The major issue I have with all of this is that asexual in my research is not about disliking sex per se, but to dislike the way sex is typically practised in relationships (as a way of bonding). Now, also from my research, polyamory is most related to a different contact phase where sex is used not for keeipng a bond alive but in the contact phase.
So, when I claim I'm asexual that doesn't mean I have no sex drive, just that I dislike the idea that it is sex that is keeping my relationships together, when I'm sure it's my (also different) attachment style that does. I typically form attachments for life, and I can have many at the same time, which I connect to the concept of polyamory.
I find discussions about asexuality to be enlightening and endlessly confusing at the same time. I've known the term "asexual" since I was a kid, but I never really considered that a person could be asexual. Sexual expression is such a big part of daily life in my environment that it just would never have occurred to me if it weren't brought starkly into the light (like on this forum).
However, as with all discussions about sex drive or sexual orientation I feel it's important for everyone to remember that there are seemingly endless variations on the theme. While you personally don't mean asexual to suggest that you don't like sex or have a sex drive doesn't mean that's how other people are going to mean it. I watched a neat documentary about asexuality a year or so back and everyone on that show seemed to be saying that they had no interest in sex in any way. They ALSO had the problem that sex is so often used to bond that they found themselves between a rock and a hard place but no one expressed what you have expressed here.
This is one of those fine variations which just needs to be voiced. How else would anyone know such a particular aspect of your view on the topic?
If it's important to you that people don't think you're sexual, make sure to insist on that point.
100%
I'd rather focus on the attachment profile of polyamorous people rather than how they are sexually, as sex shouldn't be in the picture at all. Kind of like assuming that all mono-people also like to play football, when there really is no connection between the two.
[Edit: SchrodingersCat did a very good job of explaining this already. We were apparently typing it at the same time.]
I think you are way off base here and are confusing your personal view as the common view. When people talk about romantic relationships (romantic being distinct from platonic) you are correct, there is a general assumption that sexual interaction will be a part of it. This is not because people don't understand how relationships work, it's because they DO know how relationships generally work. Having a sexual orientation or worldview which separates you from that norm could be frustrating, I'm sure, but it in no way suggests that the common usage of the phrase is incorrect or coming from ignorance.
In contrast, I am polyamorous. To say that I am a swinger is incorrect, and the mistake is generally due to ignorance about the distinction between the terms. If I want people to understand that there is a distinction and where I fit into those terms then I need to voice as much.
The statement that sex shouldn't be involved at all doesn't make any sense to me. What do you mean by that?
I want people to know I'm poly, and also not a swinger. But I'm not going to do it by denigrating swingers. Just because I'm not one doesn't mean they're bad, less evolved, or that their relationship as less valuable than my own.
I don't see the denigration in this thread that people are referring to. I saw one statement about bringing poly down to a lower level to elevate the standing of swinging... that is certainly a negative way to say it, but that's the only comment I've noticed.
This idea of bringing poly down to swinging is most likely linked to a stigma that sex is a "baser instinct". That, indulging in sex is natural but shouldn't be allowed to be a primary motivation because it's such a primal part of our nature. I find this suggestion to be silly.