Possibilities (5/?): The QPP/Passionate Friendship

               This is almost certainly the most talked about model among ace communities, and even though I don’t really like The Thinking Aromantic (formerly The Thinking Asexual) (I mean really, gatekeeping greys and demis, for shame) I’m going to use their Passionate Friendship terminology because I hate Plato more. That aside, the model for this relationship has a few possible manifestations:

Kitchen	?	Common Bed	Art Studio/ Office
A (Me)		Living Room/	Dining Room
B

Kitchen	?	?	Art Studio/ Office
A (Me)		Living Room/	Dining Room
+B

               This model is probably closest to the romantic/sexual norm, but I can see that normativity (norms aren’t inherently bad, and I don’t think the romantic/sexual norm, as an option is inherently bad.) giving this kind of relationship strength and stability, and while I’d love to be a rebel against the romantic/sexual machine, strength and stability are two things I might be willing to trade for.

               In regards to the common bed, I modeled this relationship both with and without it, since I think that the individual bedrooms would be in question in this kind of relationship and haptics could be achieved by having a shared bedroom.

               I think that both the strength and weakness of this model lie in its closeness to the norm, since the norm offers more certainty than the less charted roads of larger chosen families, this model is more stable. But at the same time as The Thinking Aromantic points out (in their characteristically aroace-supremacist way) “Romantic-sexual people, whether straight or queer, are very attached to the fantasy they have of that romantic-sexual happily ever after, and they cling to it even when it fails them continuously over the course of decades, even though they all know several people who have also had no luck with that fantasy." Just because the norm is better explored does not mean that the norm offers more certainty of long term relationship, the monogamous lifestyle is prone to collapse right alongside the more inventive one. 

Possibilities (4/?): Chosen Family Revisited

This idea is really a variation on the theme of chosen family, but it’s one that seems more common among celibate communities. This idea is one that, to me, could be just as good as the first, and feel more realistic, since it has fewer moving parts. The model looks something like this:

Kitchen	?	Common Bed	Art Studio/ Office
A (Me)		Living Room/	Dining Room
B+C

               This model can be summarized as “traditional monogamous romantic/sexual pair with an additional single person grafted on.” and it seems to me that this type of relationship is harder to separate from the romance supremacy culture - as evidenced by the summary. However, I’ve talked to people in this type of relationship, and that in itself says something about the plausibility of this type of relationship. This relationship subtype has a lot in common with the larger chosen family type: The long-term nature, the focus on the set of relationships as a whole, with each member an equal, etc.

               I retained the common bed in this model even though this scenario makes that possibility less likely, it still stands for an ideal level of physical intimacy in a family relationship. The question mark remains in the diagram because even though this is a more trod path, every relationship is unpredictable, and also because I’m almost certainly forgetting important aspects of good relationship.

               This model’s strength is in the plausibility and in the size of the community that can be formed. The drawback is the anxiety around the relationship between the romantic/sexual couple and the single person, since society will privilege the romantic/sexual relationship over their relationship to the single person, the single person might always have a fear that the couple might leave them or treat them as a less important part of the whole. I’ve spent less time thinking about this model over the first one, but I can definitely see the appeal of fewer moving pieces and possibly the depth of relationship that can form between three people as opposed to six or more, but on the other hand the other model’s distance from the norm adds a sort of commitment to that distance that this model doesn’t intrinsically entail.

Possibilities (3/?): Chosen Family

Now that the foundations are laid, I think it’s about time I got to the actual project of looking at what I’m looking for. The first idea I want to present is the one that I would choose first, and it’s probably also the one that falls closest to both the category of checklist and the realm of lived relationship. The floor plan model for that relationship looks something like this:

Kitchen	?	Common Bed	?	Art Space /Office
A (Me)		Living Room/		D+?
B+C		Dining Room		E+F

In a way this map is fairly close to the late-to-post-college experience, a group of friends living together, splitting rent and food. It may in fact be the case that there wouldn’t be a whole lot of functional difference between that arraignment and the one I am presenting here, at least in the short-term. Which brings us to the major difference, this is a relationship set that, ideally, would last beyond just a few college years. In addition, the chosen-family model would accommodate both “single” people and people in romantic/sexual relationships, all as part of one family.

This model is also quite close to some models I’ve seen proposed by relationship anarchists, with a combination of both close-friendships and romantic relationships and sexual relationships, in a large web of interaction. A major difference from those models though would be that, in this model, all of the relationships are together - both in a relational sense and in a physical sense. The family that I want is based on more than just individual consent, it also believes in group consensus and togetherness. I believe that relationships work best when time is spent in presence with one another, and living together is the way that facilitates that best.

I don’t have all the details figured out, and I don’t think that would be very healthy if I did, but I have spent a lot of time daydreaming about getting to live with my friends for the foreseeable future. Sitting around a fireplace, or making a meal together, taking care of pets. Living our lives, and having a community to return to in the evenings. But the question marks leave room for growth, for change, they’re a flexible space, to remind me not to get caught up with rigid dreams.

            One of the major things I don’t have with this plan is how to make it happen, and once it’s begun, how to make it work. I’m hoping that I can gain some insight looking at co-housing communities, but so far I just can’t imagine asking my friends to commit to something this out-there, although I have talked about it with a few of them. This feels like something with so many moving parts - having one person dream about six or more people’s futures, well, it feels impossible. 

New Blog

Since a large part of the Ace blogging community seems to be on wordpress, I've decided to move this blog over to https://acelibrarianblog.wordpress.com/

Possibilities (2/?): Ways of Modeling and some Common Themes

               In the past year, I’ve thought about a lot of ways to model relationships that are a touch more complex than your normal (statistically speaking) romantic/sexual monogamy (or attempted monogamy as the case so often turns out to be). I started with the simple family tree style graphic, lines connecting people on a two dimensional space, this got confusing quickly, as different kinds of relationships were hard to separate from one another, and the cohesion of the whole quickly got lost in a tangle of lines and double lines. I also tried a more 3D molecular model, with lines connecting members in space, allowing meaning to be shifted from line type to position in space, but this too became confusing quickly. The modeling method that I liked the best (though it’s still not without its flaws), is the house model – in my dream house, how would space be divided? Although this method relies heavily on conventional assumptions to do the work I want it to do (namely to separate sexual/romantic relationships from non-sexual/romantic ones), it is clean and clear and maintains the unity of the whole while allowing for a variation of types of relationships bound together by the whole, as well as providing opportunities for emphasizing other aspects of community development that I think are important chosen families.

               Another thing that the floor plan modeling allows for is the processing of the nature of the group relationship, as well as aspects of individual relationships within the group. The place informs the people in it, and the rooms you plan for say something about the relationships you want to nurture, and how you want to do it. All of my plans (involving more than just me), have a few rooms in common:

·        

•       Kitchen/Dining room – food is critically important to any relationship, it is in eating together that we grow together.     
•       Living Room – again, spending time together, in the presence of the people you love is important to me, as well as having a space to be a host, since by hosting others the strength of the primary relationships is strengthened.
•       Art space/ Office space – Supporting the hobbies and skills of the other people in the relationship is important, since that is part of being invested in each other.
•       A Common/shared bed – Haptics are something that I’m finding increasingly both pleasant, and important for the building of deep relationships, and the common bed, a place to sleep together in the most non-sexual sense of the phrase.
•       And finally, each design has individual bedrooms- places of privacy, to create a place for the individual amid the group, or a place for a romantic/sexual relationship within the non-romantic/sexual larger group. 

Possibilities (1/?): Ace Theorizing and Ace Practice

Perhaps the most contentious part of A Life Unexamined’s post on things they’d wished they’d known about being an Aro Ace in a relationship is their line: “Sometimes you’ll feel like screaming at the aces who talk about what their ideal relationship would look like, at their checklists of what exact things they’d do and wouldn’t do, at the endless hypothetical discussions that actual, real life relationships never seem to feature in.” This quote points to something that I can definitely see, both in myself and in the parts of the ace community that I interact with online. There is an eagerness to define or describe or imagine a perfect asexual aromantic relationship, or relational system, but the stories of people who have made it happen are few and far between.

               This is not to say that theorizing about relationships that break from allosexual norms is bad, but following a weak form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, theory and practice must inform each other, there must be a praxis: whereby theory opens up new forms of relationships and offers new ways of understanding (perceiving) existing ones, and on the other hand, practice must provide new things to understand and must push the boundaries of what we can theorize about.

               Now, that’s all well and doctrinally sound to say, but in truth relationships are much easier to theorize about than they are to practice. I don’t mean to imply that theorizing about ideal relationships is unnecessary, or unimportant, dreams of the future are intensely hopeful (and I am a creature craving hope), and in my own life I lean heavily toward the theory end of almost everything. But it is precisely because ace relationships are harder in practice (because maintaining a relationship takes more time, emotional investment, interpersonal dedication, etc. than writing about an ideal relationship), that they are at least as important. Ace relationships, even when they fail to follow the theory to the letter, even when they don’t last, have the gravitas and impact of interpersonal relationships that have succeeded at least for a time. Each relationship like this, whether or not it succeeds in the long term, can be used as the fodder for a next generation of theory.

               This prescript is mostly a reminder to myself, cause I’m going to write about what some possible futures look like for me, and, since I’m relatively young, those futures exist almost solely in the realm of theory, largely unpracticed – barely more than pieced together dreams and collected wishes, but at the same time, those wishes and dreams couldn’t happen until I had met and loved people who I could imagine those futures happening with. So the following ideas are unlived, but they aren’t uninfluenced by real relationships, and I’ll do my best to stay away from endless checklists and hard and fast boundaries. 

Some Ideas About Labels

      1st Idea: I am a fan of Labels. More than just words to describe shared experience, to mark me as part of a community, I like having words to describe my personal experience, to provide me with a context for myself, and to help me understand how I relate to the world*. But one thing that fuckyeahasexual really holds to, and it is a sentiment held within and without the Ace community and maybe even the LGBTQ+ community, is the idea that in order to be useful, or even applicable, a label must be self chosen. This doesn't seem to revolutionary to me, but reading this post, it seems clear hat the self-chosen aspect of labels isn't as important universally. I'm just going to say that the self-chosen aspect of labeling seems pretty important to me, with the exception of fictional characters**.

      2nd Idea: As a culture we have reified sexuality labels, for sometimes good reasons, we have taken abstract concepts and turned them into concrete identities (or tried to). The way I see it, sexual orientation labels are most helpful when they are descriptive and predictive - when they remain abstract and open to the confusing nature of life. The way I would phrase this understanding would be like this:
     "I haven't experienced sexual attraction (descriptive), therefore, when planning for the future I will probably be most satisfied by exploring alternatives to the romantic/sexual path that is founded in sexual attraction (predictive)"
   
      A straight woman might phrase it like this:
      "In the past all of the sexual attraction I've felt has been towards men (descriptive), therefore when looking for a romantic/sexual partner I will probably be most satisfied by focusing my attentions on men (predictive)"
   
      These models focus on using past experience as a means of predicting future but also allow for the complexity of sex and gender.
   
      What we have done by reifying sexuality is we have changed the labels from this model to one that is definitive and restrictive. Under the reified model I would describe my sexuality like this:
     "I have never felt sexual attraction, therefore I am asexual (definitive), therefore I cannot feel sexual attraction in the future without having to change the label that I use (restrictive)"
   
      I think that this model is more harmful than helpful. The restrictions present in this model mean that anytime someone feels something outside of the limits of the label that they have chosen the foundations of something that they think is inextricably part of themselves are thrown into question. Questioning the foundations of your self is tiring to say the least, and after it happens once an uncertainty hangs over you like a dark cloud, threatening more upheaval. The abstract model doesn't have this uncertainty because it sees experiences outside the "definition" as additional descriptors that may be useful for future predictions.

      My analysis of reification thus far has been fairly negative, and I stand by that, I think the abstract model is more accurate and nuanced, but here I want to point out the legitimate reasons that probably led to reification. Beyond the fact that people tend to naturally favor simplicity that abstract models don't lend themselves to, the concrete model of sexuality allows a more stable identity to emerge, and around that identity a more stable community can form, a more stable community can leverage more effectively for social and political standing. Reification and essentialization of sexuality have been important tools in the process of gaining political equality, but those gains have come at a cost.

      These thoughts are just based on some gut feelings and a couple of conversations, so I'm sure there are things I simplified or missed, so please let me know if you have any thoughts!

*As an aside, this is part of why I'm so frustrated with being unable to get a firm grip on my romantic orientation. I know there's this way of describing how I want to relate to the world, and to other people, but I can't find a decent definition of romantic attraction (which isn't surprising, it's the romantic version of the invisible elephant) so I have the choice, essentially of an array of different options based on whatever definition I choose (Aromantic, Demiromantic, Biromantic, Heteromantic) but this wasn't supposed to be a post about my frustrations with myself so I'll move on.

**I could caveat that statement farther, but that might be worthy of a post by itself.