Jay's relationship glossary :)

[jay]

I've had several discussions lately with folks about relationship labels. For myself, I tend to view friendship and relationship as part of a continuous spectrum, with friendships simply being a kind of incomplete/damaged/otherwise-constrained relationship (if close) or else simply a non-hostile person (if not close). These are mine, for my own historical reasons, and I am not trying to persuade anyone else to use them. Only perhaps to better understand what I say, at times?

sweetie: someone with whom I have emotional closeness and affection, a loving relationship. And typically some degree of attachment, and/or ongoing communication with each other. It is regardless of whether there's been any physical play or intimacy in the relationship, of whatever sort. Someone I trust and can have fun with.

lover: is someone with whom I've been some form of physically intimate, ironically whether or not there's any ongoing emotional attachment.

partner = sweetie + lover, plus a deeper ongoing commitment or attachment.

friend: is generally someone with whom I've mutually agreed to not be hostile. Closer to me than an acquaintance, but the term doesn't carry any connotation of openness or safety or support. If someone says "let's just be friends", I hear "we'll agree to not be enemies in the future, but not necessarily anything more." Not a love-relationship, per se.

friend-with-benefits: = friend + lover, without ongoing attachment

ambigu-sweetie: from radven originally, for me this is vaguely friend+sweetie, but since those are along the same continuum, it refers to differing connections in different activities.

tocotox, quantum-relationship: these are placeholder names I use for relationships/friendships that don't easily fit in the above categories, or which may function as one thing in some ways and as a different one in others. Or may probabilistically jump between different energy/connection levels over time, in the latter case.

I last visited this topic about 16 months ago, in this thread.

Comments

[yami-mcmoots.livejournal.com]

So loving-but-nonromantic is an oxymoron for you, and you're in a Relationship with your kids?

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Also... as regards "quantum relationship"... like tocotox, it describes a relationship which fits into different aspects of friend/lover/sweetie. But I see TOCOTOX as simultaneously those things, just across different areas or aspects. While a quantum-relationship is piecewise-different *over time*, in that two people may act as friends today, act googly-eyed and coupled over dinner next week, and then play passionately at next Saturday's party before being friendly and aw-shucks again two days later. Jumping between phase states, but landing more-or-less completely in them before jumping to the next state. Temporally piecewise-consistent, while a TOCOTOX is an ongoing mixed-bag?

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

(grin) yes (first), and no (second). Context is adult relationships, not blood relatives... besides, the first question requires consensuality.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Interesting... I would have guessed differently, given your own (locked) post this past weekend?

[yami-mcmoots.livejournal.com]

Well, my "tiny proportion" might not be as tiny as mactavish's. But I certainly do feel trusting/close without feeling sexually attracted (even in a limited sense), even with otherwise very sexy people, quite frequently.

[satyrlovesong.livejournal.com]

*raspberry* *tacklepounce* Some of us ornery types will learn ya!

And thanks.

[satyrlovesong.livejournal.com]

Ayep. Often, and in spades.

A common paraphrased description is "What do you call people that you love without having sex with? Friends."

Then, I define love as valuing their happiness and safety more than my own - so I love a LOT of people. That doesn't mean I want to cuddle up to most of them - it just means that I value them highly.

[satyrlovesong.livejournal.com]

Ahem. Didn't we already have this conversation? You're *generally* sweet, you're always intelligent and entertaining, and the world is brighter for your presence. I wouldn't read your lj, enjoy occasional meals and hang out once in a while if I didn't enjoy the time with you. Trust me, my time is far too valuable to squander.

While I'm sure you're wonderful in bed (I have heard tales, after all), that's not what I value you for - and I suspect that I'm not alone in valuing you for your mind and spirit.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

I think that this difference actually is related somehow to the fast-definitive vs. slower-evolving difference in relationship parsing. I'm guessing that emotional attachment and sexual attraction are fairly separate or decoupled for you? For me, they are closely linked... simply being emotionally attached to someone, for me, puts them also on my radar screen in other ways. Even if their bod doesn't itself necessarily do much for me, per se.

[wordweaverlynn.livejournal.com]

Friended. Not just because you're a grammarian and language nerd, but because I followed your profile to your poetry.

I'm still catching my breath.

[yami-mcmoots.livejournal.com]

Huh. That... more or less makes sense. It maps really poorly to my experience, but it makes sense.

[wordweaverlynn.livejournal.com]

This is a great conversation, and I am glad you brought it up. I'm working on my own relationship glossary.

I'm touch-focused in many ways, but I can also make very strong connections purely through books, music, conversation. Moreover, I have somewhat unusual sexual tastes and emotional history; finding someone whose desires and emotions are compatible with mine is a rare event. So my decision not to sleep with someone is in no way a rejection of them for me. Also, although I hug people, I rarely cuddle with anyone who isn't already an intimate.

Being sexually touched by strangers or those I don't trust is a huge trigger for me. But it isn't the only reason I keep my hands to myself. Incompatibility of desires or relationship styles, existing relationship commitments, lack of time, lack of emotional energy -- they all are factors.


A question for you: all the people you don't become sexually involved with -- do you feel you are rejecting them?

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

Hmmm... you mean like me?

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

(happy grin)

I like it when that happens. Especially given that when I've seen one of you comment, over the past few months, something reminds me of the other.

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

Right. From my perspective, brian1789 and I have been friends for quite some time. From his perspective we have been sweeties. It has led to some difficulty and confusion.

[inflectionpoint.livejournal.com]

Yes!

In my coven, we have become downright tribal, and we are very linked to each other. And two of my brothers are Quite Gay, and one is not, but we still don't Go There, because it's not right for us to do so. And my Teacher is monagamous and married and quite happy. And yet we love each other, tremendously. And I call them brother. And sister. And it's a kind of chosen family, very loving and very non sexual. These relationships, which just ain't sexual and ain't gonna be sexual, are some of the greatest blessings in my life. I am grateful for them.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

That sounds loving and supportive and I'm glad that you have that. It isn't something that I would choose myself, but that's okay too. :)

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Eh. I have some virtues and interesting aspects, and thanks for recognizing them. :) It isn't hard to imagine others valuing me at some level -- just that without a deeper emotional connection, it is harder to see why there would be any level of commitment or affection by the other person.

And this likely reflects my own priorities... regardless of how neat or interesting the other person may be, if there's no chance ever of a capital-R relationship then they immediately get moved to my back-burner?

[serolynne.livejournal.com]

Are you saying that you have nothing else to offer outside of big-R type of stuff?

Some of my most amazing relationships in my life are people who are "just" (and I use that term very lightly) friends. These are people who there is no official commitments - but people who we are simply there for each other because we care about each other. We enjoy each other's company, enjoy good times together, share our joys and frustrations with, are there to help cushion the pitfalls of life, and inspire each other to be better people, etc. No commitment is needed, because we're simply doing what we want to be doing. Sure, we can't be there for it all for each other, and there's no expectation of that being necessary - but when we are, it's appreciated.

And this is there without expectation of building "more" (ie. romantic relationship / sex / partnership / etc). In fact, when there are non-mutual expectations for more, it really makes things awkward and icky.

[satyrlovesong.livejournal.com]

*nods* Yes, I noticed that I've been moved out of the kitchen, so to speak. I'm still quite fond of you though, and wish you well in all things. I'll look after you as I do all the folks I'm fond of. YOUR job is just to put up with my pedantic self, sort of like taking one's cod liver oil. *cheeky grin*

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

When I hear "I want to be your friend," conversely, to me it parses as "I don't love you, don't expect to, and you aren't going to be siginificant to me -- but we can hang out sometimes."

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

(grin) if I have anything in the chosen-family category, you and akienm and your household would be the closest approximation I can imagine...

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm happy enough to put up with, even appreciate your pedantic self. (wink) Even if internally I tend to think of us as "failed relationship" rather than "friends", per se, since you've seen past more of my defenses than a friend typically would.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

I've found that my setting any expectations of "more" is self-defeating, if nothing else. Relationships of whatever flavor have to just flow in their own natural channel, wherever that ends up.

That said, I don't see that I have all that much to offer to just-friends, because absent the deeper emotional connection, or a loving relationship, I tend to keep my walls up and not be completely myself. There are a few exceptions, but not many, and overall my life is dominated by the big-R connections?

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Heh. Quite true, over the years. Although even if we shared common terminology, I think our relationship would still defy neat categorization.

But that's okay, and I appreciate it (and you) for what it (and you) are. Whatever it is... ;-)