Jump to content

Archived

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

Orbit

Relationship Definitions

Recommended Posts

Orbit

First off, by starting this thread I'm not suggesting we make this official or that everyone must fit somewhere and tell us where they are- it's not an attempt to box people up or say someone is more or less "A" than another...

It's just that I love the way FF thinks about these things and it helps me to understand because it's just my personality to analyze and catagorize.

Okay - I thought something FF has said in a few other threads was worthy of it's own thread - so we can talk about it further without hijacking the other thread and we can find it again easily... (since I can't find the first thread it was brought up in!)

...I believe I said something about there being two possible orientations, sexual and asexual. And that then there were sub-orientations, bi, gay, straight, pan. This can be sexual or romantic I'd guess, though more people would consider it both or sexual.

But I do question why it would be "sexual or asexual." Why not "romantic or aromantic"? Why is the sexual stuff first? Why not have totally different catagories of asexual, sexual, and romantic, aromantic, and then heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, pansexual or homoromantic, heteroromantic, etc? In that cause I'd be homoasexual romantic. Gets complicated, yes, but it does clarify things. Oops, ranting again.

It might complicate matters, but I also think it helps to clarify things as well when trying to undersand.

There are even other classifications that could be more descriptive to what someone feels and what kind of relationships they enter. Mono-poly. I am able to feel romantically drawn to (crush on) many people at one time... Where as I believe some people may only be able to feel romantic feelings to one person at a time. I'm not sure about the sexual side of it though - it seems like most sexuals feel polyattraction.

This is of course different than the kind of relationships you choose to commit to - and it doesn't mean that all the polyromantic feelings are equal. So that would be yet another classification.

Here's what we have so far...

****************

sexual/ asexual - sexual attraction

romantic/ aromantic - romantic attraction

heterosexual/bisexual/homosexual/pansexual - gender sexual orientation

heteroromantic/biromantic/homoromantic/panromantic - gender romantic orientation

monoamorous/polyamorous/panamorous - feelings for one or more

monogamous/polygamous/panagamous - committed to one or more

********************

That being what it is... I would be:

asexual monogamous, biromantic polyamorous.

And yeah, I know this is getting ridiculous, but it's fun in some sort of twisted way. *heheh*

hawke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
slatterly

It's like our own personal Dragon Code!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orbit

*L*

I've actually just been thinking and it might need some tweeking - obviously not everyone is going to be in a relationship, or want to have a relationship - which for some, that is how they define their asexuality more than not experiencing sexual attraction - it's not wanting to do anything about the sexual attraction...

So... I need to think about this some more.

hawke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teela
****************

sexual/ asexual - sexual attraction

romantic/ aromantic - romantic attraction

heterosexual/bisexual/homosexual/pansexual - gender sexual orientation

heteroromantic/biromantic/homoromantic/panromantic - gender romantic orientation

monoamorous/polyamorous/panamorous - feelings for one or more

monogamous/polygamous/panagamous - committed to one or more

********************

What would pansexual and panamorous be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orbit

I THINK pansexual would include sexual fetishes and/or multiple partners and experimentation.

And panamorous would be... romantic fetishes? hmm.... I guess like when some guy is in love with his car?

hawke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teela

Hahaha I just thought of a Queen song!

Erm, ok then, I'd be...

Asexual heteroromantic monoamorous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amcan

Like the list Hawke.

As someone who hasn't been ina relationship nad isn't likely to be dunno where I'd fit....I'm not actually aromantic as such...sorry to confuse you all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
slatterly
Pansexual, omnisexual, and pomosexual (postmodern sexuality) are substitute terms that rather than referring to both or "bi" gender attraction, refer to all or "omni" gender attraction, and are used mainly by those who wish to express acceptance of all gender possibilities including transgender and intersex people, not just two. Pansexuality sometimes includes an attraction for less mainstream sexual activities, such as BDSM.

BDSM and fetishes have something to do with it, but it's also a lot about gender values.

(Sorry, I just get annoyed when people decide stuff like bi and pan is all about how many ways you can have sex. Orientation always has to do with gender, primarily; activities are just kind of a personal preference thing.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orbit

Teela, *hehe*

Amcan, Thanks... it's a work in progress and I cant' wait until FF shows up to help me out. ;) Perhaps we can put in something for folks like yourself?

Agnosexual

Agnoromantic

ari_meir, Did I annoy you? :( That's why I said I "THINK" - I honestly don't know how other people define it... I was going with FF definitions and there is both bi and pan in there - I really had no idea the 'official' definition makes them interchangable.

If you're saying 'pan' is not appropriate, I'm not sure then what word to use when someone is oriented only towards 'things' rather than people...

Perhaps it is another additional level.

afetish/fetish?

Not sure I like that, but there has to be someway to communicate it rather than just lumping them in with people who are oriented towards other people.

Oh - which brings us to, what about people who are sexually oriented towards themselves? :?

narcissist already exists for romantic love.

narcisexual?

hawke <- a run away train

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ghosts
monoamorous/polyamorous/panamorous - feelings for one or more

monogamous/polygamous/panagamous - committed to one or more

I'm confused as to what the difference between these are...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dargon

I too am a bit confused. using hawke's description of self as the model, I fail to understand the placement and significance of the -gamous and -morous words. I am certan a great deal of my confusion stems from the fact that romantic attraction is almost non-existant in me. I have generally found the -sexual -romantic description to be sufficient, but as I seldom feel attraction, I was unaware of the significance of number of people once can feel attracted to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
slatterly

Hawke - naah, it's fine. Just wanted to clear it up. (And I didn't mean 'bi' and 'pan' were interchangeable, I meant that some people take both to mean 'variety of sexual activities'. Pan is all about recognizing more than two gender identities, which is different than bi, which recognizes just the main two. By all means, keept it there, it's a great word.)

I think what we're covering here has to do with genders and orientations, rather than fetishes, which I see as something a bit seperate; fetishes might be a side note? (like, you might say 'agnosexual with ____ fetish' or 'aromantic with interest in BDSM')

I really like 'agno-'. That's what I am - "agno-homoromantic asexual". Sounds awesome.

As for -amorous/-gamous, I think that 'gamous' indicates a desire to actually settle down and have a commitment with the number of people, which could be removed from a simple desire to be in a relationship with a number of people. But I think it's the prefixes that are more important, there, and the person can use '-amorous' or '-gamous' according to personal preference (i.e. which one sounds better?)

(I am a little curious to 'panamorous/gamous', though; if 'monoamorous' means 'two-person relationship' and 'polyamorous' means 'many-person relationship', what does 'panamorous' mean?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orbit

Sorry! I can see how it would be confusing. I'm confusing myself actually. The way I defined it might not actually work as I meant....

Perhaps the poly/mono should go infront of the romantic/sexual... and the 'amorous/agomy' would just describe what kind of relationship it is.

agamous - describes relationships which are committed

amorous - describes relationships which are not committed

Mono/Poly/Pan would go infront of the 'sexual' to further describe how the feelings come about.

An a-sexual is not attracted to anyone

A mono-sexual would only be sexually attracted to one person at a time.

A poly-sexual would be sexually attracted to many people at the same time.

A mono-heterosexual would only be sexually attracted to one member of the opposite sex at a time. (Probably does not happen often)

A mono - bisexual would only be sexually attracted to one other person - male or female at a time.

A poly- heterosexual would be sexually attracted to many members of the opposite sex at the same time...

You get the picture?

the -agamous would describe the kind of relationship expectations are on someone.

A poly-hetero sexual in a monagomous relationship is attracted to many members of the opposite sex, but has committed to a monagomous relationship with only ONE of them.

A mono-homo-sexual in a polyamourous relationship would only be attracted to one member of the same sex at a time, but the relationship is not committed.

Moving on... the combinations are endless...

****

Mono-romantic is someone who can only have one crush or be in love with one person at a time.

Poly- romantic is someone who can be in love with many people at the same time.

A poly-romantic in a monogamous relationship may feel romantic feelings for other people, but is committed to only one.

Here is my situation...

I am a poly-bi-romantic, a-heteral-sexual in a monogamous relationship with a mono-hetero-romantic, poly-heteral sexual.

I can fall in love with many people at the same time, men or women but I do not experience sexual attraction for anyone (except a couple men in my entire life) but I am committed sexually and romantically to my husband, who is sexually and romantically committed to only me and able to be in love with one woman at a time, even though he can feel sexually attracted to many at the same time.

I hope this didn't make things worse. :shock:

hawke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orbit

ari_meir, cross post... *hehehheheh*

thanks for clearing that up! :) This is all a work in progress... my brain hurts right now.

hawke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ghosts

How would you define "committment"? Do you not want committment from someone if you don't want to live with them? That doesn't make sense to me.

agamous - describes relationships which are committed

amorous - describes relationships which are not committed

Under these definitions, couldn't friendships be included in these, than? If not, so many people say that the difference between a bf/gf type of relationship and a friendship is that one has committment and one does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orbit

are you trying to make this more difficult than I already have??? ;) ;) ;)

J/K You're so right and bring up an excellent point! Friendships should have some commitment, but not all friendships do.

I usually distinguish between friends this way:

Close intimate friends - people I am mutually and deeply emotionally and time wise committed to being available to. Sometimes the commitment is spoken sometimes it's just understood. MOST of the time I need it tob e spoken, because I'm paranoid and insecure. :D These are my polyagamous friends. I do not have a monogamous friend (best friend) I have heard it said that it is difficult to have more than 3 close friends without feeling you are not investing enough in some or all of them - people have limited resources and spreading yourself too thin can mean all the relationships suffer.

Inner Circle of Friends - people I am mutually interested in on a more spuratic basis but we have not established a bond that would mean more committment than doing what we want to do. These are my polyamorous friends. I have heard it said that it is difficult to have more than 12 such friends without over extending

Friends - people I see on occassion but cannot keep up with enough to bring them into the inner circle. With more availabilty or time, they could be - it just hasn't worked out.

Aquaintences - people I know, recognize and that know and recognize me, but there is either no mutual interest or oppertunity to pursue it further than conversation.

Then there are the business aquaintences, family, pets, grocers etc... but it's getting out of hand here, donchathink? ;)

hawke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ghosts

Oh man... brain freeze! :lol: I'll need some more time to work this out. It's very interesting, especially since I don't normally hear people refer to friends as an "amorous" type of relationship. What does amorous mean? I always attributed that to romance, whatever that means, which may or may not be applied to friendships I guess, depending on your viewpoints.

God... I really do not mean to screw up all these relationship/romance threads, honest! Although I feel like I do. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orbit

my problem is unique maybe - and that's why I'm making it more difficult than it needs to be for most people.

I have very, very strong 'like/love' feelings for people I'm interested in. I call it romantic, but it might not be. I just don't know what else to call it. It's not sexual - I dont' want to kiss them passionately (maybe on the cheek) and I don't want to just stare into their eyes dreamily... BUT I do want to know them and learn aobut them and share things with them and exchange thoughts/ideas and if it comes to it affection. (asexual affection)

It feels like a crush to me - and I can have those feelings for several people - probably only 3 strong ones at a time...

Hmmm...

hawke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wild Seven
my problem is unique maybe - and that's why I'm making it more difficult than it needs to be for most people.

I have very, very strong 'like/love' feelings for people I'm interested in. I call it romantic, but it might not be. I just don't know what else to call it. It's not sexual - I dont' want to kiss them passionately (maybe on the cheek) and I don't want to just stare into their eyes dreamily... BUT I do want to know them and learn aobut them and share things with them and exchange thoughts/ideas and if it comes to it affection. (asexual affection)

It feels like a crush to me - and I can have those feelings for several people - probably only 3 strong ones at a time...

Hmmm...

hawke

Sorry to dissapoint you, but I take away your uniqueness- I have the same problem, or actually, it isnt a problem, just a difference.............This feeling is nice, enjoy it *smiles*.

It reminds me of my girlfriend, or, actually, she was my -ex but I never stopped to love her, so I still refer to her as gf that lies on the horizont of time......... She was polyamorous monogamous biromantic bisexual sexual (but I question it a bit; because from our talks it became clear that FROM TIME TO TIME she was able to be polygamous), in the contrast to me at the time:polyamorous polygamous biromantic pansexual asexual, however, I was coming through love to my mom in the erotic sense, but that *crush* went away after time, and I had generally really low sexual attraction - and you wouldnť believe that such a small difference (her monogamy, my polygamy; her sexuality, my asexuality) could make such an amount of problematic communication................ plus jealousy issues were so common, which I didn´t feel good, it made me feel like I am a bitch who is actually cheating HER and breaking her trust by falling in love with her other partners................

It was difficult, because she couldn't understand, she thought I had the same sexual intentions like she had and I hadn't terminology or languaging skills to let her know that I don't want her boys or girls for myself, that I want romance, relationship, but no physical contact with them altogether... Finding asexual is far more difficult than to find sexual, and even finding sexual is hard. We with my gf were very compatible, but in this very important area it just was problematic. Thanks to her I understood that in myself lies the capacity to be bisexual biromantic, that I never allowed myself to feel fully- and yet later I came to a conclusion that two genders aren't enough and that "why" I am looking with interest on TV guys or TS was because I am yet something other............... (and well, transvestites DO cross a gender rules set by society norms) When I think about it, I have always been pansexual and panromantic, I just tried to supress it and live like a normal hetero sexual in societal-normative relationships......... which I couldn't.

Hm... is here anybody panromantic? I am. I feel alone with it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LostPenguin

*glances at the clock* *notes she's been up all night* *stares at the listings* ...Let's see if I can manage this...

Mono-bi-romantic, a-bi-sexual in a monogamous relationship with a mono-hetero-romantic. The latter half doesn't apply for my significant other.

I think that's right. Basically, I feel a little weird even listing that I'm bi in either situation because now that I'm in a stable, loving relationship, I don't feel bi. Like.. the person I'm going with isn't from both genders, so I don't much care about the other gender, nor the other people in his gender. Damn, I'm possessive.

Anyway, prior to all that, I felt stronger attraction towards males but attraction nonetheless towards females. I'm asexual and definitely monogamous.

...If this makes no sense... Just gimme a push in the right direction, I'll see to fix it when I'm conscious. *zzz*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wild Seven

Btw, yet to confuse definitions part, I would suggest:

non-libidoist/hyposexual/normosexual-from the lack of better term/ hypersexual- level of sexual desire

(then many asexuals are also non-libidoists or hyposexuals etc, and as shown on the graph of Apollo-right?- it is clear that non-libidoist is only few steps away from hyposexual. Smile- this is also what confused me; some sites cite "asexual" as "non libidoist" at the same time, which for my gut feeling entirely wasn't true, because attraction and libido are two different things, even if they are somewhat connected in most people. Finally, if we came to realize that both labels are useful, we may use them and make it clear what we mean. Anybody objecting this label system?)

??? (to sexual drive, since I know that many asexuals here have also low sex drive)

and then second thing that came to mind, also a question: does the person to whom you are attracted to need to be LIVING? Ie. is asexual someone, who is deeply attracted to dead person, or is he/ she sexual because it is a PERSON?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wild Seven

I am also well aware that my labels for sex desire aren't complete; medicine uses at least terms hypo/hyper sexual for sex drive and sex desire in general, so I am bit of making chaos in it... has anybody of you yet better suggestion how to distinguish between the two when it comes to sticking a label?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amcan
Teela, *hehe*

Amcan, Thanks... it's a work in progress and I cant' wait until FF shows up to help me out. ;) Perhaps we can put in something for folks like yourself?

Agnosexual

Agnoromantic

Ah that's interesting. *is intrigued*

I am one of the weird ones you'll have problems with :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orbit

I don't mind not being alone in my polyromantic persuasions. *heh*

Nat, I love it - yes... we could use some categories for degrees of desire. I'm too beat from staying up to late last night to write it all out... later.

And while we're at it we can categorize along the lines of finding ourselves attracted to:

Fantasy Person / Known Person/ Relationship Person

I would say anyone you do not have a relationship with or do not have a real relationship with would fall into the 'fantasy person' category. Including fictional characters, celebritiies, historical figures, dead people.

Known person would be someone you are watching from afar but don't ever interact with - either in real life, on the net (watching their posts).

And Relationship People are those you are actually acquaintences or friends or involved with.

Of course there would be blends as knowing someone and having a relationship with them can happen...

hawke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wild Seven

And with some belief systems, like that believing in souls and soulmates and soultwins and such, you can feel you are in relationship, even very close one, that would be labelled "fantasy person" but for you it would be actually "relationship person"- it just depends who you are and what reality you live in I guess.. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ghosts

All the terms are still confusing me... but I think I am somewhat similar to you, hawke, if I'm reading it correctly. Basically, I'm all for committed friendships and not having to necessarily have emotional/physical/sexual boundaries with friends, so I don't feel the need to distinguish one friendship as the "relationship".

However, the whole thing with the "romantic" and "agamous" and "amorous" is confusing me. What is "romantic", as opposed to the other two?

Maybe I am a romantic person, it's just that I don't mind doing romantic things with friends? :?

Argh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wild Seven

From my understanding of it, romantic= making close and commited relationship with people, one property in general. agamous/amorous= the way you form these relationships and expectations you have with them, amorous being more opened relationships in general, agamous making very commited ones. And then, it is also applicable to friendship, to every relationship what you feel is of importance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anima

Omfg. This is a little confusing!

Hm... is here anybody panromantic? I am. I feel alone with it...

You're not alone.

So... I think I'd be something like... poly- or panamourous panromantic polygamous* pansexual asexual.

So I'm like pan-pan-pan-a. Hahaha. That's funny. *is a nerd*

*not that I am currently or have been polygamous, but I am more certain that this would be the more correct option for the way I carry out relationships and things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ghosts

what is panromantic?

Sorry, it's confusing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anima
what is panromantic?

Sorry, it's confusing!

Panromantic = the ability to be romantically attracted to _anyone_ (as in, not just male or just female or both, but also transsexuals, intersex, those who don't fit into one gender/sex category or the other)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...