jay: (Default)
jay ([personal profile] jay) wrote2008-08-18 11:34 am

Jay's relationship glossary :)

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 [personal profile] 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.

[identity profile] dawnd.livejournal.com 2008-08-19 06:10 pm (UTC)(link)
Ah. Well, that explains your reaction when I told you, about 18 months ago, that I considered us to be *friends*. For me, friendship is more what the others are describing. As a friend, I might or might not feel *love* toward you, but I certainly care about you and you could be very significant to me.

Would it help if you were to make this a three-dimensional map, like those political affiliation things that we've done in the past? It feels to me like you occupy a space somewhere in amongst friend and chosen family. For you, that doesn't seem to make sense (as here) unless there's a sexual or romantic component. While "chosen family" for me CAN have sexual or romantic components, apparently it doesn't HAVE to.

[identity profile] dawnd.livejournal.com 2008-08-19 06:24 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah, I find it very confusing. But that does seem accurate. The result is that I, as someone who is one of Jay's non-existent chosen-family (*wry smile*), feel that he's usually pushing to have our relationship be something that it isn't (for me). Unfortunately, has led to me pushing back, defining MY relationship space, and me telling him that we're not in the very relationship that he needs us to be in to feel safe. We end up bouncing off each other like a tied pair of rubber bouncy balls. I get frustrated because I don't want to cut the connection, but we can't seem to find a comfortable place to be. It seems to work much better if I just let him call me "sweetie," and I hear it as "chosen family." I think we mean more the same thing by that than I'd originally thought.

[identity profile] dawnd.livejournal.com 2008-08-19 06:29 pm (UTC)(link)
I think it's not quite the same. See his comment here for more about Quantum Relationships.

And I do love "ambigusweetie," as a word. It is just so perfect, and necessary. :^D

[identity profile] dawnd.livejournal.com 2008-08-19 06:32 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm willing to go with Ambigusweetie most of the time. :^D And the very defiance of categorization is one of the attractive points between us, I think.

[identity profile] serolynne.livejournal.com 2008-08-19 06:43 pm (UTC)(link)
I don't really not seeing the difference. To me, the 'quantum' relationship fits into my personal use of ambigusweetie.

[identity profile] serolynne.livejournal.com 2008-08-19 06:53 pm (UTC)(link)
Hmm.. I guess for me, with my friendships, there is a very deep emotional connection. These are people who accept me for being me, and I don't have walls up around them. I think it's quite possible that your 'sweetie' definition is more in line with what I consider to be my 'friends' definition. And what you're calling friends would be more like folks who are in my social circles, but yet there's not yet a deeper personal connection (yet).


But by and large, I tend to follow the 'let relationships flow into their own natural channel' and not worry so much about the labels.

[identity profile] dawnd.livejournal.com 2008-08-19 07:04 pm (UTC)(link)
(nod) I think maybe ambigusweetie is a broader term for me? So any given Quantum relationship is also an ambigusweetie, but not all ambigusweeties are quantum relationships. Some ambigusweeties are stable relationships that just don't fit the categories, as opposed to relationships that are inherently changeable over time.

[identity profile] serolynne.livejournal.com 2008-08-19 07:16 pm (UTC)(link)
Umm.. I don't recall saying that all ambigusweeties are quantum relationships. Just that the definition of quantum relationships is included in my ambigusweetie usage, and in [personal profile] radven's intentions with the term. The intention of the term ambigusweetie was to cover all relationships types where 'friend' and 'sweetie' or 'partner' or 'lover' don't quite fit.

[identity profile] oakdragon.livejournal.com 2008-08-19 07:18 pm (UTC)(link)
Recently on the local poly list, there was a discussion on the concept of a "poly hanky code." More important than coded hanky would be a laminated card with a person's relationship terms defined. ;-)

[identity profile] satyrlovesong.livejournal.com 2008-08-19 07:32 pm (UTC)(link)
*grin* That sure would make things easier on everyone.

[identity profile] dawnd.livejournal.com 2008-08-19 07:38 pm (UTC)(link)
I didn't say that you said all ambigusweeties are quantum relationships. I was verbally describing how I see the set of relationships using Jay's terms. When you said "not seeing the difference," I heard it as "the two are synonymous." Sounds like I "heard" that wrong. For me (and I believe for Jay) the two terms are not synonymous. The set of all quantum relationships is included in the set of all ambigusweeties, which is contained within the set of all relationships. I'm suspecting that we are actually in agreement, and that this would all be easier if I remembered how to use set notation properly.

I think one thing I'm seeing here is the success of your/his term. Now that you've "released it into the wild," it's doing a bit of changing and mutating in different environments.

[identity profile] dawnd.livejournal.com 2008-08-19 07:45 pm (UTC)(link)
(nod) Relationship terms, and most important Agreements, if any!

[identity profile] tenacious-snail.livejournal.com 2008-08-19 11:59 pm (UTC)(link)
they (and by "they", I mean "I") would bother because they genuinely like you, care about you, enjoy your company and want you to be happy. They would like to be chosen family or a friend, because they love you, but can't be sexual with you. There is a lot of shared experience, shared goodwill, mutual protection, would-never-want-to-hurt-you, and generalized warmth, along with a dollop of the family-of-origin style "love you even when sometimes you drive me crazy" on both sides.

What I don't know is if you're willing to forge a new option, and add another term to this glossary.

Page 3 of 3