Jump to content

Thread for Relationship Anarchy & Love without Category


passionatefriend61

Recommended Posts

Arctangent

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?

This is actually pretty mind-blowing.

In such an alternate reality, I would be normal in terms of relationship desires. I don't even have a point of reference for what that would be like.

Also, there would probably be a thread, much like this one, with a small group of people discussing a radical approach to relationships called Relationship Hierarchy, which would involve deconstructing the "affectionate friendship" grey area and using stricter categories to describe different types of relationships. :lol:

I think I kind of understand what you mean by artificial scarcity, though. It reminds me of what happened when I tried to use the affectionate/non-affectionate distinction based on norm-breaking - that distinction was arbitrarily based on what I couldn't normally have in my friendships with people. That might have been the case for my "romantic feelings" as well. If "affectionate friendships" were more common, though, I might never have felt the need to invoke those concepts in the first place. That's an interesting hypothetical scenario.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Notte stellata

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.

This reminds me of all the "forever alone" kind of posts that pop up like once a week here. Sometimes I can't help thinking, "What the hell does 'alone' or 'single' mean? Are you still 'alone' if you have affectionate friends or a platonic life partner?" I think in a hypothetical world where being affectionate with friends and living with friends were normal, "alone" and "single" would be useless (or at least much less important) as relationship status descriptors. Basically it's like you said, because certain things aren't shared openly in our society, most people feel like they have to find a romantic relationship in order to fulfill all their emotional and physical desires.

Also, there would probably be a thread, much like this one, with a small group of people discussing a radical approach to relationships called Relationship Hierarchy, which would involve deconstructing the "affectionate friendship" grey area and using stricter categories to describe different types of relationships. :lol:

That's so hilarious that I can't stop laughing at this image. :D I imagine there would be discussions like "Why can't we think out of the box and further categorize our relationships?" and "I've been conditioned to see all my affectionate friendships as the same, but it never felt really natural to me." :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
passionatefriend61

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?

Hell, I would've grown up feeling loved and happy! And I'd feel that way now! Not to mention, I would care even less about ever having life partners or when I'll meet them, than I do now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
passionatefriend61

Sometimes I can't help thinking, "What the hell does 'alone' or 'single' mean? Are you still 'alone' if you have affectionate friends or a platonic life partner?" I think in a hypothetical world where being affectionate with friends and living with friends were normal, "alone" and "single" would be useless (or at least much less important) as relationship status descriptors. Basically it's like you said, because certain things aren't shared openly in our society, most people feel like they have to find a romantic relationship in order to fulfill all their emotional and physical desires.

This is an interesting way of framing the question, actually. And you're right. If we lived in a world where the Romantic Sex Based Relationship Hierarchy didn't exist and our nonsexual/nonromantic relationships reflected that, I'm pretty sure nobody would equate "romantically/sexually single" with "alone." The concept of "single" may not even exist in the same way. (For the record, I don't acknowledge the word or the concept in my own head.)

In my own life so far, I've gone through different phases of how I view being "alone." Because I don't separate romantic relationships from friendship and make one romantic partner the focus of my emotional life or my only possible life partner, I don't think of spending my life alone in those terms the way most people do. I think I consider being "alone" forever as being in a state where I don't have my major socio-emotional needs met by anybody else and I rank somewhere in the lowly nonromantic/nonsexual portion of my romantic-sexual associates' ladders. It's not so much about living alone or being physically alone more often than not. It's about how important I am to people personally and emotionally, how much I can depend on others, and how much I am loved and valued, which I see as directly connected to how easily and how much I have access to quality time and physical affection, etc.

I'm not looking for a traditional "romantic" monogamous couple relationship to take care of everything and make me not "alone." I want two live-in partners, one male and one female, but if I only met the female, I wouldn't consider myself still "alone" and vice versa. If I didn't meet either one of those people but I did have a handful of steady romantic/passionate friends who I did not live with, I don't think I'd consider myself quite alone either, because obviously those relationships would provide love and touch and time.

But if I only ever have common friends and loosely connected associates and acquaintances, most of whom are romantic-sexual people I don't love and who don't love me, then yeah. I'd call myself alone in that scenario.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Arctangent

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.

This reminds me of all the "forever alone" kind of posts that pop up like once a week here. Sometimes I can't help thinking, "What the hell does 'alone' or 'single' mean? Are you still 'alone' if you have affectionate friends or a platonic life partner?" I think in a hypothetical world where being affectionate with friends and living with friends were normal, "alone" and "single" would be useless (or at least much less important) as relationship status descriptors. Basically it's like you said, because certain things aren't shared openly in our society, most people feel like they have to find a romantic relationship in order to fulfill all their emotional and physical desires.

"Single" used to have a more useful meaning for me when I was making clearer distinctions between different types of relationships (although I still wasn't using it the conventional way - anything that could fall under romantic, affectionate, and/or queerplatonic friendship would have made me not "single" under my previous definitions). Now that I've moved toward describing relationships on a case-by-case basis, "single" is essentially useless for me - there's nowhere to draw the line between close friendships that count against my "single" status and those that don't.

I've never really used "alone" in that sense either, because as far as I'm concerned, I'm not alone as long as I have close friends of some kind. In my book, even online contact like this can make me less "alone." Living by myself also doesn't count for me, especially since I'd actually like if all of my intimate relationships were "nonprimary" (with different living spaces, separate finances, etc.). With that said, though, I'm still conscious of the fact that I have unmet relationship desires. I wouldn't say that necessarily makes me more alone, but it does make me feel lonely sometimes. I suppose it depends on how you define "alone," though.

Also, my relationship philosophy basically throws the concept of the "friendzone" out the window, so I now find the idea of the "friendzone" alternately annoying and amusing. :lol:

Also, there would probably be a thread, much like this one, with a small group of people discussing a radical approach to relationships called Relationship Hierarchy, which would involve deconstructing the "affectionate friendship" grey area and using stricter categories to describe different types of relationships. :lol:

That's so hilarious that I can't stop laughing at this image. :D I imagine there would be discussions like "Why can't we think out of the box and further categorize our relationships?" and "I've been conditioned to see all my affectionate friendships as the same, but it never felt really natural to me." :lol:

Exactly! It's really funny to think about with the roles reversed. There'd probably also be discussions like "RH and monogamy have low visibility and are unfairly portrayed in the media" and "People should be able to choose monogamy if that's what feels natural to them." :P

Now that I think about it, the definition of "monogamy" might be the subject of debate:

"Does having affectionate friends make you polyamorous by default?"

"Well, I define my affectionate friendships as platonic, so I still consider myself monogamous because I think romantic relationships are different from platonic friendships."

"But if your affectionate friendships are characterized by romantic behaviors, how can you claim they're solely platonic? I don't think anyone who has affectionate friendships can be considered monogamous because those relationships are partially romantic."

"You have to draw the line somewhere, though. If you don't treat the two as entirely distinct categories, it starts sounding like romance is the same as affectionate friendship, and that's not true in my experience."

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
byanyotherusername

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...)

I don't think that's true. Saying that "physical contact easily leads to sex" makes all sexuals sound...easy. :P There can certainly be affectionate friendships among sexuals without it ever leading to sex--I know of some, and have had plenty of affectionate friendships with sexuals, and often with supposedly "hormone-crazy" teenage boys (mostly when I was a supposedly "hormone-crazy" teenage girl), and it has rarely lead to any kind of pressure/desire for sex from their end. In fact in some sub-cultures this IS the norm: the theater community, for instance, is extremely touchy-feely, and it's weird if you don't feel comfortable with a lot of physical contact. Sure, sometimes this can lead to sex, but it's not the automatic or even common result. It also depends on how "affectionate" we're talking here, but in terms of hand-holding, cuddling, lap-sitting, kisses on the cheek/face or even quick pecks on the lips, all seem like the norm among theater groups, even committed, monogamous adult actors/actresses/celebrity impersonators I know.

So, I don't think it's a hopeless dream. ;)

Also, wouldn't breaking down the romantic/platonic dichotomy mean the sex could happen in either/neither (between people who were sexual and interested in that, if we're talking about a cultural shift in thinking), since such lines wouldn't exist...? Sure, sex should never be expected of such relationships, but each person would negotiate for themselves where to draw the line of how "affectionate" each of their relationships would become. Saying "affectionate friendships do not include sex" just divides relationships into sexual and nonsexual, inevitably placing greater importance on one or the other, and I don't see how that's better than dividing them into romantic and nonromantic.

Unless you mean that the culture would essentially be the same, with romantic/sexual monogamy being the norm, but that people wouldn't consider "affectionate friendships" a breach of monogamy, in which case you, personally, would no longer require a romantic/platonic distinction in our own thinking/relationships, but such a distinction would still exist for everyone else. This still sounds like a somewhat circular argument to me, the reasoning seems to go "if I get X in my platonic relationships I will no longer desire romantic ones, because X is all I desire from romance, but that doesn't make these relationships romantic, but being nonromantic doesn't make them platonic, therefore there is no such thing as romantic or platonic (as far as I'm concerned)." If that makes sense to you, go with it, but it still isn't quite comprehensible to me. 0.o

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 theywere 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.

Everyone except men? At least, not in the same "affectionate" way you love women? Seems like a limit to being completely pragmatic to me. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train

Unless you mean that the culture would essentially be the same, with romantic/sexual monogamy being the norm, but that people wouldn't consider "affectionate friendships" a breach of monogamy, in which case you, personally, would no longer require a romantic/platonic distinction in our own thinking/relationships, but such a distinction would still exist for everyone else. This still sounds like a somewhat circular argument to me, the reasoning seems to go "if I get X in my platonic relationships I will no longer desire romantic ones, because X is all I desire from romance, but that doesn't make these relationships romantic, but being nonromantic doesn't make them platonic, therefore there is no such thing as romantic or platonic (as far as I'm concerned)." If that makes sense to you, go with it, but it still isn't quite comprehensible to me. 0.o

Yeah, that's pretty much what I mean, at least in my case.

The particular brand of affectionate-sensual attraction I have for women can go either way. ie. It could be described as "romantic", "platonic but affectionate", "potato", whatever. So I think if I was in a situation where that baseline was easily met, it would totally kill off that distinction which (in the current cultural setup) drags me into thinking of a certain type of contact as "romantic".

Basically what I'm saying is - I think that if it wasn't seen as such a big and exclusive deal by the surrounding culture, I also wouldn't internally process it as anything special either. So it's like my entire sense of what's "romantic" is mostly artificial, and a reflection of how others are trying to get me to interact with them. It's like an emotional feedback loop.

I have no idea if this makes any sense. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Notte stellata

Unless you mean that the culture would essentially be the same, with romantic/sexual monogamy being the norm, but that people wouldn't consider "affectionate friendships" a breach of monogamy, in which case you, personally, would no longer require a romantic/platonic distinction in our own thinking/relationships, but such a distinction would still exist for everyone else. This still sounds like a somewhat circular argument to me, the reasoning seems to go "if I get X in my platonic relationships I will no longer desire romantic ones, because X is all I desire from romance, but that doesn't make these relationships romantic, but being nonromantic doesn't make them platonic, therefore there is no such thing as romantic or platonic (as far as I'm concerned)." If that makes sense to you, go with it, but it still isn't quite comprehensible to me. 0.o

I love your critical thinking and Socratic style questioning. :D

If the romantic/platonic distinction didn't exist anymore, the monogamy/polyamory distinction would also be irrelevant, because apparently "affectionate friendship" isn't something exclusive in nature. But if romantic/sexual monogamy was still the norm in our hypothetical society, it'd still be necessary to tell which "affectionate friendships" are platonic and which are romantic, at least for monogamists. So either we're back to where we started, or in a society where affectionate friendship was the norm, people wouldn't care about being mono or poly anymore. And I prefer the latter (but even in that case, I think I'd still be able to distinguish between platonic and romantic feelings; to me it would be just like a society where poly was the norm). :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train

So either we're back to where we started, or in a society where affectionate friendship was the norm, people wouldn't care about being mono or poly anymore. And I prefer the latter (but even in that case, I think I'd still be able to distinguish between platonic and romantic feelings; to me it would be just like a society where poly was the norm). :P

Yeah, I think that's about right actually. :)

Except for me, it would definitely mangle my sense of what's "romantic" and what's "platonic". Because the distinction for me is fuzzy enough at the moment to basically have to rely on external indicators. I really don't think I'd be able to tell internally, in that kind of setup where those actions were easily fulfilled and acceptable to share with both "affectionate friends" and "partners".

Hah! Having one of those moments where I feel like a total basket case. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Notte stellata

So either we're back to where we started, or in a society where affectionate friendship was the norm, people wouldn't care about being mono or poly anymore. And I prefer the latter (but even in that case, I think I'd still be able to distinguish between platonic and romantic feelings; to me it would be just like a society where poly was the norm). :P

Yeah, I think that's about right actually. :)

Except for me, it would definitely mangle my sense of what's "romantic" and what's "platonic". Because the distinction for me is fuzzy enough at the moment to basically have to rely on external indicators. I really don't think I'd be able to tell internally, in that kind of setup where those actions were easily fulfilled and acceptable to share with both "affectionate friends" and "partners".

For me there's no difference between romantic/affectionate friends and partners in terms of feelings; the only thing that makes someone a "partner" is practical life sharing. But it's not life sharing that makes my feelings romantic or more romantic. So no matter what you call them, my feelings for romantic/affectionate friends and partners are equally romantic, or equally "potato" if you prefer that. :P

Maybe I'd feel differently if I managed to have platonic but affectionate friendships, but then again, like byanyotherusername said before, many romantic-sexual people are able to cuddle with platonic friends without confusing it with romantic feelings. Hmm, the individual differences in platonic/romantic experience are fascinating. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do get some weird looks when I start ranting about the idea of affectionate friendship/polyamory—most of my friends are the 'climb all over exactly one other person for a given amount of time each day' type who don't really understand this sort of proposal—but I'm certainly interested in this thread. After I ended my first standard relationship, (mutually) and started to work out what suited me better, I feel like I designed basically what's being described here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train

Maybe I'd feel differently if I managed to have platonic but affectionate friendships, but then again, like byanyotherusername said before, many romantic-sexual people are able to cuddle with platonic friends without confusing it with romantic feelings. Hmm, the individual differences in platonic/romantic experience are fascinating. :)

Yeah it is, and it's all so very subjective. It's really hard to tell sometimes if people aren't actually feeling relatively similar or even the same things, but just "packaging" them differently with how they organise their lives. And express their feelings to others.

Take my case for instance: If I was living in that kind of culture, I'm pretty sure I could have some level of cuddle buddy / affectionate friendship relationship with just about any woman. Anyone who doesn't smell, isn't crazy, and doesn't outright repulse me in some way, either in physical terms or because of personality clash or whatever. This would drag the baseline so far up towards the sort of contact that is these days mostly reserved for "romantic" relationships, that as I said, I'm pretty sure I'd lose any sense of platonic/romantic distinction. At the moment it seems to be an almost entirely externally-defined thing for me anyway.

This is another way I've tried to frame it: Maybe I'm basically just a hetero-sensual aro with a very easily stimulated sense of wanting to connect emotionally with women. And the ability to fall into limerence can be looked upon as just a temporary mental health episode - which only occurs because the kind of contact I actually desire is artificially scarce these days. So it's like a kind of obsessive craziness induced by not getting enough emotional tenderness and cuddles. :lol:

But in that kind of culture, where I'd be constantly emotionally and affectionally/sensually "fed" - I'm pretty sure limerence would never happen to me, so all my relationships with women could truly be equal "affectionate friendships", with no qualitative emotional distinction between them. A quantitative difference for sure - such as a best friend versus a casual friend kinda thing - but not qualitatively different. In which case someone being a "partner" would become a totally externalised pragmatic decision based on life goals and stuff, completely separate to any kind of particular unique emotional state.

Okay, now I'm getting to the point where I'm not even making sense to myself any more. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

The particular brand of affectionate-sensual attraction I have for women can go either way. ie. It could be described as "romantic", "platonic but affectionate", "potato", whatever. So I think if I was in a situation where that baseline was easily met, it would totally kill off that distinction which (in the current cultural setup) drags me into thinking of a certain type of contact as "romantic".

Basically what I'm saying is - I think that if it wasn't seen as such a big and exclusive deal by the surrounding culture, I also wouldn't internally process it as anything special either. So it's like my entire sense of what's "romantic" is mostly artificial, and a reflection of how others are trying to get me to interact with them. It's like an emotional feedback loop.

I think I understand what you're getting at here. Personally speaking, it's easy for me to take for granted the desires/attractions/etc. that I have that are met by the baseline, which makes the ones that aren't normally expressed/fulfilled seem different or special somehow, even though there's no obvious difference between them on a purely internal basis. It's like I don't notice a clear pattern to distinguish between my internal states of attraction, but I do notice a difference in which of my relationship desires are usually fulfilled and which aren't, so I end up arbitrarily drawing the line there if I'm not careful. That's what happened with the affectionate/non-affectionate distinction I made up, which was predicated on the simple fact that I have relationship desires that aren't normally fulfilled and would theoretically be fulfilled in what I called an "affectionate friendship."

Upon giving it some thought and reading byanyotherusername's posts, I realized there were several problems with this definition:

  • What is normal for friendship can be affectionate too, and there's no reason why "normal" expressions of affection should be defined as inherently less valuable solely because they're more common. In fact, I know from past experience that I value them highly and miss them when I don't have them in my life.
  • What is normal for any given friendship is relative, so what constitutes "norm-breaking behavior" is inherently ambiguous. Saying "I love you" in the context of a friendship is a good example because it could be argued either way.
  • The distinction implied that conventional friendships were less valuable to me than unconventional ones, which isn't actually the case - ideally, I'd like to have close friendships of many different kinds in my life, and they don't all have to be unconventional.

Basically, it's easy for me to slip up and undervalue the relationship desires that are met by the baseline and give undue weight to the ones that aren't, and it's tempting for me to project that onto my internal experiences, causing me to make a distinction that really means about as much as potato/non-potato with respect to my actual internal feelings. It's possible that if the cultural baseline had accommodated more of my relationship desires to begin with, I wouldn't have felt the need to try to make that distinction in the first place. It's also possible, though, that I'd simply have tried to make the same kind of distinction according to different criteria. :P

(Also, I'm amused by the fact that my "potato" joke is catching on. :lol:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Notte stellata

But in that kind of culture, where I'd be constantly emotionally and affectionally/sensually "fed" - I'm pretty sure limerence would never happen to me, so all my relationships with women could truly be equal "affectionate friendships", with no qualitative emotional distinction between them. A quantitative difference for sure - such as a best friend versus a casual friend kinda thing - but not qualitatively different. In which case someone being a "partner" would become a totally externalised pragmatic decision based on life goals and stuff, completely separate to any kind of particular unique emotional state.

That's an interesting point. But I guess it still depends on the person. For me, even if affectionate friendship was normal, I probably still wouldn't have it with lots of people. Or, if cuddling with friends was really as common as chatting with friends, then I'd also have a lot more affectionate friendships, but meanwhile, "affectionate friendship" wouldn't mean as much as it does for me now. So in any case, there's got to be some relationships that are most fulfilling, and such relationships are rare. Though, whether these relationships would be quantitatively or qualitatively different from others is another matter, which is hard for me to tell.

Hah, isn't it funny that we're so caught up with this totally hypothetical alternate universe? :D

Anyway, I thought of another topic: How "out" do you want to be about being RA and/or having non-traditional relationships? If you have only one (primary) partner, would you pass as monogamous? If you only have affectionate friendships / non-primary relationships, would you pass as single or casually dating? Would you be out to your family? friends? co-workers? Or only potential partners / affectionate friends?

Personally, I'm not very "out" at this moment. I'm pretty sure 99% of the people I know IRL assume I'm monogamous, if the rest 1% who know haven't told anyone else. But I've been thinking about this from time to time, especially after reading this post from Solo Poly. On one hand, I'd like to contribute to poly/RA visibility, just like I'd like to work for asexual visibility; on the other hand, I'm a private person who doesn't feel like disclosing too much personal information to others, especially people not close to me (who are the vast majority). But one thing I've decided is if/when I'm with an affectionate friend / non-primary partner in public, I don't want to withhold physical affection to pretend we're "just friends" by the normal standard (although we may call each other "friend" if we both agree on that :P).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train

When I find myself in the position of having unconventional relationships IRL, I plan on acting completely oblivious to the societal questioning. Literally just saying exactly what we are ("affectionate friends", "cuddle buddies", whatever we agree we are). Not explaining or justifying myself too much. People can Google it if they want and make up their own mind. But mostly I like the idea of messing with heads. "What? No! We're not having sex! Yeah we stay over and sleep in the same bed, but we're just cuddle buddies!!" hahaha!

But yeah, I'm also an introvert and fairly quiet and private in my RL world. Unlike the oversharing I do here, I don't really disclose too much to RL friends and family. But that said, I wouldn't care too much if I was suddenly "outed". I don't think anything I want to do is actually particularly controversial in my circles anyway. If anything, to most people it would probably look kinda cute and naive. :lol:

As for eventually finding myself in something that can basically pass for a "normal" primary relationship - I donno. I guess I might find it easiest to just pretend like it's pretty normal and standard and basically as good as monogamous. In many ways it probably would be pretty normal anyway. But I wouldn't want to pretend like I'm totally normal. eg. Even in a relationship, I wouldn't want to have to keep hands-off in public completely with any cuddle buddies or others like that whom are in my life. This is where acting oblivious and messing with heads comes in again - as well as being a living example of unconventional relationships, hehe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A Taste of Harmony

*wave*

I just waned to say you guys are amazing at writing loooong post. :o

And thank you thank you for all your posts, I feel less suffocated. :wub:

Sorry to post this silly but yummy sweet potato chips among your thoughtful conversations

but you guys are all so cool! :P

sweet-potato-fries-a.jpg?ea6e46

Have some!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, I thought of another topic: How "out" do you want to be about being RA and/or having non-traditional relationships? If you have only one (primary) partner, would you pass as monogamous? If you only have affectionate friendships / non-primary relationships, would you pass as single or casually dating? Would you be out to your family? friends? co-workers? Or only potential partners / affectionate friends?

I'd prefer that pretty much everyone I interact with daily should know. It feels uncomfortable to keep something like this a secret.

Link to post
Share on other sites
byanyotherusername

But in that kind of culture, where I'd be constantly emotionally and affectionally/sensually "fed" - I'm pretty sure limerence would never happen to me, so all my relationships with women could truly be equal "affectionate friendships", with no qualitative emotional distinction between them. A quantitative difference for sure - such as a best friend versus a casual friend kinda thing - but not qualitatively different. In which case someone being a "partner" would become a totally externalised pragmatic decision based on life goals and stuff, completely separate to any kind of particular unique emotional state.

That's an interesting point. But I guess it still depends on the person. For me, even if affectionate friendship was normal, I probably still wouldn't have it with lots of people. Or, if cuddling with friends was really as common as chatting with friends, then I'd also have a lot more affectionate friendships, but meanwhile, "affectionate friendship" wouldn't mean as much as it does for me now. So in any case, there's got to be some relationships that are most fulfilling, and such relationships are rare. Though, whether these relationships would be quantitatively or qualitatively different from others is another matter, which is hard for me to tell.

Hah, isn't it funny that we're so caught up with this totally hypothetical alternate universe? :D

See, I don't see it as a completely hypothetical universe because I have been immersed in sub-cultures where cuddle buddy type relationships are totally normal...So, for me it's weird to think of people not having a reference point of knowing what it's like to live in a community where touch won't be misinterpreted (usually). Yeah, these groups were still influenced by larger cultural beliefs, and this often affected how they prioritized their relationships, but for the most part affectionate friendships were accepted and valued.

I can't help anyone decide whether, all things being equal, the emotional connections they make with certain types of people are different on a qualitative level, or simply a quantitative one. I, personally, have been friends with shameless cuddle sluts, as well as those who avoided affectionate touch from everything to religious/philosophical reasons, to simply being naturally touch-averse even if they were philosophically "touch-positive", and I don't feel any kind of qualitative difference between the affection I feel in relationships where I express that affection physically and relationships where I don't--with the possible exception of a sense of loss that comes when formerly physically affectionate relationships can no longer include certain types of touch, perhaps because it made an SO uncomfortable, or for some other reason. I don't desire emotionally or physically affectionate relationships with certain types of individuals over others, and have grown to have close, loving relationships with people of all types. I don't have levels of love/affection/attraction that are somehow quantitatively similar/equal, but qualitatively different (e.g. one is "romantic" and one is "platonic", or one is "platonic" and one is "familial," etc.). For what it's worth, this was also true before I had really been exposed to cuddly/alternative relationships outside of my family. There was no stage of "temporary craziness" that could be mistaken for romantic feelings, induced by having only "traditional" platonic relationships. Even though I had vague sense at times that I wanted to be more emotionally/physically intimate with certain people, it always felt platonic to me, even though at this stage I was actively trying to notice/cultivate romantic interests in order to be more "normal".

Anyway, I thought of another topic: How "out" do you want to be about being RA and/or having non-traditional relationships? If you have only one (primary) partner, would you pass as monogamous? If you only have affectionate friendships / non-primary relationships, would you pass as single or casually dating? Would you be out to your family? friends? co-workers? Or only potential partners / affectionate friends?

Personally, I'm not very "out" at this moment. I'm pretty sure 99% of the people I know IRL assume I'm monogamous, if the rest 1% who know haven't told anyone else. But I've been thinking about this from time to time, especially after reading this post from Solo Poly. On one hand, I'd like to contribute to poly/RA visibility, just like I'd like to work for asexual visibility; on the other hand, I'm a private person who doesn't feel like disclosing too much personal information to others, especially people not close to me (who are the vast majority). But one thing I've decided is if/when I'm with an affectionate friend / non-primary partner in public, I don't want to withhold physical affection to pretend we're "just friends" by the normal standard (although we may call each other "friend" if we both agree on that :P).

Interesting post. See, I don't identify as RA/poly, or see myself as having nontraditional relationships. Maybe, in a way, this is a result of "relationship privilege," because I don't see nontraditional friendships as worth classifying as "nontraditional relationships." I also don't see my friendships as that nontraditional, but I guess I've had so many different types of friendships that I never really thought of one kind as the "traditional"--I always saw friendship as not having nearly as many "rules" as romantic relationships, in general, and largely free from social scrutiny unless you really bent the definition (such as FWB arrangements). I know now that that was a little naive, but not completely, I do think friendships can "get away" with more than romantic relationships--few friends expect you to be "exclusive" and not become friends with anyone else, no one frowns upon "casual" friendship, etc. Still, the lack of social scrutiny comes at the price of a lack of perceived social importance.

I don't know, I don't think it would be really helpful for me to give myself a label in regards to my relationship philosophy. That being said, I do talk about it a lot. I'm certainly open about being a cuddle slut, and often get into philosophical discussions about the ways different relationships are defined and valued, how much of it is a result of personal choice and how much is shaped by cultural expectation, etc. I do find it interesting to ponder how I would navigate a situation where what I want out of an affectionate friendship was compatible with what someone else wanted out of a nontraditional romantic relationship. What would we call each other, what would the parameters be, and how many of the details would we divulge to others? I don't know. But we'd certainly discuss it at length before committing to anything. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway, I thought of another topic: How "out" do you want to be about being RA and/or having non-traditional relationships? If you have only one (primary) partner, would you pass as monogamous? If you only have affectionate friendships / non-primary relationships, would you pass as single or casually dating? Would you be out to your family? friends? co-workers? Or only potential partners / affectionate friends?

Yeah, that Solo Poly post got me thinking as well. I guess I'll briefly describe my current situation with regards to "outness" and how it could change in the future.

The question about whether I'm out is actually kind of complicated for me to answer, since I'm currently at varying levels of outness about different things. This creates something I sometimes call the "interlocking closets" situation. Here's a quick overview, in order from least closeted to most closeted:

  • General lack of interest in riding the relationship escalator: I'm very open about this, and I don't shy away from telling people bluntly that I don't want to "date" in the conventional sense, get married, or have children.
  • Asexuality: I'm fairly open about being asexual - most of my friends and some of my family know that I identify as asexual. I don't try to hide my lack of interest in sex in general. I'm not super blatant about it, but I'll mention it if it comes up naturally in conversation.
  • Interest in intimate relationships: I've discussed this somewhat with a handful of the people who know about my asexuality. A few people know that I'm interested in having a nonsexual intimate relationship, and I have alluded to being fine with a sexually open relationship a couple times.
  • Being poly/RA: I have mentioned this in a straightforward way to exactly one person, so I'm almost completely in the closet about this (excluding when I'm on AVEN, of course ;)).

I feel like it'd be easier for me if I were poly/RA or asexual, but since I'm both, things get tricky. Being openly asexual already comes with its own challenges - I'm sure most of us here know that there are a lot of misconceptions about asexuality floating around, all of which take time and patience to explain and correct.The same (probably) goes for polyamory. As for relationship anarchy... well, I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of people haven't even heard of RA. I'm also concerned that people won't take me seriously if I mention that I'm poly in addition to being asexual, because some of the popular myths about the two are in direct contradiction (e.g. "asexual people don't want to be in relationships" and "polyamory is all about the sex").

In any case, for the time being, I'm mostly in the closet about being poly/RA, so I probably just seem like a single person disinterested in intimate relationships. I'm usually okay with this, although lately I've been wondering if it wouldn't hurt to bring it up to a couple other people I know, to "test the waters," so to speak. I'd like to be more open about it, and that Solo Poly post really drove it home for me that the lack of visibility problem is self-perpetuating as long as people stay in the closet because of it. On the other hand, I understand the concern about privacy as well - I don't know how comfortable I'd feel discussing it with people I don't know very well. Even if I were more open about it, I might only be out to friends/family.

If I did have one or more unconventional relationships (affectionate/non-primary), I don't think I'd be flamboyant about it, but I doubt I'd intentionally try to hide it either. I think in most cases, I'd be relatively nonchalant about it like KST (I like the idea of messing with heads too) and I agree with starrynight about not pretending to be normal. With certain close friends/family, though, I might give a more in-depth explanation, primarily because I'd be more likely to have a serious conversation about my relationship(s) with such people, so it'd be good for them to have the basic background story first. Plus, people who are pretty close to me are less likely to immediately toss me in the loony bin upon hearing my crazy ideas. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
Notte stellata

Interesting post. See, I don't identify as RA/poly, or see myself as having nontraditional relationships. Maybe, in a way, this is a result of "relationship privilege," because I don't see nontraditional friendships as worth classifying as "nontraditional relationships." I also don't see my friendships as that nontraditional, but I guess I've had so many different types of friendships that I never really thought of one kind as the "traditional"--I always saw friendship as not having nearly as many "rules" as romantic relationships, in general, and largely free from social scrutiny unless you really bent the definition (such as FWB arrangements). I know now that that was a little naive, but not completely, I do think friendships can "get away" with more than romantic relationships--few friends expect you to be "exclusive" and not become friends with anyone else, no one frowns upon "casual" friendship, etc. Still, the lack of social scrutiny comes at the price of a lack of perceived social importance.

Yeah, that's very true. Friendship has more leeway in what it's "supposed" to look like, but that's because it's perceived as less important than romantic relationships. If you only have affectionate friendships but not a romantic partner, you probably won't get many weird looks. But if you had an "official" partner, and someone who knew both of you saw you holding hands with an affectionate friend, they'd probably assume you're cheating. I don't know if it's better in the theater sub-culture though.

I feel like it'd be easier for me if I were poly/RA or asexual, but since I'm both, things get tricky. Being openly asexual already comes with its own challenges - I'm sure most of us here know that there are a lot of misconceptions about asexuality floating around, all of which take time and patience to explain and correct.The same (probably) goes for polyamory. As for relationship anarchy... well, I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of people haven't even heard of RA. I'm also concerned that people won't take me seriously if I mention that I'm poly in addition to being asexual, because some of the popular myths about the two are in direct contradiction (e.g. "asexual people don't want to be in relationships" and "polyamory is all about the sex").

Yeah, coming out as either poly/RA or asexual alone would probably require a lot of explanation, not to mention both at the same time. :twisted: I've come out as both poly and ace to two friends, not both things at once though. One of them understood both pretty well; the other understood poly more than asexuality (he once asked me: "If you don't want sex, what are you looking for on OkCupid?"). But with the vast majority of people I know, I'm not out as either (I've come out as ace at asexual lectures, but I didn't personally know 99% of the audience).

I suppose it's easier to come out as asexual, because it's much less morally charged than nontraditional relationships. Regarding nontraditional relationships, I plan to just come out as poly most of the time. Poly already fits me pretty well, and RA would be too abstract and mind-blowing for most people. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train

If you only have affectionate friendships but not a romantic partner, you probably won't get many weird looks.

I'm lucky in one respect when it comes to this: this is the situation I'll first be showing up publicly in. Whoever I meet in the future will have to start out as a friend first - leading to affectionate friendship, etc. There's no way I'd accept traditional "dating" again, and do anything like jump straight into a "romantic relationship" with anyone. So it's basically a given that my next RL "relationship" of any sort will be started from the bottom up as an affectionate friendship first.

This is actually why I've re-created an online dating profile. At first I felt like I "failed" - because I said very publicly here that I wasn't going to do it again - but now I'm coming from such a different mindset that it might as well be a completely other "thing" I'm doing. Basically focusing only on finding cuddle buddies, or possibly poly people who can deal with my specific acey RA type issues. It's awesomely liberating when you've finally decided on what you want and refuse to compromise. :twisted:

So yeah, chances are that at some point eventually I'll introduce the concept of cuddle buddies / affectionate friends to my RL circle. Just naturally - by virtue of having such a relationship/s for a while IRL. Definitely easier than adding them on to an "attached" lifestyle, but then again, the head messing is far less controversial this way. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
passionatefriend61

1. I do my best to be as out as I can be, both as an asexual and as a relationship anarchist. I haven't been using the term "relationship anarchist" for very long--maybe a year or so--but I've always been open, to some degree, about my desire for unconventional relationships, whether it was romantic friendship or a nonromantic life partner or more than one cohabiting life partner. I feel being aggressively out as an asexual is important both for visibility/education purposes and for my own sense of self-love, self-empowerment, self-respect, etc. And the more I think about it, the more I feel it's important for me to be very open and explicit about my relationship philosophy/desires in the long-term because a) I want to change the world into a more poly-friendly/RA-friendly place and b) I have no hope of getting the relationships I want unless I'm open about what I want all the time, even and especially before an actual emotional attachment happens (because if someone else gets attached to me or if I develop feelings for someone, and it turns out that they're way too traditional/conventional/a relationship hierachist, then it spells heartbreak and time wasted).

When I have my two life partners, I intend to be very, very open with everyone we know about the fact that we're celibate asexuals and that I'm an RA/our relationships are open. I like feeling proud of myself as a celibate ace and radical RA and I want to be proud of my partners and our relationships too. I hope they feel the same way, at least enough to be cool with us being out to who we know.

2. Ya'll's discussion about the hypothetical universe where affectionate friendships are the norm was interesting and just brings me back to the fact that I don't distinguish between "romantic" and "nonromantic" love anymore or "romantic" vs. "nonromantic" loving relationships, in my imagined ideal social life. And I feel like deep down, that's where I've always been because since childhood, I've wanted the same things or most of the same things from every person I loved, even when I loved more than one at once, and even when I was still classifying one kind of relationship desire as "romantic" and the rest as "friendships".

Sensual touch is simply an indication and method of communication of love, in my book. So anyone I truly love, I want some level of touch with that goes beyond basic hugs, and I'm open to exploring the full spectrum of sensual/non-genital affection with any and every person I feel real love for. I'm pretty sure I always have been. If I could snap my fingers and do all of my intimate, loving relationships how I want, they'd look identical except for the two that include cohabitation.

So basically, the way I feel and view my love and relationships is actually just the way I would if I was living in that hypothetical universe where pretty much anything goes in nonsexual, emotional bonds. And my feelings may confirm what you guys have sort concluded: that monogamy/polyamory becomes irrelevant in that scenario because if "romance" doesn't exist as a rigid, clear category of relationships and behavior, then monogamy becomes impossible the way it exists in this world we're living in. And like one of you said, sex can also happen in any kind of relationship in such a world, which is always the way I've seen relationship anarchy anyway: sex is not innately romantic, friendship is not innately nonsexual, anything goes, so "romantic" behaviors can happen in any relationship, sex can happen in any relationship, all those practical life-sharing partner things can happen in any kind of relationship (regardless of whether it's one with sex or "romantic" type behaviors/feelings), etc. I really do see the ultimate RA as a complete blank slate. Obviously, for a celibate ace, sex isn't part of the picture, but in every other way, all the stuff that can happen in emotionally substantial connections can happen equally in any of mine.

starrynight, I don't know if your suggestion that having a bunch of "affectionate" friendships but no romantic partner wouldn't raise eyebrows in romantic-sexual society..... I feel like I were totally upfront about my relationships, in a scenario where they're exactly what I want them to be, every outsider around would think: "Damn, that is some weird shit."

But I guess that's because in my book, it isn't just basic, non-sensual affection that makes a friendship something more than common/ordinary. My idea of a passionate or romantic friendship is..... passionate or romantic! (And I use those terms, obviously, only to mean "highly emotional" or emotionally intense or intimate.) I can't think of a single person I've ever met in my life who would be unfazed by the concept of having super intimate, super sensual, super emotionally passionate relationships--all of them nonsexual--and none of them conforming to the mainstream mold of "Romantic Relationship," ever.

It's the pairing of very free, sensual touching + passionate emotion/love, in the context of a nonsexual, nonmonogamous, unidentified relationship that's bound to set off all the alarms in a romantic-sexual hierarchist's head. And if you got more than one of those? The world can't compute.

The world may be able to compute a friendship where there's a bit of cuddling and hugs, with an average level of emotion for common friends. (But there are plenty of sexual people who actually wouldn't be able to get that at all and would immediately think: they're fucking! They're in love! And they're in denial about it!) But that's not all I'm after, in my own life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train

starrynight, I don't know if your suggestion that having a bunch of "affectionate" friendships but no romantic partner wouldn't raise eyebrows in romantic-sexual society..... I feel like I were totally upfront about my relationships, in a scenario where they're exactly what I want them to be, every outsider around would think: "Damn, that is some weird shit."

I don't know. Sometimes I think a lot of this goes on but without people having a word for it. Some kind of deep friendship which is extremely touchy-feely and emotionally ambiguous, and people can just leave it at that. Not define it further or pick at it. They just know that they're not suitable to be "proper" romantic-sexual life partners, are totally balanced in how they see their friendship as affectionate but otherwise strictly "just friends" by overall mainstream standards, so there's no stress.

Just this morning when I was surfing my latest OkCupid matches, I noticed a girl who lives with a bunch of housemates, who she says are "like family". And in a few pics she is posing with them (a guy in one, a girl in another), arms around each other in a way which totally looks "couple-like", by usual standards. I initially totally thought they were pics with her ex-partners, until I read the profile.

Maybe the trick is to just be oblivious I suppose? If you act like a certain kind of setup is perfectly normal, and you give off a vibe like that's just how it is with your and your friends' lives *shrug* - you'll really come across as believable. But if you give off a vibe like you're trying to justify yourself and are nervous about being unconventional, then people take notice and react. When I think about it, I've definitely known people like that, who have these close friendships which could probably be defined as affectionate friendships by our standards here. But since they never really thought about it, and their outward vibe is so comfortable with the situation, few people really question it when they see it.

Or not. I donno. I could be overthinking it in the opposite direction now. :D

(And yeah, while writing this I realised - they're still looking for a "normal" monogamous life partner, who will probably "replace" these friendships to some degree down the track. If not completely, at least nominally, and in terms of living together and such)

Link to post
Share on other sites

starrynight, I don't know if your suggestion that having a bunch of "affectionate" friendships but no romantic partner wouldn't raise eyebrows in romantic-sexual society..... I feel like I were totally upfront about my relationships, in a scenario where they're exactly what I want them to be, every outsider around would think: "Damn, that is some weird shit."

[...]

Maybe the trick is to just be oblivious I suppose? If you act like a certain kind of setup is perfectly normal, and you give off a vibe like that's just how it is with your and your friends' lives *shrug* - you'll really come across as believable. But if you give off a vibe like you're trying to justify yourself and are nervous about being unconventional, then people take notice and react. When I think about it, I've definitely known people like that, who have these close friendships which could probably be defined as affectionate friendships by our standards here. But since they never really thought about it, and their outward vibe is so comfortable with the situation, few people really question it when they see it.

Extrapolating from my experiences being somewhat open about other unconventional opinions and identities, I would imagine it can go either way, depending on whom you're talking to. I've tried nonchalantly mentioning my disinterest in sex or my disinterest in wanting a primary life partner in different situations, and responses have varied quite a bit. Sometimes people don't noticeably react at all and go along with it like it's no big deal. Other times, people get curious and ask a few questions, then feel comfortable with it after a brief explanation. Another common response: the initial double take, followed by glossing over (e.g. "you'll meet the right person someday").

Then, there are times when another person reacts strongly and immediately to something I've said offhandedly, as if they can't believe that I'm not interested in having sex or that I'm content with being a "failure" by never getting married, "starting a family," etc. Thus, I've learned that I even have to be careful about just dropping something casually in conversation, since I can never be completely sure how the other person is going to react. Moreover, I don't want to fall into the trap of being caught off guard and getting defensive about something I shouldn't have to get defensive about.

It's like there's this expectation that if someone is too "different" from the norm, they're supposed to justify themselves; meanwhile, everyone else gets a free pass. Recently, it came up in another thread that nobody ever seems to ask people why they're monogamous, despite the fact that openly poly people get asked about why they're not monogamous all the time. I think that's a shame. For one thing, we can all stand to benefit from critically examining ourselves, our philosophies, and perspectives different from our own, regardless of how (un)conventional our inclinations are. Also, I should be able to have confidence that I can have normal conversations about this stuff - conversations that won't devolve into the other person questioning me and perhaps deciding for themselves that I'm somehow mistaken about my own wishes. Why? Because that's what almost everyone else gets to do! I don't go into a huge rant about social conditioning and relationships every time someone casually mentions their romantic partner (even though I totally could), so it'd be nice if everyone returned that courtesy. :P

Thus, in my experience, the strategy of treating it normally doesn't always keep people you're talking to from not following suit. Whenever another person starts making it into a big deal, I find it's best when I manage to remain relatively blasé about it. Admittedly, that's sometimes easier said than done (personally speaking). Perhaps I should limit mentioning these things to when I'm in a relatively playful mood, just so I can play it off better. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Notte stellata

But I guess that's because in my book, it isn't just basic, non-sensual affection that makes a friendship something more than common/ordinary. My idea of a passionate or romantic friendship is..... passionate or romantic! (And I use those terms, obviously, only to mean "highly emotional" or emotionally intense or intimate.) I can't think of a single person I've ever met in my life who would be unfazed by the concept of having super intimate, super sensual, super emotionally passionate relationships--all of them nonsexual--and none of them conforming to the mainstream mold of "Romantic Relationship," ever.

And yeah, while writing this I realised - they're still looking for a "normal" monogamous life partner, who will probably "replace" these friendships to some degree down the track. If not completely, at least nominally, and in terms of living together and such.

Yeah, I think this is the key - whether the "affectionate friendship" is just a common friendship with some touchy-feely elements, or it's both physically and emotionally intimate, no less intimate than the common romantic relationships. Also, whether the affectionate friendship is intended to last as long as possible regardless of either party's other relationships, or expected to be replaced by a romantic relationship with an "official" partner.

I guess it also depends on how touchy-feely someone is in general. Like, if someone is always comfortable with casual physical contact between friends, other people likely won't see it as a big deal, because they know this person is just more touchy-feely than average, and it doesn't change the fact that their friends are still "just friends". I suppose we all know some people like this. So I agree with aceofhearts - what's unconventional about the kind of affectionate/passionate/romantic friendship we talk about isn't only the physical contact on the surface.

Then, there are times when another person reacts strongly and immediately to something I've said offhandedly, as if they can't believe that I'm not interested in having sex or that I'm content with being a "failure" by never getting married, "starting a family," etc. Thus, I've learned that I even have to be careful about just dropping something casually in conversation, since I can never be completely sure how the other person is going to react. Moreover, I don't want to fall into the trap of being caught off guard and getting defensive about something I shouldn't have to get defensive about.

It's like there's this expectation that if someone is too "different" from the norm, they're supposed to justify themselves; meanwhile, everyone else gets a free pass.[...]

So much this. Not wanting to get defensive is a big reason I'm hesitant to come out, and the reason I'm very selective about whom to come out to. But sometimes I failed to anticipate how a given person would react, and this goes both ways. I thought my mom would understand poly, but it turned out she firmly believed "you can only love one person at a time" (luckily, after some futile persuasion at first, she hasn't brought this up in a long time). On the other hand, recently I was accidentally "outed" to a friend who is quite conservative, because she happened to see my husband's online dating profile. To my surprise, she said she respects our choice to be poly, and didn't question us at all (maybe she's also uncomfortable to talk about such things herself, but her reaction was mildly positive at least).

Another thing about the closet I forgot to mention before: A problem many poly people face is "should I take my non-primary partner to my family gathering/office party/friend's wedding/etc?" I have a feeling that this is less of an issue for most of us here, who are highly introverted and independent and don't care much about the traditional symbols of couplehood. At least for me, I couldn't care less about meeting a romantic friend (or even a primary partner)'s family or attending their office party. I'd rather avoid such occasions altogether. :D Likewise, someone compatible with me is likely to be an introvert who dislikes formal socialization too. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train

Another thing about the closet I forgot to mention before: A problem many poly people face is "should I take my non-primary partner to my family gathering/office party/friend's wedding/etc?" I have a feeling that this is less of an issue for most of us here, who are highly introverted and independent and don't care much about the traditional symbols of couplehood. At least for me, I couldn't care less about meeting a romantic friend (or even a primary partner)'s family or attending their office party. I'd rather avoid such occasions altogether. :D Likewise, someone compatible with me is likely to be an introvert who dislikes formal socialization too. :P

So, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so much THIS!!!! :D

Back when I was in a serious monogamous relationship in my mid/late 20s, this was probably the aspect which annoyed me more than anything. This expectation of Near Absolute Involvement in the other's social life. I know that not everyone expects this to exactly the same degree, but it's definitely overall an expected factor in most mainstream romantic relationships. I never understood that whole "obligation-driven" mentality, when it comes to having to be there and tag along to certain things (almost all things really). Especially mind-numbing family gatherings.

Mind you, some of this isn't even an RA/poly versus mono thing. It's more of a general independence thing. It's possible to be extremely independent, including living a LAT relationship and hardly ever going to each others' social things, and yet be committed to monogamy. So this is a bit of a crossover of a couple of different things - which are both unconventional but don't necessarily have to be connected. And being a highly independently-living couple isn't even super strange these days, in some circles.

Still, this is why I've often said that I'm a natural-born Nonprimary Partner. In that practical social-life-sharing sense, I really don't mind being relegated to pretty much having "boundaries" set on me which are almost as "uninvolved" as having a close vanilla friendship (at least when it comes to outward social presentation). Of course, the less rigidly prescriptive restrictions the better, and as I said before I prefer messing with heads, but what I mean is - I don't mind "missing out" on a lot of that stuff because most of it is unnecessary to me in the first place. If it's a situation where I have to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing about the closet I forgot to mention before: A problem many poly people face is "should I take my non-primary partner to my family gathering/office party/friend's wedding/etc?" I have a feeling that this is less of an issue for most of us here, who are highly introverted and independent and don't care much about the traditional symbols of couplehood. At least for me, I couldn't care less about meeting a romantic friend (or even a primary partner)'s family or attending their office party. I'd rather avoid such occasions altogether. :D Likewise, someone compatible with me is likely to be an introvert who dislikes formal socialization too. :P

Honestly, this is one tradition that I strongly dislike. I don't see the need to bring partners to family occasions, office parties, or anything that it isn't customary to bring a close friend to. Now, I don't think that partners and family shouldn't mix, but just not in huge family gatherings; it's like, a partner hanging out at the house and meeting the parents is one thing, but going to a great-aunt's eightieth birthday party is something else. I just don't get it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing about the closet I forgot to mention before: A problem many poly people face is "should I take my non-primary partner to my family gathering/office party/friend's wedding/etc?" I have a feeling that this is less of an issue for most of us here, who are highly introverted and independent and don't care much about the traditional symbols of couplehood. At least for me, I couldn't care less about meeting a romantic friend (or even a primary partner)'s family or attending their office party. I'd rather avoid such occasions altogether. :D Likewise, someone compatible with me is likely to be an introvert who dislikes formal socialization too. :P

So, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so much THIS!!!! :D

Back when I was in a serious monogamous relationship in my mid/late 20s, this was probably the aspect which annoyed me more than anything. This expectation of Near Absolute Involvement in the other's social life. I know that not everyone expects this to exactly the same degree, but it's definitely overall an expected factor in most mainstream romantic relationships. I never understood that whole "obligation-driven" mentality, when it comes to having to be there and tag along to certain things (almost all things really). Especially mind-numbing family gatherings.

Mind you, some of this isn't even an RA/poly versus mono thing. It's more of a general independence thing. It's possible to be extremely independent, including living a

LAT relationship and hardly ever going to each others' social things, and yet be committed to monogamy. So this is a bit of a crossover of a couple of different things - which are both unconventional but don't necessarily have to be connected. And being a highly independently-living couple isn't even super strange these days, in some circles.

Have you folks been living in my head again, hm? :D

Still, this is why I've often said that I'm a natural-born Nonprimary Partner. In that practical social-life-sharing sense, I really don't mind being relegated to pretty much having "boundaries" set on me which are almost as "uninvolved" as having a close vanilla friendship (at least when it comes to outward social presentation). Of course, the less rigidly prescriptive restrictions the better, and as I said before I prefer messing with heads, but what I mean is - I don't mind "missing out" on a lot of that stuff because most of it is unnecessary to me in the first place. If it's a situation where I have to.

Much agreed. While there is a bit of an "emotionally primary" thing between R. and me1, I just can't see myself cut out to be a primary partner in the usual sense. LAT pretty much is a requirement for me, I think sharing living space together with someone would by now drive me up the wall no matter how much I love them... yes, I'm Sheldon. :lol: With visiting relatives and such, I'm just a "say hi to them from me" type of person, too.

1 Basically it just means, all else being completely equal, either of us is likely to chose to spend time with the other rather than with someone else... but I've said and meant it more than once that I'm happy to simply have a place in her life, I don't expect it to be the most important place, and I would actually have a big problem if it were the central place. We remain two independent individuals whose paths happily intertwine several times a week, but gawd no, we're not some kind of symbiotic four legged fused abomination (yes, looking at you, Plato's Symposion! :lol: )

Link to post
Share on other sites
Notte stellata

Mind you, some of this isn't even an RA/poly versus mono thing. It's more of a general independence thing. It's possible to be extremely independent, including living a LAT relationship and hardly ever going to each others' social things, and yet be committed to monogamy. So this is a bit of a crossover of a couple of different things - which are both unconventional but don't necessarily have to be connected. And being a highly independently-living couple isn't even super strange these days, in some circles.

Still, this is why I've often said that I'm a natural-born Nonprimary Partner. In that practical social-life-sharing sense, I really don't mind being relegated to pretty much having "boundaries" set on me which are almost as "uninvolved" as having a close vanilla friendship (at least when it comes to outward social presentation). Of course, the less rigidly prescriptive restrictions the better, and as I said before I prefer messing with heads, but what I mean is - I don't mind "missing out" on a lot of that stuff because most of it is unnecessary to me in the first place. If it's a situation where I have to.

Yeah, being poly/RA and being highly independent are separate things. Like you said, there are monogamous couples who live apart and have largely separate social lives; on the other hand, some poly people really like the high-involvement kind of relationships, living with all their partners, introducing all their partners to their family and friends, etc.

But when you're both (as most (if not all) of us here apparently are), it makes certain things much easier, like being happy in a non-primary, low-involvement, low-maintenance or even long-distance relationship. If someone is content enough to have an affectionate friendship where they spend time together once or twice a month, I can hardly imagine them insisting on attending their affectionate friend's grandmother's birthday party. :lol:

Have you folks been living in my head again, hm? :D

What took you so long to post in this thread? ;) But anyway it's great to see you chime in. :D
Link to post
Share on other sites

What took you so long to post in this thread? ;) But anyway it's great to see you chime in. :D

Too much stuff getting posted that I couldn't add anything but "I agree" to, and I felt that would just have been spamming. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...