Polyamory and asexuality

[redpepper]

Is it possible for polyamory to fit a group of people who love each other, and don't have sex with each other, or at all, with anyone, for that matter... a kind of asexual poly family?

 

[Quath]

I think so. Sex can be an expression of love, but I don't think it is a requirement.

 

[XYZ123]

I've already said I went through times of asexuality, yet still had deep emotional and physically intimate (non-sexual) relationships. And I was willing to have sex with my partner(s) if they wanted it, as a way to make them happy and fulfilled, though I had no desire nor sex drive. I wouldn't have done that with "just friends." So I'd say, absolutely.

 

[MonoVCPHG]

I'm having difficulty in not sitting on the fence with this one. To me, deep friendships without intimacy are just "friendships." The move into sexually-intimate activities, as simple as holding hands and kissing, is what pushes the friendship into the realm of polyamory, for me. And yet, I can totally see how age or medical conditions could prevent sexual contact beyond that.

Hmm... good question!

In the case of old age, perhaps holding hands is the extent of capabilities, from an intimate perspective, but the love and intent would still be there. Processing... processing...

 

[River]

To me, deep friendships without intimacy are just "friendships."

There are no deep friendships which aren't intimate, Mono, though many deep friendships don't include sexual intimacy. Intimacy can be intellectual, emotional, physical (though non-sexual), sexual, etc. The word "intimate" is not synonymous with sexual intimacy. Some non-sexual friendships can be VERY passionate, with profound love.

Sorry to blur some familiar modes of making distinctions, here. But all of this is factual info.

And it reminds me... I'd like a couple of snuggle partner cuddly friends with whom I am NOT sexually involved. I don't have ANY of these!

 

[MonoVCPHG]

It's a matter of how each person defines intimate. I define it with sexuality. So, for me, there are lots of friendships without intimacy. In fact, every one I have, except the one with Redpepper, is, by my definition, not intimate.

But it's just a word, my friend.

 

[Ricavaler]

This is something that's been on my mind for a little, too. I think if the connection to the other person is good, even without a physical aspect, a relationship could work.

 

[XYZ123]

Mono, I think you and I are talking different types of asexuality. Even during my asexual moods, I still enjoyed and wanted the affection, cuddling, kissing, etc., just not the step further into sexual intimacy. Kinda like "hug and kiss me all you like, and I'll eat it up, but my vagina neither needs nor wants your attention, tyvm."

River, I'm lacking cuddly friendships, myself. I had soooo many when I was younger, but we all grew up, and that innocent affection seems to have fallen away with time. I miss it more than I miss having a female partner many days.

 

[River]

It's a matter of how each person defines intimate.

While I often make idiosyncratic use of words, I do so with a particular intent, and with full knowledge that words don't simply mean whatever we choose them to mean, willy nilly. If we use "left" to mean "right" and right to mean "left," and mix up north, south, east and west, we're likely to be running into difficulty being understood.

Most dictionaries favor a sense of the word "intimate" which includes non-sexual kinds of intimacy, such as "deep friendship," and that's good enough for me. And it's important to honor these non-sexual usages of the term, because there's a heap of difference between a casual "buddy" and a truly intimate friend.

 

[MonoVCPHG]

While I often make idiosyncratic use of words, I do so with a particular intent, and with full knowledge that words don't simply mean whatever we choose them to mean, willy nilly.

In an environment where the word polyamory is used so broadly, we will just have to agree to disagree on the point of dictionary definitions! lol

 

[River]

This actually argues for my side of the issue. "Polyamory" doesn't mean the same thing as "swinging," for example. It is a word with a clear enough meaning: "multiple loves." Since sex is non-identical with love, "swinging" doesn't mean "polyamory." Therefore, the word "polyamory" can be badly misused, because the word has an actual meaning, apart from the willy-nilly preferences of any given user.

 

[NeonKaos]

The dictionary definition is what it is. I don't understand how it can be "disagreed" on. You might as well disagree about the spelling. Then you look it up in the dictionary. That's all there is to it. You can run around saying that you'll spell it however you want, but that's kind of silly. Same with definitions. Words sometimes have more than one usage, but you will not find one word that means both "A" and "not-A".

It's more likely that Mono simply does not have "intimate" friendships, but can only "be" intimate with someone that he is in love with.

Other people can experience intimacy with people they are not in love with, and can express it in other ways besides sex.

These situations stand on their own; neither circumstance changes the "definition" of "intimacy".

 

[River]

Thanks, YGirl. I think that's basically right, with one caveat (in two parts):

A. Words mean what their users agree them to mean, in a broad usage context, whether or not new usages have yet been imprinted in dictionaries.
B. Words are changing meaning all of the time, mutating, as anyone may discover by examining dictionaries of many varied vintages.

I once had a letter to the editor of my local newspaper "corrected" before printing, because a word I used wasn't in their outdated dictionary! The word was "heterosexist." My letter was badly botched. All the opinion page editor would have had to do is to google it, and would have found that it was included in many contemporary dictionaries. <sigh>

 

[NeonKaos]

I once had a letter to the editor of my local newspaper "corrected" before printing, because a word I used wasn't in their outdated dictionary! The word was "heterosexist". My letter was badly botched! All the opinion page editor would have had to do is to google it, and would have found that it was included in many contemporary dictionaries. <sigh>

I'll go out on a limb and venture that whoever edited that WAS "heterosexist".

 

[River]

She may well have been, but when I discussed the matter with her in her office, she was quite friendly. She explained that there were these two particular dictionaries on her shelf which the top editor said included ALL of the words which would be accepted as a matter of the paper's policy! No exceptions were to be allowed.

Since I find stupid policies pretty much everywhere I look, I didn't let it get my panties all tied up in knots. Otherwise, my panties would ALWAYS be knotted up! And who can live like that?

 

[Barry]

Is it possible for polyamory to fit a group of people who love each other, and don't have sex with each other, or at all, with anyone?

I think it is possible. How they arrive at that would be what intrigues me. The way I think of the definition of polyamory is relationships that are intimate, both physically and emotionally. Those two elements might exist in swinging relationships, but I suspect that they are few and far between. I know of loving couples in their eighties whose lives revolve around each other. They may be sexually active, it's not uncommon, but probably not frequent. The bond of their relationship seems to come from their emotional intimacy. That would hold true in a poly relationship, as well. What I am saying is that a poly relationship could evolve into a nonsexual relationship for whatever reasons, but I don't think it could be defined as a polyamory if the relationship began as nonsexual and remained nonsexual.

 

[River]

Generally, polyamory is understood by "the polyamory community" as relative to "romantic" relationships, which are generally sexual relationships, or include sexual expression. However, some members or participants in the polyamory community will rightly insist that not all romantic relationships are also sexual relationships. One has to google up a bit of history to discover that, indeed, there has been a tradition of "romantic friendship," in which passionate love affairs have existed between people who were not necessarily sexually involved with one another. It's worth the google.

Polyamorists certainly typically engage in multiple romantic relationships which are also sexual relationships. And I don't think anyone should have to prove they're sleeping with multiple partners to gain inclusion in our weird little club.

 

[redpepper]

I think that if a loving, intimate, group of people want to call themselves poly, then so be it. It is a matter of what they all want to call themselves. It is more a definition of what romance is.

I have a close friend that I would love to say I am in a poly relationship with, but she would hit the roof. I do things with her that could be seen as romantic, cuddling, sleeping together in a spoon. Yet, for her, it is a friendship with intimate bits. I don't let myself go to that romantic place, yet I love her immensely.

Hmm... stuck on this one now.

What is the difference then, between a romantic relationship, and an intimate friendship that involves sex?

 

[MonoVCPHG]

I can't believe so much of this thread is directed towards debating a word used to conceptualize the difference between friends and the poly concept of close deep friends you want to fuck. Why don't we define the word "love" with the dictionary, as well? I see it thrown around like a cheap shirt all the time in the poly community. Words are used in different ways all the time to achieve individual goals and results. Sometimes they are just lame justifications to produce a higher sense of morality.

 

[redpepper]

You posted at the same time as me, love. Heh, this word definition thing is near and dear to us, isn't it? I am anxiously awaiting others to respond!