Jump to content

Thread for Relationship Anarchy & Love without Category


passionatefriend61

Recommended Posts

byanyotherusername

I can see your point, but I also see aceofhearts61's point that if you just "go with the flow" then you will often end up in the relationships that are exactly like the mainstream, because that is how other people will shape their relationships with you. You can say you aren't following the rules, but you end up doing so because everyone in your life is following the rules. So, it helps to come up with specific ways you want to break the rules and actively shape your relationships around that--so long as you don't end up just coming up with different, equally arbitrary and non-negotiable rules

I never liked breaking the rules just for the sake of breaking the rules. That's like a child doing the opposite of every thing their parents tell them simply because want to be rebellious. That's very immature if you ask me. IMO there should be legitimate reason and motivations behind what you do.

Um, agreed. I certainly wasn't trying to imply that rules should be broken just to be rebellious, and I don't think anyone else on here is either. I think if you subscribe to the RA philosophy or are looking into it, it is probably because you have legitimate reasons and motivations for stepping outside the normal rules that govern relationships. People don't generally make that decision lightly, since it's not an easy thing to do.

The idea is to customize those "rules" based on the actual needs and desires of the people involved, and to be willing to renegotiate if those needs or desires change.

And that was my entire point. This is what I think RA should be. Not some arbitrary rule that every relationship needs to be on the same level.

I think context and specificity is key here, because in a sense everyone is on the "same level" if your approach in every relationship is to base it on the needs and desires of the people involved, and to be willing to renegotiate if those needs or desires change. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see your point, but I also see aceofhearts61's point that if you just "go with the flow" then you will often end up in the relationships that are exactly like the mainstream, because that is how other people will shape their relationships with you. You can say you aren't following the rules, but you end up doing so because everyone in your life is following the rules. So, it helps to come up with specific ways you want to break the rules and actively shape your relationships around that--so long as you don't end up just coming up with different, equally arbitrary and non-negotiable rules

I never liked breaking the rules just for the sake of breaking the rules. That's like a child doing the opposite of every thing their parents tell them simply because want to be rebellious. That's very immature if you ask me. IMO there should be legitimate reason and motivations behind what you do.
Um, agreed. I certainly wasn't trying to imply that rules should be broken just to be rebellious, and I don't think anyone else on here is either. I think if you subscribe to the RA philosophy or are looking into it, it is probably because you have legitimate reasons and motivations for stepping outside the normal rules that govern relationships. People don't generally make that decision lightly, since it's not an easy thing to do.

I don't know, it kind of sounds like aceofhearts was advocating rebellion for rebellion sake in a few of her posts. But I could have misunderstood.

The idea is to customize those "rules" based on the actual needs and desires of the people involved, and to be willing to renegotiate if those needs or desires change.

And that was my entire point. This is what I think RA should be. Not some arbitrary rule that every relationship needs to be on the same level.

I think context and specificity is key here, because in a sense everyone is on the "same level" if your approach in every relationship is to base it on the needs and desires of the people involved, and to be willing to renegotiate if those needs or desires change. ;)

I wouldn't call that putting everyone one the same level. It's just using the same approach with all people. You can still base all your relationships on the needs and desires of the people involved and still love one person more than another.

Link to post
Share on other sites
passionatefriend61

@Sweetex SGE, are you talking about all human relationships or just romantic relationships? I'm sure everybody doing traditional romance does have to negotiate terms, to some degree. I think negotiating terms of non-couple relationships happens a lot less frequently. And there are certain "terms" that are never questioned or discussed in conventional relationship practice because, like I described in an earlier post, most people are walking around playing by the same set of rules and looking at relationships (all, not romantic) through the same filter.

So what does the average romantic-sexual person or romantic asexual, who's a relationship traditionalist/hierarchist assume?

  • A romantic relationship is sexual. (That assumption, alone, is the source of so much pain and unhappiness in the asexual community.)
  • A romantic relationships is monogamous, sexually and romantically.
  • If you want to have a relationship that looks and feels traditionally romantic, you must be romantically attracted to the person you want to have that kind of relationship with. Otherwise, you'd only want to be "just friends."
  • Romantic relationships are entitled to more consideration, time, and overall prioritization than every other relationship either partner in the romance has.
  • All romantic relationships have to ride the Relationship Escalator, and only romantic relationships can get on it.
  • Sensual touching is innately romantic and only belongs in romantic relationships.
  • Only a romantic partner can be your primary, life partner.
  • Which means that only a romantic partner is a candidate for a long-term/committed roommate, co-parent, legal spouse, financial dependent, etc.
  • The needs and desires of your romantic partner come before the needs and desires of your friends (and bio family) to the point that you must sacrifice the needs and desires of your friends if that's what it takes to keep your romantic partner happy and secure.
  • Only romantic love can feel passionate, intense, profound, etc. You can't possibly feel that kind of love for someone who's "just a friend" and if you do, you're "emotionally cheating" on your romantic partner.
  • Your romantic partner is entitled to most of your free time. If you spend "too much" time with a friend or friends, you're being a bad romantic partner, unless of course you bring your romantic partner to all of your social interactions with other people, whether you ask those other people or not.

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Whereas, the way I want to do my relationships--as somebody who will never have sex and who doesn't acknowledge an emotional difference or even a practical difference between "romantic" relationships and "friendships" and who doesn't consider any given behavior innately "romantic"--basically gives me the freedom and openness to share any kind of intimacy and as much intimacy with as many people as I desire, and also gives them that same freedom. No relationship of mine is traditionally "romantic" just because I love the other individual passionately, and subsequently, we don't owe any kind of monogamy to each other (the fact that no relationship in my life will ever be sexual already makes that far more natural anyway). It's not like I love only one special person with exponentially more intensity and feeling, than I do everyone else I love. I'm not looking for one single person, one single type of relationship that looks tremendously different from my other relationships, to tick off all of my emotional and physical needs, while expecting none of that same satisfaction from anybody else. I don't expect one special type of relationship, that's unbelievably superior to all my others, to yield to me more love than the others.

I keep coming back to touch because it's the best example for me to use..... Touch is my love language. It's the way I feel loved and the way I express love. It's very important to me. It actually encourages feelings of love and attachment in me, for other people. I desire a huge amount of sensual touching in my loving relationships. I do not see touch as "romantic." No matter how sensual and intimate and even potentially erotic it is. I'm not sitting here thinking, "Oh, I want one romantic life partner (or two, rather), and they're the ones I'll be super sensual with because they're my romantic partners, and with everybody else semi-important to me, basic hugs are enough." What I want is for touch to play a big part in every single one of my loving relationships, as they co-exist in my life, in part because I want every loving relationship I have to be as emotionally intimate and important as I am emotionally capable of handling. My desire to be sensually/physically intimate with people I love doesn't mean I'm looking to be in a conventional couple relationship with each of them, doesn't mean I expect them to be "monogamous" with me in any way, obviously doesn't carry any kind of sexual implication or expectation, doesn't elevate the relationship above all others based on some kind of touch-exclusivity, etc.

As far as I'm concerned, in a perfect world, I could have a sensual romantic friendship with your average sexual person, and their romantic-sexual partner wouldn't have a problem with it whatsoever--because they would understand that nonsexual/sensual physical intimacy is not innately romantic or sexual (which my friend would have to understand too) and that my desire to share that kind of intimacy with their romantic partner doesn't mean I want to fuck them, date them, steal them away, etc. It just means I love the person. No more or less than any other romantic/passionate friend I have, including my two live-in "partners."

But that's the kind of thing that relationship hierarchists/traditionalists can't comprehend. And they can't comprehend it because it contradicts everything about their own relationship philosophy and system. It messes with all of those assumptions I listed above. It's why I can never expect or hope for anything more than common friendship with romantic-sexual people. They're not interested in meeting the needs and desires of their nonromantic/nonsexual friends, anywhere near as much as they are in meeting the needs and desires of their romantic-sexual partners. Why? Because they value their romantic-sexual relationships far more than they do their friends, in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
byanyotherusername

Don't you think every relationship involves people negotiating terms? Does it have to be called RA just because you walk into it without assumptions? Every mature person is wise to bring no assumptions these days.

I agree that most relationships involve people negotiating terms, and I admit that one of my main hesitations to identifying as "RA" besides some of the connected associations/assumptions is that even the parts of the philosophy I agree with don't feel like they really need a name, so much as they should just be common sense. But I've found that things I think seem sensible often aren't "common" ideas at all, or maybe most people aren't mature or wise. XD I mean, people definitely personalize their relationships with people just throughout getting to know one another as individuals, but there are certain widespread assumptions about relationships that go almost unquestioned, e.g. that sex will eventually be on the table in any romantic relationship.

Also, I'm seeing more and more on this thread (a post appeared by aceofhearts as I was writing this, supporting my point) that a lot of people's ideas about Relationship Anarchy seem to involve it directly opposing Relationship Hierarchy, or the way certain relationships are generally prioritized, so that's another reason why it might call for a distinct name. I'm not sure how comfortable I am with that, though I can certainly empathize with the reasons behind it.

I don't know, it kind of sounds like aceofhearts was advocating rebellion for rebellion sake in a few of her posts. But I could have misunderstood.

The more I read, the more I think the point she is trying to make is not rebellion for rebellion's sake, but to challenge the standard Relationship Hierarchy because it so hard to get people to take nontraditional relationships seriously within it. I could be misunderstanding as well, however, and would prefer if she spoke for herself...

I wouldn't call that putting everyone one the same level. It's just using the same approach with all people. You can still base all your relationships on the needs and desires of the people involved and still love one person more than another.
I think it could still be considered "putting people on the same level" personally because I see everyone who is a regular presence in my life as someone I could potentially grow to love, if I don't love them already. I don't think I love people "more" or "less", personally, because I don't call feelings I have for people "love" until they essentially reach the level of I-would-take-a-bullet-for-this-person. The people I love take "priority" over the people I like, the people I like a lot take priority over the people I like okay, etc., but I do my best to meet everyone's needs regardless of how intense (or not) my affection is for them, and usually the more casual a relationship is emotionally the less someone needs/desires from me, anyway...So, you can either look at it as a hierarchy of a type, or a situation in which everyone is getting what they need and thus being treated "equally" depending on your perspective. I just look at it as "what works for my life." XD
Link to post
Share on other sites
passionatefriend61

What I want is a family of passionate friends. Not just a bunch of common, close friends. I do want to live with two people, separately, but those relationships can and ideally would look identical to my other passionate friendships. I take issue with romantic-sexual people or even romantic asexuals calling my companions or partners or whatever I can call them "a bunch of close friends" because there's always an implied "just" in front of that phrase, suggesting that all of my relationships are not really as serious as a traditional monogamous romantic relationship. The relationships I want are a hell of a lot more important, emotional, and involved than any common friendship a romantic-sexual monogamist has. My relationships are just as important to me as that person's romantic partnership is to them.

I don't know if I have "rules," so much as I have preferences. The only thing I can think of that I feel rigid about enough to call it a rule is my freedom to form as many passionate friendships as I desire without making one higher than the others. Otherwise, I can be pretty flexible. I don't actually need all of my passionate friends/partners to be RA's or poly themselves, although it would make it way easier if they were because they'd be able to understand where I'm coming from, and I assume that if they were RA or poly in some way, they'd have a way easier time forming a harmonious relationship with me that works for both of us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Notte stellata

I wouldn't call that putting everyone one the same level. It's just using the same approach with all people. You can still base all your relationships on the needs and desires of the people involved and still love one person more than another.

I think it could still be considered "putting people on the same level" personally because I see everyone who is a regular presence in my life as someone I could potentially grow to love, if I don't love them already. I don't think I love people "more" or "less", personally, because I don't call feelings I have for people "love" until they essentially reach the level of I-would-take-a-bullet-for-this-person. The people I love take "priority" over the people I like, the people I like a lot take priority over the people I like okay, etc., but I do my best to meet everyone's needs regardless of how intense (or not) my affection is for them, and usually the more casual a relationship is emotionally the less someone needs/desires from me, anyway...So, you can either look at it as a hierarchy of a type, or a situation in which everyone is getting what they need and thus being treated "equally" depending on your perspective. I just look at it as "what works for my life." XD

Yeah, I doubt anyone, even an RA, can have totally no hierarchy at all in their interpersonal relationships. There's got to be some people you casually associate with, people you enjoy hanging out with but are okay to live without, etc. And yeah, usually casual friends don't expect much from the friendship anyway. I think the essence of RA is treating everyone you truly love with equal respect and trying to meet their needs, not setting a rigid rule like "my romantic partner's needs must come first, even at the cost of my friendships".

But a lot of times, I think it's hard to tell whether the romance/friendship hierarchy is really a hierarchy (in the bad sense), or just the way that feels natural to everyone. From my experience and observation, most people really don't need to spend as much time with friends as with romantic partners, nor do they desire physical intimacy with friends, but their friendships can still be strong. It's not (necessarily) because they think friendships are inferior to romance and certain things are reserved for romance, but because everyone is already getting what they need in this situation, as Geo and byanyotherusername said. Of course, you can argue that these people's friendships are "common friendships", that they don't love their friends. But, maybe some people just don't have passionate friendships for whatever reason, or when their love for a friend gets intense, it inevitably becomes romantic love (this seems to be a pattern for me in the past). I think as long as you don't automatically assume your friendships will never be as important as your romantic relationships and don't automatically sacrifice your friendships when they conflict with your romantic relationship, you can still possibly be RA even if there seems to be a romance/friendship hierarchy.

Just my two cents. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Arctangent

But a lot of times, I think it's hard to tell whether the romance/friendship hierarchy is really a hierarchy (in the bad sense), or just the way that feels natural to everyone. From my experience and observation, most people really don't need to spend as much time with friends as with romantic partners, nor do they desire physical intimacy with friends, but their friendships can still be strong. It's not (necessarily) because they think friendships are inferior to romance and certain things are reserved for romance, but because everyone is already getting what they need in this situation, as Geo and byanyotherusername said.

Yeah, it goes back to the question of "how much of this is natural, and how much is socially constructed?" That's a question I'm personally not well-informed enough to answer.

My own opinion is that there's not necessarily anything inherently wrong with being monogamous, or organizing one's relationship along a hierarchy, or making a strict distinction between friendship and romance, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if in an ideal world where all forms of relationships were on an even playing field, some people would still recreate the structures common in relationships today. I don't really have a problem with that, provided everyone involved is happy with the situation and that's what they actively choose to do.

It's different, though, when certain rules, models, and scripts about relationships are culturally mandated and applied to everyone, without regard to anyone's individual desires. Many people still seem to be happy with this system and the types of relationships it deems acceptable, so perhaps it is the result of some natural inclination. But what if it isn't, at least not for everyone? When do rules about relationships stop being a natural consequence of people freely associating with each other, and start being artificially imposed forms of order?

I don't know, but I know such rules don't feel natural to me, and they didn't even before I started seriously examining relationships and looking into unconventional relationship philosophies. I've always felt a little out of place when it comes to relationships - there were a lot of things that were supposed to be natural about "romance" that I just didn't get. For a time, I figured this just meant romantic relationships weren't for me. Despite my apparent lack of desire for romantic relationships, though, I could never seem to decide whether I was aromantic. It was like I felt I wanted a romantic relationship of some kind, but I didn't like the way romance was normally done, so I assumed that excluded me from romance entirely.

If I hadn't stumbled upon the idea of a romantic friendship and eventually found out about poly/RA, I might have gone on like that for quite a while - unsatisfied with conventional monogamous romantic relationships, but unaware that there were any valid options aside from "normal" friendship. In retrospect, it seems like I had been defaulting to a set of assumptions about relationships that didn't spring naturally from my own psychology, but that I had socially inherited. That makes me wonder - how many people who are currently doing relationships in the standard way are doing so because that's what's natural for them, and how many are doing so just because it's the default setting? Sometimes I think this bothers me more than the standard relationship templates themselves - the possibility that most people aren't really choosing to follow them, but are doing so simply because they don't know any other way. After all, that used to be the case for me (or at least I think so).

Then again, maybe I'm just weird. Didn't I say at the beginning that I'm not well-informed enough to answer this question, then proceed to go off into a whole tangent about it anyway? Oh well. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
passionatefriend61

But a lot of times, I think it's hard to tell whether the romance/friendship hierarchy is really a hierarchy (in the bad sense), or just the way that feels natural to everyone. From my experience and observation, most people really don't need to spend as much time with friends as with romantic partners, nor do they desire physical intimacy with friends, but their friendships can still be strong. It's not (necessarily) because they think friendships are inferior to romance and certain things are reserved for romance, but because everyone is already getting what they need in this situation, as Geo and byanyotherusername said.

Yeah, it goes back to the questions of "how much of this is natural, and how much is socially constructed?" That's a question I'm personally not well-informed enough to answer.

My own opinion is that there's not necessarily anything inherently wrong with being monogamous, or organizing one's relationship along a hierarchy, or making a strict distinction between friendship and romance, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if in an ideal world where all forms of relationships were on an even playing field, some people would still recreate the structures common in relationships today. I don't really have a problem with that, provided everyone involved is happy with the situation and that's what they actively choose to do.

It's different, though, when certain rules, models, and scripts about relationships are culturally mandated and applied to everyone, without regard to anyone's individual desires. Many people still seem to be happy with this system and the types of relationships it deems acceptable, so perhaps it is the result of some natural inclination. But what if it isn't, at least not for everyone? When do rules about relationships stop being a natural consequence of people freely associating with each other, and start being artificially imposed forms of order?

I don't know, but I know such rules don't feel natural to me, and they didn't even before I started seriously examining relationships and looking into unconventional relationship philosophies. I've always felt a little out of place when it comes to relationships - there were a lot of things that were supposed to be natural about "romance" that I just didn't get. For a time, I figured this just meant romantic relationships weren't for me. Despite my apparent lack of desire for romantic relationships, though, I could never seem to decide whether I was aromantic. It was like I felt I wanted a romantic relationship of some kind, but I didn't like the way romance was normally done, so I assumed that excluded me from romance entirely.

If I hadn't stumbled upon the idea of a romantic friendship and eventually found out about poly/RA, I might have gone on like that for quite a while - unsatisfied with conventional monogamous romantic relationships, but unaware that there were any valid options aside from "normal" friendship. In retrospect, it seems like I had been defaulting to a set of assumptions about relationships that didn't spring naturally from my own psychology, but that I had socially inherited. That makes me wonder - how many people who are currently doing relationships in the standard way are doing so because that's what's natural for them, and how many are doing so just because it's the default setting? Sometimes I think this bothers me more than the standard relationship templates themselves - the possibility that most people aren't really choosing to follow them, but are doing so simply because they don't know any other way. After all, that used to be the case for me (or at least I think so).

Then again, maybe I'm just weird. Didn't I say at the beginning that I'm not well-informed enough to answer this question, then proceed to go off into a whole tangent about it anyway? Oh well. :lol:

THANK YOU, LoC!

The vast majority of people defaulting to the same, tired relationship style as if it's the only possibility and never once pausing to imagine that they could do anything different, is one of the things that irritates me most about the majority of society being relationship traditionalists. It blows my mind that anyone could get even as far as 20 years old without once questioning what else there might be to love and human relationships, besides One Monogamous Romantic-Sexual Primary Relationship that ends in marriage and kids and a bunch of superficial friendships and bio family relationships. Especially considering the condition of marriage and most romantic-sexual relationships, which is not good, to say the least. (I recently read an anecdote from an anthology about women who are child-free, in which the author's 8 year old niece asked why she wasn't married and the author sort of playfully deflected by echoing the question back, to which the kid said, "Why would I be married?" and her aunt said, "Why would I?" And the kid says, "You're weird." That's how early and how efficiently the traditional relationship system is indoctrinated into people. And it's 2013! I can't describe how disturbing this is to me.)

I look around and often think to myself: what's the point of even having a brain and a free will if you aren't going to use them? What's the point of living in one of the freest societies in the world and in history, if you aren't going to utilize that freedom? Are you really going to just live your entire life on auto-pilot, regurgitating everything you see your parents and your friends and your media spew and call "normal," without once exploring what else is possible?

And amazingly, the answer for most people is "Yes." Because the fact is, on the psychological surface, it's more comfortable to screw around in a deeply flawed system of relationships that's considered normal and popular, trying to make it work, and even failing to find deep happiness and love and satisfaction--than to reject that system and thereby be dramatically different than 99.5% of your society, consequently dealing with their judgment and misunderstanding of you for the rest of your life. If you're "normal" and miserable, at least everybody you know understands you and approves of you. Being in any way an outcast requires courage and the kind of character that can withstand a total lack of external validation--and most people don't have that. They care about what their parents and their friends and their co-workers think of them. They care about how their life looks to other people. They care more about all of that than they do about their own joy and freedom.

My ex-best friend is a perfect example. She's straight and extremely heteronormative. She's not super romantic, she loves sex, she doesn't believe in marriage's ability to work in the big picture--to the point where she thinks if she ever marries someone, there's a 90% chance she will get divorced. A year and a half ago, I asked her to be one of my life partners, which would entail making a commitment to stay with each other and live together part-time, etc. I didn't ask her to give up sex or even romance with men. I wasn't even planning on being around 24/7 because of my other relationship desires and travel-heavy lifestyle I want. I was offering her a lifetime of love and loyalty, a secure home environment, steady companionship, everything that most people want out of their one romantic-sexual monogamous partnership--all in addition to the freedom to date and screw whoever she wanted, be herself as much as she always was with me, have a healthy amount of personal space and time apart from me, etc. But aside from feeling too young to make a lifetime commitment to anybody, some part of her just wasn't willing to be that unconventional and give up the standard straight marriage/romantic-sexual hierarchy. She'd rather go through a bad marriage and a divorce, maybe even more than once, than be strange in the eyes of heterosexual society and her parents and whoever.

And that's pitiful. Whether it's her or anyone else, that kind of blind, unconditional submission to normativity is pitiful.

But anyway. Enough about the other side.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Notte stellata

That makes me wonder - how many people who are currently doing relationships in the standard way are doing so because that's what's natural for them, and how many are doing so just because it's the default setting? Sometimes I think this bothers me more than the standard relationship templates themselves - the possibility that most people aren't really choosing to follow them, but are doing so simply because they don't know any other way. After all, that used to be the case for me (or at least I think so).

Yeah, that used to be the case for me too. I used to think I was hardwired to be monogamous and would still be monogamous even if open relationships were common enough and not stigmatized at all. See, I knew alternatives to monogamy existed, but still didn't believe they could work for me. So I definitely agree on the power of social conditioning.

When do rules about relationships stop being a natural consequence of people freely associating with each other, and start being artificially imposed forms of order?

I think this can be very hard to tell, especially when what feels natural to someone also coincides with the default setting (e.g. someone who is happy being monogamous because they don't feel romantic attraction to people other than their partner anyway). But when there's conflict between the default rules and an individual's needs, their choice can tell whether they're blindly conforming to the norm or breaking the rules to pursue what's best for themselves. Like the example given by aceofhearts: if someone knew marriage wasn't for them, yet still chose to get married to be perceived as normal, then yeah, it's pathetic. Sadly, there are too many cases like that: people who cut off contact with opposite-sex friends for their romantic partner, people who have kids just because "everyone else has kids", people who would rather cheat than seek ethical non-monogamy, etc.

Basically, this is how I see it: if the default setting happens to feel natural to you and make you happy, I don't think you have to break the rules just for the sake of breaking the rules; but if some things about the default setting aren't what you truly want, then don't sacrifice your individuality to be "normal". But of course, there can be some cases in the grey area, and I'm not well-informed enough to sort all this out either. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
passionatefriend61

I want to discuss the subject of gender, because both starrynight and KST are heteromantic/affectionate. We discussed it a little bit already, but I'd like to go more in-depth.

Me personally, I used to identify as heteromantic when I was a teen and was still separating "romance" from "friendship" more along the lines of a traditional romantic. I did tend to experience a kind of intense desire/infatuation toward men that I didn't experience toward women. I do experience sensual attraction to men more than women, only as a result of emotional attraction/love. I tend to pay way more attention to a man's appearance than I do to a woman's and have much stricter ideas of what I find aesthetically attractive in men vs. women.

But within the last couple years, I quit claiming a romantic orientation as a result of dissolving the subcategories of "romance" and "nonromantic friendship" within the category of "people I love and desire intimate relationships with." In the context of my RA ethos, this feels like it makes sense. While I tend want more relationships with men rather than women in the abstract, it's still important to me have at least a few passionate friends who are women, including the woman I live with part-time in the long-term. I grew up feeding myself on romantic friendship theory/history, and those friendships are predominantly same-sex, so despite my hetero- identity at the time, I still had a big awareness of and appreciation for same-sex nonsexual love--enough that I began taking the idea of being nonromantic life partners with my then-best friend seriously in high school, despite still wanting a more "romantic" relationship with a man too.

I said before that I feel like there's no inherent conflict between having a specific romantic and/or sexual orientation and being an RA, precisely because RA is about all intimate relationships and not just the romantic/sexual ones. I don't think that treating all people or partners of all genders the same way is necessary to RA, but I do think that if anyone you love, who loves you, ought to at least have a chance at receiving the major things they want and need in your relationship even if they're of a gender you're not romantically and/or sexually attracted to.

I do like the idea of de-romanticizing sensual attraction and physical intimacy, enough that romantic attraction or lack thereof becomes irrelevant in our relationships and what matters is instead emotional attraction/emotional connection which allows for any level of physical intimacy based on how much both people in the relationship enjoy it.

I'm really, really interested in the idea of breaking down heteronormative social conditioning, because I think it has untold power over everybody, regardless of sexual orientation...... I honestly wonder if my frequency of sensual attraction to women would be different in a non-heteronormative society, and I feel like many straight people are made to feel uncomfortable with physical touch in same-sex relationships, not because they wouldn't enjoy it in any universe but because they've been taught to associate touch with sex and romance (which is something about American culture that drives me pull-my-hair-out crazy) and don't want to appear or feel gay. Same goes for major emotional intimacy, the intensity of love and attachment in a same-sex relationship etc. This particularly bad for straight men, but I don't think straight women are much better off, especially after I grew up with super heteronormative straight female friends.

Intellectually, I think this framing of passionate love, emotional vulnerability, sensual touch, etc as innately romantic and sexual is Bullshit. Emotionally, I want to push myself past my hetero-leaning attractions and find out how it actually feels to be physically intimate, emotionally intimate, intensely in love, etc to other women, regardless of whether I start from a place of attraction or not.

Thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train

I want to discuss the subject of gender, because both starrynight and KST are heteromantic/affectionate. We discussed it a little bit already, but I'd like to go more in-depth.

Me personally, I used to identify as heteromantic when I was a teen and was still separating "romance" from "friendship" more along the lines of a traditional romantic. I did tend to experience a kind of intense desire/infatuation toward men that I didn't experience toward women. I do experience sensual attraction to men more than women, only as a result of emotional attraction/love. I tend to pay way more attention to a man's appearance than I do to a woman's and have much stricter ideas of what I find aesthetically attractive in men vs. women.

But within the last couple years, I quit claiming a romantic orientation as a result of dissolving the subcategories of "romance" and "nonromantic friendship" within the category of "people I love and desire intimate relationships with." In the context of my RA ethos, this feels like it makes sense. While I tend want more relationships with men rather than women in the abstract, it's still important to me have at least a few passionate friends who are women, including the woman I live with part-time in the long-term. I grew up feeding myself on romantic friendship theory/history, and those friendships are predominantly same-sex, so despite my hetero- identity at the time, I still had a big awareness of and appreciation for same-sex nonsexual love--enough that I began taking the idea of being nonromantic life partners with my then-best friend seriously in high school, despite still wanting a more "romantic" relationship with a man too.

I said before that I feel like there's no inherent conflict between having a specific romantic and/or sexual orientation and being an RA, precisely because RA is about all intimate relationships and not just the romantic/sexual ones. I don't think that treating all people or partners of all genders the same way is necessary to RA, but I do think that if anyone you love, who loves you, ought to at least have a chance at receiving the major things they want and need in your relationship even if they're of a gender you're not romantically and/or sexually attracted to.

I do like the idea of de-romanticizing sensual attraction and physical intimacy, enough that romantic attraction or lack thereof becomes irrelevant in our relationships and what matters is instead emotional attraction/emotional connection which allows for any level of physical intimacy based on how much both people in the relationship enjoy it.

I'm really, really interested in the idea of breaking down heteronormative social conditioning, because I think it has untold power over everybody, regardless of sexual orientation...... I honestly wonder if my frequency of sensual attraction to women would be different in a non-heteronormative society, and I feel like many straight people are made to feel uncomfortable with physical touch in same-sex relationships, not because they wouldn't enjoy it in any universe but because they've been taught to associate touch with sex and romance (which is something about American culture that drives me pull-my-hair-out crazy) and don't want to appear or feel gay. Same goes for major emotional intimacy, the intensity of love and attachment in a same-sex relationship etc. This particularly bad for straight men, but I don't think straight women are much better off, especially after I grew up with super heteronormative straight female friends.

Intellectually, I think this framing of passionate love, emotional vulnerability, sensual touch, etc as innately romantic and sexual is Bullshit. Emotionally, I want to push myself past my hetero-leaning attractions and find out how it actually feels to be physically intimate, emotionally intimate, intensely in love, etc to other women, regardless of whether I start from a place of attraction or not.

Thoughts?

Oh yeah, I think about this all the time...

I've said it many times in different threads, including started one about it before - how I actually find my affectional orientation to be irrational, and out of sync with my views on love. Theoretically anyway. These days I've mostly stopped fighting it, and I just take it for granted that there's some invisible quality that makes my feelings for females slightly "different", but it still bugs me a bit.

It's like this:

On the one hand - it seems like the way my affectional attraction runs comes almost entirely from an abstract and emotional plane - and is based on internal qualities and compatibility. But on the other, it's got this physical affection component which just can't crystallise unless the person is female. That said, I have had friendships with men that could easily be described as queerplatonic, and far more emotionally intimate than is typical with male-male friendships in Western culture. But there was definitely none of that sensual affection urge component. The idea of cuddling with them is awkward for example, whereas with female friends I could do it with just about any whom I get close enough to (which wouldn't take much, in theory, as long as we were on the same page re: what it means to us both, of course).

Describing the underlying motivations and emotional mechanics behind this is nigh-impossible. If you take out the physical affection component, there's practically no apparent difference between how I talk to my male best friend and female "affectionate friends". 99% of the content of outward expression is the same, right up to the point of wanting to share physical affection, which just doesn't arise in the male case.

So yes, I'm sort of in the same boat as you, to an extent. Intellectually I feel like I "should" be able to have "affectionate friendships" with anyone of any gender. Or to put it another way - I feel that being panromantic would be an authentic way to feel for people - and like discrimination based on gender is actually arbitrary and inappropriate. But internally, it just doesn't quite go in that direction for males, so I've got this annoying disconnect between how I intellectually think love "should be", versus how I actually experience some invisible differences between the genders, in terms of what kinds of relationships I see myself having with each one (or with nonbinaries).

Donno if that's what you were looking for, but yeah, I definitely think about this quite a bit. Mostly in circles. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Notte stellata

On the one hand - it seems like the way my affectional attraction runs comes almost entirely from an abstract and emotional plane - and is based on internal qualities and compatibility. But on the other, it's got this physical affection component which just can't crystallise unless the person is female.

Change "female" to "male" and that's me. :D

This is another thing I can't tell whether it's natural inclination or social conditioning. Growing up, most girls around me were totally comfortable with same-sex physical affection: holding hands, linking arms, touching, even cuddling. But I never want to do any of these with my female friends. If they touch me first, I don't mind, but I don't particularly enjoy it and never initiate it. I'm not sure why. Perhaps it takes a lot more for me to be comfortable with physical affection than for other girls, and I don't have any super close female friend (like the kind people call "bestie"), at least not IRL. Or maybe I'm conditioned to only desire physical affection when I'm romantically attracted to someone, even though intellectually I know physical affection isn't inherently romantic.

Actually I kind of envy those who can easily enjoy platonic physical affection. Recently I experimented with a little bit of touch with a male platonic friend, and I was mostly comfortable with it, despite still not actively desiring it. I do believe de-romanticizing physical affection is possible, but since I don't desire it with platonic friends, I'll probably only experiment it when a friend (either male or female) wants it from me. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Arctangent

And that's pitiful. Whether it's her or anyone else, that kind of blind, unconditional submission to normativity is pitiful.

Basically, this is how I see it: if the default setting happens to feel natural to you and make you happy, I don't think you have to break the rules just for the sake of breaking the rules; but if some things about the default setting aren't what you truly want, then don't sacrifice your individuality to be "normal". But of course, there can be some cases in the grey area, and I'm not well-informed enough to sort all this out either. :P

I would agree with both of you on this - it's sad when people play by the traditional script when they know it's not suited for them. I think the situation can get more complicated, though, when you try to consider how the presence of normativity/default settings can potentially affect the agency of people deciding how to organize their relationships (unless I'm just overthinking it).

From our perspective, it's relatively easy to point at other people and say that they're blatantly disregarding their individual desires in favor of conformity. I don't deny that there are people out there doing just that, like the example in aceofhearts's post. In that situation, the person knew and acknowledged her lack of faith in marriage and its unsuitability for her, yet decided to pursue it anyway. She even had plenty of reason to believe that there were valid alternatives to the conventional script, since someone had directly proposed one to her. In that kind of situation, it doesn't seem unfair to place the onus of the decision on the person herself.

Not everyone has the luxury of having all this information, though. As a poly/RA asexual, I've realized I'm often far more informed about non-traditional relationships than most people. However, that wasn't always the case - I had to do a lot of research and soul-searching to get to this point, because the information I needed to come to these conclusions wasn't simply floating around right in front of my face. It's not enough to know that alternatives exist - for instance, starrynight and I both knew about polyamory before we embraced it ourselves, but for a while we assumed it wasn't an option for us. In my case, that was in part due to my lack of understanding of what poly really was, even though I had a vague awareness and acceptance of it. Had I not made an active effort to find internet resources about poly, a more complete understanding might have eluded me for some time. I don't think I've ever seen a fair, accurate representation of polyamory in the mainstream media, and the combination of a genuine lack of awarenesss and social stigma regarding poly means it's not something that's often discussed in mainstream circles. The same applies to RA and asexual relationships, possibly to a greater extent.

That's the true power of a normative system - it not only privileges some relationship types and philosophies over others by naturalizing and normalizing them, but it in turn obscures and devalues the alternatives. In general, I've found that most people have skewed or false impressions regarding polyamory (if they have any idea of what it is at all), and I'd honestly be extremely surprised if anyone I know IRL has heard of relationship anarchy (aside from the one person I've told). In my opinion, that's not necessarily the fault of any individual, since the forces at work here go beyond the level of individuals. There's no one person to blame for the fact that mainstream discourse is saturated with mono- and heteronormativity.

I suppose what I'm getting at here is that there may be situations where people aren't just defaulting to the traditional script because it's easier to be normal, but because as far as they know, that is all there is. Maybe they realize they have desires that fall outside the norm, but they rationalize them away or fault themselves for it. It's difficult to confront widespread social norms like this that are socialized into people from a young age and constantly reinforced in everyday life; it's easier to attribute any dissonance one finds between one's self and the system as a result of individual deviance instead of a problem with the default assumptions of what is "normal." Thus, the assumptions go unchallenged and the system perpetuates itself. That's what I find really frightening about the notion that people don't know they have a choice.

As far as the topic of gender goes...

I don't notice substantial differences in the way I'm attracted to men vs. women. I have a sense that my experience of attraction is different in some way between the two, but in terms of intensity, cuddle urges, and desire for intimate relationships, it's pretty much the same. I have had dreams of cuddling both male and female bodied people, and it's equally pleasant (i.e. awesome) either way. :P

The only two people I've ever gotten into ambiguous relationships with were both of the opposite sex, but I attribute that to the fact that heterosexuality is more common, rather than any preference on my part. It's more likely that when someone does become attracted to me, they're of the opposite sex. In retrospect, if I had been in an emotionally close relationship with someone of the same sex who had become attracted to me, I probably would have been just as likely to make the same mistake do the same thing. It just so happened to occur with opposite sex friends both times.

Before I knew I was asexual, I viewed myself as essentially a blank state with regards to attraction. I remember realizing at one point that it was equally possible for me to be straight or gay, since my experiences with attraction didn't give me an indication either way. They still don't. So, for whatever reason, this has never really been an issue for me. I'm not far off from the "panromantic" ideal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the one hand - it seems like the way my affectional attraction runs comes almost entirely from an abstract and emotional plane - and is based on internal qualities and compatibility. But on the other, it's got this physical affection component which just can't crystallise unless the person is female.

Change "female" to "male" and that's me. :D

This is another thing I can't tell whether it's natural inclination or social conditioning. Growing up, most girls around me were totally comfortable with same-sex physical affection: holding hands, linking arms, touching, even cuddling. But I never want to do any of these with my female friends. If they touch me first, I don't mind, but I don't particularly enjoy it and never initiate it. I'm not sure why. Perhaps it takes a lot more for me to be comfortable with physical affection than for other girls, and I don't have any super close female friend (like the kind people call "bestie"), at least not IRL. Or maybe I'm conditioned to only desire physical affection when I'm romantically attracted to someone, even though intellectually I know physical affection isn't inherently romantic.

Actually I kind of envy those who can easily enjoy platonic physical affection. Recently I experimented with a little bit of touch with a male platonic friend, and I was mostly comfortable with it, despite still not actively desiring it. I do believe de-romanticizing physical affection is possible, but since I don't desire it with platonic friends, I'll probably only experiment it when a friend (either male or female) wants it from me. :)

I don't think it really matters if it's social conditioning or innate. (I'm of the opinion that the vast majority of personality traits are the result of some form of environmental condition, most especially in the early developmental stages ) As long as you are comfortable with your preferences, their origins are irrelevant. If on the other hand you are acting against your own nature in order to conform and are in someway distressed or made uncomfortable by this then it's an issue.

Personally I only desire intimacy and affection (and sex, since I'm sexual) with females. With men I'm not really comfortable with any kind of touch, I can tolerate handshakes but that's about it. And any kind of emotional closeness doesn't hold much appeal for me, though I'm not against it. What applies to men also applies to females who I'm not attracted to sexually or romantically, though to a lesser degree. I'd be neutral about hugs or other casual touch with them. I don't care if this is social condition or not. I'm happy with the way it is and feel no desire to change it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
byanyotherusername

Gender preference, both platonic and romantic/sexual, and how much of it is "social conditioning" or something else, is a very interesting topic...

I think it's odd how long I assumed I was straight. Even though I felt equally unattracted to both sexes, I just expected it to "kick in" at some point when I met the right guy, and even though I grew up in a completely accepting family with openly gay relatives, I was convinced that it wouldn't "kick in" with a girl. I didn't "feel" gay, so obviously, by default, I was straight. XD

I do squish a lot more often on guys, and for a while I thought that my aesthetic attraction to guys was somehow different, but I don't think it really is. I just categorized it differently when I was in adolescence (I like the look of a girl's body? Just aesthetic appreciation. I like the look of a guy's body? It must be hormones!!) and that habit has been hard to completely shake. Back to the squishing...I think this is how I was able to convince myself I was straight for so long. I assumed my squishes on guys were some form of low level romantic feelings, but since on an intellectual level I knew I didn't want a romantic relationship with that person (because of any number of justifications I gave myself), they couldn't develop into full on crushes. XD But, really, it makes sense to me that most of my squishes have been on males, because most of my friends are male. Once puberty hit, unlike most of my peers, I felt more comfortable around the opposite sex than the same sex. I was not a "typical" teenage girl and didn't fit in with them very well, but guys seemed to accept me (or wanted to get into my pants, and either way I felt assured that they wanted me around XD).

I did get one really intense squish my senior year on another girl and felt very physically attracted to her, which completely freaked me out (partially because of who it was, but that's an irrelevant point) and made me wonder if I was bi. It happens less often, but it definitely happens. The only part of this that I ever think of as specifically "socially conditioned" would probably be the fact that if feminine stereotypes weren't so pervasive, I wouldn't have felt as odd for not conforming to them in adolescence, and maybe I would have had more confidence interacting with girls my age? But it wasn't like I had low self-esteem or thought about it that much, I just hung out with guys because I had more in common with them (on average) than with girls, and therefore we had more to do/talk about. That's still often the case, but the quality of my affectionate relationships with both sexes is the same, even if the quantity may be different.

I do find it interesting to think about how much culture plays a role on displays of same-sex platonic affection. As I talked about some earlier, it was much more common just a couple centuries ago for same-sex friends to be very affectionate since there was no stigma. But since separation of the sexes was so much more common in daily life and there was a stigma around (public) romantic affection, it's hard to tell what factor that may have played in the intensity of people's affectionate same-sex relationships. Who knows? Maybe we'll live to see culture evolve to the point where there is no stigma about showing platonic or romantic affection toward any gender, but I doubt it...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Touchofinsight

I think a reason so many people follow the traditional relationship model is that they just want to fit in. I believe this is a result from image control and how people want to be perceived by others. Most people want to be accepted by others and will make changes to their own conduct to be accepted. They want to positively labeled "normal" by other people.

Obviously not all "normals" are good, and its not all of its contrasts ("Weird") are bad. That is subjective.

However I often believe most people can't or won't do what is in their own best interest (or even try something different which may or may not be in their best interest) because they want to fit in and they don't want to feel like they have to defend their position/ideology/stance (etc) especially when someone says "but...That's not normal....". As if there is some kind of one size fits all plan for life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Notte stellata

Not everyone has the luxury of having all this information, though. As a poly/RA asexual, I've realized I'm often far more informed about non-traditional relationships than most people. However, that wasn't always the case - I had to do a lot of research and soul-searching to get to this point, because the information I needed to come to these conclusions weren't simply floating around right in front of my face. It's not enough to know that alternatives exist - for instance, starrynight and I both knew about polyamory before we embraced it ourselves, but for a while we assumed it wasn't an option for us. In my case, that was in part due to my lack of understanding of what poly really was, even though I had a vague awareness and acceptance of it. Had I not made an active effort to find internet resources about poly, a more complete understanding might have eluded me for some time. I don't think I've ever seen a fair, accurate representation of polyamory in the mainstream media, and the combination of a genuine lack of awarenesss and social stigma regarding poly means it's not something that's often discussed in mainstream circles. The same applies to RA and asexual relationships, possibly to a greater extent.

That's the true power of a normative system - it not only privileges some relationship types and philosophies over others by naturalizing and normalizing them, but it in turn obscures and devalues the alternatives. In general, I've found that most people have skewed or false impressions regarding polyamory (if they have any idea of what it is at all), and I'd honestly be extremely surprised if anyone I know IRL has heard of relationship anarchy (aside from the one person I've told). In my opinion, that's not necessarily the fault of any individual, since the forces at work here go beyond the level of individuals. There's no one person to blame for the fact that mainstream discourse is saturated with mono- and heteronormativity.

I suppose what I'm getting at here is that there may be situations where people aren't just defaulting to the traditional script because it's easier to be normal, but because as far as they know, that is all there is. Maybe they realize they have desires that fall outside the norm, but they rationalize them away or fault themselves for it. It's difficult to confront widespread social norms like this that are socialized into people from a young age and constantly reinforced in everyday life; it's easier to attribute any dissonance one finds between one's self and the system as a result of individual deviance instead of a problem with the default assumptions of what is "normal." Thus, the assumptions go unchallenged and the system perpetuates itself. That's what I find really frightening about the notion that people don't know they have a choice.

Excellent post! :cake:

The lack of "alternative relationship visibility" is a huge problem. For example, I suppose most people in the modern Western culture know open relationships and/or polyamory exist, but few are well-informed about it. There are so many false assumptions that are ingrained in most people's brains, such as "jealousy is human nature" and "poly relationships are full of drama". It's nearly impossible to know what polyamory is really like without listening to poly people's stories and/or looking into real poly resources (i.e. not just media presentations). Speaking from personal experience, I had no idea that poly people could be genuinely happy for their partner's other loves until I read some poly folk's posts on a forum. Before that, I had always assumed jealousy would be a big problem in poly relationships.

I've also heard poly people say they had never felt natural to be with only one person, but they still tried to make mono relationships work, because they didn't know any other way to do relationships. But eventually they couldn't live like that any more, so they researched about polyamory. I think a lot of monogamists have the same experience, just to a lesser degree, so they're not motivated enough to look into alternatives. They might have been romantically attracted to someone other than their partner, or had one or two secret affairs, but they convinced themselves that it was their own fault rather than the flaw of the mainstream rules, and they thought it's worthwhile to repress their desire in order to protect their mono relationship, even if they could have been happier in a poly relationship. Things like this are basically what I mean by "grey area" - it's hard to say whether these people are just trying to be normal, or the mainstream assumptions have become their second nature.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Touchofinsight

The visibility of polyamory and its confusion with Polygamy are two serious issues that need to be overcome before it is seen as a viable alternative.

I just finished a college level work place diversity class (yea required classes). So naturally gay marriage being a popular topic 3 of 4 of the teams in my class did presentations on gay marriage. During the last presentation polygamy came up and the laughing and scoffing commenced. A part of me wanted to bring up how that could be a valid relationship structure for the right individuals did come up but then I realized it was futile. A class that is supposed to teach diversity is more about teaching what things we should accept.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Arctangent

There's something I've been thinking about that I thought might be interesting to bring up here...

I realized some time ago that I don't distinguish much between love for family and love for friends. In fact, I don't think it'd be inaccurate for me to say that I don't love many of the people I'm related to, even though I have a sense that I'm "supposed" to. There are some people in my family that I love, but I'd say the emotional connection I feel with the family members I love is based mostly on friendship, not bloodline. I don't really feel a significant difference in the way I love friends within my family compared to the way I love friends who share less of my DNA. So, I don't really have a good sense of what is meant by "familial love." Also, I don't like feeling obligated to act like I love people that I don't actually feel emotionally close to. It seems disingenuous to me - I hardly even know most of the people that are supposedly in my family, after all.

Maybe there's something I'm overlooking, though. I've seen a couple people mention it in this thread, so I thought I'd ask: what is familial love to you? Do you recognize it as a distinct phenomenon from other types of love, and if so, what makes it different? What's your take on social norms surrounding familial love and the definition of family?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Notte stellata

I realized some time ago that I don't distinguish much between love for family and love for friends. In fact, I don't think it'd inaccurate for me to say that I don't love many of the people I'm related to, even though I have a sense that I'm "supposed" to. There are some people in my family that I love, but I'd say the emotional connection I feel with the family members I love is based mostly on friendship, not bloodline. I don't really feel a significant difference in the way I love friends within my family compared to the way I love friends who share less of my DNA. So, I don't really have a good sense of what is meant by "familial love." Also, I don't like feeling obligated to act like I love people that I don't actually feel emotionally close to. It seems disingenuous to me - I hardly even know most of the people that are supposedly in my family, after all.

This is probably not too surprising, but - I'm exactly the same! :D I've said in multiple other threads that I have no sense of family bond or family values. I'm very distant from most of my extended family, partly because I hardly meet them, but more importantly, I have nothing in common with them besides the bloodline. My mom is the only family member I truly love, not because she's my mom, but because she's my friend (actually my best friend up to the recent years). I can't love people just because they're related to me, nor can I love someone without liking them as a person. I used to feel like a weirdo for not getting familial love, but I'm happy to see other people on AVEN expressing the same sentiment, in multiple occasions. :P
Link to post
Share on other sites
Arctangent

I realized some time ago that I don't distinguish much between love for family and love for friends. In fact, I don't think it'd inaccurate for me to say that I don't love many of the people I'm related to, even though I have a sense that I'm "supposed" to. There are some people in my family that I love, but I'd say the emotional connection I feel with the family members I love is based mostly on friendship, not bloodline. I don't really feel a significant difference in the way I love friends within my family compared to the way I love friends who share less of my DNA. So, I don't really have a good sense of what is meant by "familial love." Also, I don't like feeling obligated to act like I love people that I don't actually feel emotionally close to. It seems disingenuous to me - I hardly even know most of the people that are supposedly in my family, after all.

This is probably not too surprising, but - I'm exactly the same! :D I've said in multiple other threads that I have no sense of family bond or family values. I'm very distant from most of my extended family, partly because I hardly meet them, but more importantly, I have nothing in common with them besides the bloodline. My mom is the only family member I truly love, not because she's my mom, but because she's my friend (actually my best friend up to the recent years). I can't love people just because they're related to me, nor can I love someone without liking them as a person. I used to feel like a weirdo for not getting familial love, but I'm happy to see other people on AVEN expressing the same sentiment, in multiple occasions. :P

Nice to know that someone else gets this! (You're right, though - I can't say I'm all that surprised in this case. :P)

Honestly, the definition of "family" seems kind of arbitrary to me. Once we get to something like, say, third (or even second) cousins, I really don't see much difference between that level of relatedness and anyone else I could have met on the street. Plus, everyone's related to each other, provided you go back far enough. So, I don't really get it. Then again, my family situation is a little... unusual, to say the least. I wonder sometimes if I'd have a different perspective if I had grown up in a different sort of family.

Link to post
Share on other sites
byanyotherusername

I realized some time ago that I don't distinguish much between love for family and love for friends. In fact, I don't think it'd inaccurate for me to say that I don't love many of the people I'm related to, even though I have a sense that I'm "supposed" to. There are some people in my family that I love, but I'd say the emotional connection I feel with the family members I love is based mostly on friendship, not bloodline. I don't really feel a significant difference in the way I love friends within my family compared to the way I love friends who share less of my DNA. So, I don't really have a good sense of what is meant by "familial love." Also, I don't like feeling obligated to act like I love people that I don't actually feel emotionally close to. It seems disingenuous to me - I hardly even know most of the people that are supposedly in my family, after all.

This is probably not too surprising, but - I'm exactly the same! :D I've said in multiple other threads that I have no sense of family bond or family values. I'm very distant from most of my extended family, partly because I hardly meet them, but more importantly, I have nothing in common with them besides the bloodline. My mom is the only family member I truly love, not because she's my mom, but because she's my friend (actually my best friend up to the recent years). I can't love people just because they're related to me, nor can I love someone without liking them as a person. I used to feel like a weirdo for not getting familial love, but I'm happy to see other people on AVEN expressing the same sentiment, in multiple occasions. :P

Nice to know that someone else gets this! (You're right, though - I can't say I'm all that surprised in this case. :P)

Honestly, the definition of "family" seems kind of arbitrary to me. Once we get to something like, say, third (or even second) cousins, I really don't see much difference between that level of relatedness and anyone else I could have met on the street. Plus, everyone's related to each other, provided you go back far enough. So, I don't really get it. Then again, my family situation is a little... unusual, to say the least. I wonder sometimes if I'd have a different perspective if I had grown up in a different sort of family.

To me, familial love and platonic love feels identical, at least towards my family members I truly love. I came from a very closeknit extended family (on my dad's side, at least) so it was never awkward to tell my aunts or uncles or cousins that I loved them, because they were regular parts of my life and I did love them. That being said, for more distant relatives I feel a "familial love" that is more like...loyalty, I guess? One example would be my oldest cousin. He lives out of state and I've only met him twice in my memory. However, even though I do not have much contact with him, I have heard stories about him from my older cousins and older brother, who remember when he lived locally and were close to him. I'm also close to his sister, who lives out-of-state as well but visited for a few weeks when I was 10 or 11 and we really bonded and wrote to each other after that for years. Now, I don't think of him as someone I "love" necessarily, but both times I have met him we've given each other big hugs and there is definitely more of a feeling warmth there that isn't present with most people I have only met twice, as well as a sense of deep trust. I feel close to him by association since so many of my relatives I do feel close to feel close to him, if that makes sense.

A second example would be my maternal grandmother, who is a very harsh, critical and all around unlikable person, but loves my sister and I by virtue of the fact that we are her descendants and thinks of us fondly (at least when she doesn't have something to criticize us about). I dutifully tell her I love her back out of--well, loyalty. Partly to her, partly to my mother who would be heartbroken if I didn't. I can find it in my heart to love anyone who loves me, at least a little.

Also, I don't think it's the degree of genetic separation that necessarily dictates closeness. My cousin, whom I mentioned earlier in the thread, is very close to my older brother and they lived together for a couple of years in their late teens/early twenties. They refer to each other as "brother-cousins", and though their son and daughter are second cousins, my guess is that they will grow up fairly close since their families are so close.

I don't think there is a qualitatively different kind of "familial love" though. I think there is just love for people who happen to be related to you, and in some cases a sense of "blood loyalty" which is definitely cultural, though perhaps with some biological basis?

Link to post
Share on other sites
passionatefriend61

LawofCircles, brilliant posts! You're completely correct about the lack of education and visibility when it comes to alternative relationship styles. It's easy for me to forget that even polyamory is still outside the average romantic-sexual person's awareness, which is really weird for me to think about. Then again, the same goes for asexuality and aromanticism too. So many ignorant people out there and not nearly enough sources of accurate information, whether about the identities or poly or romantic friendship, etc. It's one of the reasons why I'm so dedicated to writing about the topics.

Everyone should know that there's more than one way to live and to do relationships. We should live in a society and a culture that promotes real freedom and choice and diversity, that's built on those qualities. The fact that so many people could legitimately just not know or imagine that there's anything possible besides the normative romantic-sex based relationship hierarchy, monogamy, marriage, etc. freaks me the hell out.... That I could be living in a world that looks and functions the way it does primarily out of ignorance and lack of imagination and that the biggest thing standing in between me and a freer, diverse, flexible world full of radical love (radical nonsexual love!) makes me want to just get out there and work my ass off to create actual change. On the one hand, if you have a brain and an imagination, you shouldn't need anyone else to sit you down and tell you that you can do something other than follow the traditional relationship blue print, but on the other hand, I recognize that most people--no matter what the subject is--are going to default to whatever's popular without thinking because we've naturally got a herd mentality, to some degree.

I've gotta say: the fact that the vast majority of Americans are blindly, dogmatically committed to monogamy as the one and only moral, correct, effective way to do traditional romantic-sexual relationships is hilarious to me, given the rampant sexual infidelity among them, whether in marriages or unmarried couple relationships. (Which has been going since the beginning of time, I might add.) It's astounding to me how anybody could be a serial cheater and yet, when asked, seriously say that they believe in monogamy and would never consider polyamory.

I love the question about familial love because it does play into my own RA philosophy and is important to me.

In my experience thus far, I've felt intense love for my sister and my first cousins, and they've been the focus of my strong desire for romantic friendship within my blood family. I do have a very deep, strong, happy, loving relationship with my sister, and I consider her the most important person in my life right now. I view our relationship as spiritually significant and based on a spiritual connection, which ties into my general spirituality. I don't really have a relationship with any of my cousins right now and I've made peace, I think, with that being the case, probably forever. But for many years, I had an overwhelming desire to be loved by them and close to them. I don't know why. We didn't grow up together, they're much older than me, they're all men. But when I was "in love" with them, I could see enough positive qualities about them that they seemed to be worth pursuing for reasons besides our biological relatedness.

My interest in sibling and first cousin love started when I was in high school, not long after I started IDing as asexual, and I'm certain that it has a lot to do with the fact that as an asexual looking specifically for powerful nonsexual love, it was a logical and easy conclusion for me to make that sibling relationships and cousin relationships had natural potential to be deeply, intensely loving as nonsexual relationships. And part of the appeal in that is staying power: a sibling or a cousin will always be available to you and will always be your blood, whereas nonrelated friendships are much harder to resurrect if they fall apart.

Plus, I believe that the blood connection can add a feeling of specialness and emotional intensity to a relationship that is loving and deep and powerful. That doesn't mean that you're automatically going to have a passionate or spiritual or emotionally intense connection to your sibling or your cousin. I do think these types of relationships are very rare. But what I am saying is that if you have that kind of connection to a sibling or cousin, the fact that you're blood can intensity or deepen it emotionally or sensationally.

What I really want in my adult life is a relationship anarchist family--so again, it's passionate friendship or romantic friendship blending with my perception of "family." I imagine it as a group of relationships that are all long-term and emotionally salient and loving and caring and we treat each other the way I think a family should work: we consider each other's needs and desires, we're there for each other emotionally and physically as much as possible, we're unconditionally loyal to each other, we share in each other's big life events and we spend time together because we love each other's company, etc. When I think of my handful of desired passionate friendships, I do think of it and call it "family."

I do think being family requires actual love, love that is felt and expressed and acted upon regularly, not just assumed or thrown around as a word the way most biological family members do. You know what I mean: when someone says to their parent or sibling or child or relative, "Oh, you know I love you, blah blah blah," but the actual condition of their bond and their emotional involvement may be the most insignificant or shallow imaginable.

So yeah. Highest form of friendship = real family, blood or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train

Yeah, it shouldn't be surprising that I'm pretty much the same there too (as LoC and starrynight). :D

Not much to add really. Just that I find the concept of "chosen family" much more useful than actual family - as popularly defined by bloodline and marital lines. I don't think this necessarily says much about it. In some cases it's really just business for one - and in general, it's the underlying actual social connection that counts.

Most of my extended family lives on the other side of the world and we hardly have contact. I'm close to my parents in a relatively "normal" way though. But when you look at the root of the feelings, it isn't really that different to long-term friendship, for the most part.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Arctangent
I've gotta say: the fact that the vast majority of Americans are blindly, dogmatically committed to monogamy as the one and only moral, correct, effective way to do traditional romantic-sexual relationships is hilarious to me, given the rampant sexual infidelity among them, whether in marriages or unmarried couple relationships. (Which has been going since the beginning of time, I might add.) It's astounding to me how anybody could be a serial cheater and yet, when asked, seriously say that they believe in monogamy and would never consider polyamory.

What I find funny is that the very same reasons people often use to write off poly relationships could just as easily be applied to monogamous relationships. For instance:

  • "Jealousy is a problem in poly relationships." And somehow it's not in mono relationships? That doesn't hold up in my experience at all.
  • "Poly relationships are full of drama." Last I checked, mono relationships are far from being immune to drama.
  • "You can't love more than one person at a time." This one is patronizing to both poly and mono people. Lots of people in monogamous relationships love people other than their partner. Even if we're only talking about romantic love, cheating happens all the time.

There's such a huge double standard.

And part of the appeal in that is staying power: a sibling or a cousin will always be available to you and will always be your blood, whereas nonrelated friendships are much harder to resurrect if they fall apart.

See, this is where my personal experience with family probably influences my perspective. There's quite a history of divorce and estrangement in my immediate family, so I don't see relationships by blood or marriage as being any more sustainable or reliable than "nonrelated friendships." Maybe that contributes to my difficulty understanding "blood ties."

The idea of a chosen family based on actual emotional connections, though, is something I can get behind. ^_^

Link to post
Share on other sites
Notte stellata

That being said, for more distant relatives I feel a "familial love" that is more like...loyalty, I guess? One example would be my oldest cousin. He lives out of state and I've only met him twice in my memory. However, even though I do not have much contact with him, I have heard stories about him from my older cousins and older brother, who remember when he lived locally and were close to him. I'm also close to his sister, who lives out-of-state as well but visited for a few weeks when I was 10 or 11 and we really bonded and wrote to each other after that for years. Now, I don't think of him as someone I "love" necessarily, but both times I have met him we've given each other big hugs and there is definitely more of a feeling warmth there that isn't present with most people I have only met twice, as well as a sense of deep trust. I feel close to him by association since so many of my relatives I do feel close to feel close to him, if that makes sense.

See, I don't even feel the "loyalty" kind of love for my extended family. I definitely don't have the feeling of warmth and trust when I meet most of them, although I've met them more than twice. This is probably because I'm not close to anyone in my extended family, so there's no "feeling close by association". But I can imagine feeling close by association to a friend's friend or a partner's other partner. :P

Actually, I'm so nonchalant about family that I don't even use phrases like "chosen family" to describe my significant relationships. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but saying "I'm so close to my friends that we're like family" seems to imply familial bond is higher than friendship, so the best friendship should resemble family. It's kind of like saying romantic love is more than friendship. To me, friendship can be significant in its own right without being compared to family. But, maybe my thinking is just weird. :lol: Anyway I can see the point behind "chosen family", and I'm not against using the phrase. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Arctangent
Actually, I'm so nonchalant about family that I don't even use phrases like "chosen family" to describe my significant relationships. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but saying "I'm so close to my friends that we're like family" seems to imply familial bond is higher than friendship, so the best friendship should resemble family. It's kind of like saying romantic love is more than friendship. To me, friendship can be significant in its own right without being compared to family. But, maybe my thinking is just weird. :lol: Anyway I can see the point of "chosen family", and I'm not against using it. :)

I can see your point, actually. In my head, though, I was thinking of it more along the lines of chosen family = friendship, not chosen family > friendship.

Ultimately, though, it's the friendship part that's most important to me, because I associate friendship with love, closeness, and an underlying emotional/affectionate bond. "Familial" and "romantic" are practically superfluous terms to me at this point. If I do use them, they're more like adjectives/qualifiers for friendship than something distinct and/or more valuable for me.

If I were still using the word "romantic" right now, I'd probably be freaking out because I'd be hitting the point of romance = friendship = family. Then I'd really know there was something weird going on with the way I interpret "romantic." Good thing I avoided that one. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train

I had an interesting thought today: What if I was living in a culture where it was perfectly normal to be "affectionate friends" with people openly?

(I know, I know - in reality that would never work, because most people are sexual and physical contact easily leads to sex, etc etc. So it's possibly a borderline biologically impossible thing for a human culture to actually be overall cool about it like that across the board. But let's say somehow it was reality...)

Anyhow - if that was the case - I honestly think I would have absolutely no reference point for what's a "romantic" relationship and what's a "platonic" one. It seems like to me, a certain level of affectionate feeling, emotional sharing and physical contact is the natural internal baseline for just about all relationships with women. At least potentially. And so if that was something that could easily be had with multiple female affectionate friends - it would completely blow the boundaries away for me internally. I think in a way, it's almost like "romance" is a kind of "artificial scarcity" thing with me. In the sense that the distinction only matters artificially - and is almost entirely created by the act of not sharing certain levels of affection more openly. If they were shared openly - then the part of the brain that "craves" these kinds of contacts would be satisfied, and wouldn't need to draw any distinction between these affectionate "friendships" and "romance" - and put romance on a "higher" plane at all.

In that sort of environment - I'm pretty sure I would just feel like I love everyone equally, be totally immune to limerence, and the choosing of partners would become a completely pragmatic decision. No feelings-based drama.

I don't know if any of that makes sense. It made perfect sense when I was out on a walk just now, but I'm not sure if I'm explaining it right. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...