Polyromantic?

[Baroness Peron]

For a long time I've viewed relationships through the societal norm lens of "sex will be involved, at least eventually." To me this implies monogamy--I realize that some people are polyamorous and make it work, but I just don't think it's feasible for most people to be okay with sharing their sexual partner.

After acknowledging my asexuality and browsing AVEN, however, I've come to realize that asexual romantic relationships are a very real possibility. It also seems that most of the people discussing romantic relationships still view them as monogamous.

Without sex attached, however, I have trouble conceiving of a healthy monogamous relationship. To me it seems like "putting your eggs in one basket," so to speak. I've been thinking about it a lot lately, and I've come up with several reasons that polyromantic asexual relationships make more sense to me. For one thing, I can't conceive of a single person who meets all my romantic needs. It seems much more reasonable for me to share different parts of myself with different people. This doesn't interfere with the concept of being faithful to your partner(s) to me, unless you're "crossing the beams," so to speak. I only see problems arising if I'm sharing the same aspects of myself with more than one romantic partner. Another reason that a polyromantic relationship makes sense to me is that one could be in a relationship with a sexual, and allow them to get their sexual needs elsewhere, without threatening your monogamy. Of course this might mess with their conceptions of what is right, depending on their outlook.

I've only begun thinking about this recently, so these are more musings than anything else. I'm interested to hear others' perspectives on this matter, including how a monogamous asexual relationship works.

[jow]

For one thing, I can't conceive of a single person who meets all my romantic needs. It seems much more reasonable for me to share different parts of myself with different people. This doesn't interfere with the concept of being faithful to your partner(s) to me, unless you're "crossing the beams," so to speak. I only see problems arising if I'm sharing the same aspects of myself with more than one romantic partner.

This would be my one point, but that may just be because I feel a little iffy on the whole concept, personally. But I suppose if everyone goes into a relationship fully understanding of each other's roles then it would be fine. If you feel okay that your partner is sleeping with someone else then it potentially solves one of the biggest asexual/sexual relationship problems anyway, so.

[. . .but there are sounds]

This doesn't interfere with the concept of being faithful to your partner(s) to me, unless you're "crossing the beams," so to speak.

15 awesome points for imagery!

I am not sure I follow why though. The desire to have enough partners to fill all of your needs makes sense of course, but I don't see what you mean by partitioning the needs between partners. Do you mean to say something like: this is my see movies person, this is my romantic dinners person, this is my epic cuddle party person, etc? My partners naturally seem to fall into categories like that, but I cant see a problem with mixing things up a bit between the categories. What is your objection to doing so?

[Baroness Peron]

Mm...no, that's not exactly what I mean. I'll use an example from my own life. My screenname, Baroness Peron, is the counterpart to the name my best friend uses, Baron Talleyrand. Those names are representative of a connection we've built over the years as "Baron and Baroness." At first the names came from random high school silliness, but over the years they've come to represent our friendship much more deeply. It's hard for me to detail exactly which aspects of myself fall under the umbrella of "Baroness," but I can definitely say that it's a part of myself that only he really understands...and that there are many other parts of me that he can't relate to as well. It would be better for me to share those other parts of myself with other people, and this wouldn't offend him. If, however, I tried to be the Baroness with someone else, I imagine this would offend him just as deeply as I would be upset if he found himself another Baroness. But all his other relationships? Fair game. I don't care. He has other best friends, as well, and as long as what makes our friendship special is different from what makes his other friendships special, it's all okay. We have what might be referred to as a "romantic friendship," so I feel that the analogy fits pretty well.

I don't know how much sense that made...I form a lot of my opinions off of intuition, which can make it a little hard to express my meaning. :x

[. . .but there are sounds]

Fair enough, I think I follow now. : D

[Face]

I like the idea that asexuals could be more polyromantic as there's no sex to create jealously but I don't know if this would actually work.

I do envy some other Avenites who have closer relationships with someone I have a crush on but I wouldn't call it jealously as I still like the other person and am happy for them. Sharing the love is possible for some but not as easy for others. It probably helps if people are genderfluid.

I think I might not need one special person who's there all the time, so long as SOMEONE is always there when I get lonely. Having one loyal person is just the simplest way of having that.

[Herr Joseph von Löthing]

someone I have a crush on

Want to put them on the crush thread? ;)

[prettyeyes]

It's an idea I've always wanted to try with other asexuals, but while in theory it's a good idea, I just don't see how one could easily get more than one partner in the first place unless you're doing the long-distance thing or have a lot of asexuals in your area.

I have talked about the idea with sexual people saying the same things you are and explaining that it would be a good idea because then they could have someone else to share sexual experiences with while also being with me. They generally didn't like the idea because they wanted me to be the one they share sexual experiences with. Eek.

[. . .but there are sounds]

It's an idea I've always wanted to try with other asexuals, but while in theory it's a good idea, I just don't see how one could easily get more than one partner in the first place unless you're doing the long-distance thing or have a lot of asexuals in your area.

I have talked about the idea with sexual people saying the same things you are and explaining that it would be a good idea because then they could have someone else to share sexual experiences with while also being with me. They generally didn't like the idea because they wanted me to be the one they share sexual experiences with. Eek.

In almost all cases, all of my partners already had someone else. Also, all of my partners are sexual, its a lot easier to introduce an asexual relationship into an existing relationship than trying to create one with the possibility of including more sexual people later to fulfill that set of needs for your partner.

[Face]

someone I have a crush on

Want to put them on the crush thread? ;)

Me thinks someone has sussed. It could be messy but I might if you upgrade that reference into a link. Where does this crush thread hang out?

[. . .but there are sounds]

Where does this crush thread hang out?

Right here.

[Wineblood]

For one thing, I can't conceive of a single person who meets all my romantic needs. It seems much more reasonable for me to share different parts of myself with different people. This doesn't interfere with the concept of being faithful to your partner(s) to me, unless you're "crossing the beams," so to speak. I only see problems arising if I'm sharing the same aspects of myself with more than one romantic partner. Another reason that a polyromantic relationship makes sense to me is that one could be in a relationship with a sexual, and allow them to get their sexual needs elsewhere, without threatening your monogamy. Of course this might mess with their conceptions of what is right, depending on their outlook.

That's something I've thought about as well. A romantic relationship isn't meant to satisfy all our social needs, which is why people still have friends for that. Added with that the variety in the world today, it seems highly unlikely and a bit naive to believe a single romantic relationship can satisfy all one's romantic needs.

I have some interests which, while not polar opposites, generally aren't found together in people. Finding someone who I could share these with and be romantically attracted to seems hard to find, whereas finding more than one who like some of the same makes more sense. Also with the fact that asexual relationships are closer to platonic relationships than sexual-romantic relationships are, the way we feel about those people isn't as far off as it is for sexuals. To me, it seems that several people can fit into that "overlap", making polyromanticism easier for asexuals.

I think the big hurdle here is that we still often base a romantic relationship on the traditional monogamous model which, while it focuses on being faithful and very binding, is detrimental to the possibility of handling polyromanticism. Several monogamous romantic relationships =/= polyromantic relationships. Having more than one monogamous relationship would inherently have jealously and paranoia embedded in them.

[Baroness Peron]

That's another question of mine. What makes a relationship monogamous if there's no sex involved? Thoughts?

[Adriatic]

Mm...no, that's not exactly what I mean. I'll use an example from my own life. My screenname, Baroness Peron, is the counterpart to the name my best friend uses, Baron Talleyrand. Those names are representative of a connection we've built over the years as "Baron and Baroness." At first the names came from random high school silliness, but over the years they've come to represent our friendship much more deeply. It's hard for me to detail exactly which aspects of myself fall under the umbrella of "Baroness," but I can definitely say that it's a part of myself that only he really understands...and that there are many other parts of me that he can't relate to as well. It would be better for me to share those other parts of myself with other people, and this wouldn't offend him. If, however, I tried to be the Baroness with someone else, I imagine this would offend him just as deeply as I would be upset if he found himself another Baroness. But all his other relationships? Fair game. I don't care. He has other best friends, as well, and as long as what makes our friendship special is different from what makes his other friendships special, it's all okay. We have what might be referred to as a "romantic friendship," so I feel that the analogy fits pretty well.

I don't know how much sense that made...I form a lot of my opinions off of intuition, which can make it a little hard to express my meaning. :x

Makes a lot of sense to me - I have a friendship that has the same kind of dynamic (to the extent of silly names - not Baron/esses, but same principle) with a guy I've known for nine or ten years now my god has it been that long?. Neither of us would call it a romantic one because neither of us is really oriented towards the other's gender, but it's certainly intimate, in the sense of emotional closeness rather than physicality.

I do sometimes wonder if my total lack of interest in sex has ended up with me forming two or three very close IRL friendships that have been intimate enough that other people might classify them as romantic, even though neither of the people involved have.... although that would all be very strange, so I might put that thought back in the box again