight romantic tendencies in close friendship any different from the average romantic crushing on their friends? Are my experiences really qualitatively different from the norm, or does it only seem that way because of the way I've chosen to describe them?
Yeah, I have "low-level romantic feelings" for some of my friends too, but I just see them as the average romantic crushing on friends, so I don't really have the "is it romantic or platonic?" dilemma. :P Then again, we can only be certain of our own feelings, so I don't know if my "low-level romantic feelings" are the same as yours. In a word, this is all highly subjective.

It really is so subjective. At this rate, I'll have to give up the distinction entirely before long. I'm considering it... but I think if I spend any more time on semantics right now, I'm going to get a headache, so I'll just leave it at that. :P

The mainstream pop culture language of love speaks like this: "I have romantic feelings for you now, therefore you owe me a romantic relationship, with such and such rigid closed boundaries that I want to come with it!". Piss off! Says who?

That attitude annoys me too, but I think it's a logical consequence of being monogamous and having a specific relationship "endgame." Working from those assumptions, you only get one relationship, and that relationship has to cohere to as many of your specific parameters and expectations as possible because it's the only one you get (in the long term). It's a lot different when you think of a relationship as something that can bring fulfillment to your life in any number of ways, instead of always trying to measure it up against a specific ideal and judging it for "completeness." I'm not without my own relationship ideals and expectations, of course, but I feel like there's more flexibility allowed (and therefore less entitlement). starrynight said it very nicely here:

Basically, I don't have an "all or nothing" mindset about relationships, e.g. I won't say things like "either we move in together/get married in X years or we break up". As long as there's emotional connection and commitment, I'll cherish each relationship for what it is, even if it seems "incomplete" by mainstream standards.

I wonder, though, if it'd be any different if we had more "entangling" expectations, like having children. To my knowledge, we're all childfree, so the topic of being RA with children doesn't really come up. I find it an interesting thought, though, alongside the question of whether it's possible to be completely monogamous and RA.

May 30, 2013

I wonder, though, if it'd be any different if we had more "entangling" expectations, like having children. To my knowledge, we're all childfree, so the topic of being RA with children doesn't really come up. I find it an interesting thought, though, alongside the question of whether it's possible to be completely monogamous and RA.

I've thought about this a lot actually. Mostly in terms of how far my customised boundaries for a theoretical "primary" relationship could go in the direction of looking more or less like a normal functionally monogamous relationship. And really, for the most part things would look identical on the surface - which is the reason I sometimes find myself questioning the semantics behind the whole thing a bit.

ie. There's probably no reason I couldn't be with a functional monogamist, so long as she was fine with the idea that my internal emotional life ticks a bit unconventionally - and she didn't try to ban me from having affectionate friendships with others. :P

But really, almost everything else could look like a completely normal monogamous relationship from the outside.

So I think it's a bit of a case of: Depending on how your set up your customised commitments with specific people, yes, things can basically be functionally monogamous and look quite standard. Especially in cases where there are children and other such high-responsibility entanglements in the picture. If anything, I'd say if people didn't implement pretty tight customised commitments in there, they'd probably be acting somewhat irresponsibly and possibly abusing the RA philosophy, so to speak.

May 30, 2013

See, this is the sticking point for me...I have done some reading about Relationship Anarchy (and agree that the linked blogpost was very nicely written). I like the ideas in theory--just not with a lot of the assumptions/associations that seem to go along with it. And it's sometimes hard to separate the assumptions from the original philosophy. For instance, why are all RA's poly? I have a cousin whose mother is polyamorous, and some of his best friends are polyamorous. He started out in an open relationship with his current wife, and both of them intended to keep it that way because they were philosophically polyamorous, if that makes sense, but eventually had to admit that they had become functionally monogamous, because as the relationship progressed they both found they were simply not interested in having romantic or sexual relationships with anyone but each other. So, they decided to roll with it and have been happily monogamous for nearly 20 years. I would consider my cousin and his wife to be at least as much of "relationship anarchists" as I am, in that they believe that relationships should evolve naturally in whatever form works best for the people involved. For some people, monogamy works best.
I think all RA's are poly because part of RA philosophy is that love is infinite rather than a limited resource, which is the same as the poly philosophy. But this is just my personal interpretation, which may not be correct. :) If a couple are romantically and sexually monogamous but believe in RA philosophy, can they still be RA? I'm not sure. Perhaps that still counts as RA if they have platonic friendships that are equally significant as their romantic-sexual relationship, but then again, it comes back to the question "Are you mono or poly if you have platonic affectionate friendships besides a romantic-sexual relationship?" :P

Yeah, if RA = polyamorous, I'm definitely out, because I'm not amorous with anybody. XD What I believe is that:

1) Monogamy is not inherently superior to polyamory and vice versa. Different relationship styles work for different people. While it's easy to choose monogamy by default because it is the socially expected route, I think some people really are just wired for it. I don't even want one romantic partner, so I can imagine why other people find one to be plenty! ;) I agree that love is an unlimited resource, but most people do tend to feel romantic love only under certain circumstances. Even the most enthusiastic of polyamorous individuals do not claim to fall in love with everyone they meet.

2) Romantic relationships are not inherently superior to platonic ones and vice versa.

3) Just as behavior =/= orientation, behavior =/= the difference between romantic and platonic relationships. Affection is most certainly not limited to romantic relationships, or no one would ever kiss their mother. I understand that some people (such as yourself) feel a draw to be physically affectionate as a result of romantic attraction, but this is certainly not the case for everyone, and even in these instances it is the romantic feelings that make the relationship romantic, not the presence of physical affection. I strongly disagree with the idea that the difference between someone who is polyamorous and someone who is monogamous but has affectionate friendships is just a matter of semantics. To me, that is like saying that platonic relationships cannot be physically or emotionally affectionate because that is reserved for romantic relationships and can only be motivated by romantic feelings, and is another way of saying that romantic relationships are superior to platonic ones.

I'm aromantic to the core--I feel the same love for my friends as I do for my cousins or siblings. Some of these relationships are physically affectionate, others are not, and that does not change the feelings involved one bit. I have some more casual friends whom I don't "love," but do like, whom I am physically affectionate with--again, the physical affection does not change the feelings involved at all. And I know that, in the majority of cases, the feeling has been mutual. I have several friends that refer to me as a sister or second mom--nothing romantic is present. Some of these friends have more "traditional" ideas about the differences between platonic and romantic relationships, others are in open or polyamorous relationships and still consider their relationship with me to be strictly platonic. Yes, there are people for whom the difference between romantic and platonic relationships are already fuzzy and the difference could be a matter of semantics for them, and there are probably people who are viewed as monogamous and fit the standard definition based on their behavior, but do have romantic feelings for some of their "friends". But there are also monogamous people with affectionate friends, and polyamorous people with strictly platonic affectionate friends as well.

May 30, 2013

This thread is starting to make my head hurt. :lol:

I strongly disagree with the idea that the difference between someone who is polyamorous and someone who is monogamous but has affectionate friendships is just a matter of semantics. To me, that is like saying that platonic relationships cannot be physically or emotionally affectionate because that is reserved for romantic relationships and can only be motivated by romantic feelings, and is another way of saying that romantic relationships are superior to platonic ones.

Honestly, I kinda wish the societal need for that romantic/platonic distinction would just go away. The existence of it upsets me. I don't like things I don't understand.

And this is one of those things that the more I analyse, the less I understand. :P

May 30, 2013

Yeah, if RA = polyamorous, I'm definitely out, because I'm not amorous with anybody. XD

...

I strongly disagree with the idea that the difference between someone who is polyamorous and someone who is monogamous but has affectionate friendships is just a matter of semantics. To me, that is like saying that platonic relationships cannot be physically or emotionally affectionate because that is reserved for romantic relationships and can only be motivated by romantic feelings, and is another way of saying that romantic relationships are superior to platonic ones.

I think that depends on how you define polyamory. I've seen different definitions, like "multiple romantic and/or sexual relationships", "multiple romantic, sexual or affectionate relationships", "multiple loving relationships", "multiple intimate relationships", etc. Except the first one, platonic relationships are also included IMO (although some people would probably say loving/intimate/affectionate = romantic/sexual, so all the definitions are the same). So, depending on how you see it, aromantics can be poly too (just like some aros are mono, if they want something like an exclusive QPP)! :D

I wonder, though, if it'd be any different if we had more "entangling" expectations, like having children. To my knowledge, we're all childfree, so the topic of being RA with children doesn't really come up. I find it an interesting thought, though, alongside the question of whether it's possible to be completely monogamous and RA.

I'm sure there are non-hierarchical poly people who have children, so they may qualify as RA too. I think it's just one step further from living with/married to one partner and having equally significant relationships with others: most of their time would be focused on their family, but emotionally they love their non-primary partners as much as their primary. I do wonder if RA's are more likely to be childfree though. :P

I've thought about this a lot actually. Mostly in terms of how far my customised boundaries for a theoretical "primary" relationship could go in the direction of looking more or less like a normal functionally monogamous relationship. And really, for the most part things would look identical on the surface - which is the reason I sometimes find myself questioning the semantics behind the whole thing a bit.

ie. There's probably no reason I couldn't be with a functional monogamist, so long as she was fine with the idea that my internal emotional life ticks a bit unconventionally - and she didn't try to ban me from having affectionate friendships with others. :P

But really, almost everything else could look like a completely normal monogamous relationship from the outside.

Well, I think most poly people are "functionally monogamous" anyway (polys in group marriage type of arrangement are probably the minority), i.e. they have one and only one live-in partner, spend time with non-primaries like once a week or less, and can pass as monogamous in front of family and friends unless they choose to come out. So I really don't think being "functionally monogamous" or not matters much, as long as the internal emotions are non-exclusive. :)

May 30, 2013

Yeah, if RA = polyamorous, I'm definitely out, because I'm not amorous with anybody. XD

...

I strongly disagree with the idea that the difference between someone who is polyamorous and someone who is monogamous but has affectionate friendships is just a matter of semantics. To me, that is like saying that platonic relationships cannot be physically or emotionally affectionate because that is reserved for romantic relationships and can only be motivated by romantic feelings, and is another way of saying that romantic relationships are superior to platonic ones.

I think that depends on how you define polyamory. I've seen different definitions, like "multiple romantic and/or sexual relationships", "multiple romantic, sexual or affectionate relationships", "multiple loving relationships", "multiple intimate relationships", etc. Except the first one, platonic relationships are also included IMO (although some people would probably say loving/intimate/affectionate = romantic/sexual, so all the definitions are the same). So, depending on how you see it, aromantics can be poly too (just like some aros are mono, if they want something like an exclusive QPP)! :D

Ahhh, I think I've worked out what was bugging me about that!

I didn't consider the potential crossing of sensual and platonic attraction, even for someone who's completely romantically incompatible with me (in terms of a serious classic romantic relationship that is). See, I could still happily be cuddle buddies with someone like that - no matter how completely well we've both written off any possibility of having a relationship beyond that. I don't think my feelings would ever gel into a clearly romantic form there at all, they would just remain something cuddly and affectionate and for all intents and purposes - platonic. Although admittedly I've never experienced that type of relationship.

So the reason I call it semantics at this point is that, well - there really is no difference between that relationship and another in which the feelings might be slightly differently aligned. Whatever slight difference there might be in my mind is inconsequential to how it's expressed outwardly.

So it's like this: As long as I get along with someone well enough to be close friends, and we don't smell and aren't physically repulsed to do so, and are on the same page regarding what it means - I could have a cuddle buddy type relationship with just about any and all females out there. ie Based on close platonic bonding and the fact that females are my affectional attraction "type". Basically the classic cuddle slut scenario. :P

So this is the million dollar question: Since this is such a basic and low-level thing which really just needs some relatively basic interpersonal comfort and platonic compatibility to be unlocked - why am I calling it "romantic" at all? I have no idea. It's near-universal, meaning that it's essentially completely meaningless to make a drastic distinction. At least as far as the ability to throw just about any kind of intimate/affectionate bond into the RA mix goes anyway. And this is why I don't like how the terms romantic and platonic split everything in such a binary and drastic fashion - because it messes with my head - since I'm capable of these ways of bonding which don't fit into either category, by most people's and society's standards. Not only in terms of expression, but even in how they're constructed internally.

Hmmm, I hope that made some sense. It makes sense in my head anyway. But then again, my head might be broken by now. :D

May 30, 2013

This thread is starting to make my head hurt. :lol:

I strongly disagree with the idea that the difference between someone who is polyamorous and someone who is monogamous but has affectionate friendships is just a matter of semantics. To me, that is like saying that platonic relationships cannot be physically or emotionally affectionate because that is reserved for romantic relationships and can only be motivated by romantic feelings, and is another way of saying that romantic relationships are superior to platonic ones.

Honestly, I kinda wish the societal need for that romantic/platonic distinction would just go away. The existence of it upsets me. I don't like things I don't understand.

And this is one of those things that the more I analyse, the less I understand. :P

Okay, I was replying to this post when the other appeared, but I think the gist of my point can still be applied. I don't think the romantic/platonic distinction is a "societal need," it's an individual one. Most people experience these things as separate and distinct enough that they need words to describe it. I get that for some people the difference is a lot more minor and fuzzy, but that does not make the romantic/platonic distinction an unnatural, societally imposed construct that can be nit-picked away by viewing relationships in a nontraditional light. It's very real and intuitive for many people.

That doesn't mean it has to be a factor in your life--if it doesn't make sense as a frame of reference for your relationships, by all means, don't bother with it! :)

May 30, 2013

Honestly, I kinda wish the societal need for that romantic/platonic distinction would just go away. The existence of it upsets me. I don't like things I don't understand.

And this is one of those things that the more I analyse, the less I understand. :P

I know what you mean. I'm getting close to the point where I'm about to do away with it entirely, with respect to myself. Currently, the platonic/romantic distinction is only something I use to organize different mental/emotional states in my head, and not something that makes any tangible difference in practice. I only make the distinction when it comes to feelings, not behaviors, and that distinction has gotten progressively more hazy the more I've thought about it. I'm beginning to wonder if it's lost most of its usefulness for me, and now it's just making things needlessly confusing.

I don't know. Ultimately, I believe the existence of a strong emotional bond is what matters to me in a relationship, and how I or anyone else involved chooses to define that bond is secondary. I've already seen that it's possible for different people to describe the same relationship as platonic or romantic. As long as the relationship is something both people want and agree to have, though, I don't think it matters, at least not to me personally.

I'm not claiming to speak for anyone else here, nor do I believe I have the authority to tell other people how to view their relationships. I do wonder sometimes, though, how much of this is due to natural "wiring" and how much is due to social conditioning. It's often difficult to tell the two apart.

I wonder, though, if it'd be any different if we had more "entangling" expectations, like having children. To my knowledge, we're all childfree, so the topic of being RA with children doesn't really come up. I find it an interesting thought, though, alongside the question of whether it's possible to be completely monogamous and RA.
I'm sure there are non-hierarchical poly people who have children, so they may qualify as RA too. I think it's just one step further from living with/married to one partner and having equally significant relationships with others: most of their time would be focused on their family, but emotionally they love their non-primary partners as much as their primary. I do wonder if RA's are more likely to be childfree though. :P

That makes sense. I wouldn't be surprised if RAs are more likely to be childfree. It's too bad there aren't enough of us in one place to conduct a survey. :P

May 30, 2013

I do wonder sometimes, though, how much of this is due to natural "wiring" and how much is due to social conditioning. It's often difficult to tell the two apart

Yeah, this is something I'm constantly wondering too. Especially how much of it is self-suggestion. Projecting a certain meaning on certain types of feelings, how you're "expected" to act on them, and then they (both the feelings and the expectations of action) go off on a tangent....

Back in the days when my outlook was relatively mainstream, it was sort of like this: I thought of all women as neutral, and those I got to know a bit as platonic interests ("just friends"). But then when I met someone for whom there was anything "more" than that - it automatically tended to blow out into limerence. Mostly quite possessive, obsessive, negative, and generally bad for everyone involved. The feelings that stemmed from that were never really love. It was just selfish clinging. And when I think about it - the only thing that was actually healthy in those relationships was ultimately the underlying friendship. So they could have been totally platonic for the same positives.

Now when I'm no longer looking at women through "categories of love" at all, it feels like that distinction between romance and friendship has completely blurred together. I haven't really had a good chance to test it properly yet, but I just can't see myself taking limerence seriously again. And that was really the only very clear distinction in the past. And now it's like self-awareness of it has killed the seed. Combined with simply seeing love as a more universal thing and not attempting to classify it internally.

So yeah, I don't know. To me it feels like I had conditioning in place which I've managed to break. But who really knows. It's always possible that I've been differently wired all along - and now I've just finally worked it out. :D

May 30, 2013

Maybe this makes me a relationship anarchy purist, but I don't consider a person an RA unless they're actually practicing relationship equality and dissolving the rigid distinctions between "romantic" or couple relationships and "friendships" in real life. It's not enough to claim that you think of your friendships as equal to your romantic/sexual relationship, but behaviorally, there's a clear and tremendous difference in treatment of relationships that are romantic and/or sexual and relationships that aren't. Likewise, I don't think a couple is truly poly unless they're serious about at least being open or actively interested in getting involved with more than one person sexually and romantically. If you're a poly person who only has one romantic/sexual partner at the moment because you haven't yet met somebody else who you're interested in romantically/sexually and who can fit into your life, that's fine. But if you're somebody who's happily monogamous and plans on staying that way, you're not polyamorous. Doesn't matter if you say that you think polyamory is a cool idea.

I recognize that not all RA's have to be as radical in their practice or philosophy as I am, in order to qualify as relationship anarchists, but I do think you have to at least meet the fundamental guidelines of RA that separates it from polyamory and traditional relationship hierarchy, which are: holding romantic/sexual relationships and nonromantic/nonsexual relationships as equal in emotional importance (assuming you have sex and/or romance; if you don't have sex but you do have romance, then romantic and nonromantic relationships should still be equal), creating as much latitude in nonromantic or non-primary relationships for emotional intimacy/physical intimacy/quality time as there is in romantic or primary relationships, and not automatically making the big partnership markers (like cohabitation) something that can only happen in a romantic relationship (if you're distinguishing between "romantic" and "nonromantic" relationships in the first place).

If you're keeping romantic relationships and friendships pretty separate by assigning more time, touch, intimacy, emotion, and commitment to your romantic relationships, then I wouldn't consider you an RA. You may be polyamorous, or you may be someone who values friendship more than a lot of other relationship hierarchists. But those aren't the same as being RA.

In this vein, I'm interested in the idea of subjectivity when it comes to emotions and relationship valuing, because as one of you said, we can't ever really KNOW how another person feels the way we know our own feelings, we can't feel someone else's feelings, so two people could have an identical set of relationships or relationship style and yet emotionally experience it/interpret it differently from each other. And, as I've come to learn in my young adulthood, it's entirely possible for Person A and Person B to have a relationship, Person A feels certain emotions for Person B, but Person B doesn't emotionally receive those feelings because Person A isn't effectively transmitting them. They speak two different emotional or love languages. In which case, it doesn't matter what Person A really feels for Person B because Person B isn't feeling it from Person A. I think I've been in this situation before, and so I say from experience that it's not enough to claim you feel a particular way if your behavior fails to express those feelings to whoever you're in relationship with.

For instance: if I, a celibate asexual relationship anarchist who does not personally distinguish between romantic and nonromantic love, am friends with a romantic-sexual person who is a relationship hierarchist and traditionalist and who's in a monogamous romantic-sexual relationship, and this friend of mine tells me "Oh, I love you and I love you just as much as I love my romantic-sexual partner and I consider these two relationships equally important" but that friend is doing their relationships by the mainstream traditionalist book--spending more time with their lover, living only with their lover, planning a future with their lover, showing more emotion to their lover, reserving most physical affection for their lover, considering their lover's opinion and wants and needs more than mine, etc--then whatever they tell me is meaningless. I have no reason whatsoever to believe them. And I certainly won't FEEL loved or equal to my friend's lover, no matter how many times that friend tells me I am. Maybe they're telling their truth or maybe they aren't. Either way, it's irrelevant, because I can only experience relationships through my own emotional operating system, through my own language. And in that scenario, the only message I'm getting is: this person considers me just a friend and puts their lover above me in all ways that matter. (In which case, I'm out of there and not looking back.)

And that brings me to what I consider one of the biggest tenets of RA that distinguishes it from polyamory and traditional relationship hierarchy: a relationship anarchist takes interest in the relationship needs and desires of every person they're emotionally connected to, even if they consider some people "romantic partners" and other people "(nonromantic) friends," and the needs of their nonprimary partners/friends are just as important and considered as those of their primary partners/romantic partners. Nonprimary partners/friends are allowed to ask for whatever they want or need in the relationships, even if those wants and needs would traditionally be considered stuff of romantic/primary relationships.

May 30, 2013

And that brings me to what I consider one of the biggest tenets of RA that distinguishes it from polyamory and traditional relationship hierarchy: a relationship anarchist takes interest in the relationship needs and desires of every person they're emotionally connected to, even if they consider some people "romantic partners" and other people "(nonromantic) friends," and the needs of their nonprimary partners/friends are just as important and considered as those of their primary partners/romantic partners. Nonprimary partners/friends are allowed to ask for whatever they want or need in the relationships, even if those wants and needs would traditionally be considered stuff of romantic/primary relationships.

I think you have a lot of good points. I'm curious though: By "friends", do you mean everyone you call a friend, or only very close friends? I think the "friends" category is often too broad, and there can be many subcategories under it. Even if the most casual kind of friends are excluded, I still have different levels of emotional connection with different friends, and some of them are definitely more important than others. Also, when I'm emotionally very close to a friend, my feelings tend to progress from platonic to romantic (of course, it only happens to male friends since I'm heteroromantic, but I don't often have close female friends anyway), which is why I feel a little closer to my romantic partners/friends than to platonic friends, averagely speaking.

Another question is: Do you think people with a hetero or homo romantic/affectionate orientation can be truly RA? For example, a heteroromantic guy may not draw a clear line between romantic and platonic with female friends, so he can share physical affection and consider being life partners with both female romantic partners and friends; but when it comes to male friends, it's strictly platonic and he doesn't want to cuddle them or live with them, even though they can be very close emotionally. So is it possible for people like this to be RA?

May 30, 2013

Maybe this makes me a relationship anarchy purist, but I don't consider a person an RA unless they're actually practicing relationship equality and dissolving the rigid distinctions between "romantic" or couple relationships and "friendships" in real life. It's not enough to claim that you think of your friendships as equal to your romantic/sexual relationship, but behaviorally, there's a clear and tremendous difference in treatment of relationships that are romantic and/or sexual and relationships that aren't. Likewise, I don't think a couple is truly poly unless they're serious about at least being open or actively interested in getting involved with more than one person sexually and romantically. If you're a poly person who only has one romantic/sexual partner at the moment because you haven't yet met somebody else who you're interested in romantically/sexually and who can fit into your life, that's fine. But if you're somebody who's happily monogamous and plans on staying that way, you're not polyamorous. Doesn't matter if you say that you think polyamory is a cool idea.

I recognize that not all RA's have to be as radical in their practice or philosophy as I am, in order to qualify as relationship anarchists, but I do think you have to at least meet the fundamental guidelines of RA that separates it from polyamory and traditional relationship hierarchy, which are: holding romantic/sexual relationships and nonromantic/nonsexual relationships as equal in emotional importance (assuming you have sex and/or romance; if you don't have sex but you do have romance, then romantic and nonromantic relationships should still be equal), creating as much latitude in nonromantic or non-primary relationships for emotional intimacy/physical intimacy/quality time as there is in romantic or primary relationships, and not automatically making the big partnership markers (like cohabitation) something that can only happen in a romantic relationship (if you're distinguishing between "romantic" and "nonromantic" relationships in the first place).

Okay, I get it, I'm out of the club. XD

I completely agree that thinking that polyamory is a "cool idea" does not make you polyamorous, haha. My cousin and his wife came to this very realization, and that is why they identify as monogamous. No matter how much they agree with polyamory in theory, it doesn't work for them. Of course, they do distinguish between romantic/sexual relationships and nonromantic/nonsexual relationships, not in terms of importance necessarily, but in terms of defining the difference between being mono or poly. If they were to include their close friendships, some of which are very affectionate, they could appear poly, I suppose, but that's not how they feel.

I think something like cohabitation or child-rearing is more than just a "marker", though, it's a commitment that does require a certain amount of time and energy. I think it's legitimate for someone to say that they emotionally value their romantic and nonromantic relationships equally, but do need to be more available to their child and co-parent should the needs of the two conflict. The goal is to make the needs of everyone conflict as little as possible, and I think you can spend more time on certain relationships without necessarily neglecting others. I don't *want* someone to spend as much time and energy on me as they spend on their live-in partner and the co-parent of their child. That's why I don't have a live-in partner or children! XD

That being said, I did live with my cousin and his wife temporarily, more out of necessity than a desire to share our lives to that extent exactly, but they welcomed be into their home with open arms and have done the same with others. I know I can crash at their place any time for days on end, whether it's because I need a place to go or just because I feel like it. I am an active part of their kids' lives, as are many of their close friends who their kids call "aunt" or "uncle" despite having no biological relation to them. The difference is that none of these adults have committed to raising these children to adulthood, they are only as much a part of that process as they want to be and are free to fly off to another country for weeks or years without taking these children into account. My cousin and his wife are committed to raising those children, however, and that has to be their first priority, and supporting each other through that process is a natural extension of that.

I treat all of my relationships equally with no "endgame" or specific expectations going in, don't give significantly more of time/energy to one over any of the others, and overall do my best to respond to the needs of each. But it's this very trait that causes me to respect that some people do need to prioritize the relationships in their lives to an extent, and as long as they're doing it in a conscientious way (spending most of their time and energy on the relationships where it is needed, not just on the relationships society says should have first priority), I think it's fine. One person most likely cannot provide for all of the relationship needs of all of the people in their life, we just have to do our best and hope that when we fall short that the people we care about have others in their life who can pick up the slack, hopefully to the extent that we haven't "fallen short" at all because we hadn't offered and weren't expected to provide more than we could handle...If that makes sense.

May 30, 2013

Another question is: Do you think people with a hetero or homo romantic/affectionate orientation can be truly RA? For example, a heteroromantic guy may not draw a clear line between romantic and platonic with female friends, so he can share physical affection and consider being life partners with both female romantic partners and friends; but when it comes to male friends, it's strictly platonic and he doesn't want to cuddle them or live with them, even though they can be very close emotionally. So is it possible for people like this to be RA?

Yeah, I'm curious about this as well. I'm considering completely dissolving the romantic/nonromantic distinction with regards to my own emotions, attractions, and relationships (and I think I have been for a while now, without fully realizing it). It's just gotten too ambiguous - no matter what I do at this point, I feel like I'm stretching the definition of either "romantic" or "platonic" so far as to render the distinction meaningless.

I think my lack of a gender and/or sex preference in attraction is playing into this. If I were clearly heteromantic or homoromantic, then there would be a somewhat identifiable group of people that I could claim to have no romantic interest in, and then I can see how there would still be a use for the romantic/nonromantic distinction. I'm not, though, so as it stands I can potentially develop "affectional" feelings for people of any gender, given a preexisting emotional connection. If my attractions fell relatively neatly along a gender binary, then at least I'd have somewhere to draw the line, but they don't, so I keep going in circles with the "is it platonic or romantic" debate.

I think something like cohabitation or child-rearing is more than just a "marker", though, it's a commitment that does require a certain amount of time and energy. I think it's legitimate for someone to say that they emotionally value their romantic and nonromantic relationships equally, but do need to be more available to their child and co-parent should the needs of the two conflict. The goal is to make the needs of everyone conflict as little as possible, and I think you can spend more time on certain relationships without necessarily neglecting others.

I agree. I don't think RA philosophy is against prioritizing relationships due to existing commitments, though. In fact, having relationships all over the place without acknowledging the time commitments and resources needed for each relationship would be a pretty irresponsible way to do RA, in my opinion.

My interpretation is that RA is more about not automatically assuming certain "types" of relationships require certain commitments, or that certain commitments can only occur in certain "types" of relationships. I don't think it's problematic to allot more time and resources to a relationship because it involves a intensive commitment like raising a child - that makes sense to me. What I do find problematic is the notion that, say, a conventional romantic relationship always ought to have a privileged status over all other relationships and imply certain commitments/restrictions solely because it is that "type" of relationship.

Well, hopefully that made some kind of sense. My mind feels kind of short-circuited. :lol:

May 30, 2013

I think something like cohabitation or child-rearing is more than just a "marker", though, it's a commitment that does require a certain amount of time and energy. I think it's legitimate for someone to say that they emotionally value their romantic and nonromantic relationships equally, but do need to be more available to their child and co-parent should the needs of the two conflict. The goal is to make the needs of everyone conflict as little as possible, and I think you can spend more time on certain relationships without necessarily neglecting others. I don't *want* someone to spend as much time and energy on me as they spend on their live-in partner and the co-parent of their child. That's why I don't have a live-in partner or children! XD

[Note: I started writing this just before Law of Circle's latest post, so I'll try not to repeat the same points, and mostly just give my own view on this part]

Yeah, this is exactly what sums up why my focus is so much on the "customised commitments" bit.

The mainstream view is something like: romantic and platonic are completely separate categories, and certain types of feelings and interactions are purely reserved for "romantic" relationships. And once you're in a romantic relationship - THAT'S IT! It's a total mutual emotional lock on those types of feelings. So then even a hint of affection going too far with an "outsider" is seen as a threat, an "emotional affair" or whatever. Maybe I'm just projecting some of my own bitterness of past experiences into this, but I don't think so. I really do think that a lot of the barriers that exist here are unnecessary, unnatural, and generally a sign of relationships not being driven by good communication.

So yes, I totally agree that if you're living with someone and are married with children, that relationship has a certain core priority in your life. And it's legitimate to mutually set boundaries and commitments on it which to some extent regulate what sort of access other people can have. But I think this should be a totally openly discussed and dynamic system, not some kind of default assumption that's just "there" forever. This is what I think leads to harm, when people are unnaturally suppressed, and don't acknowledge that relationships evolve over time, and that sometimes it makes sense to re-work the customised details of the commitments over said time. "Outsiders" can never be threats to a good relationship, in and of themselves. Unless people get greedy and try to have their cake and eat it too (cheat), which is exactly what this is about in my view - setting up your relationships in such a way that there are no irrational taboos driving them.

Maybe it helps if you just ignore the feelings involved completely, and look at the actual external physical consequences of certain actions. As an obvious extreme: it's obviously a good idea to keep a close eye on how unprotected sex happens. If everyone just went out there without boundaries and did it with whomever they felt like, that's obviously grossly irresponsible. But then, other boundaries are more subtle. Such as say, being cuddle buddies who don't even make out and swap spit. In a practical sense, there's really no reason that relationship should be a physical "threat" to anyone, because the natural consequences of it are no different to any other friendship. And if you agree to stick to those boundaries and simply trust that everyone's on the same page, it should all be fine and dandy.

This is where I think my thinking falls quite neatly along the lines of the RA manifesto. I prefer the idea of choosing to trust that certain customised commitments are going to be adhered to responsibly in given relationships. The fact that these boundaries can (in certain cases such as a marriage with kids) ultimately end up looking almost the same as a hierarchical model from the outside isn't really the point - it's more that everyone involved has mapped out a certain type of relationship with each other which is internally consistent and satisfying. And nobody has an automatic right to ask for irrationally tight jealousy-driven boundaries which go far beyond what's necessary to keep everyone safe and sound and happy.

(And yes, I can relate to what LoC is saying re: gender. If I wasn't hetero-affectionate, I'd totally drop the distinction on the spot I think. It's really not useful at all, beyond the fact that my relationships with women can have a certain affectional base which the ones with males can't. But that doesn't automatically mean that they'll necessarily be sexual, or even "romantic" in the usual mainstream sense)

Thread for Relationship Anarchy & Love without Category

Recommended Posts

passionatefriend61

Link to post

Share on other sites

Vega91

Link to post

Share on other sites

TheNaughtyNeutrois

Link to post

Share on other sites

TomoRacer

Link to post

Share on other sites

The Great WTF

Link to post

Share on other sites

Notte stellata

Link to post

Share on other sites

Arctangent

Link to post

Share on other sites

Kitty Spoon Train

Link to post

Share on other sites

Arctangent

Link to post

Share on other sites

Kitty Spoon Train

Link to post

Share on other sites

Notte stellata

Link to post

Share on other sites

Kitty Spoon Train

Link to post

Share on other sites

byanyotherusername

Link to post

Share on other sites

Arctangent

Link to post

Share on other sites

Notte stellata

Link to post

Share on other sites

Kitty Spoon Train

Link to post

Share on other sites

Arctangent

Link to post

Share on other sites

Kitty Spoon Train

Link to post

Share on other sites

byanyotherusername

Link to post

Share on other sites

Kitty Spoon Train

Link to post

Share on other sites

Notte stellata

Link to post

Share on other sites

Kitty Spoon Train

Link to post

Share on other sites

byanyotherusername

Link to post

Share on other sites

Arctangent

Link to post

Share on other sites

Kitty Spoon Train

Link to post

Share on other sites

passionatefriend61

Link to post

Share on other sites