Originally Posted by Eponine
I think I understand what you mean. As a relationship anarchist, I also like the idea of dropping narrow categories and their expectations, and instead just letting each relationship evolve naturally into whatever form makes sense to us. I don't get why lack of full-time romantic commitment has to mean "fwb" or "nsa" - there are many shades of grey when it comes to relationship styles!
Relationship anarchy! I like that.
I'd been trying to come up with a term for this idea, myself.
I may step on some toes with this - apologies in advance! - but I've been thinking of drawing from a half-remembered second-hand knowledge of radical theories about identity by coining the term "relationship-queer".
The half-remembered bit - which I associate with the term "queer theory" - is that gender identity is a wide field between the poles of masculine and feminine, a field on which we can and should play freely.
I'm not gender-queer, myself, but maybe I'm relationship-queer. I've written about this elsewhere, but I imagine a wide field (or space, or n-dimensional space) of possibilities . . . etc.
"Relationship anarchy" might accomplish the same thing, but maybe with overtones of danger . . .