not-quite-poly: lovers & friends w/ benefits

My reason was to say that if a person have casual lovers and mostly sexual relationship with friends, that is not polyamory. Or monogamy. It may be something very interesting that the asexual/aromantic folks have words for, if you have a close connection to a friend and sprinkle sex on top of it - people might even want to live with a friend and stil not be partners. But then it is something different and amazing that is not romantic love.
Friendships with sex sprinkled on top of it usually just gets called friends with benefits, both inside and outside of aro/ace circles.

Close relationships that have all the commitment of partnerships (e.g. living together and all that jazz) but neither romantic nor sexual usually get called queerplatonic partnerships (QPP, for short) in the aro/ace community.


However, I certainly do consider both FWB and QPP a form of polyamory, if they're open for multiple people at the same time and the friendships are deserving of the name - to me, friendship absolutely implies a loving closeness and intimacy, and polyamory simply means there are many people you love - neither romance nor sex is a necessity for poly. An FWB arrangement is vastly different from "fuck buddies", in my opinion... having multiple FWBs is polyamory, whereas having nothing emotionally closer than fuck buddies isn't, regardless of their number.
 
My reason was to say that if a person have casual lovers and mostly sexual relationship with friends, that is not polyamory. Or monogamy. It may be something very interesting that the asexual/aromantic folks have words for, if you have a close connection to a friend and sprinkle sex on top of it - people might even want to live with a friend and stil not be partners. But then it is something different and amazing that is not romantic love.

The words "romance" and "romantic" are highly over-rated. Romance itself is not a requirement of polyamory, as romance is a form of expresssion. Living together and wanting a family is not a requirement in polyamory either. Love or a loving quality, on the other hand, is generally accepted as the basis of polyamory - and that is posssible in varying degrees. Some people distinguish between "loving" and being "in love," which seems really stupid to me. I don't distinguish or quantify love in that way. Nor do I subscribe to the notion that people are "wired" poly or mono.

Just because a relationship has casual parameters or has sex as a main focus does not mean it isn't loving. And just because a relationship might more affectionate than loving doesn't mean it can't fit into a polyamorous way of life.

As I understand it, this thread was intended as a place for those of us who enjoy and highly value more casual, less committed relationships to discuss, find solace and camaraderie with others like ourselves, and feel more comfortable with the choice to have casual lovers as a preferred way of relating. In the initial post that started this thread, Meera wrote:

. . . I love having a friend to have sex with, without it being anything more than a friendship that involves sex.

Some people might insist that these types of arrangements are little more than casual sex, but I don't feel that way. Still, they are a long way from a committed life partnership.

I struggle with dating because I struggle to define what I'm looking for. . .

There's a lot of information out there about how to have healthy, happy poly relationships. I need more resources for how to have not-quite-poly relationships. Of course, some of it's the same, like the communication, but I think some of it is different, too.

Because someone might have a girlfriend and a FWB, and everyone is open and honest and ethically non-monogamous, but it's not about loving everyone equally.

And why is it expected that a FWB is someone you must keep secret and be ashamed about? I've been puzzled in the past when I've had a lover-friend who makes me happy and that I like talking about--but my (platonic) friends don't want to hear about it because we're not "serious" and he's not a "real boyfriend."

I struggle with feeling that what I want doesn't really exist. Or that I will have to settle for being someone who is valued less because I don't enjoy the intensity of a "relationship."

We are here to support each other.
 
Last edited:
This is and has been a thread that I have enjoyed enormously. I love to read about different ways of experiencing life and love - broadens my horizon. My personal opinion is that the poly umbrella should be wide enough to have room for all these "non-traditional" ways of having loving relationships.

Personally my relationships tend to be on the traditional side. I enjoy partnership and my relationships tend to ride the relationship escalator pretty fast. It feels natural to me - even if I normally try to avoid that sort of expectations.

Norwegianpoly, you are free to define polyamory the way you want to - and there is plenty of space for your opinions on these boards. Just - it is nice to have the other options represented on this forum as well.
 
I am getting confused as to why you use these kind of love affections for people you only care medium about. Maybe the language is confusing me. At least in my language, you only say "I love you" or the equivalent if you care deeply about the person, so I simply would not say that unless I meant to convey that I experienced our connection as being very deep.

True, sometimes platonic frienship relationships are very profound. I have friends that I feel almost "in love" with. The asexual communty are very exiting these days, elevating the status of close frienship and figuring out all kinds of words for those connections. Friendships are very important in most people's lives. But they are also not romantic love, which is the basis for polyamory.

Where did I say I only care medium about them? I said I've cared more deeply for some people who I would say are "just friends" than for people I've been in relationships with in which they and I said "I love you" to each other. That doesn't say I care "medium" for the people I said I love you to. Only that I've had friends about whom I cared *more*.
 
If poly is defined as neither sexual nor romantic, then, Aren't we all polyamorous?
Well... aside from what CielDuMatin said in the second post of that thread you linked:

I know quite a few people who are only involved with one person at a time, sexually, emotionally and loving. They call themselves monogamous for that reason. They don't want to be involved with more than one person at a time, either through choice or wiring (and for the sake of this argument I would suggest that it doesn't matter which).

So no, I don't think that we are all polyamorous at all.


...there are also people for whom sexual and/or romantic relationships are somehow drastically different from friendships (...with benefits). It's a stance I, personally, can't really relate to, but I've heard it from enough folks by now that I have to believe them that it really "is a thing" for them. Yes, being poly in regards to friendships is only natural, and probably the far more common default than the opposite (and in this specific case, I would indeed consider poly to be vastly more healthy and sane, and thus superior, to "friendship-monogamy" - limiting yourself to only one friend at a time does sound more than a bit neurotic and obsessive), but there are a good bunch of folks for whom "I conceptualize partnerships the same way you conceptualize friendships - I can easily be with more than one at a time" simply won't ever sound intuitive enough to grok it. Much as it may baffle me on a personal level, I've come to accept that some folks really aren't wired for polyamorous partnerships... and that's okay.
 
Re:
"I've come to accept that some folks really aren't wired for polyamorous partnerships ... and that's okay."

Yeah, I think you're right.
 
I have really enjoyed this thread. For me, it has been a welcome respite from the myriad of threads about how to fit other relationships into and around a marriage, how to convince reluctant partners that non-monogamy is a good idea, how to schedule and how to deal with the fact that whenever people spend lots of fun time together, they start to form bonds with each other - even if one of them has promised their spouse that they won't.

For me, this thread had showed a variety of ways of considering sex and closeness and time spent together without all of that stuff.

In my opinion, having spent years reading this board, solo-poly is the only way I'd consider being poly.

I love a number of people and spend romantic time (my understanding is that people tend to mean going out and doing things together, talking about feelings, holding hands, watching the sun go down etc by romantic) with those people. I only have sex with one partner and he is the only one that myself or anybody else would describe as my boyfriend.

The reason that I insist on sexual monogamy for both of us while my boyfriend and I identify as boyfriend and girlfriend is because I lack the time, energy and motivation to put the work into either of us having multiple boyfriend/girlfriend or girlfriend/girlfriend relationships and doing it ethically.

This thread is a welcome addition to my readings on the matter because it describes a number of ethical ways that I might be willing to do poly.

Keep up the excellent work all the solo poly and relationship anarchist people. You guys are doing a fabulous job.
 
As much as I don't like to label things sometimes it is easier for others to grasp a label. For instance, lover (BF, partner, idk) & I never intended to move beyond FB or FWB status. Now we find ourselves more emotionally involved. Our spouses are close FWB & are very understanding of our connection. This weekend we were having a discussion about some health issues I've been having. He looked at me & said "You are my lover, partner & best friend. Why wouldn't you share these things with me?" It is wonderful to have a person other than my husband who cares so much & I actually have 3 people in my life who feel that way: husband, lover & lover's wife. We all care immensely for one another. Are we a "quad"? I really don't know. I just feel like we all share connections that just " are." Others don't understand our connection & honestly they don't need to but labels seem to help them accept it even if they don't completely "get" it.

The only thing I know for sure is that our connections have multiplied the love in our marriages & between us 4.
 
I think that the difficulty I feel is that labels are sometimes (often, maybe) used in a kind of one-upmanship that I dislike.

It seems to me that so much of the labelling is along the lines of - "oh - getting together with other couples just for sex isn't poly, poly is more evolved." Or "oh - having sex with some of your friends means you don't love them in the right and proper way. That's open, not poly. Poly is more evolved." Or "oh - you and your partner only have sex with each other. That's monogamy. Poly is more evolved." Or "oh - you don't have sex with anybody. That means you're asexual and not capable of real relationships. Poly is more evolved."

I dislike that sort of judgy labelling and think that humans would do better without it.

IP
 
Agreed -- especially on the "more evolved" part. Polyamory is no such thing and there are plenty of other relationship models that are "just as evolved." In my opinion.
 
I see this is an old thread...

But I'm new and I'd like to chime in. I just got out of a situation in June with a woman who was only open because her wife was much older than she was, and they were no longer sexually compatible. I am poly, as in the traditional definition-- meaning I have actual relationships with multiple people, generally a primary partner, then various girlfriends,etc on the side.

This woman just wanted a friend with benefits. Which is fine. But she wasn't upfront about that, and admitted she had absolutely no real experience with the poly community, and didn't even understand that being poly isn't just about screwing a bunch of random people who because you're that sexually frustrated or something. Essentially, she wanted to use me to fix the problem of sexual incompatibility in her marriage.

There are all kinds of ways to do poly/open/non-mono/however you identify, but communication is key. I consider this situation a lesson learned. I'm not looking for friends with benefits or to be a toy to a couple or anything of the sort. I'm looking for a primary partner-style relationship where we each have the ability to have secondaries outside that primary relationship.

The only real issue in these situations, I think, is people passing themselves off as poly when they really aren't, and not being upfront about what they are actually looking for.
 
Hey PurpleSun,

Your story is a really great example of why labels can be problematic. Both you and your ex used the word poly to each other, each of you knowing what you meant by the word. Since neither of you imagined that another person might mean something very different by that word, you found yourselves with a problem.

I'm smiling at your description of yourself as having 'actual relationships' and wondering how it would be to have the opposite of that? Would those be 'pretend relationships'? Or 'imaginary relationships'? Or something else.

I consider all of my relationships to be actual relationships. That includes the ones I have with people who I would never have sex with. It includes the ones I have with dogs. If I have an emotional, loving connection with another individual, then I consider it an actual relationship.

IP
 
. . . I am poly, as in the traditional definition-- meaning I have actual relationships with multiple people, generally a primary partner, then various girlfriends,etc on the side.
"Traditional definition" - really? Having a hierarchical structure, as in seeing one person as a primary partner and others "on the side" is neither traditional nor standard in poly. Traditionally, all polyamory has ever meant is for a person to love and be involved with more than one individual, with the knowledge and consent of everyone. No primary required.

The only real issue in these situations, I think, is . . . not being upfront about what they are actually looking for.
Not being up front about what one is looking for is an issue in any relationship, even monogamous ones.
 
Last edited:
That's what I meant.

"Traditional definition" - really? Having a hierarchical structure, as in seeing one person as a primary partner and others "on the side" is neither traditional nor standard in poly. Traditionally, all polyamory has ever live meant is for a person to love and be involved with more than one individual, with the knowledge and consent of everyone. No primary required.


Not being up front about what one is looking for is an issue in any relationship, even monogamous ones.

If someone is just looking for sex, that isn't polyamory, not really. There's no love involved. And I realize no primary is required.
 
Hey PurpleSun,

Your story is a really great example of why labels can be problematic. Both you and your ex used the word poly to each other, each of you knowing what you meant by the word. Since neither of you imagined that another person might mean something very different by that word, you found yourselves with a problem.

I'm smiling at your description of yourself as having 'actual relationships' and wondering how it would be to have the opposite of that? Would those be 'pretend relationships'? Or 'imaginary relationships'? Or something else.

I consider all of my relationships to be actual relationships. That includes the ones I have with people who I would never have sex with. It includes the ones I have with dogs. If I have an emotional, loving connection with another individual, then I consider it an actual relationship.

IP

What I meant by "actual relationships" is that it involves romantic love/feelings. All she wanted was sex because her wife wouldn't have sex with her. That isn't a relationship to me, not in this context. But you're right, it does get into the whole label debate, but then again, labels are how we communicate what we are to the world-- I suppose it's up to each of us individually to let others know what is meant by whatever labels we used.

I was upfront about what I was looking for, though, and she pretended to go along with it, then proceeded to tell me that polyamory was all about sex. I corrected her.
 
Solve for x

Relationship label required:

Two people who hang out together and share a bed once or twice per week, lots of kisses and cuddles bordering on heavy petting, no further sexual activity (although that did happen once back at the start of the relationship).

Friends < x < BF/GF.
 
Back
Top