Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-06-2009, 07:50 AM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,648
Default Polyamory and asexuality

Is it possible for polyamory to fit a group of people who love each other and don't have sex with each other, or at all with anyone for that matter.... a kind of asexual poly family?
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-06-2009, 01:27 PM
Quath Quath is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 504
Default

I think so. Sex can be an expression of love, but I don't think it is a requirement.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-06-2009, 07:34 PM
XYZ123 XYZ123 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 369
Default

I've already said I went through times of asexuality yet still had deep emotional and physically intimate (non-sexual) relationships. And I was willing to have sex with my partner(s) if they wanted it as a way to make them happy and fulfilled though I had no desire nor sex drive. I wouldn't have done that with "just friends". So I'd say absolutely.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-06-2009, 08:48 PM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

I'm having difficulty in not sitting on the fence with this one. To me deep friendships without intimacy are just "friendships". The move into sexually intimate activities as simple as holding hands and kissing is what pushes the friendship into the realm of polyamory for me. And yet I can totally see how age or medical conditions could prevent sexual contact beyond that...hmmm good question! In the case of old age perhaps holding hands is the extent of capabilities from an intimate perspective, but the love and intent would still be there....processing...processing.

Last edited by MonoVCPHG; 08-06-2009 at 09:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-06-2009, 09:06 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,896
Unhappy

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
To me deep friendships without intimacy are completely are just "friendships".
There are no deep friendships which aren't intimate, Mono-, though many deep friendships don't include sexual intimacy. Intimacy can be intelletual, emotional, physical (though non-sexual), sexual, etc. The word "intimate" is not synonymous with sexual intimacy.

And some non-sexual friendships can be VERY passionate, with profound love.

Sorry to blur some familiar modes of making distainctions, here. But all of this is factual info.

And it reminds me... I'd like a couple of snuggle partner cuddly friends with whom I am NOT sexually involved. I don't have ANY of these!
__________________
bi, partnered, available

River's Blog
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-06-2009, 09:15 PM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

It's a matter of how each person defines intimate. I define it with sexuality so for me there are lots of friendships without intimacy...in fact every one I have accept that with Redpepper is in my definition, not intimate. But it's just a word my friend
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-06-2009, 10:45 PM
Barry Barry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 35
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
Is it possible for polyamory to fit a group of people who love each other and don't have sex with each other, or at all with anyone for that matter.... a kind of asexual poly family?
I think it is possible. How they arrive at that would be what intrigues me. The way I think of the definition of polyamory is relationships that are intimate both physically and emotionally. Those two elements might exist in swinging relationships but I suspect that they are few and far in between. I know of loving couples in their eighties whose lives revolve around each other. They may be sexually active, it's not uncommon, but probably not frequent. The bond of their relationship seems to come from their emotional intimacy. That would hold true in a poly relationship as well. What I am saying is that a poly relationship could evolve into a non-sexual relationship for whatever reasons, but I don't think it could be defined as a polyamory if the realtionship began non-sexual and remained non-sexual.

Barry
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-06-2009, 11:02 PM
River's Avatar
River River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 1,896
Default

Generally, polyamory is understood by "the polyamory community" as relative to "romantic" relationships -- which are generally sexual relationships, or include sexual expression. However, some members or participants in the polyamory community will -- righly -- insist that not all romantic relationships are also sexual relationships. One has to google up a bit of history to discover that, indeed, there has been a tradition of "romantic friendship," in which passionate love affairs have existed between people who were not necessarily sexually involved with one another. It's worth the google.

Polyamorists certainly typically engage in multiple romantic relationships which are also sexual relationships. And I don't think anyone should have to prove they're sleeping with multiple partners to gain inclusion in our weird little club.
__________________
bi, partnered, available

River's Blog
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-07-2009, 04:20 AM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,648
Default

I think that if a loving, intimate, group of people want to call themselves poly then so be it. It is a matter of what they all want to call themselves. It is more a definition of what romance is.

I have a close friend that I would love to say I am in a poly relationship with, but she would hit the roof. I do things with her that could be seen as romantic.... cuddling, sleeping together in a spoon.... yet for her it is a friendship with intimate bits. I don't let myself go to that romantic place, yet I love her immensely.

hm stuck on this one now.

What is the difference then between a romantic relationship, an intimate friendship that involves sex?
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-12-2009, 01:22 AM
AutumnalTone AutumnalTone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kansas City Metro
Posts: 2,188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
What is the difference then between a romantic relationship, an intimate friendship that involves sex?
Oy, that is a vexing question, isn't it?

I don't think sex is necessary for a romantic attachment. I've had attachments that I thought were highly intimate and romantic, yet without any sex involved.

I've also had friends-with-benefits ties, where the friendship also included intimacy, yet I wouldn't term it a romantic tie.

I can feel the difference. I'm not certain I can describe the difference as yet.

For I have no words and I must speak!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
aromantic, asexual, asexual poly, asexual poly panromantic, asexuality

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:51 AM.