Originally Posted by hyperskeptic
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 wide field (or space, or n-dimensional space) of possibilities . . . etc.
"Relationship anarchy" might accomplish the same thing, but maybe with overtones of danger . . .
Yeah, that makes sense. Just like queer theory says a person doesn't have to fit in the box of "male" or "female", relationship anarchy says a relationship doesn't have to fit in the rigid category of "just a friendship", "fwb", or "romantic relationship". I've also heard some people with unconventional relationship styles use "queer" to describe their relationships.
You may be interested in reading the wiki entry
of relationship anarchy and the references.
Heteroromantic asexual female, sex-positive, childfree, relationship anarchist.
Married to G, and in a partially non-romantic, completely non-sexual and long-distance triad with A and L.