Thread for Relationship Anarchy & Love without Category

[byanyotherusername]

So, fellow asexual RA's, I have new questions for you: can a person who forms romantic relationships, who does distinguish between romantic and nonromantic relationships, actually refrain from ranking their romantic partners above nonromantic partners/friends?

I used to be skeptical about this myself - I wondered if anyone who distinguished between romantic and nonromantic feelings would be able to view their nonromantic relationships as equal. I think it's probably true for many (if not most) romantic people that romantic feelings are (or at least seem to be) stronger than nonromantic ones, and so they'll be naturally inclined to value romantic relationships more highly.

Even so, I can tell you from personal experience that it is completely possible for a romantic person to have nonromantic relationships that they value and respect on the same level as romantic ones. I don't know how common people like this are, but I can say with certainty that they exist and it can happen. How? Well, it depends on the person. Some romantic folks don't consider romantic feelings or attraction to be a necessary or defining factor of their significant relationships. It could be that the progression of their feelings is different in each case, but the strength of the emotional bond that forms is the same, and that's ultimately what's more important to them. Perhaps they're simply able to see merit in having a variety of close relationships. There are even romantic people who don't particularly like having romantic feelings and would rather they not play a central role in their relationships. (I know there are a couple people here who could vouch for that last statement. ;))

I'm actually asking the questions as it applies not just to romantic relationship anarchists but romantic people in general, although a romantic person who subverts the principle of romance superiority in their personal relationships is probably a kind of RA whether they use the term to describe themselves or not. So there's actually two different scenarios I'm thinking about here: romantic person who practices RA, so that their romantic attractions don't actually dictate what behaviors happen in which relationships, and who can treat someone they have romantic feelings for and someone they don't have romantic feelings for equally, and a romantic person who is not an RA but who flips relationship hierarchy centered around one primary partner on its head and makes that partner someone who they are not romantically involved with or attached to, even while conducting romantic relationships with others.

I'm generally skeptical of romantic people, asexual or sexual, doing either of those things, and much more skeptical of romantic sexual people doing the first. I actually have a much easier time believing that a romantic ace could do scenario #1 rather than scenario #2. (Obviously there are romantic aces in this thread who are RAs!) I think any romantic person doing scenario #2 would actually constitute a miracle, unless they were living in a culture where that kind of practice is the norm.

I am not romantic myself so I obviously cannot speak from that perspective, but I do know (presumably) romantic people who have alternative relationship lifestyles. The first one that comes to mind is two friends of my mom's who used to date, but are now just friends who live together and are planning to live together for the rest of their lives. They both date other people. (In fact, I think they moved in together after breaking up and deciding to be friends.) They have been living this way for about a decade now, I think, so it seems to work well for them (after my parents divorced they offered to let my mom live with them, too, and she's considering it once she retires--they've all been friends since college and seem to think that type of connection makes for a better housemate situation than a romantic partnership does). Does that fit your scenario #2?

I have a cousin who is some form of solo-poly type something-or-other and she lives with her brother, his wife and their two kids, and seems to prefer that to living with her partner(s). I also had a relative who, after her second divorce, moved into an all women's gated community (mostly inhabited by lesbian couples and domestic abuse survivors). She has lived there nearly 15 years now and thinks of many of the other women as sisters.

I could list many more examples, but it hard to judge from the outside how "equal" people treat their various relationships, or what the internal feelings involved are, not to mention whether either of those things would fit your standards/definitions even if they fit mine...I just know that I have had sufficient exposure to alternative relationship styles, not to mention non-traditional behaviors/ideas within more conventional relationships (i.e. friendships that are more emotionally or physically intimate than the "norm"), that I do not believe any category of people (especially one as broad as "romantics") is incapable of desiring/creating unique and meaningful relationships in their life that differ from cultural norms.

[Kitty Spoon Train]

Well, speaking for myself, it's basically like this:

As a sufferer of SEVERE episodes of limerence in the past, I've consciously detached the idea of Love from the kind of deluded selfish attachment that limerence used to induce in me. I think it's finally gotten to the point where I can consciously control my mind to the point where limerence just can't happen any more.

But here's the thing: back in the day,falling in love limerence was actually the thing I used to emotionally identify feelings as "romantic". It mostly meshed pretty well with the (highly toxic) mainstream romantic narrative too. So for the longest time I was basically using a deluded, selfish, jealously possessive, mentally ill state of mind to define what it means for my attraction to someone to be "romantic".

Now that the sickness is under control, things are much less clear. All I know is that I find something emotionally warm and fuzzy about females that I don't find with males - which is what makes me identify with being "heteroromantic". But I do often wonder - is that (necessarily) "romance"? I honestly can't say any more. I have several emotionally close relationships at the moment. One had a definite (albeit mild) NRE type stage at the start which I identified as romantic, the other two never really did (mostly because they came later in the piece I think - when I was thinking in these more fuzzy RA terms more consciously). And only one of these relationships has a sexual component at all.

None of these factors - ie the presence of sex, or a history of more or less well-defined "romantic" feelings - really seems to have much effect on how "strongly" I feel about the other person. That said, I'm a fiercely independent relationship anarchist who doesn't really want to do any of the usual "heavy relationship" things with anyone - such as cohabitation, marriage, children, etc. My relationships are 99% mental. Almost entirely defined by the sharing of intellectual and emotional intimacy, with physical affection where possible. And even though sex is emotionally induced, it doesn't really make me want to put a relationship on a "significance pedestal" above nonsexual ones.

TL;DR: I try to consciously look at love as being love. More of a choice to give and share what makes sense with each person, rather than being swept headlong into it - "falling in" certain feelings. At least as much as my openness and emotional availability to affectionate friendships with females goes. The presence of either sex or well-defined "romantic" feelings (as ill-defined as they are now...) doesn't really make me want to prioritize relationships in any fixed way.

[Guest]

But here's the thing: back in the day, falling in love limerence was actually the thing I used to emotionally identify feelings as "romantic", in my own head. It mostly meshed pretty well with the (highly toxic) mainstream romantic narrative too. So for the longest time I was basically using a deluded, selfish, jealously possessive, mentally ill state of mind to define what it means for my attraction to someone to be "romantic".

One of the few major difference between you and me is that I still do define romance like that, while empathically agreeing with your view that it's a deluded, selfish, jealously possessive, mentally ill state of mind. :)

[5_♦♣]

I've never experienced jealously possessiveness when experiencing romantic attraction. (And to think it took me so long to realize I'm poly... Don't know if that makes me RA though).

[passionatefriend61]

@KittySpoonTrain & Mysticus Insanus

It's interesting to see you guys characterize romantic attraction and feeling as pathological. That's a strongly negative take on it. I actually don't think that romantic love is crazy and jealous and possessive by nature--if for no other reason than polyamorous people and romantic RAs exist, so the jealousy and possession can't be innate to romantic feeling universally, at least--but I do think that when a person's neuroses, immaturity, insecurities, and other bullshit blend with their romantic feelings and desires, it results in the craziness. When you don't bother to take control of yourself and your emotions, that's when something like jealousy or obsession takes control of you. But I really don't think that romantic love is always, unavoidably like that. I think the vast majority of people believe it should be like that, because that's what they're used to and that's the image of ideal romantic love presented to us in the media. (Monogamy is good, jealousy supports monogamy, therefore jealousy is good and proof of genuine love. True romantic love means you only need that one person, that one object of your all-consuming emotion, and fuck everybody else, etc.)

I know from personal experience that when you're mentally ill, that influences your socio-emotional makeup and your approach to relationships tremendously, usually for the worse. If you're on meds for depression and it makes you feel better and it also takes the air out of your romantic tires, I think you're obviously better off that way, as opposed to being miserable and an obsessive/possessive romantic. But I also think it's possible--and don't get me wrong, possible and actual are totally different, which I fully recognize--to be a healthy, sane, highly evolved, well-adjusted person with all of your shit together who can experience romantic love in a calmer, more rational, and less compelling way, which means pretty much in the exact opposite way as culture tells you it's supposed to feel. It's just, most romantic people don't get to that place.

That said, I think that the love of nonromantic friendship is far more likely to be genuine, rational, and freedom-giving. I won't say that it's completely nonpossessive, because in my experience, the most intense nonromantic love can be prone to jealousy not because it wants total exclusivity but because when someone is so special to you, it matters that you feel special to them, too. Even if they aren't the only special person in your life! So there can be moments of "Wait a minute.... does my friend like that person more than they like me? Are they closer?" But unlike with romantic/sexual couples, nonmonogamous friendship doesn't really allow for jealousy or feelings of insecurity to put someone in a position of having to choose between being friends with person #1 or person #2, which means that you either ignore your own jealousy as best you can and get over it or you just sort of live with. (Ideally, you would talk to your friend about how you feel and resolve it directly, because jealousy can get toxic in friendship if it festers.)

I don't think being poly or RA (or even aromantic!) means you're somehow immune to jealousy or impulses of posessiveness. I think being poly or an RA means you react to those feelings in the exact opposite way that a monogamous person does. A monogamous person feels jealous and freaks out and goes, "How can I get my partner to STOP doing whatever they're doing that makes me feel this way?" A poly person feels jealous and goes, "Okay, how I can make this feeling dissolve all on my own? Why do I feel this way? Is there any merit to it? How can I feel more connected to my partner or how can I get my partner to reassure me they love me, without asking them to change what they're doing?"

Like today, I felt a very subtle jealousy over someone I love a lot, and it was triggered by the silliest, most insiginificant thing. And I recognized that in the moment too. I don't want to be my friend's primary partner, I don't actually care if he has other friends, but for some reason, I felt a little bit jealous because of the idea that he could really like someone else in a friend-only-way as much or more than he likes me. It was one of those instances where there's a very clear and visceral dissonance between my emotions and my intellect, which is kinda weird to experience, but I'm glad that I can separate myself enough from feelings like that to not react. I read somewhere, I think it was on a poly blog or website, that "Just because you feel [jealousy/an emotion] doesn't mean you have to DO something about it." And that's super helpful to me.

Anyway, my point is, I believe that even normative romantic love can theoretically look as sane and mellow as friendship. Even if it usually doesn't.

@byanyotherusername

I'm beginning to think you're a magnet for romantic-sexual people who do weird relationship things. (I use the word "weird" with affection.) Thanks for sharing!

[Guest]

@aceofhearts...

You have a point there, and that's why I've begun struggling against my rabidly anti-romantic attitude ever since I've come to AVEN. I'm pretty certain that I'll never see romance in my own life as anything but a sick, destructive mess that is incompatible with loving, respectful relationships, and I don't want to change that view, either, both for my own good and for the one of people in my life. But I've started to accept that the word "romantic" means something else to a lot of other folks than it does to me, and that at least some of these folks can have perfectly healthy 'ships that they do call romantic.

For me, it helps to remember that it's quite possible that one person's "romance" is another's "friends with benefits" (which I've said many times, is what I personally see every healthy 'ship as). As long as folks agree that the phenomenon I call by that word, "romance", is quite pathological, and the world would indeed be nicer off without it, I can try to keep my firebrand preaching against romance in check... most of the time.

I don't think being poly or RA (or even aromantic!) means you're somehow immune to jealousy or impulses of posessiveness. I think being poly or an RA means you react to those feelings in the exact opposite way that a monogamous person does. A monogamous person feels jealous and freaks out and goes, "How can I get my partner to STOP doing whatever they're doing that makes me feel this way?" A poly person feels jealous and goes, "Okay, how I can make this feeling dissolve all on my own? Why do I feel this way? Is there any merit to it? How can I feel more connected to my partner or how can I get my partner to reassure me they love me, without asking them to change what they're doing?"

Beautifully put, and very much agreed!

Now you'll just need to understand that in Mysticus-talk, the latter example with its accepting of responsibility for my own feelings and refusal to try and change someone else's behavior is called "killing off romantic tendencies the moment they rear their head". :lol:

[Notte stellata]

But I also think it's possible--and don't get me wrong, possible and actual are totally different, which I fully recognize--to be a healthy, sane, highly evolved, well-adjusted person with all of your shit together who can experience romantic love in a calmer, more rational, and less compelling way, which means pretty much in the exact opposite way as culture tells you it's supposed to feel. It's just, most romantic people don't get to that place.

Totally agreed. The anti-romance sentiment that is much more common on AVEN than anywhere else I've been, although refreshing in a romance-obsessed world, does seem a bit extreme to me sometimes. :P I believe romantic love can be enjoyed by a level-headed person, although mainstream culture says you must lose your mind if you're in "true love."

I don't think being poly or RA (or even aromantic!) means you're somehow immune to jealousy or impulses of posessiveness. I think being poly or an RA means you react to those feelings in the exact opposite way that a monogamous person does. A monogamous person feels jealous and freaks out and goes, "How can I get my partner to STOP doing whatever they're doing that makes me feel this way?" A poly person feels jealous and goes, "Okay, how I can make this feeling dissolve all on my own? Why do I feel this way? Is there any merit to it? How can I feel more connected to my partner or how can I get my partner to reassure me they love me, without asking them to change what they're doing?"

Agreed as well. And I think this is a demonstration of the spirit of poly/RA (especially RA) - apply the same principles in your romantic relationships as in your friendships. If you shouldn't control a friend's behavior in order to reduce your jealousy, you shouldn't do the same to your romantic partner either.

Now onto some earlier discussions...

So, fellow asexual RA's, I have new questions for you: can a person who forms romantic relationships, who does distinguish between romantic and nonromantic relationships, actually refrain from ranking their romantic partners above nonromantic partners/friends? And if so, how? In your opinion, can a romantic person actually choose to take a nonromantic primary/life/cohabiting partner and keep their commitment to that partner? Or is the impulse to make a romantic relationship one's primary partnership/rank a romantic partner first innate to romantic people?

I'd like to think I'm one of the romantics you described, but I don't think the "not ranking" has to be in the form of having a nonromantic primary relationship. It can be about equal levels of emotional commitment rather than practical commitment.

Personally I have to admit I'm slightly in favor of cohabitation with a romantic partner over a nonromantic partner, because the biggest benefit of cohabitation for me is easy access to physical affection, which I only actively desire with romantic partners. But I think this preference can be overridden if I'm much more compatible in lifestyles with the nonromantic partner than with the romantic one. And I'd be happy without any primary relationship as well.

Regarding the majority of romantic people I think you are mixing up cause and effect. Most, my self included, but not all, romantic people don't arbitrarily decide their romantic relationships are more important. It's that when people and our feelings for them become more important to us, by nature of the quality of interpersonal interactions we have with them, then they also become romantic as a result of them already being more important.

This is true for me with only one exception so far, so I can understand romantics who naturally feel romantic relationships are more important. Everyone is wired differently in how they experience romance and friendship, and I think one's practice is congruent with RA (which doesn't necessarily mean they must be RA though) as long as there are no arbitrary rules like "my friendships have to give way to my romantic relationships if there's a conflict between them, regardless how I actually feel."

[passionatefriend61]

@Mysticus Insanus

I just want to be clear that I find normative romantic-sexual monogamy and even romantic-sexual hierarchical/closed polyamory to be incredibly fucked up and suffocating, from both an inside and outside perspective (meaning, I couldn't be IN a relationship like that and I couldn't be loving, close friends with someone who is in a relationship like that). My personal utopia is a world where everyone practices free love, and that is not a eupheism for sex. I actually mean love, romantic and nonromantic and everything in between. Anything impeding the freedom to connect with other people, whether emotionally or physically, is ultimately uneccessary in my eyes.

But I do acknowledge that it's possible for a romantic-sexual couple to be on the sane/chill side of romance, while conducting their romantic relationship in a very normative, restrictive way. Does that make sense? I'm talking, lovers who are not obsessed and insanely possessive and who don't spend all their free time sucking each other's air, but who still won't tolerate each other having alternative friendships or making someone else a primary partner, etc. Happily married monogamous couples who have been together for decades always come to mind when I think of such people.

To me, that's still ridiculously restrictive, limited, etc, but the quality of the relationship and romantic attraction isn't sick or over the top.

[Guest]

Yeah. Near impossibly hard to wrap my head around them being able to be happy and sane that way... but I don't rule out that such folks exist... alien as they are to me. Either way, they are of course completely unacceptable as partners for me. ;)

[Arctangent]

@byanyotherusername

I'm beginning to think you're a magnet for romantic-sexual people who do weird relationship things. (I use the word "weird" with affection.) Thanks for sharing!

This is something I've noticed before, and I think it touches on something important...

When we talk about what is "mainstream," "normal," or "conventional" with respect to monogamous, romantic, and/or sexual people, we're ultimately referring to a sort of idealized average, a measure of central tendency for said groups. Individuals who fall into any of these groups can adhere to the norm in some ways while deviating from it in others. I've caught myself making assumptions about certain people based on their apparent membership to these groups that actually weren't safe for me to make, since they later proved to be exceptions. For example, I had assumed a particular friend of mine wouldn't be interested in sharing physical affection with me, especially once she entered a romantic relationship. That turned out to be completely untrue; perhaps it had never been true to begin with. She'd been willing to have a cuddly friendship earlier on if I'd expressed a desire for one; it was I who had forestalled the opportunity by assuming it to be impossible - and I'm the self-identified relationship anarchist here!

It was humbling to learn that I'd been inadvertently getting so much in the way of the very same principles I profess to follow - namely, "going with the flow" and doing things on a "case-by-case" basis. So now I'm going to try to be more careful about what I assume about how people approach their relationships. Sometimes people don't let you know how "weird" they are unless you express some similar "weirdness" yourself. After all, I usually don't explain my own unconventional tendencies until I'm fairly close to someone (or on an anonymous online forum, apparently :P) and they have no way to know unless I tell them. So I wonder if people like byanyotherusername actually know more unconventional people than most by chance, or whether people are just more likely to explain their own "weird" tendencies to people who are openly unconventional themselves.

[byanyotherusername]

@byanyotherusername

I'm beginning to think you're a magnet for romantic-sexual people who do weird relationship things. (I use the word "weird" with affection.) Thanks for sharing!

This is something I've noticed before, and I think it touches on something important...

When we talk about what is "mainstream," "normal," or "conventional" with respect to monogamous, romantic, and/or sexual people, we're ultimately referring to a sort of idealized average, a measure of central tendency for said groups. Individuals who fall into any of these groups can adhere to the norm in some ways while deviating from it in others. I've caught myself making assumptions about certain people based on their apparent membership to these groups that actually weren't safe for me to make, since they later proved to be exceptions. For example, I had assumed a particular friend of mine wouldn't be interested in sharing physical affection with me, especially once she entered a romantic relationship. That turned out to be completely untrue; perhaps it had never been true to begin with. She'd been willing to have a cuddly friendship earlier on if I'd expressed a desire for one; it was I who had forestalled the opportunity by assuming it to be impossible - and I'm the self-identified relationship anarchist here!

It was humbling to learn that I'd been inadvertently getting so much in the way of the very same principles I profess to follow - namely, "going with the flow" and doing things on a "case-by-case" basis. So now I'm going to try to be more careful about what I assume about how people approach their relationships. Sometimes people don't let you know how "weird" they are unless you express some similar "weirdness" yourself. After all, I usually don't explain my own unconventional tendencies until I'm fairly close to someone (or on an anonymous online forum, apparently :P) and they have no way to know unless I tell them. So I wonder if people like byanyotherusername actually know more unconventional people than most by chance, or whether people are just more likely to explain their own "weird" tendencies to people who are openly unconventional themselves.

This. ^

While I do think I have a somewhat higher likelihood of stumbling across nontraditional relationships because I come from a liberal family/area, the majority of my nontraditional friendships (i. e. friendships that are especially close emotionally and/or physically) have been initiated by me, or caused by me talking about my alternative views on things. It usually starts with me outing myself as a cuddle slut, and nonromantic/nonsexual cuddling is seen as unusual enough that it leads to more lengthy conversations about the cultural ideas surrounding relationships and how limited it often is. I try to listen more than I talk, and ask a lot of questions. I want to understand others' perspectives. I also believe that asking questions that are not normally asked (for example "why do you view cuddling as inherently sexual and/or romantic?") can help people re-examine beliefs they had never spent much thought on before, or at least consider that their view is not universal.

[passionatefriend61]

While I think it's a cool idea to contemplate--actually having the opportunity to connect with sexual people in these alternative relationship ways, more than once in a blue moon--I don't think the numbers of those people are so high that it would make sense to expect to frequently run into them. And personally, I can't see myself letting an alt friendship happen with a romantic-sexual person unless I had a ridiculously compelling pile of reasons to believe that it would go well, because even if a romantic-sexual person is open and/or interested in having an alt friendship with an asexual at first, too many things can go wrong. Some of those things probably wouldn't bother other aces or bother them as much as they'd bother me, so the risk may be worth taking for them, but....

Creating alt friendships with other celibate aces just feels so much safer to me, all around. These relationships, in my own life, are so intimate and require such vulnerability and are built on deep, even passionate love on my end, that I need to be able to trust the other person completely. Emotionally and physically. I need to feel safe, or I won't make myself vulnerable, in which case the relationship can't happen for real anyway.

With other aces, I know that sex is not an issue: it isn't the reason they're interested in me, it isn't going to be the thing that kills our connection, it's not going to take away my friend from the outside in the form of a competing romantic sexual relationship, it isn't going to be used as a way to measure the worth of my friendship with them in comparison to another relationship they have with someone else, I don't have to fear being sexually assaulted by them, etc. And with other aces, even if they aren't RA's themselves, there's a higher likelihood that a non-partnered, nonmonogamous friendship will be something that they value and invest in heavily, even if they also have a romantic partner, simply because a high number of aces appear to value friendship much more than the average romantic-sexual person. (I have a feeling this is because so many aces are single a long time and because the difference between romance and nonromantic friendship isn't as dramatic for a lot of aces as it is for romantic-sexual people, because sex isn't in the picture.)

And clearly, when it comes to having committed, long-term, cohabiting partnerships that are passionate friendships, I can only expect that from other aces who have compatible relationship views and desires. Eternally nonsexual, committed, exclusive (though not closed) partnership? Gotta be with other aces.

[Guest]

And clearly, when it comes to having committed, long-term, cohabiting partnerships that are passionate friendships, I can only expect that from other aces who have compatible relationship views and desires. Eternally nonsexual, committed, exclusive (though not closed) partnership? Gotta be with other aces.

Please elaborate on the bolded part. These two words sound like synonyms for me (and this time, I don't think it has to do with the different way I define romance... :p).

[passionatefriend61]

@Mysticus Insanus:

I want my cohabiting partners to be committed to me emotionally and practically, so that we always live together (two separate households, so part-time living with each) and maintain a strong connection. While I don't have a problem with either of them forming romantic friendships, queerplatonic friendships, or even other passionate friendships with other people and being plenty involved with those others, I want our cohabitation and high level of involvement to be consistent, so obviously that means that they can't decide they're going to make someone else a primary partner in a more traditional sense and downgrade their relationship with me or move out of the place they've got with me so they can live with someone else. That's what I'm getting at with exclusivity. I don't need to see them every day or spend all my free time with them or be the only person they've got an intimate/loving/affectionate friendship with, but I do need stability in our domestic set up and in my relationships with them. I need stuff like my quality time with them and physical intimacy to be completely protected and prioritized in the sense that those things will always continue according to our desires, regardless of any other relationships we have with other people. So, if one of my partners made a new friend who they wanted to be QP friends with or romantic friends with, they would have to make it clear to the other person that most anything goes between them, but they aren't going to change their relationship with me for the new friend. Get it? And the same goes for myself, too. If I have my two partners and then I make a new romantic friend, I'm going to keep that friendship separate from my partnerships, make sure I'm still giving enough attention/time to my partners, and continue to live with my partners, and if my romantic friend says, "I want you to come live with me" or "I want you to only have this kind of friendship with me," I would say no, I'm committed to my partners, but I'm happy to continue our friendship the way it is.

[Guest]

Thanks for the clear-up. That's not the way I'd lean, myself, but it does make perfect sense with that explanation.

[passionatefriend61]

Heads up, I just wrote this post because the issue's been digging at me: http://thethinkingasexual.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/relationship-anarchy-vs-nonhierarchical-polyamory/

Thoughts are always welcome!

[Kitty Spoon Train]

Heads up, I just wrote this post because the issue's been digging at me: http://thethinkingasexual.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/relationship-anarchy-vs-nonhierarchical-polyamory/

Thoughts are always welcome!

I think that's a pretty reasonable assessment. :)

This is something that has annoyed me in the past too - mostly people on OkCupid who claim to be relationship anarchists of sorts, but are effectively just poly people in strong primary relationships looking for casual sex on the side. I can see how non-hierarchical romantic-sexual poly people can be even more insidious with this, but I've never really personally encountered that problem before. Not very deeply anyway.

That said, I can sort of see how it's possible to hold an RA-based set of relationship values in philosophy, while you personally practice something a bit more specialised, simply out of personal preference and life circumstances. But I think in the spirit of customized commitments, it pays to be very clear on that point when connecting with people. When I think RA - I tend to think extreme customization, and embrace of grey areas - so if people have these super clear-cut boundaries between close affectionate friendship and romantic relationships, it makes me wonder why they don't just identify with a more "mainstream" poly label instead.

[passionatefriend61]

Exactly.

I maintain that those types of sexual nonmonogmous people use the terms "polyamory" or even "relationship anarchy" erroneously because they feel bad coming out and honestly saying "I just want to have casual sex out side of my sexually open romantic relationship." A lot of that has to do with the stigma against casual sex in our culture. Romantic sex = best thing ever in life. Nonromantic/nonemotional sex = bad, wrong, sinful, inhuman, etc. Nevertheless, to someone who is really poly or really an RA, the appropriation of our terms by people who aren't actually looking for what we're looking for is not only annoying but very confusing and misleading possibly hurtful.

I think that if you err on the side of Relationship Anarchy, on the non-monogamous spectrum, moreso than you do on the normative polyamory side, then it's fine to identify as RA and call your relationship practice by that term. I do think that relationship anarchy can take on a myriad of different forms, but at its core, it's about all those things I mentioned in my post: breaking down hierarchy in all intimate relationships, blurring the categories of "romance" and "friendship," treating nonromantic relationships as equal to romantic relationships. If you pretty much run your relationships in a way that makes friendship normative and inferior to romance, no matter how much you care about your friends, you need to own that and acknowledge that you may be a nonhierarchical poly person but you are not an RA. There's a lot of different ways to do RA, but putting romantic relationships above nonromantic friendships across the board--which includes making only a romantic companion a partner, de facto, and limiting romantically-coded behaviors to romantic relationships isn't one of them. That's identical to romantic normativity, whether you're poly or mono. And there's no point in co-opting relationship anarchy in name, when you can just say you're poly or mono.

[Geo]

Heads up, I just wrote this post because the issue's been digging at me: http://thethinkingasexual.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/relationship-anarchy-vs-nonhierarchical-polyamory/

Thoughts are always welcome!

I think this is only applicable under a certain definition of romantic. To me, the desire to do all those "romantically coded behaviors" with a person, IS the definition of romantic. If I don't want them those behaviors then don't feel romantic about a person, if I don't feel romantic about a person I don't want those behaviors. They are one and the same.