Asexual Poly?

[JaneQSmythe]

Yes, just like there's a grey area (grey-asexuality) between asexuality and sexuality, there's also a grey area (grey-romantic) between aromanticism and romanticism. If someone has only experienced romantic attraction once or twice in decades, they may very well be grey-romantic.

"grey-romantic"

This may very well describe me. I never really understood the concept of romantic love (and still don't feel that I have a firm grasp of it), never sought it, was surprised when it found me.

When I found myself developing "feelings" for MrS - I was surprised (and confused) - I thought that romantic love was a fiction people created to justify their lust for another. Having experienced it once, I knew it wasn't impossible for it to occur again...maybe just highly unlikely? 19 years later it happened again - with Dude.

Now I am tempted to ID as bisexual but heteroromantic - because all BOTH people I have developed "romantic" feelings for were men. But that is an awful tiny n!

Maybe I am polyamorous, bisexual, grey-romantic? Whatever. I am me. Sometimes I lust after people, sometimes I "love" them...sometimes it is more complicated than that. All good.

 

[FullofLove1052]

Q: Is poly about sex?
A: For me? Absolutely not. I would be perfectly content not having sex. The relationship with my ex had been sexless for the last several years we were together. I never missed it.
Q: If you remove the sex, do you just have friendship?
A: Not in my life.
Q: Can polys have romantic friendships?
A: This is not a term I use but sure. Why not?
Q: Can you have romance without sex?
A: I can.
Q: How about sex without romance?
A: I cannot. Romantic love has to be a massive component.
Q: Can asexuals be poly?
A: Most definitely.
Q: Are poly asexuals messed up?
A: I suppose I am pretty messed up...for a demi.

I self-identify as a panromantic demisexual. I do not fall in love with people based on their gender. I do not identify as bisexual because in almost 16 years, I have only dated and had sex with one man. I swore I was a lesbian back in my teen years, and then, he came along. He is that exception. If I was not married, I would be comfortable identifying as asexual. I am not one of those people who lusts or loves at first sight. I do not feel sexual attraction without love, and at the same token, I do not necessarily feel sexual attraction when I am in love. That is what happened with my ex. I no longer loved her the way I once did, and the sexual desire hit zero. My lack of primary attraction is why online dating, FWBs, sex clubs, and anything like that would be fail on every imaginable level. I have only been in love five times in my life, and out of those times, I have not been sexually attracted to all of them. I fell in love with my husband, and THEN developed sexual attraction and desire for him. Sex never entered my brain during the first eleven months of our friendship/getting to know you era. Falling in love with him triggered things that sexuals generally feel from the beginning. In all seriousness, we could have a sexless marriage, and I would still be more giddy than a virgin on formal or prom night.

I am in love with my best friend, and she is in love with me. We have been friends since we were in nappies. We dated back in the 90s. We had an ideal break-up. Despite our history and the romantic love I feel for her, under no circumstances do I ever want to have sex with her or even be in a relationship with her again. Oddly, she wants a relationship with me. How I feel is not because she was a bad partner or even because of my current dynamic. I have no interest in being anything but friends with her. Could I classify it as a "romantic friendship?" I could, but I would rather not. (My husband calls her my NSP or non-sexual partner.) I am one messed up demi, and I take pride in it. Oh well. Back to eating my Krispy Kremes and using the belly as a table.

 

[kdt26417]

I appreciate the input so far. It seems obvious to me that there is a wide range of what can be poly.

Can there be poly without romance? What do you all think? (Mind you, polyamory is a subset of nonmonogamy.)

 

[Tonberry]

I appreciate the input so far. It seems obvious to me that there is a wide range of what can be poly.

Can there be poly without romance? What do you all think? (Mind you, polyamory is a subset of nonmonogamy.)

Depends what you mean by romance. Do you mean romantic feelings, or some sort of action?

In the first case, I would say no, since polyamory is defined by the presence of romantic feelings for multiple people (even when there isn't even any relationship at all). In the second case, then yes, since one does not need to act on one's feelings for those feelings to exist.

To answer previous questions:

Is poly about sex?
Since poly can involve sex or not, I would say no. Especially since "about the sex" seems to imply, to me, that sex is the most defining feature. To me, poly often involves sex but does not have to.

If you remove the sex, do you just have friendship?
No, you have friendship plus romantic feelings, aka a non-sexual relationship. You may even have romantic feelings without a friendship in some cases where partners who are in love don't have an established enough relationship to truly consider each other friends

Can polys have romantic friendships?
I'm assuming you mean platonic relationships, if so, yes. You could also mean being friends with someone you happen to be in love with (whether the love is returned or not). Which is also a yes.

Can you have romance without sex?
Sure. Romantic relationships rarely start with sex even when sex is eventually involved. During that period of time, there is romance without sex. Some relationships also see the sex taper down without the romance disappearing. And of course, some people are never interested in sex in the first place, or have a partner who isn't even though they personally are.

How about sex without romance?
That definitely exists. It's called casual sex. It can also be less casual in the case of friends with benefits or long-term play partners I guess.

Can asexuals be poly?
Anyone who experiences romantic feelings can be poly. That includes romantic asexuals

Are poly asexuals messed up?
This is an uncomfortable question to see. We constantly hear that poly people are messed up for being poly, or aces for being ace. I don't think either is messed up, taken alone or in combination.

 

[kdt26417]

I usually think of "romance," when taken in its purest, most definitive form, to be just the presence of romantic feelings. Any romantic actions are manifestations of those feelings. It's good that you pointed that distinction out.

I think a "romantic relationship" has to consist of two (or more) people who have reciprocal romantic feelings for each other. In other words, unrequited love can't be part of the definition of polyamory ... can it?

 

[Eponine]

I think a "romantic relationship" has to consist of two (or more) people who have reciprocal romantic feelings for each other. In other words, unrequited love can't be part of the definition of polyamory ... can it?

In general I agree unrequited love doesn't count, otherwise monogamous people who have crushes on people other than their partner would be poly. But I think there are exceptions. For example, Alice has romantic feelings for Bob, who is aromantic (or homoromantic). Bob doesn't reciprocate Alice's romantic feelings, but he loves her wholeheartedly, no less than her love for him, just without the romance. They have a relationship that is emotionally and physically intimate, that is considered very significant by both of them. I'd count a relationship like this as part of a poly network. Furthermore, I'd still count it even if both parties were aromantics like Bob.

 

[kdt26417]

Excellent points Eponine.

Whoa ... aromantic poly? I didn't see that coming. How would that be distinguished from other kinds of nonmonogamy? What makes something polyamory? is what I'm saying. If it's not romance ...

We all love various humans, animals, even plants in our lives. What distinguishes those various types of love from polyamory? if it's not romance.

I don't mean to be difficult; I was just caught off balance, and I may be completely misreading what you wrote. If so, steer me right.

 

[Eponine]

I understand that aromantic poly sounds like an oxymoron to most people. As I said in other threads before, I take the "multiple intimate relationships" definition of poly, not the "multiple romantic relationships" one. Love, intimacy, and affection are what defines poly for me. Although they're seen as more or less synonyms for romance by many people, romance doesn't have to be involved. Going back to my example with the romantic Alice and aromantic Bob: They love each other, and their relationship may look exactly like a mutual romantic relationship to outsiders, except that Bob doesn't experience romantic feelings (which may not even be noticed by Alice if they're very compatible in their expressions of love). Since romance is a subjective feeling that only exists in one's head and not necessarily linked to any behavior, I don't see it as a big game changer in intimate relationships (though I don't deny it is for many/most people, especially if they associate certain behaviors only with romance).

Now, many aromantics don't identify as either mono or poly, because they're content having normative friendships only. But some ID as monogamous because they want an exclusive life partner or intimate friend. If they want multiple partners like that, I don't see why they can't ID as poly.

 

[Piroska]

Is poly about sex?
I don't think so. It's my understanding that the name - polyamory - many loves - was created to distinguish multiple loving relationships from other forms of non-monogamy, some of which may be mostly or all about sex with multiple people.

If you remove the sex, do you just have friendship?
That's actually a very interesting question for me right now. Very shortly after Cru broke up with me, we continued to spend virtual and in person time together just as much as we did when we were dating. In fact, after I got over my mourning for the lost relationship, I noticed that the ONLY thing that had changed was that sex and sexual play was off the table (and that wasn't actually a huge change, because we were only just getting to the point in dating where sex was starting to be on the table anyway). Oh, and that he considered himself single. But the rest of it was the same. We still go on "dates", we still talk about everything, I still love him, and the longer we go on, it's clear that he cares deeply about me also. He calls it "just friends" or "touchy-feely platonic friends" (for a non-standard definition of platonic)... but it honestly feels more like a relationship than a regular friendship to me. Maybe that's because I haven't "gotten over" him yet... but we fit well together. It doesn't feel like the one-sided crush I usually get on my friends if I want more than they do.

Another point is that there's another option for physical intimacy besides sex, which is kinky play. I spent considerable time in discussion with a kinky asexual person on fetlife at one point, and while he has never had the slightest interest in sex, has never gotten sexually aroused by a person - he's very kinky. And the acts of BDSM are incredibly intimate expressions of love for him. So for him, his relationships are defined not by who he has sex with, but who he submits to.

Can polys have romantic friendships?
I would guess so. If it's a friendship, and there's mutual romantic feelings, I suppose that would be called a romantic friendship.

Can you have romance without sex?
See above about kinky people. I think there can be a very romantic relationship that doesn't involve sex, for whatever reason.

How about sex without romance?
Definitely possible. Could fall under the other non-monogamy paradigms, or even monogamy, if there's no romance but still sexual arousal and activity.

Can asexuals be poly?
I think so. Because I think the identity of polyamorous hinges more on the love/romance side of things than the sex side of things, and asexuals can be romantic, and or have close loving relationships that are consummated via kink rather than sex (or something else?), it stands to reason that they can also have more than one of those concurrently.

Are poly asexuals messed up?
Depends. People are people. Some people are messed up. Some people aren't. Some people are polyamorous asexuals. Most aren't. Just cause something's rare doesn't mean it's bad that it exists.

 

[kdt26417]

@ Eponine ... can I ask, How are we defining "intimate" in this context? I mean, Wiktionary has just three definitions for the adjective:

• Closely acquainted; familiar. "An intimate friend;" "He and his sister deeply valued their intimate relationship as they didn't have much else to live for."
• Of or involved in a sexual relationship. "She enjoyed some intimate time alone with her husband."
• Personal; private. "An intimate setting."

If it's something neither romantic nor platonic but somewhere in between, what definition can we give it? Is it something we don't have words for?

If we are using the definition "closely acquainted; familiar," then I could have a wife and a close platonic friend and that would count as polyamory. Would that hypothetical be a true statement in real life, or is "intimate" more than just a close platonic friend (and if so, how does it fall short of romance)?

I ask these questions because I am thinking about replacing "romantic" with "intimate" in my personal definition of the word polyamory. Before I do that, I need to know what intimate means (to me) in that context. And I'm not sure what it should mean. Can you help?

 

[kdt26417]

@ Piroska ... thanks for your post; you beat me to the punch.

Actually your post may have shed some light on the word "intimate" ...

 

[Eponine]

I think an intimate relationship can be romantic, platonic, or somewhere in between, but it's above a normative friendship. For me, being intimate means sharing a deep emotional connection, being open and vulnerable in front of each other, and being affectionate verbally and/or physically. If romance isn't involved, the difference between an intimate relationship and a "normal" close friendship can be hard to explain (I've discussed this with A and L, and we all agree the line can be blurry), much like it's hard to define romance. But one way to see it is a non-romantic intimate relationship feels just as significant as a romantic one, at least it's like that for me.

 

[Tonberry]

I think a "romantic relationship" has to consist of two (or more) people who have reciprocal romantic feelings for each other. In other words, unrequited love can't be part of the definition of polyamory ... can it?

I agree, for a "relationship". But if you take polyamory as an orientation, it can exist without any relationship at all, which is what I meant. To me, polyamorous as an orientation simply means able to be in love with more than one person at a time. Not just attracted to several people, but in love.

That does mean I believe that a cheater may be polyamorous, if in love with both spouse and lover, despite not practicing polyamory (the philosophy).

Personally, I prefer using "polyamorous" for the orientation and "polygamous" for the practice (and similarly, monoamorous/monogamous) but many people don't want to be associated with polygamy at all so we usually end up using the same word for both.

 

[FallenAngelina]

Personally, I prefer using "polyamorous" for the orientation and "polygamous" for the practice

Polygamy already has a definition and it means having more than one spouse. If you're not married (in whatever fashion) to your loved ones, you're not polygamous.

 

[Tonberry]

Polygamy already has a definition and it means having more than one spouse. If you're not married (in whatever fashion) to your loved ones, you're not polygamous.

Similarly, monogamous has a definition and it means having one spouse. If you're not married (in whatever fashion) to your loved one, you're not monogamous.

Doesn't stop pretty much everyone from using "monogamous" to mean "having one partner at a time", regardless of anyone being married to anyone. I fail to see why the -gamous part would have to completely change meaning because the prefix is changed.

 

[Eponine]

I think it would be good to separate the poly orientation and poly practice with "polyamory" and "polygamy" respectively, just like "monoamory" and "monogamy". It doesn't make much sense if the difference between "polyamory" and "polygamy" isn't comparable with the difference between "monoamory" and "monogamy". If more and more people start to use "polygamy" to refer to poly practice regardless of marriage, the extended meaning of the word will probably be widely accepted just like "monogamy".

 

[kdt26417]

I guess my observation is that people often use words in a context that isn't consistent. For example, "polygamy," to most people, means what they should be calling "patriarchal polygyny," such as "plural marriage" in Mormonism or harems in the Middle East.

That aside, I just wanted to say a quick thanks for the clarifications on "intimate," and e.g. that a cheater can be polyamorous without actually practicing polyamory -- a concept I heard of (thought of?) awhile ago and have largely agreed about since then.

 

[Piroska]

I also like to separate monoamorous from monogamous. Agree that the connotation is different from most people between monogamy and polygamy, but it does make sense that the former should be used more narrowly and the later more broadly.

Polyamory as an orientation as distinct from a practice is also something that makes sense to me. I've always *been* polyamorous - I just didn't know there was a word for it, or a way to do it right, and therefore didn't *practice* polyamory.

I think an intimate relationship can be romantic, platonic, or somewhere in between, but it's above a normative friendship. For me, being intimate means sharing a deep emotional connection, being open and vulnerable in front of each other, and being affectionate verbally and/or physically.

I really like that definition of intimate. That works for a whole range of relationships too, without, I think, being too broad.

 

[Norwegianpoly]

For every definition, there is a grey area. As a general rule, the point of polyamory is the plural loves or the potentional of such love. Or what my boyfriend, not too keen on special language, calls "a special relationship ". It is funny, because I have fallen in love with people day long since childhood, often several at a time, while my boyfriend only fell in love once, which was when he met me. We really couldn't be more different in the romantic departementet, and so it is kind of strange that we are together since he is a sort of super -mono. Or, if you look at it from a different angle, he isn't that romantic at all.

 

[IndieSolo]

. . . I am thinking about replacing "romantic" with "intimate" in my personal definition of the word polyamory.

In my definition of polyamory, I use the term "multiple loving relationships," because over the years, I have fallen away from the idea of romance or romantic feelings as something essential to a loving relationship -- yet from the outside, others might see my relationships as romances.

I stated this in another thread recently - to me, basically, romance is the outward gestures one makes, but those romantic gestures are not the same as the feelings of love and affection. The actions taken "to romance someone," for example, are engineered to demonstrate, prove, convince, or entice someone into falling in love or being reassured of our love. We all have ideas of what a romantic dinner is, or a romantic vacation, romantic proposal, and so on - to be romantic is to have certain elements that would foster an environment whereby people "in love" are reassured about that love or people in a new relationship are convinced that this is something they can allow themselves to get swept up in.

A person can do a bunch of things that are generally viewed as romantic without actually feeling love for the person they are doing it for, and a person can love someone without making any of the expected or typical romantic gestures. Love and romance are definitely not the same thing, as I see it.

I think it would be good to separate the poly orientation and poly practice with "polyamory" and "polygamy" respectively . . .

I don't see why this would be good. I am someone who does not ID as poly, because I don't subscribe to the idea that there is poly wiring or mono wiring. To me, there really isn't much use in trying to figure out if a person is polyamorous or monoamorous or whatever new term comes down the 'pike. Such a waste of time, in my view. To me, polyamory is just one of several approaches to having relationships, nothing more, and the questions one needs to ask are "do I want to have multiple loving relationships in my life and, if so, how do I make that happen?" I certain am not going to start saying I practice polygamy just because I don't see polyamory as a personal orientation.