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

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

It's pretty straightforward for me. If I can ask, "do I love this person? Do they love me?" and ask "are we in some kind of ongoing communication and contact?" and answer "Yes" to both, then by my definitions I'm in a capital-R relationship with that person, probably as a sweetie, maybe a partner if there's also chemistry. And my willingness to support that person and be there for that person and be loving and affectionate all follow from those fundamentals, for me.

[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]

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

[yami-mcmoots.livejournal.com]

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

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

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.