(this is a post I wrote 3 months ago, and am just getting around to cleaning up and posting)
I've been doing some thinking lately on relationships, and what they are to me.
I have only one type of relationship, really. It's the type where I trust you based upon the level of trust you've earned, are committed to you based on the level of commitment you've earned, and are passionate about you to the degree that our interactions are passion-inspiring, all liable to change as more information comes in. My relationships don't stay static: every new experience changes who I am, what's important to me, and how I view people. I think pretty much all people are this way. That's not what makes it interesting, though.
This means that I don't have "girlfriends" the same way a lot of people do. To me, a girlfriend is another relationship, where I trust the person based upon the level of trust she's earned, are committed based on the level of commitment she's earned, and passionate about her to the degree that our interactions are passion-inspiring. What *doesn't* matter to me is what the relationship is called. We can call ourselves "dating", "partners", "lovers", whatever...the label has no effect on the reality of our actual relationship. It works the other way around. To put it another way: I don't trust someone more because we call ourselves "together" versus not "together"; I call ourselves "together" because we trust each other more. I do have terms for my relationships, of course. Even if I don't care what they're called, I still need to communicate with the rest of the world.
In the past, relationships have broken down for me into a few archtypes, which I've called "family", "friend", and "lover". Then there are combinations, the most important of which I call "partner". This somewhat fuzzy categorization has made a lot of sense to me for a long time.
Family is the relationship where there's a lot of commitment, and usually years upon years of history. My parents, my siblings, and a few old friends (notably
meekmistress) are my family. There are times when I don't particularly like these people, or trust them, or feel comfortable or safe around them, but they're still family, and I'd still protect and defend them if their life went awry. These are people I can count on if *my* life goes south, and I need protection and defense myself, even if I haven't seen them in years and just kinda drop myself on their doorstep. I have a dozen or so of these, and they apparently last for a decade or more.
Friend is the relationship where there's a lot of trust. These are the people I can feel safe around, that I feel I can just be myself around. What it takes to earn my trust is highly variable, and I couldn't even tell you -- sometimes I just trust a person within moments, and sometimes I have a lingering distrust that lasts for years. Not all my friends are fun to be around (some are quite morose), and not all people who are fun to be around are my friends (acquaintances, activity partners, etc.), but they're the people I feel a kinship with. I have many of these.
Lover is the relationship where there's lots of passion. There doesn't have to be sex involved, or even sexual attraction, though there usually is. I just can't find a better word. These are the people that I seem inexplicably drawn to, to learn about, to spend time with, to share experiences with. I have a half-dozen or so of these, some of them completely non-sexual.
Then there are the combinations. I call someone my girlfriend when they are both friend and lover. I call someone a close friend when they are both family and friend. I haven't come across an instance where someone is family and lover but not friend, but I think I'd call it unhealthy.
Partner is all three, a relationship with someone who is my family, my friend, and my lover. I typically have from zero and three of these, usually one and sometimes two.
I don't insist that my terms are "right", or that other people use them. I don't use the common "love" versus "in love" dichotomy, but I don't mind if *you* do. I do think that it makes more sense to think of both love and relationships as general connections having the three axes of commitment, trust, and passion rather than thinking of each relationship type as a separate category with the single axes of "closeness". If I've been close to someone for years and then find out that they aren't to be trusted regarding money matters, this will affect my trust of them, but may or may not affect my passion and my commitment to them. The relationship changes in a negative way, but it's not remedied by becoming "closer" again. If it's remedied at all, it's remedied by building the trust again, slowly, over time.
People are people. I treat people differently based on my connection and existing relationship with them. I have a bias to give time to my friends before my lovers (trust before passion), for instance, although the people who are both my friends *and* my lovers get more time still. In general, instead of deciding what type a relationship is and acting accordingly, I explore each relationship independently and try to act in a way that dignifies that connection, whatever it is.
Being polyamorous is simply a side effect of this. I never made the decision, "I want to be polyamorous!" I just *am*, as a consequence of how I view interpersonal relationships. I guess a good way of putting it would be that I self-label as polyamorous, but I don't self-identify as polyamorous: It happens to be something I do, but it's not a part of my identity. Polyamory isn't the point -- the point is unfettered intimacy, to whatever level is possible. It's what drives me to act the way I do, and to not place restrictions on myself or my partner in relationships. It's why I don't have relationship "rules" or agreements beyond what's necessary for physical safety considerations (e.g. kink and std safety). It's why I don't call people "primary" and "secondary". It's why I staunchly refuse any relationship restrictions from being placed on myself. It's why I'm open to the point of social awkwardness.
If anyone wanted to understand the pattern behind how I act in regard to relationships, there it is, at least as best I can figure it out, from my own internal vantage point. I think I wrote it up half to clarify things in my own mind, and half out of a desire to be understood by others.
I've been doing some thinking lately on relationships, and what they are to me.
I have only one type of relationship, really. It's the type where I trust you based upon the level of trust you've earned, are committed to you based on the level of commitment you've earned, and are passionate about you to the degree that our interactions are passion-inspiring, all liable to change as more information comes in. My relationships don't stay static: every new experience changes who I am, what's important to me, and how I view people. I think pretty much all people are this way. That's not what makes it interesting, though.
This means that I don't have "girlfriends" the same way a lot of people do. To me, a girlfriend is another relationship, where I trust the person based upon the level of trust she's earned, are committed based on the level of commitment she's earned, and passionate about her to the degree that our interactions are passion-inspiring. What *doesn't* matter to me is what the relationship is called. We can call ourselves "dating", "partners", "lovers", whatever...the label has no effect on the reality of our actual relationship. It works the other way around. To put it another way: I don't trust someone more because we call ourselves "together" versus not "together"; I call ourselves "together" because we trust each other more. I do have terms for my relationships, of course. Even if I don't care what they're called, I still need to communicate with the rest of the world.
In the past, relationships have broken down for me into a few archtypes, which I've called "family", "friend", and "lover". Then there are combinations, the most important of which I call "partner". This somewhat fuzzy categorization has made a lot of sense to me for a long time.
Family is the relationship where there's a lot of commitment, and usually years upon years of history. My parents, my siblings, and a few old friends (notably
Friend is the relationship where there's a lot of trust. These are the people I can feel safe around, that I feel I can just be myself around. What it takes to earn my trust is highly variable, and I couldn't even tell you -- sometimes I just trust a person within moments, and sometimes I have a lingering distrust that lasts for years. Not all my friends are fun to be around (some are quite morose), and not all people who are fun to be around are my friends (acquaintances, activity partners, etc.), but they're the people I feel a kinship with. I have many of these.
Lover is the relationship where there's lots of passion. There doesn't have to be sex involved, or even sexual attraction, though there usually is. I just can't find a better word. These are the people that I seem inexplicably drawn to, to learn about, to spend time with, to share experiences with. I have a half-dozen or so of these, some of them completely non-sexual.
Then there are the combinations. I call someone my girlfriend when they are both friend and lover. I call someone a close friend when they are both family and friend. I haven't come across an instance where someone is family and lover but not friend, but I think I'd call it unhealthy.
Partner is all three, a relationship with someone who is my family, my friend, and my lover. I typically have from zero and three of these, usually one and sometimes two.
I don't insist that my terms are "right", or that other people use them. I don't use the common "love" versus "in love" dichotomy, but I don't mind if *you* do. I do think that it makes more sense to think of both love and relationships as general connections having the three axes of commitment, trust, and passion rather than thinking of each relationship type as a separate category with the single axes of "closeness". If I've been close to someone for years and then find out that they aren't to be trusted regarding money matters, this will affect my trust of them, but may or may not affect my passion and my commitment to them. The relationship changes in a negative way, but it's not remedied by becoming "closer" again. If it's remedied at all, it's remedied by building the trust again, slowly, over time.
People are people. I treat people differently based on my connection and existing relationship with them. I have a bias to give time to my friends before my lovers (trust before passion), for instance, although the people who are both my friends *and* my lovers get more time still. In general, instead of deciding what type a relationship is and acting accordingly, I explore each relationship independently and try to act in a way that dignifies that connection, whatever it is.
Being polyamorous is simply a side effect of this. I never made the decision, "I want to be polyamorous!" I just *am*, as a consequence of how I view interpersonal relationships. I guess a good way of putting it would be that I self-label as polyamorous, but I don't self-identify as polyamorous: It happens to be something I do, but it's not a part of my identity. Polyamory isn't the point -- the point is unfettered intimacy, to whatever level is possible. It's what drives me to act the way I do, and to not place restrictions on myself or my partner in relationships. It's why I don't have relationship "rules" or agreements beyond what's necessary for physical safety considerations (e.g. kink and std safety). It's why I don't call people "primary" and "secondary". It's why I staunchly refuse any relationship restrictions from being placed on myself. It's why I'm open to the point of social awkwardness.
If anyone wanted to understand the pattern behind how I act in regard to relationships, there it is, at least as best I can figure it out, from my own internal vantage point. I think I wrote it up half to clarify things in my own mind, and half out of a desire to be understood by others.
4 comments | Leave a comment

