Asexual Poly?

kdt26417

Official Greeter
Staff member
  • Is poly about sex? No, not the way I practice it. I like the sex, and this is the first relationship I've been in where I felt safe in my sexuality, but even without it I'd love Mal. We actually talked about being non-sexual at the beginning, and decided that it didn't matter either way. The love was what mattered.
  • If you remove the sex, do you just have friendship? See above. No, we have love (Eros, not Phillia or Agape)
  • Can polys have romantic friendships? Can anyone? Yes? Then polys can.
  • Can you have romance without sex? Yes. Jeez, it's so common its a trope!
  • How about sex without romance? Many people can. Djinn can, and Mal too to some extent. I can't.
  • Can asexuals be poly? Don't see why not. As someone who is not asexual (demisexual maybe, I haven't figured that out) I don't get a say in what asexual people do or feel. Not my business.
  • Are poly asexuals messed up? No. No further explanation needed.
 
Is poly about sex?
Nope. Poly is about love, not sex. However, people who enjoy and desire sex (i.e., the huge majority of folks) are obviously very, very likely to include sex in their poly 'ships.

If you remove the sex, do you just have friendship?
I object to the use of "just" here. IMO, every healthy relationship is, at its core, a friendship anyway, it may just have additional add-ons (sex, shared household, etc.pp.). Any healthy partnership is an FWB arrangement, in my eyes, and sex is just one of the many forms benefits can come in.

Can polys have romantic friendships?
That's not a term I use. I've heard other poly folk use the term, though, and it seemed to make perfect sense to them, so I'd say yes.

Can you have romance without sex?
Of course. I can't even count the times in my life.

How about sex without romance?
Um... duh?! Happens every day, doesn't it? You may have heard of that newfangled thingy called "prostitution"? ;)

Can asexuals be poly?
Of course. Not only are you reading a post right now that one of them wrote :)p), but from what I've seen, polyamory actually seems a good bit more common among aces than among sexuals. (Still a minority, but it sure looks like a more substantial one.)

Are poly asexuals messed up?
No more messed up than straight, gay, and bi/pan polys.
 
I dont presume anything about anyone else's relationships because I feel its up to them to define. For myself without a physically intimate element being it is just a friendship. I feel that my friend "work wife" and I have a romance but still we are just friends and of course I've had a lot of aetx without romance. Anyone can be poly and not practicing but If an asexual person has multiple non sexual partners but defines them as relationships that is their choice.
 
I'll reply here to justascientist's reply to me:
Here's a second attempt. How about we broaden the word "sexual relationship" to includes romantic and non-penetrative relationships, such as kissing of the neighbor's hand above? By that def, I have a sexual relationship if I am fantasizing about someone, or thinking romantically about someone off limits. If KC43 could agree to that then we can all agree that poly includes asexual yet romantic relationships which changes back to poly excludes asexual relationships using this broader def for sexual relationships. Confused yet?

Yes. :confused:
Why? Why reclassify "sexual relationship" to be overly broad? Why reclassify it to mean "anyone we've ever fantasized about"? Hell, then as a teenager, I would have had a sexual relationship with fictional characters, and that just seems wrong. How do you have a relationship with someone you've never met (and never could meet)?

And why is non-sexual necessarily non-penetrative? There are plenty of sexual activities that don't require penetration, or are all lesbian relationships romantic/asexual ones in your viewpoint?


Perhaps the real problem here is my desire to apply our mentality to the school of monogamy, since there sex is black and white, and it isn't cheating if you are in love with someone else but not having sex.

Really? Plenty of monogamous people find the "in love" part worse than the "having sex" part. There are folks who find swinging much easier to emotionally deal with than poly.

Then there's the whole religious concept of "lust in your heart" being a sin. Where does that end? Does lusting after the Hollywood hottie somehow differ from lusting after your neighbor? In some people's minds, no, they're both bad. In some people's minds, no, they're both okay. And some folks think the potential attainability of such a relationship is what makes one okay and the other not okay.

You can't nail this stuff down to one set of beliefs, one school of thought, because there is no "one school of thought."


Masturbation isn't usually cheating either, but some would disagree. Is thinking of someone else during sex cheating to a monogamist? Too dangerous of a question for a monogamist, since then many of them would all be cheating! I'd guess that's the real problem here, that mentally lusting after someone but not having sex is a much bigger deal in poly than it is in monogamy, where it is par for the course.

The "if there is no sex then it's just a friendship" disagreement should disappear IF we can agree that there is such a thing as a romantic friendship, which apparently is not possible for polys.

I don't understand what you mean by "a much bigger deal in poly" - basically in a poly relationship, you are able to admit to these romantic feelings and relationships without "breaking the rules," even though the rules of monogamy can be squishy as hell (and why many couples find themselves believing they're on the same page, when they're not). The differentiation between "relationship" and "romantic friendship" seems to be your hangup here, but I'd posit that a "romantic friendship" *is* a relationship.

Anyway, I guess I'll bring it back to this statement:
Perhaps the real problem here is my desire to apply our mentality to the school of monogamy, since there sex is black and white, and it isn't cheating if you are in love with someone else but not having sex.

What is "our mentality" that you're applying? What is the "school of monogamy" you're applying it to? To me, neither of these is as black-and-white as you would seem to believe.
 
Is poly about sex?

No poly is not about sex alone. Does it include sex for most yes. Poly is about intimacy and romantic loving relationships.

If you remove the sex, do you just have friendship?

In my opinion no.

Can polys have romantic friendships?

This is not a term I use either but yes they can.

Can you have romance without sex?

Yes

How about sex without romance?

Of course.

Can asexuals be poly?

Yes they have romantic and intimate relationships without sex.

Are poly asexuals messed up?

No.. they are not.
 
I"m reading this thread, but I think I've already voiced my opinions/responses to those questions in the thread Kevin linked...and I'm also trying to mind my P's and Q's as far as *how* I respond to things.
 
My answers are pretty much the same as InsaneMystic's (post #3), except that I do use the term "romantic friendship" to describe one of my relationships. To me it means there are romantic feelings involved, but the relationship dynamic is more like a close friendship than a typical romantic relationship (e.g. there's no expectation of "heavier" stuff like moving in together). But romantic friendship seems to mean something slightly different for some others, like a friendship with romantic-coded behaviors but not romantic feelings.

As for the question "How about sex without romance?", I assume it means "Can you personally have sex without romance?", because there's no doubt that it can happen in general. I doubt I can have sex with someone I'm not romantically involved with, because if I'm close enough to them to be okay with having sex, I'm likely romantically involved with them. But I won't say I absolutely won't have non-romantic sex, because the emotional connection in a deep friendship can be very significant for me too. I definitely won't have sex without a strong emotional bond though.
 
For me this topic has become more pressing due to the fact I have developed medication induced asexuality. The meds are being changed because I don't like it but if they don't work with this med change I'm not going to keep screwing with my health just to be able to have sex. Thankfully both my husband and my Sir have stated they would rather me be asexual in not in pain (fibromyalgia and other potential auto-immune disorders) than sexual and hurting.

Is poly about sex? No. Not to say sex isn't by default not a part of poly. But I believe you can have romantic love with out it.
If you remove the sex, do you just have friendship? No. What I have with my friends isn't to the depth of what I have with my husband or Sir. I want to spend my life with them. I want to live with them. I want to raise children with them (even if they are only adopted).
Can polys have romantic friendships? I don't use that term, but have no problem with others using it.
Can you have romance without sex? Yes, sex is only a part of love. You also have commitment and intimacy.
How about sex without romance? Random NSA ONS. I can't do it, but others can.
Can asexuals be poly? I'm poly and currently asexual.
Are poly asexuals messed up? No.I only feel that I am messed up at the moment because I have generally been sexual. Yes, if this med switch doesn't work I'm not going to keep trying to work things out. But I am going to do therapy to make the mental transition that I will need to.
 
Perhaps the most difficult question I can ask myself is this:

Crushing on an unavailable person is one thing, but suppose there is a person with whom I *could have sex* -- but wouldn't want to have sex under any circumstances. In other words, I'm not even hypothetically interested in having sex with that person.

Is it possible that I could (nonetheless) have a romantic relationship with that person?

And if it's not possible, is that person then discluded from those people in whom I could have a polyamorous interest/inclination?

So that being polyamorous means I have at least a hypothetical interest in having sex with more than one person? (not necessarily with more than one person at a time of course.)

If so, then a lot of self-identifying monogamists are actually polyamorists, don't you think?

To avoid all that confusing stuff, we must be able to cleanly and absolutely sever romance from sex. Can we do that?

I don't know if I can do it. In my perception, sex by nature is *highly* romantic. But wait ... Don't ladies of the night sever romance from sex all the time? Even if they have a regular client whom they like in a friendly way, they still don't necessarily get anything romantic out of sex with that person.

Question remains though, can there be romance with zero interest in sex? nada, zip; not even a hypothetical interest. My first thought is, "Of course there can. Asexuals have romantic relationships all the time."

But I'm wondering if justascientist's argument was that asexuals *can't* have romantic relationships ... of any kind ...

And I know the correct answer is, "That's only true of aromantic asexuals." But I'm wondering if justascientist's argument was that *all* asexuals are aromantic.

How is romance, then, able to exist in a box totally separate from "the sex box?" I suppose it is because in some relationships, the people could have zero interest for sex with each other, yet have considerable interest for kissing, holding hands, snuggling, etc.

Can I want to kiss, hold hands, and snuggle with someone, without any desire whatsoever to have sex with them?

I had a few girlfriends as a kid in school (and one or three pre-teen crushes I can think of), and that's how I would say I felt at the time. Sex? No way! but that other stuff? Sure.

Although ... I was deeply immersed in the sexually stringent culture of the LDS church at the time. Was I merely in a state of sexual denial?

I'll probably never know for sure.
 
I find these questions don't actually have a definite answer. Each person is different and they deal with relationships differently. My husband has a close intimate relationship with a lady that is completely non-sexual. They refer to each other as brother/sister. It is definitely much more intimate than any of his friendships with anyone else besides his bf, which is sexual. 10 years ago, it felt like he was cheating with her, even when I knew for a fact that he wasn't. I would definitely call that relationship asexual poly.
 
"What's the difference between romance and friendship" is one of the most asked questions in the asexual community. The answer is romance is a purely subjective thing. It's a kind of emotional headspace. It doesn't have to manifest in any kind of behavior, not sex, not even kissing, holding hands, snuggling, or giving each other gifts, or sharing a home together, or anything typically considered "romantic". It's romantic as long as you feel romantic, which most romantic people can clearly distinguish from non-romantic feelings. But individual experience of romance varies, so it's extremely difficult to define it. Some people can't separate romance from sex, and some can't separate it from physical affection or other things, but there are people who can, and the best thing to do is to accept that their relationships are romantic when they say they are.
 
Last edited:
Heh, and thus the standard is subjective.

Yeah, with the range and variety of personalities and circumstances out there, there's bound to be exceptions to every rule.

I still feel that my overall answer is, "Polyamory is usually both sexual and romantic. But sometimes it's just romantic."
 
I love having these kinds of discussions in a philosophical, theoretical, semantic sense...my brain starts reeling...but, But, BUT...

I read posts on these boards and start thinking, hmmm, how would I describe my relationship with so-and-so in the terms and definitions that we use here?

Words are just shorthand to try to communicate ideas to people in a succinct way.

Reading this thread I think to myself:

Define sex
Define love
Define romance
Define friendship
Define relationship
etc...

For me these are ALL "squishy" words with subjective definitions - so everything dissolves into this grey-goo of too narrow, too broad definitions and we all end up arguing "semantics" - which is, after all, the study of "meaning" (what do we "mean" when we use these words, phrases, symbols).

Luckily, I don't give a shit how anyone else classifies my relationships so I just have them, enjoy them, and try to communicate the best I can with the words and definitions I have on hand. ("That's not a FWB, that's a FB - and neither "counts" as poly." - okay, I understand you feel that way. "If you don't have sex at least once a month [or didn't change your name to match his - my personal favorite] you aren't really married." okay, I disagree, but we are still filing a joint tax return.:rolleyes: etc.)

But, to answer the questions -

Is poly about sex? - for some people, if it is ALSO about relationships and intimacy (If it is ONLY about sex, then why bother calling it poly? we have better words for that.)
If you remove the sex, do you just have friendship? not in my opinion
Can polys have romantic friendships? yes
Can you have romance without sex? yes
How about sex without romance? yes, of course, but I wouldn't necessarily think of that as poly unless there was the possibility of romance developing - otherwise just considered casual/NSA sex
Can asexuals be poly? yes, unless they are also aromantic
Are poly asexuals messed up? no more so than any other person on the planet
 
This is a continuation of a debate on another thread (see http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?p=287530#post287530 thru http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?p=287883#post287883). The questions are:

  • Is poly about sex?
  • If you remove the sex, do you just have friendship?
  • Can polys have romantic friendships?
  • Can you have romance without sex?
  • How about sex without romance?
  • Can asexuals be poly?
  • Are poly asexuals messed up?
Please sound off with your opinions on these questions.
For the most part, poly, unless you are on the asexuality spectrum, is about sex OR sexuality.
If you remove sex, you can have sexual passion without sex, or romantic love without sex (as some asexuals prefer it, but not all)
Is a romantic friendship a close, intimate friendships without sex? Sure, polys have them! I know I do.
You can have romance without sex - if you are sexual, but refrain from sex or if you are not interested in sex
Asexuals can be poly, and it seems to me they often are!
Poly asexuals are as messed up or stable as the rest of us.
 
Last edited:
For me this topic has become more pressing due to the fact I have developed medication induced asexuality. The meds are being changed because I don't like it but if they don't work with this med change I'm not going to keep screwing with my health just to be able to have sex. Thankfully both my husband and my Sir have stated they would rather me be asexual in not in pain (fibromyalgia and other potential auto-immune disorders) than sexual and hurting.
I have been where you are (I also have fibromyalgia, severe pain issues and take meds 3 times a day) and I have to say that having you libido reduced (or non-existant) for a period of time is not asexulity. It is a loss of libido. If your meds keep reducing your libido, you might look into changing your meds. I changed to a similar brand with less side-effects.
 
For the record, my own answers to my own OP questions:

Q: Is poly about sex?
A: Partially.

Q: If you remove the sex, do you just have friendship?
A: Sometimes.

Q: Can polys have romantic friendships?
A: Yes.

Q: Can you have romance without sex?
A: Yes (if we agree that romance is subjective and hard to define).

Q: How about sex without romance?
A: Yes.

Q: Can asexuals be poly?
A: Many say yes and I'm not inclined to argue.

Q: Are poly asexuals messed up?
A: No and it is mean to label them that way.
 
Norwegianpoly responded to one of my posts in the Coming Out thread; I'm moving it here so that thread can stay something resembling on topic.

I am not sexual myself, but as I understand asexuality from Aven, there is a wide asexuality spectrum, where some people have no bodily sexual feelings, wheras others mastrubate but don't want to include others. Other asexuals can have sex but it is not really furfilling for them, so if given the chotice - like the hypothetical person who prefers to not engage in sex with the woman he loves -this type of asexual does have regular sex (and some physical responses with that) but doesn't really like it, so to speak.

A person who loves sex and doesn't want love, is very sexual and perhaps aromantic, but these people usually don't abstain from sex once they find the woman of their dreams.

Asexuality is a spectrum, as is any sexual orientation. As I understand the definition, however, asexuality is a lack of sexual attraction to others, which doesn't necessarily preclude wanting the physical release of orgasm. Orgasm does not only occur when one is sexually aroused; it's a biological function. Hence why some people who are sexually assaulted become extremely ashamed by the fact that they climax during the assault. It's a response to stimulation, not an indication of sexual desire or arousal.

Of course asexuals *can* have sex. Just like heterosexuals can have sex with someone of the same gender, or homosexuals can have sex with someone of the opposite gender. Human beings are *capable* of choosing to override their sexual orientation. That doesn't change the orientation, though; it means they're acting contrary to it.

In some cases, someone who is asexual *chooses* to have sex because "it's what people are supposed to do", or because they're worried that the person they love won't accept a sexless relationship. That does not mean the asexual person isn't asexual. And it doesn't mean that they're sexually attracted to the other person, or that they're experiencing sexual desire or arousal. It just means they're choosing to act in a way they believe will be more acceptable.

A person who is *aromantic*--that is, experiences sexual desire and arousal, but does not experience romantic love--would not find the "woman of his dreams", because romantic attraction doesn't occur in someone who is aromantic, and therefore the concept of "person of their dreams" wouldn't exist for them. They would definitely have sex. They would not be in love.

Asexual does not necessarily mean aromantic. Aromantic does not necessarily mean asexual. One is a SEXUAL orientation; the other is a ROMANTIC orientation. They may overlap, but they aren't the same thing.
 
A person who is *aromantic*--that is, experiences sexual desire and arousal, but does not experience romantic love--would not find the "woman of his dreams", because romantic attraction doesn't occur in someone who is aromantic, and therefore the concept of "person of their dreams" wouldn't exist for them. They would definitely have sex. They would not be in love.

Asexual does not necessarily mean aromantic. Aromantic does not necessarily mean asexual. One is a SEXUAL orientation; the other is a ROMANTIC orientation. They may overlap, but they aren't the same thing.
You are very right, you can have sexual romantics and sexual aromantics, asexual romantics and asexual aromantics. But you usually don't have a sexual romantic who, when he finds the special one, decides to live with her plantonically because he loves her but has no disire for her (although I am sure everything happens once).

I am a bit curious about the concept of being aromantic - what is the difference between being aromantic and not finding the romantic one(s)? Our discussion so far has been hypothetical. To turn to actual examples of people; my boyfriend spent the first decade of his adult live having soley sexual relationships to people. I guess you can say he was sexual, he even started a sort of relationship to a woman because he wanted the sexual experience. He has no recollection of ever being in love in his youth or in his young adult years. You might label him aromantic because he had never once in his life been in love, and although he had a vague idea that he might get a girlfriend at one point in his life, that idea had little to do with is feelings for people or his experiences with them. He felt more pity than envy of his friends in romantic relationships with their "silly" ways. Then he met me and fell hard for me, which was a rather scary experience for him since he didn't have my "training" of 30 years of relating to objects of romantic love. The way he describes his life before meeting me was, "his heart was closed". Was he aromantic by orientation or was he just waiting for someone like me? According to AVEN, an aromantic is a person who experience "little or no romantic attraction to others" - which seems very descriptive of the former life of my now very devote boyfriend. I have also heard of people who felt very satisfied having platonic friends only, and then got a girlfriend/boyfriend or married when they were 70 years old. I guess it makes sense that romantics vs aromantics exist on a spectrum too - so that not only will we say that we are so and so sexual, but also like "I am 20 % romantic, 80 % aromantic" and so on.
 
Yes, just like there's a grey area (grey-asexuality) between asexuality and sexuality, there's also a grey area (grey-romanticism) between aromanticism and romanticism. If someone has only experienced romantic attraction once or twice in decades, they may very well be grey-romantic.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top