Coming out

KC43 said:
People who are asexual are "messed up"? As the parent of an asexual teenager, I take extreme offense to that. Asexuality is a valid sexual orientation, just like heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, etc.

I'm going to go under the assumption that you didn't intend that to be as offensive as it came across, but given that we have members here who are asexual, or who have asexual partners or family members, it might benefit you to be a bit more careful about your words.
Click to expand...

KC43, I actually don't mind being a little but offensive, since it can lead to progress sometimes. Anyway, you say I'm wrong because your daughter is a normal asexual poly. Ok. Except she is underaged, so it is illegal for her to be sexual, so it would be illegal for the converse to be true, and your whole argument relies upon something that is illegal. It is like saying "my son is 1 year old gay poly asexual, so you are wrong." Ok, I guess I'm wrong. But fewer than 1% of people are really asexual, so, yes, by stats alone it would be abnormal, if your daughter was an adult. That is what abnormal means, different from the norm. In your favor "mess up" is also what I wrote and that carries judgement.

Let me be clear: I don't think asexual people are messed up. That are abnormal, however. And, importantly, I do think that asexual polys are probably messed up. But I don't have a strong opinion and could be wrong. I personally think if you are asexual you cannot be in a sexual relationship and that no polys should be asexual, by definition. But that is clearly wrong per your definitions. I would like to call a relationship that you call asexual and poly a friendship. KC43, would you be ok with that? If not, why not?

You argue poly is about love and not sex, but that is where we disagree, I guess. Why? Love is way too indefinite. I love all people, and value all human life just to different extents. I have sex with only a few special lucky people, however.
 
Last edited:
Don't be so obtuse.

When people say "poly isn't about sex," what they generally mean is: Poly is not just about sex. If it were just about the sex, it would be swinging. Poly's focus is on loving relationships, not recreational sex nor having multiple partners just for the sake of having more sex. It doesn't mean polyfolk do not have sex or do not view sex as important; it simply means that poly is about making connections with people on a heart level, rather than only on a physical level. Poly = many, amor = love.

In addition, your experiences do not mirror everyone's. If you yourself are being ostracized and attacked for practicing plyamory, do not assume everyone else here is experiencing the same thing. Furthermore, we have many monogamous and asexual members here, who are very welcome and valued contributors. So, when you say "we" you do not speak for all members here, nor all poly members here. Your opinion is your own, but does not represent all polyfolk everywhere.

And I suggest you watch your step when you post, and be careful how you word your thoughts. I sense that you are only here to stir up trouble. Flinging insults and coming here just to be combative can get you banned.
 
Last edited:
justascientist said:
It is incorrect to say it isn't about sex IMO. I know you mean to say it is both about sex and relationship but it seems too many polys are saying it isn't about sex. If it isn't about sex, you know that you could just have friendship only with the other people you are having sex with.

This bs about poly not being about sex should stop IMO. It is, IMO.
Click to expand...

Except, there's that "romantic" part that's in between friendship and sex.

My partner loves getting to know people. To quote him, he could go on a thousand first dates and be happy. He once had a neighbor who he danced with along the river near where they lived, walked and talked with her while holding her hand, kissed her, supported her through her difficult home life, but never had sex with. Where is that line drawn, really?

From what I've seen (and I'm okay with being raked over the coals if I'm wrong), asexual folks can still appreciate the romantic aspects of a relationship that doesn't include sex - a closeness that's more than friendship, a sharing of your life with someone. I'd still maintain that this is Poly, because sharing the emotional, romantic aspect is still a big bugaboo in monogamous relationships. Hell, I was okay with the sexual part, but the emotional thing led to all sorts of insecurities.

At any rate, Chops has dated a few others. In addition to me and Xena, there's one other person he's interested in having sex with (Noa), but I don't know if that's happened. He's happy to meet people, get to know them, enjoy spending time with them, enjoy their presence - all without having to worry that he's "getting too close" for someone else's comfort. None of that really has to do with sex. It's all emotional, and all about getting *emotionally* close to that person.

As he's said to me in the past, he gets plenty of sex. He's not particularly worried about that part. ;)
 
This:
nycindie said:
Don't be so obtuse.
Click to expand...
And this:
nycindie said:
In addition, your experiences do not mirror everyone's. If you yourself are being ostracized and attacked for practicing plyamory, do not assume everyone else here is experiencing the same thing.
Click to expand...

I agree it is sad when people react badly to your attempts to come out. As someone who came out as lesbian at the age of 14, believe me, I've had my share of difficulties. I don't equate a personal rejection to a personal attack though. If I make the decision to come out to someone as bi or poly or atheist or any of the number of different aspects to myself, I do so without the expectation of garnering support or positivity. I am comfortable with who I am and my beliefs, and I don't need validation of that from other people. I sometimes desire greater closeness with people, and so for me, that's where my desire to be fully known in all my facets comes from. I see being honest about my life and my choices as me offering a chance to another person to fully know me and become closer to me; if they don't want to take that chance and instead decide they want to increase the distance because they disagree with my life choices, then more power to them. Best for them, best for me.

For what it's worth, opting for privacy on Facebook in no way correlates with shame/stigma about being poly, fear of persecution, or feeling 'hated on' by society. I'm just a private person. My sex-life is my sex-life. My sexuality is not a political statement. I have no interest in changing people's opinions on poly, bisexuality, atheism, or anything else. I'm not a poster-girl for any kind of movement - I'm just me. So I'm out to all the people who I am close to, but that courtesy does not extend to my boss, or any stranger on the internet. Not because I give a fuck what my boss or that stranger thinks. Not because I am fearful of repercussions. But because it's none of their business.
 
Okay. (Deep breath, watching my words carefully here.)

First of all, my daughter isn't poly. I am. My daughter is an asexual teenager who experiences *romantic* attraction to others, but not *physical* attraction. If she were to have a relationship, it would be monogamous, at least according to her. (I'm assuming she knows what she wants...)

Second of all, SEXUALITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HAVING SEX. And being *physically* attracted to someone doesn't translate to dropping trou and fucking them.

Third of all, laws about age of consent vary widely from country to country, and within the US, from state to state, so your assertion that it would be "illegal" for my daughter to be sexual is a complete assumption based on not having knowledge of the applicable consent laws. And makes no sense, since SEXUALITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HAVING SEX.

Fourth of all, "normal" wasn't my issue. Normality is highly overrated. I was offended by your statement that people who are asexual are "messed up," which is an extremely judgmental and insulting statement.

Sexuality is about who you find attractive, not about whether or who you're fucking. Which is why you see preschoolers having "crushes" on each other, chasing each other for kisses, etc. By that time, even those 3 or 4-year-old children know whether they'd rather kiss a boy or a girl. Or both. Or neither.

Your comments are ignorant (in the sense of "I'm hoping you're saying this stuff because you don't know any better"), incorrect, and very insulting and offensive. If you don't mind being offensive, more power to you, but I can't understand a mindset that finds it completely acceptable to insult others just for the sake of debate.

You're right about one thing: If someone's asexual, they probably aren't in a sexual relationship. The thing is that LOVE is not *dependent* on sex. Not even romantic love. They can coexist. But romantic love can exist without sex, and sex sure as hell can exist without romantic love. It's an overlap, not an all or nothing. Which is why people who are asexual can also be polyamorous. One is a SEXUAL orientation; the other is a ROMANTIC orientation.

I am not okay with calling an asexual polyamorous relationship a "friendship"
because romantic relationships (i.e. "I'm in love with him/her/them") are not the same as friendships. YouAreHere has explained it much better than I could have. You can call it whatever you like. I'm not here to teach you semantics.
 
Well said KC43.

Re (from tenK):
"I have no interest in changing people's opinions on poly, bisexuality, atheism, or anything else. I'm not a poster-girl for any kind of movement -- I'm just me."
Click to expand...

I sooo identify with that, tenK.
 
I'm always amazed by people who say "if there is no sex then it's just a friendship". In my experience, that is so not true.

You can have romantic relationships without sex. You can have friendships with sex. You can have romantic relationships with sex and friendships without sex. All 4 of these are different for me, and what's more, they are very clearly different.

Some people don't have that difference. I guess to them friends with benefits and romantic partners are the same thing, and that platonic friends and platonic partners are the same thing as well. While that's perfectly fine, it would be nicer if they refrained from telling everyone who works differently that they are wrong.

If romantic feelings did not exist, if everything was just about friendship on the one hand, and sex on the other, then we would never have come up with terms such as "emotional cheating" or "friends with benefits". Then asexual people who don't happen to also be aromantic would not exist. Then there wouldn't be such a thing as demisexuality, either.

We have words for all those things because they apply to some people. If they don't apply to you, that's fine, but don't act like they don't exist just because they aren't part of your life.

Polyamory is about the relationships and romantic feelings as opposed to friendship feelings. Sex sometimes happens, and it sometimes doesn't. People, monogamous, polyamorous or otherwise, sometimes date for months or years before sex happens. In some cases, sex never happens, either because it's not part of the plan, or because the relationships ends before it would have happened. Did those people retroactively not date?

You are free to make sex the most important or relevant part of your intimate relationships, but you shouldn't mandate it for everyone else.
 
YouAreHere said:
Except, there's that "romantic" part that's in between friendship and sex.

My partner loves getting to know people. To quote him, he could go on a thousand first dates and be happy. He once had a neighbor who he danced with along the river near where they lived, walked and talked with her while holding her hand, kissed her, supported her through her difficult home life, but never had sex with. Where is that line drawn, really?

From what I've seen (and I'm okay with being raked over the coals if I'm wrong), asexual folks can still appreciate the romantic aspects of a relationship that doesn't include sex - a closeness that's more than friendship, a sharing of your life with someone. I'd still maintain that this is Poly, because sharing the emotional, romantic aspect is still a big bugaboo in monogamous relationships. Hell, I was okay with the sexual part, but the emotional thing led to all sorts of insecurities.

At any rate, Chops has dated a few others. In addition to me and Xena, there's one other person he's interested in having sex with (Noa), but I don't know if that's happened. He's happy to meet people, get to know them, enjoy spending time with them, enjoy their presence - all without having to worry that he's "getting too close" for someone else's comfort. None of that really has to do with sex. It's all emotional, and all about getting *emotionally* close to that person.

As he's said to me in the past, he gets plenty of sex. He's not particularly worried about that part. ;)
Click to expand...

Alright. I'm quoting you since KC43 said you expressed her opinion best. Reading all the above posts, I think there are a few outstanding disagreements. The disagreement is my words and Norwegianpoly vs. the view that poly includes asexual relationships, as expressed above by you, YouAreHere. My initial proposal was, to repeat, that poly excludes asexual relationships. I got slammed for that notion.

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?

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. 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.
 
Last edited:
This thread, called Coming Out, is about coming out as a polyamorist. It should be where people share their experiences, fears, hopes, etc. regarding the act of revealing their practice or orientation of poly. This argument with justascientist has veered off into a frustrating tangent. I am asking that any discussions of what people think poly is or should be, or opinions on asexuality and how important sex should be in a polyamorous arrangement, not continue here. Start another thread or whatever, but let's get this one back on the topic of coming out, please.
 
Asexual means not experiencing sexual attraction. If someone experiences sexual attraction with the complete absence of romantic attraction/interest, they would be *aromantic*, not asexual.

To steer the thread back to the topic of coming out as poly... I'm potentially (weather permitting) meeting one of S2's oldest friends this weekend. This is the guy who, when S2 came out to him, said, "Dude, you're going to get shot if you keep messing around with a married woman." He seems to understand the situation better now, after several more conversations between him and S2, but I'm still a little worried about meeting him and the potential questions he'll have for me...
 
KC43 said:
Asexual means not experiencing sexual attraction. If someone experiences sexual attraction with the complete absence of romantic attraction/interest, they would be *aromantic*, not asexual.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Finally Had PolyGuts

After several months of introspection and some general marriage advice/discussion here:

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73578

I had another session with my therapist and discussed non-monogamy. I wasn't sure how the therapist would react, but apparently she is (and I sought her out in part for this reason) sex positive and open to the fact that humans are not really monogamous. I used "Sex at Dawn" and "Ethical Slut" as ways to talk about the ideas, research, and skills needed to embark upon non-monogamy effectively (good communication is an obvious prerequisite). The therapist asked me first if I was interested in developing other relationships (I said yes, which kind of surprised me how sure I felt about that). Then she asked if I thought my wife would be open to it. I said, well, I'm not sure, but probably not, just given her background and level of engagement she's had with me and her tending to be asexual and "busy" with other stuff.

I finished reading "Sex at Dawn" a few weeks back and handed the book over to my wife ... and suggested she read the introduction and the last chapter only. She kind of looked at it, and said, "Uh, I'm not going to have time for that - sorry". Sadly, she didn't really read between the lines (like, hey, maybe I want to discuss/embark upon polyamory). Last night, after getting some confidence that I'm not a freak or amoral person for wishing to have some more intimacy (and ulitmately sex) in a relationship, I brought it up to my wife. I was reading "Ethical Slut"; again, she didn't ask me what I was reading or what it was about, just kind of blissful ignorance on the other side of the bed.

So I basically explained how the therapy session went. And how I had discussed non-monogamy. And talked about "Sex at Dawn" again as evidence and some compelling ideas for human sexual relationships. I finally asked, "So, what do you think about non-monogamy?" Her face kind of dropped and she gave me a look, "Well, I'm pretty much monogamous!" ... and the look continued like, "Aren't you?" I had to explain that I was looking into non-monogamy because of our libido discrepancy. I suggested it might it be a solution to meet some of my needs while relieving her some of the pressure to be the one to meet them.

I went on to assure her that I loved her, didn't want a divorce, didn't want to cheat, or have serial monogamy (the final chapter "options" of the standard narrative explained in "Sex at Dawn"). That obviously this is different and non-conventional and I wasn't planning anything yet and that this was just a "thought experiment" at the moment. My wife expressed how she couldn't see how a sexual relationship wouldn't evolve into an emotional one. And though I didn't say it - I think talk #2 will be to try and explain that maybe it will be, maybe it won't, but even if it is ... why must it be exclusive? I would argue she has a deeper emotional relationship with her mother than she and I will ever have .... but that doesn't preclude us from having a very nice emotional connection. Besides that, we still have a great emotional relationship, despite NOT having sex for basically the past 10 years.

I'm glad to have got it out on the table, but it did hurt, I must admit. I mean it hurt to have her question my fidelity for expressing a desire that I honestly don't know will be workable for us. On the other hand, it felt really good to finally mention it and discuss it (and to have the support of my therapist was really helpful for me personally).

But, just to come full circle on the "coming out" topic. Two things helped me immensely: 1.- Having the resources to use as a prop, particularly "Sex at Dawn", since it's a little less explicit about polyamory and 2.- Having discussed it with my therapist first (I guess discussing with just anybody else could have a similar effect). The second point was useful to use just a retelling, like, "Hey, guess what I was talking about today" instead of trying to express it without that context.
 
I think you did the right thing.
 
I wrote this as a draft in a message I still haven't sent cause I haven't figured out (a) what I want, and (b) how to address it more coherently:

This is partly me addressing the changing relationship with my (soon to be) ex husband, Mal, and how it affects my current relationships, and how THAT affects this whole coming out issue..

"Here is a question... What does it cost you? What are you giving up or suffering if I spend time with Mal? What does it cost you to let him have packages delivered here, to keep this address? Does it hurt you if I speak positively about Mal? If I'm happy for him or worried about him? If I go to help him? What affect does it have on you?

I'll tell you what its costing me... it's breaking my heart. I already don't get what I wanted. I am questioning what love means to me. I am questioning what your love means to me.
I am wondering if, when I am imperfect, if my thoughts and feelings will be discarded, brushed off. I wonder how I fit in here now. A third person? Secondary? Full? Unmarried. Single in the eyes of most of the world. Legally owed nothing. Second class. At best, 'alternative'. I don't want to be a poster child fighting for rights. I don't want to justify my relationships. I don't want to have to describe them. I don't want to hide them. I am in limbo."

.

Do I tell my (Aspergers-black-and-white-loyal-to-his-dad) 17 year old son?
Do we tell our friends? How permanent is this? What if this is just rebounding into something 'safe' after my divorce? Is this how I want to define myself? How I want people to define me? Given that some of my social circle happens to also be connected to or people I work with... will this affect my career? A few folks know... with mixed reactions. Telling different people different things seems like a good way to get tripped up bad. It seems so all or nothing to me. I'm not *quite* Asperger's... but I'm probably the 256-shades of color, rather than 16 Million. Is this train of thought making sense to anyone but me? And, can I get off this ride now?
 
It sounds like you are torn about whether to come out. That must be scary and frustrating.
 
ambivulous said:
Last night, after getting some confidence that I'm not a freak or amoral person for wishing to have some more intimacy (and ulitmately sex) in a relationship, I brought it up to my wife. . . . I suggested it might it be a solution to meet some of my needs while relieving her some of the pressure to be the one to meet them.
Click to expand...
The rest of your post sounds like it was a good initial talk. I hope you remain patient but determined to bring it up again. Some couples take a year or more of talking before anything happens, whether that is agreeing to poly or some other solution. So, no one can expect everything to be addressed and resolved in one or two or even ten conversations. It will take what it takes. But yeah, at least you broached the subject and she listened. That is a great first step. Good for you!
 
I don't think asexual people are messed up. That are abnormal, however. And, importantly, I do think that asexual polys are probably messed up. But I don't have a strong opinion and could be wrong. I personally think if you are asexual you cannot be in a sexual relationship and that no polys should be asexual, by definition. But that is clearly wrong per your definitions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top