(no subject)
Jun. 6th, 2008 01:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
baronessekatThis week to keep my mind busy while I have not had much to do at work, I’ve been listening old episodes of a podcast called “Polyweekly”
It doesn’t give advice but just thoughts, feelings and things from a Polyamorous point of view. Most of the time I’ve been able to see/grasp/understand an alternate approach for topics when they have been presented in a POV that is not mine.
However, episodes #65 (air date July 4, 2006) has me sitting here actually glowering. The shownotes are at http://polyweekly.livejournal.com/2006/07/05/ (thought this does not give transcript, just the outline of the show)
This episode had a round table with the hostess, her primary lover and two of their friends. One of the topics they came to was “emotional intimacy” and "asexualism".
The topic of asexual relationships was the topic that hit my button.
Basically the participants all seemed to agree that it is actually possible to emotionally intimate with another person without being sexually intimate, (though they seem to have trouble grasping the idea and state that it seems how it is a different way of thinking) but then move to the discussion of can something be a relationship when there is no sexual intimacy.
“I’m thinking of where the line begins for a relationship…. I think back to a Loving More article that talks about can you have a relationship with someone that doesn’t have any sex and is that a relationship and what type of relationship is it and how do we define a relationship with someone and what is included in that definition,” the female guest said. When she finished saying this the rest of the panel sat silent and then seemed to agree with the statement.
My initial gut reaction, and the reaction I still have after having now listened to the conversation 4 times is that usually the inclusion of sex in my definition of relationship is so far down the list of what makes a relationship a relationship, that this idea of wondering how you can have a relationship without sex is mindblowing for me.
The definition of relationship that I found on www.dictionary.com is:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
re•la•tion•ship [ri-ley-shuh n-ship] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a connection, association, or involvement.
2. connection between persons by blood or marriage.
3. an emotional or other connection between people: the relationship between teachers and students.
4. a sexual involvement; affair.
Sex is listed as a 4th possible definition. Some of the other definitions give do not even mention sex.
“I’m still having trouble wrapping my mind around the amoeba thing,” is the comment the male guest said in regards to people having long term committed relationships that have no sex involved.
Come on, what’s there to not comprehend? Is it so left field that someone would be close to someone emotionally without having or needing sexual desires? Or is it a guy thing? Girls have their best friends in school that they more or less “date” without the sexual tensions. They have their shopping and coffee buddies that they talk and confide in. There is the emotional connection and intimacy without the sexual. Are there no equivalents in the male culture? I know, I know, no there really isn’t. But still.
A relationship is a connection. I have a relationship with my dentist. Doesn’t mean I want to sleep with him. (Eewwww by the way). I have relationships with my co-workers and I sure as heck don’t want to even think of sex with 98% them. And the 2% that I would maybe consider THINKING about the idea are married/way younger than me/have scary spouses. Just because I do not have a sexual relationship with these people doesn’t mean I do not have a relationship with them.
Does the fact that I have never slept with![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
theboomboom mean that our relationship is any less of a family relationship because it is only on an emotional commitment level?
After some discussion the female guest finally says that she guesses that “there is a definite level of emotional commitment that happens between two people and perhaps that is where you begin to define that that’s happening.”
And then finally they talk about how emotional infidelity can lead to more issues and agony than sexual infidelity. And that it is possible to have an emotional affair and actually emotionally cheat.
“I wonder for those of us that do not identify as asexual, I wonder if part of the emotional betrayal is the fear that it will become sexual. I wonder if it would be different if you know as identifying as amoeba or asexual you know that is never going to be sexual, does that take the fear away?”
“Because so much of my self identity is wrapped around my sexuality, the concept of losing that is akin to the concept of losing myself. Though I recognize that it is a possibility and I will have to deal with it someday,” the host’s lover said. But he does go on to say that there are BDSM situations that he has been involved in that while there was no sex, it was highly intimate. Therefore he said “I can definitely understand how even though they say asexual, there is still a capacity for intimacy.”
In later episodes the host talks about emotional intimacy and the distinct feeling that I have gotten from the hostess that she believes that while you can be sexually intimate without being emotionally intimate, but you can’t really be emotionally intimate without sexually intimacy.
I grasp that she is a highly sexual person. I applaud the wanting to look at the world around us and help make polyamorous relationships more mainstream. I am glad she is standing up front and talking about things that are not often talked about.
I guess my issue with it all is that while the goal is to make polyamorous more mainstream, the implication I get is that if it’s not monogamous or poly it’s not a real relationship.
I fully intend to listen to more recent episodes to see if the approach to things has changed. But right now I’m annoyed at the narrow-mindedness of a podcast that seems to want to encourage open-mindedness.
Ok, done ranting. Going back to listening.
It doesn’t give advice but just thoughts, feelings and things from a Polyamorous point of view. Most of the time I’ve been able to see/grasp/understand an alternate approach for topics when they have been presented in a POV that is not mine.
However, episodes #65 (air date July 4, 2006) has me sitting here actually glowering. The shownotes are at http://polyweekly.livejournal.com/2006/07/05/ (thought this does not give transcript, just the outline of the show)
This episode had a round table with the hostess, her primary lover and two of their friends. One of the topics they came to was “emotional intimacy” and "asexualism".
The topic of asexual relationships was the topic that hit my button.
Basically the participants all seemed to agree that it is actually possible to emotionally intimate with another person without being sexually intimate, (though they seem to have trouble grasping the idea and state that it seems how it is a different way of thinking) but then move to the discussion of can something be a relationship when there is no sexual intimacy.
“I’m thinking of where the line begins for a relationship…. I think back to a Loving More article that talks about can you have a relationship with someone that doesn’t have any sex and is that a relationship and what type of relationship is it and how do we define a relationship with someone and what is included in that definition,” the female guest said. When she finished saying this the rest of the panel sat silent and then seemed to agree with the statement.
My initial gut reaction, and the reaction I still have after having now listened to the conversation 4 times is that usually the inclusion of sex in my definition of relationship is so far down the list of what makes a relationship a relationship, that this idea of wondering how you can have a relationship without sex is mindblowing for me.
The definition of relationship that I found on www.dictionary.com is:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
re•la•tion•ship [ri-ley-shuh n-ship] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a connection, association, or involvement.
2. connection between persons by blood or marriage.
3. an emotional or other connection between people: the relationship between teachers and students.
4. a sexual involvement; affair.
Sex is listed as a 4th possible definition. Some of the other definitions give do not even mention sex.
“I’m still having trouble wrapping my mind around the amoeba thing,” is the comment the male guest said in regards to people having long term committed relationships that have no sex involved.
Come on, what’s there to not comprehend? Is it so left field that someone would be close to someone emotionally without having or needing sexual desires? Or is it a guy thing? Girls have their best friends in school that they more or less “date” without the sexual tensions. They have their shopping and coffee buddies that they talk and confide in. There is the emotional connection and intimacy without the sexual. Are there no equivalents in the male culture? I know, I know, no there really isn’t. But still.
A relationship is a connection. I have a relationship with my dentist. Doesn’t mean I want to sleep with him. (Eewwww by the way). I have relationships with my co-workers and I sure as heck don’t want to even think of sex with 98% them. And the 2% that I would maybe consider THINKING about the idea are married/way younger than me/have scary spouses. Just because I do not have a sexual relationship with these people doesn’t mean I do not have a relationship with them.
Does the fact that I have never slept with
theboomboom mean that our relationship is any less of a family relationship because it is only on an emotional commitment level?After some discussion the female guest finally says that she guesses that “there is a definite level of emotional commitment that happens between two people and perhaps that is where you begin to define that that’s happening.”
And then finally they talk about how emotional infidelity can lead to more issues and agony than sexual infidelity. And that it is possible to have an emotional affair and actually emotionally cheat.
“I wonder for those of us that do not identify as asexual, I wonder if part of the emotional betrayal is the fear that it will become sexual. I wonder if it would be different if you know as identifying as amoeba or asexual you know that is never going to be sexual, does that take the fear away?”
“Because so much of my self identity is wrapped around my sexuality, the concept of losing that is akin to the concept of losing myself. Though I recognize that it is a possibility and I will have to deal with it someday,” the host’s lover said. But he does go on to say that there are BDSM situations that he has been involved in that while there was no sex, it was highly intimate. Therefore he said “I can definitely understand how even though they say asexual, there is still a capacity for intimacy.”
In later episodes the host talks about emotional intimacy and the distinct feeling that I have gotten from the hostess that she believes that while you can be sexually intimate without being emotionally intimate, but you can’t really be emotionally intimate without sexually intimacy.
I grasp that she is a highly sexual person. I applaud the wanting to look at the world around us and help make polyamorous relationships more mainstream. I am glad she is standing up front and talking about things that are not often talked about.
I guess my issue with it all is that while the goal is to make polyamorous more mainstream, the implication I get is that if it’s not monogamous or poly it’s not a real relationship.
I fully intend to listen to more recent episodes to see if the approach to things has changed. But right now I’m annoyed at the narrow-mindedness of a podcast that seems to want to encourage open-mindedness.
Ok, done ranting. Going back to listening.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
completely OT
Date: 2008-06-06 06:51 pm (UTC)my brain just broke a wee bit...
you are the third person on my flist who has a tantrum'ing Fizzgig icon...
which means as i'm reading this i thought you were my friend Aileen posting; and her reading about Polyamory was odd, but since she's an odd-ball i wouldn't put it past her.
[she had the Fizzgig and commented on a post of mine, and my friend Sheryl loved it and asked to steal it... talk about like-mindedness, heee]
comparing individualize values...
Date: 2008-06-06 07:00 pm (UTC)there is a certain cultural value to adopting a single-purposing label for each state, on the theory that if one word describes one thing only, it's easier for others to grok meaning when in conversation with someone who uses that word. it's the classic "don't make me think about this, it's too much like work" defence that i think is bringing most of our societal communication skills down to lowest common denominators.
in the end, however, it doesn't mean that the speaker is wrong or even narrow-minded, except in comparison to people who think differently. your definition is not her definition, and that's okay, ultimately. it doesn't sound to me like she was intending to pass judgment on others who manage their poly structures differently from how she does it, but then again, i haven't heard the podcast, either.
when it boils down to potential differences in values, sometimes it's hard to hold others' up in comparison to our own, because they come from such a different place that it's hard to see how we can all be using the same labels and yet meaning such wildly different things. *shrug* my thought is, this is how great interpersonal, exploratory dialogues are born :)
Re: comparing individualize values...
Date: 2008-06-06 07:16 pm (UTC)This one just finally hit the button that has been getting to me was the whole approach to emotional intimacy that has been an underlying thread to almost all the episodes that I have listened to. And how it just so strongly seems that the hostess does not seem to feel that while you can have romps in the sexual hay with someone and not be emotionally intimate, you can also be emotionally committed to someone and not be sexually involved. Even though she has said she has a close relationship with her lover's wife but has not been sexual with her, just done BDSM scenes with her. (at least this is how it has been through the episodes I've listened to).
I guess it all comes down to my own personal approach to things and relationships. I am more fulfilled with a good emotionally committed relationship than I am a sexually committed one.
So I suppose I should answer your question about what word would I like to have the old definition again... relationship.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-06 07:29 pm (UTC)Moo.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-06 07:29 pm (UTC)But if it has gotten you riled up, I'll give it a second listen. I think part of what irritated me was the tone of the whole thing of being at the same time an exclusive club and a highly evolved something or other.
The word "order meeting" kept popping up in my mind as I listened.
Now, this could be my normal reaction to a strongly stated opinion that I perceive as being shallow.
So, I'll state strongly my shallow opinion: These people are just another bunch of "cool kids" who think that what they do defines who they are and makes them better than other people. Pretty much like any other group of people ever.
Nevermind them, I think your rant was freakin' awesome. We can take this topic up at dinner tonight and decide what ought to be in a topical podcast and what ought not to be in one.
Not that I'd use family dinner as a chance to research up for one of my own essays or anything...
*sniff*
um...
Pho!
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-07 02:23 pm (UTC)What *else* would you use?!?
*snort*
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-07 02:38 pm (UTC)