Relationship Anarchy Revisited

This post is mostly going to be some musing and expanding on what I said back in January - in the Carnival of Aces post "My Relationship Anarchy". Mostly clarification of some terminology and a re-framing of certain things.

I suppose you could say I've got a clearer image in my mind now of what the problem was with how I was explaining my version of Relationship Anarchy back in those days - mostly with how confusing it was when presented to people who roll with a relatively mainstream and conventional relationship model.

The two main things I'm going to discuss are 1) how what non-monogamy means to me is "inverted" by mainstream standards, and 2) how the word "romance" is extremely problematic when applied to what it means with me. And how I'm possibly better off not being overly concerned with classifying my relationships as romantic or non-romantic altogether, to an extent anyway.

"Inverted" Non-Monogamy

This is by no means universal opinion - but for the most part - when people think non-monogamy (especially "open relationships"), the first thing that springs to mind is sexual openness. And the most common model people imagine is something like this: A committed core relationship in which the partners have agreed that they have an automatic "hall pass". In other words: the relationship is emotionally committed and probably fairly typical and conventional otherwise - other than that (usually relatively casual) sex is allowed outside of it.

Other forms of non-monogamy, especially the various combinations of polyamory, revolve around very different emotional commitment models, but that is the most common assumption in the popular imagination when it comes to "non-monogamy" - casual sex being allowed outside of an otherwise fairly standard committed relationship. The focus is on sex, at any rate. Usually relatively casual sex, while the core relationship is emotionally committed and otherwise might look very "normal" and mainstream.

My personal Relationship Anarchy ideals regarding "non-monogamy" practically turn this model on its head! Due to my demisexual issues, and generally being quite mindful and cautious about sex to boot - what I envisage for myself is a model which is more along the lines of the opposite: A (potential) core "primary" relationship which may be sexually exclusive, but then with openness to highly emotionally intimate friendships outside it. Intimate friendships which might never get sexual at all, even though they're highly emotionally intimate and may involve more affectionate physical contact than is usual for friendship.

So effectively - the emotional and sexual aspects of "openness" are reversed!

What's the point of this? Most "sexual" people might ask...

I think I can understand, at least intellectually, why this probably doesn't make much sense to most people. Most people can feel casual sexual attraction to random good-looking others. So the idea of casual sex is at least theoretically appealing, and might seem like a tempting "perk" of opening up their relationship in that sense, regardless of their morals and such and whether they'd actually personally ever do it or not. But probably more significantly - most people automatically associate "romantic" emotional bonding with sexuality, so it just doesn't make sense to them to have deep emotionally intimate relationships without sex. There's usually a fairly fixed sense of a relationship being firmly "romantic" versus "platonic" out there in the mainstream, and the presence of sex is pretty much a giveaway to which which type of relationship it is.

Of course, this all falls to pieces spectacularly when applied to people on the asexual spectrum. And I'll try my best to explain how it's all a horrible mess when applied to my own thinking on relationships - this annoying Romantic vs Platonic dichotomy.

The Problem With "Romance"

"Romance" is essentially completely disconnected from sexuality to me. I've definitely got an affectional orientation which is hetero, since I can feel that special "spark" for females, and can only develop crushes and limerence for females. But the link between this and sexuality (as well as any particular plans for how a relationship should look - in a way that would solidly differentiate it from close friendship) is ridiculously abstract - to say the least.

This has gotten to the point where I'm starting to think that applying the term "romantic" to myself is downright misleading. When I feel those feelings, it doesn't necessarily mean that I want to make that person my "girlfriend", in the usual sense. And it definitely doesn't mean that I want to have sex with her! Not immediately, and potentially not ever. It's probably better framed along the lines of - I care about her and am drawn to emotionally bonding with her. And if she ends up being a close friend whom I can open up to and talk about anything with and be affectionate with and cuddle with - that would be a totally fulfilling form of "special friendship" in itself!

But is a special friend whom you cuddle with and can talk about anything with really a "romantic" relationship in any real sense? I don't know. When I sit back and think about it, I actually confuse myself with where that line is now. If we were living in a highly cuddly culture where it wouldn't be weird, I'm pretty sure I could be "cuddle buddies" with just about any close female friend - and I'm not sure that the feelings of love and closeness in that situation would be qualitatively very different to what I used to think "romance" was. So it's like - I could easily think of all of my close friendships with women as "romantic" to a certain degree, or else think of myself as an aromantic who simply has a highly emotionally and physically affectionate response to females.

No, I'm not going to go with the latter there. I don't think it would be honest - but it's very tempting sometimes to throw away the term "romance" altogether when applied to my views on emotionally intimate relationships. Because the way it comes with so much sexual and relationship-traditionalist baggage completely ties my mental model of emotional bonding with women up in knots. It simply isn't such a clear and simple dichotomy in my mind. And trying to conform myself to it artificially leads to more problems than it solves.

Affectionate Friendship

My latest "thing" is something I call affectionate friendship. This isn't a term I invented of course, but I've come to the conclusion that this is the most intuitive way of connecting with me.

It can't really be said to be either a "proper" romantic relationship, nor "just" a friendship - but in Relationship Anarchy thinking - that doesn't matter. What matters is that people are on the same page and are connecting on a level that makes sense to them, as individuals. Regardless of how it conforms to mainstream ideas about what different "kinds" of relationships are "supposed to" look like.

And affectionate friendship is the most intuitive way to connect with me. I'd say around 90% of the time I feel affectional attraction to a girl - getting an ongoing and committed affectionate friendship out of the connection feels like it would be the most wonderful conclusion. It's not incomplete or confusing to me at all. Nor any more competitive nor exclusive than any other friendship.

Unfortunately, by "normal" standards, this is in a weird twilight zone. Not quite "just" friendship, and not really a proper "romantic relationship" either. Have something like this with someone else when you're in a conventional monogamous relationship - and you're definitely held to be "emotionally cheating" on your partner. Have it when you're single, and you're told that you're not in a "real" or "complete" relationship. Funny how that works. Still, it feels good to finally have something that makes sense to me. Something that I can actually offer up as a way of connecting that doesn't make me feel compromised and demented - the way standard "dating" does.

And as I've often said before, I strongly believe that love is love. The different "flavours" of love really don't have to dictate that a relationship has to be shoe-horned into a certain socially accepted "category". So in conclusion: affectionate friendship will be the common baseline of all my future relationships. And it's a wonderful form of ongoing relationship that can exist for its own sake, non-exclusively.