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

[satyrlovesong.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's where I noticed the most radical difference as well. People don't get to be a friend until I trust them, as well as like them. His definition of sweetie is closer to my definition of friend. His definition of friend is closer to my definition of "casual acquaintance", or perhaps "friend of a friend".

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Probably similar, because for me people don't get completely trusted until/unless I love them enough to grit my teeth and let down my defenses with them. And by that point, they're probably in my "sweetie" category.

[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.

[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... ;-)

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

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.

[oakdragon.livejournal.com]

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. ;-)

[satyrlovesong.livejournal.com]

*grin* That sure would make things easier on everyone.

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

(nod) Relationship terms, and most important Agreements, if any!