So this tweet crossed my feed, and I got to thinking about it. Because I am kinky, and I do pick-up play (at least occasionally), and I’ve sometimes had partners who I wasn’t “dating”, and… clearly I’m using the term “partner” to describe this, so… Here we go, I guess.
Part of my own answer basically hearkens back to a whole tweet-thread I did – I dunno, a couple of months back? – about being allosexual and alloromantic and what that means for me in relation to a question someone tossed up going “Okay, but… isn’t it supposed to ‘take a while’ to decide whether you want to be in a relationship with someone? What else is dating for?” (Or something to that effect – it was long enough ago that I’m not going to scroll through 8-12 weeks of random twitter yammering to find it).
Basically, I was explaining that, even by the standards of someone Allo, my heart tends to move pretty fast, and the development of emotional attachment (e.g.: romantic feelings) can be sped up(?), for reasons I don’t entirely understand but that probably have to do with oxytocin or something, by physical stuff like kissing or hugs or sex.
Which, in the context of Thista’s tweet, above, is basically a long-winded way of saying “I don’t really do Friends With Benefits”. I tend to wind up wanting – and wanting in some pretty unhealthy, self-destructive ways – Long Term Relationships with anyone I have casual sex, or an intense and transcendent kink scene, with more than once. Sometimes once is all it takes. It’s part of why I’ll top a friend at a kink party but try not to arrange topping the same friend more than, say, twice a year, in the interests of keeping the Feelings from turning up uninvited.
So. I think part of how I define “partner” is “Am I getting together with this person on a basis that is not only regular (I’ll beat you up again, next Harvest), but that is also fairly frequent (let’s have a weekly standing date where we do Power Dynamic Stuff over Zoom), and where the context of these get-togethers is mutually acknowledged and agreed upon.
At least that’s the theory.
Like, goodness knows I’ve been in situations where what we’ve agreed upon out loud is “We are friends, who are having a “with benefits” fling, and seeing how it goes!” but what’s being going on inside my head, and possibly theirs, has been… something other than that.
Or we’ve both been using the word “partner” to describe each other, but when I say it, I mean “Someone I’m in a romantic relationship with, that I hope will be permanent” and, when they say it, they mean “Literally anyone I’ve stuck at least one finger in, on more than one occasion”.
Right?
In my case – if the examples I just gave aren’t a total indicator – when I say “Partner” I mean “Someone I am romantically involved with, with some mutual expectation and desire for it to be an on-going thing, wherein we have both agreed that that’s what’s going on”.
Which… seems pretty straight forward?
So, okay. This brings us to the question of where the lines are between “a romantic partner and a play partner, FWB, close friend, etc”?
I mean, a friend-with-benefits is… not going to stay that way for long. I’m either going to wind myself up into a mess of attachment anxiety and break off the “with benefits” part for the sake of (a) my own sanity and, hopefully also (b) the continuation of the friendship part OR we’re going to end up dating because the Feelings are mutual. (…Reader, I married her).
A close friend is basically someone with-whom I have an attachment bond but no romantic or sexual relationship. Although given that every time I level up in emotional intimacy with my Close Friends, I reliably go through a period or wanting to date and/or make-out-with them. So it’s not to say that I don’t ever have romantic or sexual attraction to people who fall under the heading of “close friend” but, as I’ve said to one such person, “You have a room in my heart. It has a single bed, and it’s going to stay that way, but you have a room in my heart”.
With all that in mind, and recognizing that “friends with benefits” is generally an uncomfortable position for me to occupy, while a “close friend” periodically comes with a side-order of uninvited pining, AND romantic desires can be increased by significant sexual kinky interactions, especially ones where I’m feeling vulnerable… What, then, constitutes a play partner, when it comes to my own personal definitions?
I’m kinky. I don’t identify as a swinger. So let’s get this out of the way first: When I say “play” I’m specifically talking about BDSM, and I’m specifically talking about BDSM where I top in a… stone-adjacent(?) kind of way, and where I don’t do stuff to anybody else’s genitals, even when I’m doing stuff to, say, their nipples.
By virtue of the word “partner” and my own definition there-of, above, I would say that a play-partner is someone I do kinky things with on an ongoing basis.
BUT
Because of all the things I mentioned about how (quickly) I attach to people, a play-partner is also someone who I do kinky things with on only an occasional and time-bound basis. “Oh, hey, we did that scene at that event. Yes, I’m up for coming over and doing something similar again”… but, no, I don’t want to do it more than once every six months or so, or I’m likely to start wanting more than what’s being offered, or start thinking I want more than I actually do, or can handle if I were to receive it.
So that’s my answer.
Partner = Romantic dating + sex + (pretty much always) kinky stuff
Play-Partner = Kinky stuff + actively avoiding romantic dating & sex
TTFN,
Ms Syren.
[1] This is embarrassing (or at least was until I figured out why it was happening), but at least it settles down after a couple of weeks once I’m used to the new normal.
What is your relationship with the term “demisexual”? I never know whether to define myself as demi because I am deeply allosexual and demi is usually associated with the ace spectrum – but I have learned to avoid or carefully frame more playful connections lest I risk awkward one-sided Feelings. Is there a word for folks in whom sex and romantic attachment are perilously entwined, or is that demi too?
Demi is definitely an ace-spectrum thing.
My understanding – which is like… entirely based on 2-3 demi-identified people talking about it at one discussion group, so it’s not based on much – is that demisexual means (or can mean?) that you have to have a pretty deep romantic/emotional attachment to a person before you’re able to develop sexual attraction to them. And demiromantic is like… you don’t really experience romantic attraction to someone unless you’ve had a really deep friendship with them for a few years.
Maybe.
Or maybe one way this manifests out of many.
Like I said, my understanding of this is limited and not based on a lot.
The thing where sexual interaction is perilously entwined with romantic attachment, though?
That’s literally the expectation of The Patriarchy for how sex and romance work (which is why it didn’t have a name up until the aro/ace crowd reverse-engineered one for us).
Right now, The Patriarchy is all about saying that this specific allosexual-alloromantic behaviour – which it expects and demands – is Totally A Girl Thing (and juxtaposing those needy, clingy women (amirite boys) who meet that expectation, with those unnatural/unfeminine/hyper-feminine sluts (amirite boys) who don’t
BUT
The Patriarchy has spent plenty of history calling it Totally A Boy Thing and claiming that women were totally frigid and/or didn’t have the guts/heart/balls/etc for actual romantic attachment, but that if a dude got a boner for anybody, he’d 100% swear undying love for her and rush off to commit Crimes Of Passion any time he got jealous and/or his lady’s honour was in some way being besmirched.
Either way, it’s been an expectation of our society, on one level or another, pretty much since Eleanor of Aquitaine (iirc) came up with Courtly Love ~850 years ago, if not for longer than that.
…In my particular case, it’s just allosexuallity+alloromanticism with a nifty-fun side-order of anxious-preoccupied attachment style that intensifies everything, you know?
It’s a pain in the ass. But here we are.
That makes sense! While moving in poly/kinky circles can make it feel less normative, it’s still relatively privileged vs. being ace and/or aro. Thank you for the depth of response!
Honestly, the whole “slut/clingy” BS probably has a lot of women feeling non-normative, even in the most hetero-monogamous-vanilla of situations (there are SO MANY self-help books aimed at middle-aged ladies, in exactly that kind of relationship structure, that are basically “How to get your groove back — but not TOO much”).
And a lot of dudes feeling like they’re supposed to be up for it in a no-strings way at any time, with anyone, and like they’re Failing To Man Correctly if they DO tend to fall head-over-heels for the people they have sex with, for that matter.
But you’re right about it feeling kind of… extra non-normative in polyamourous circles.