Marie S. Crosswell explores the radical notion that your Life Partner and your Romantic Partner may not have to be the same person.
The fact that romantic-sexual people equate “primary/cohabiting life partner” with “romantic-sexual partner” is so baffling to me, that every time I think about it, it feels like my mind goes completely blank and the only thing there is a big question mark. This makes even less sense to me than linear algebra. It is so beyond my ability to understand, that I can hardly get over the “How is this possible?” long enough to attempt analyzing the logic behind it.
If you need sex, fine.
If you need romantic relationships, fine.
If you need sex and romantic relationships and you need them to always come in one package, fine.
But how and why would anyone believe that your primary life partner—the person you live with and share your practical responsibilities with and have a home with, etc—must also be your romantic-sexual partner, as if that’s universal law and absolutely impossible to choose your way out of?
◊♦◊
This is completely and totally irrational. There’s a logic to it, sure, but there’s zero rationality. (FYI, logic and rationality are two different things.)
Once in a while, I’ll see or hear about a friendship between two sexual people that actually has emotional weight. (Almost always, the two friends are teenagers or young adults, because the vast majority of sexual adults can’t do friendship worth a damn.) It’s so obvious that the two friends love each other, they get along so well, their relationship is effortless and 99% positive and stable and affectionate, etc. They have an enthusiasm for each other. They can be themselves together. All the ingredients for a secure, healthy, positive, happy life partnership are right there in their friendship.
But they’re going to spend their whole lives searching for a romantic-sexual partner to fill in that “Life Partner” role instead.
Even though romantic-sexual relationships are the most volatile kind of human connection. Even though the American divorce rate is 50%. Even though building nuclear families on a foundation of romantic-sexual monogamous relationships has created a society full of broken homes and kids that have little, if any, stability. Even though most romantic-sexual people who claim to believe in sexual monogamy—because our culture says monogamy is good and non-monogamy is bad—royally suck at it in practice. Even though cohabiting with a string of lovers takes highly uncomfortable emotional and practical tolls when the couple breaks up and someone has to suddenly move out. Even though you’re fifty million times more like to be physically, mentally, sexually, and emotionally abused by a romantic-sexual partner that you live with than you are by your best friend. Even though the frequency of conflict in a romantic-sexual relationship is usually exponentially higher than it is in a best friendship.
I could go on.
◊♦◊
It’s just totally nuts to me, that anyone could have a real best friend who is compatible enough with them that the friendship lasts a long time—without even any formal commitment!—and choose to live a lifestyle where having a home and a family and a life partner all rides on their romantic-sexual relationships. It’s nuts to me that anyone could have a best friend, an honest-to-God best friend, who provides EVERY SINGLE THING THEY’RE LOOKING FOR IN A LIFE PARTNERSHIP EXCEPT SEX, and choose to put not just one, but a whole series of sexual partners above that best friend, in the pursuit of the magical Romantic-Sexual Monogamous Life Partner Who Makes You Happy Forevermore.
And this is not about having sex or not having sex. This isn’t a matter of rejecting romantic love for friendship. This isn’t a choice between one or the other.
This is just about relationship organization.
You could have a non-sexual, non-romantic primary life partner who you live with, who is there for you emotionally and physically and financially, who’s there to take care of you if medical issues come up, who’s there to help you raise a kid if you want one, who’s there to keep you company at home and go on vacation with you and help keep house, etc—and still have a sex life and romantic relationships!
And my God, would that make so much more sense on every single level! I could paper the walls of my bedroom with all the benefits of making your best friend your non-romantic/non-sexual life partner, instead of a lover who may or may not stick with you for the long haul.
◊♦◊
How many sexual people in the United States alone are wasting their lives on a never ending roller coaster of serial romantic-sexual relationships, looking for the perfect one, getting married and getting divorced, moving in and moving out, scattering children all over the place, living in bad marriages or cohabiting romantic-sexual relationships, cheating on their lovers, fighting every other night, on and on and on? For what? For a home? For love? For joyful companionship? For happy family?
You could have all of that with your best friend—if you’re lucky enough to have a best friend—without even trying.
But instead, you subordinate that best friend to all of these sex partners/lovers, to spouses you end up hating, to romantic-sexual relationships that last three months or six or a measly year, to romantic-sexual relationships that steal years of your life before finally imploding. How many people actually find what they’re looking for in romantic sexuality?
If you want a stable, warm, low-maintenance, loving, caring home life; if you want someone there for you who accepts you and likes you exactly as you are; if you want someone to share your life with who will take care of you and be loyal to you and still give you the freedom to be who you are and connect with other people—then be life partners with a best friend, if you’re lucky enough to get one. And you can still have sex and you can still have romantic relationships, and if those romantic-sexual relationships prove to be consistently short-term or troublesome, at the very least, you still have a home and a steady companion and a source of love and support that doesn’t break down, when your sexual relationship of the moment does.
◊♦◊
This is pure rationality, to me. It’s about maximizing your chances for a stable, happy, loving home life and reducing the negative impact of romantic-sexual relationships on yourself and your children, if you have any. Instead of asking one romantic-sexual partner to be your Everything, let them just be your romantic-sexual partner, and make someone else your living partner, your financial partner, your live-in co-parent, your best friend.
If I had any reason to believe a romantic-sexual person capable of committing to a nonsexual/nonromantic life partnership and if I had a sexual best friend and if that best friend wanted to be life partners with me, I would commit and be non-monogamous life partners with them. And I wouldn’t care about their sex life or their romantic relationships with other people, as long as I could trust my partner was committed to our home and our friendship. It probably helps a lot that I’m a radical relationship anarchist and not looking for any kind of strict monogamy (the sexual kind is irrelevant; the emotional kind isn’t doable for me), but even if that partnership were missing certain elements I wanted in my life—like physical affection, let’s say—I still wouldn’t have a problem with being my friend’s partner for good, as long as I could pursue other relationships, too.
I just don’t understand how anyone could pass up the opportunity to make a best friendship a cohabiting life partnership, for the sake of romantic sexuality. I can’t understand. It’s incomprehensible.
Originally published on The Thinking Asexual
—Photo Shutterstock
About the Author: Marie S. Crosswell is a celibate asexual, a radical relationship anarchist, a thinker, and a writer. She graduated from Sarah Lawrence College and currently lives in Phoenix. Her short fiction can be found in Thuglit: Issue 7 and the upcoming issue of Plots with Guns. She is currently working on her first novel.
Anyone we choose to live with long term, we will encounter same issues with in us. Sex and or romance, Is not determiner of relatiinship issues. Cohabitating takes just as much work and commitment, and is not free of emotion.
Hi! Im not sure if i felt some sort of energy while reading this article.
I guess I get you. I get “frustrated” with how we are raised or taught to believe to expect all roles in one person..
It takes a lot of security for the partners to agree in this kind of arrangement. Takes a lot of healthy self esteem for individuals involved.
Just agreed to an open relationship. I know why but im not sure if im doing it “right”. Or if im feeling it “right”
Oh and I also have to add I strongly agree with what Vera said: “We are physiologically programmed to bond with the person we’re having sex with, and that bond is far different from a friendship no matter what someone writing an article says.”
This has to be the most stupid article I’ve ever read. What a ridiculous unnecessary notion that in reality would never ever work, and completely defeats the purpose of having romantic relationships in the first place when those ‘life partnership’ experiences are what is most meaningful in a romantic relationship and what you want to share with the person you are intimate with. And how on earth is the author factoring children into this equation, are they seriously suggesting you conceive children with a romantic partner but raise them pretending the ‘life partner’ is the parent. Irrelevant of how the… Read more »
It was tough for me to read this, but I’m glad I did. I had the personal experience of having a relationship with a man who was married to his “non-sexual life partner”. At the time, I was “single” in that more conventional sense — meaning: I was unattached and “available” romantically and all other ways besides. I am forgiving enough to see that it obviously had a lot to do with our different entrypoints to the relationship, but it turned out to be a devastating heart-break. Though we shared an incredible connection I don’t regret exploring, there was no… Read more »
THIS ^^^^^
This article so concisely describes my relationship philosophy it is thrilling. The twisted, torturous paths through which people in American culture wander in search of the Everything person all start with the same ass/presumptions of the romantic-sexual ideal. One cannot make reliably good life decisions under the influence of Limerence. I have proven this many times over now at 64, I agree the basic idea of monogamy ill defines human nature when viewed over the span of one’s lifetime. I whole-heartedly support you in your promotion of more sustainable, resilient relationship models. After a minor and a major marriage with… Read more »
To my mind, living together and dealing with the day-to-day operations of life — all of that pesky, relentless administrative minutiae — and maintaining a romantic attachment are largely incompatible. To feel attraction for someone, to want to act on it, requires a bit of distance and mystery. No wonder so many people find themselves in sexless marriages, feeling like they’re married to their own brother or sister. It happened to me. OTOH, some of the healthiest, happiest marriages I’ve seen are between academics who maintain separate residences in neighboring cities because the couple are tenured at different universities. Maybe… Read more »
Sounds great—if everyone is up front from the beginning agreeing to live together & raise a family and sleep with other people. It’s the living together , raising a family together, but only one person knows they are in an “open” relationship that bothers me.
My husband had an affair. We’ve reconciled. I told him if he wants to sleep with someone else to tell me next time so that I can also sleep with other people—odd, but he wasn’t a fan of that idea.
Having a friendship with someone without sex will last a life time. Still can talk like a partner with sweet names. I don’t think living together wouldn’t work being in ya space and when seeing someone else not sure if would still be good friends but I wouldn’t worry if he was with anyone because am just friends.
I think a lot of these commenters are unfamiliar with asexuality and are trying to psycoanalyze the author with their ideas that are straight out of “Asexual Bingo” rather that honestly consider the ideas of this article. It’s a given that someone who considers themselves a relationship anarchist would be espousing radical ideas, it’s not helpful to point out that many people don’t see relationships this way.
This sounds like something someone who is constantly being “friendzoned” would think. I’m all for open relationships, I’ve had them myself as well as many partner-type friendships and I’ve had ‘friends with benefits’ when I wasn’t actively dating anyone, but after many years of that, I have found love with one companion who is also my one and only sex partner. I never thought I’d be the type to settle down with just one person, but I’m really digging this whole one-partner-relationship-thing. I guess our notions change as we grow and learn more about ourselves. However, what this article is… Read more »
I truly feel bad for you. It seems you have never met someone that can live up to “society’s” standard. And what I mean by that is that you have never met someone that can give it all to you or you have met them and they just didn’t care to stay. And that really is horrible. But there must be a reason…maybe it’s that piece of shit you have for a brain that you used while writing this article.
Brilliant! Joe you are right on the money.
Is it seriously an impossible notion to you that someone might, in fact, not be pleased with the emotional and sexual status que of the average adult without absolutely having some sort of mental deformity? Is it truly such a sin to explore one’s other options and to be pleased by those findings?
One of the main problems with this proposed model is the idea that you don’t try with your best friend…not always true but even if it is, the reason friendships feel easier sometimes is becAUSE they don’t have the pressures of everyday domesticity – who paid the bills, who cleaned up the dog mess, who left the towels on the floor, who is collecting the kids and so on. Yes these things can make a sexual relationship pressured and hard, but would also test most friendships too – living together and taking on life’s challenges is hard whoever you do… Read more »
Yes exactly!
I was surprised to read the author was asexual, considering the article mentions sexual relationships on more than one occasion. I would be interested to find out how this works for the author, but I am so happy to let them have their privacy.
There are a lot of comments which pull this article down and basically tell the author they need therapy just for posing an alternative and radical view point. I actually found myself quite annoyed with a lot of the comments made on this blog post. I am not exactly going to tell the people who posted these comments to see a therapist, or what exactly annoyed me, partly because it would be a waste of my precious time. I do not think this article is adolescent, nor should be patronized as the words of someone idealistic and young, I think… Read more »
While I understand your rational, I can’t help but to feel sorry for people that think this way. The fact is, we get taught about math and history, but we don’t get taught about love.. real love… if we did, you would find that the answer is in redefining what romantic and life partnership is.. You see, the problem is 1. expectations and 2. the fact that when it comes to romantic relationships, we haven’t evolved yet. Real love that lasts as long as possible is for the brave heart. Most people who get married do so with every intention… Read more »
Given that the author is asexual and celibate, she certainly has a unique perspective on this, but one that certainly can’t reflect that of the majority of adults. Most of us experience sexual attraction to a variety of people…maybe just one gender, maybe both. What determines whether we pursue a relationship with someone we’re initially attracted to is the bundle of things that makes them, them. Sense of humor, kindness, talent, intelligence, loyalty, the way they laugh, sneeze, twirl their hair…whatever. A person may find someone hot on first meeting him or her, but after a few minutes’ conversation knows… Read more »
THATS what I’m talkin about!! Tell ’em!!
Because people who are aromantic are entirely capable of caring deeply about people, just not being into romantic or sexual crap.
Well said!
Your type of bestie can be your mother or sister or brother or grandparents, these folks can do all the legwork of caring for you in the long haul as they’ve been with you from the start. The article comes across as though your personality type is that of a child, that you need some anchor, a home base from which to build roots that’s there for you through thick and thin. Women are good at this, pick a girlfriend in the same frame of mind and you’ll be set for life. Yes there are dynamics out there where I… Read more »
Absolutely agree.
Yea, this isn’t well thought out. What if one of the life partners falls madly in love with a romantic-sexual partner and wants to start a family with them instead of with their best friend. What if one of the life partners wants to have sex and becomes jealous or possessive of their life partner? You’re compartmentalizing this by saying romantic-sexual partners are just for fun and nothing more (cuz hey they all end in messy messes anyway right) and life partners are all robotic handlers of domestic duty without feelings of jealousy, possessiveness, sexual attraction, etc. The reason why… Read more »
Yes exactly, well said.
1) Total fallacy. Not all multi-partner relationships end in jealousy.
2) It can happen, but not all partners drift towards a single individual because not all partners want only one romantic partner. Also, not all relationships are romantic.
3) This would involve falling in love with said partner with which one has no romantic ties. Also, one can have more than one romantic partner.
4) That’s covered. The author discusses the possibility of a non-binary family unit. Believe it or not, such things have existed throughout human history (ergo the phrase, “it takes a village to raise a child.”)
I love the articles on this site. They are always smart heartfelt and interesting,including this one. And I agree with John Brier’s comment! The Author is also giving me a psychotherapist a wonderful example of how we all sometimes face walling off romance due to childhood unresolved issues.. As Children we develop and learn this type of defense mechanism early in life to protect us from an assault of parental hurts. We then take this defense into adulthood and end up with these interesting dynamics including ideas for splitting romance from life partner. Therapy can help us integrate our childhood… Read more »
Some things to note: Finding a lover, with whom you may have a relationship for maybe several months, can be time consuming. This will take time from your friendship-partner, and from your children. I think for many people, it’s easier to have a sexual relationship with little or no emotional attachment, than it is to have a very strong emotionally fulfilling relationship with little sexual activity. Sexual activity can lead to children. You have a friendship-partner with whom you share values and can raise children, but what is to be done when the child’s other parent is the romantic-lover, with… Read more »
I’m confused. Are the children that you co-parent with your best friend the progeny of your best friend or your lover/s? Because if they are your best friends’, that would seem to suggest… a sexual relationship. If not, it’s likely their interest in your children would have limitations, and the strain of being the live-in babysitter would wear. Biology may hold some clues to this act that so mystifies the author. Also I’m pretty sure I would easily destroy my (25 years long) best friendship if we began to navigate the treacherous terrain of child-rearing with all its heartfelt righteousness.… Read more »
I agree with Paul, it’s not because sex is in relationships that they fail, it’s because of the expectations we have of our partners, and the power struggles we create. I also think the unacknowledged childhood trauma we’ve all experienced will play out in any deep relationship. When I speak of childhood trauma here I’m referring to the kind explained in books like “The Drama of The Gifted Child” by Alice Miller and “Getting The Love You Want” by Harville Hendrix. Without being aware of how that affects us (as most people aren’t) you see the divorce rates like you… Read more »
good points John
Thanks for writing this, I’ve thought the same way for a long time! However, the problem always comes back to children. What do you do if you want kids?
First of all: “A celibate asexual, a radical relationship anarchist, a thinker, and a writer.” <– This is certainly provocative, but vague, and adolescent sounding. Secondly: This author is free to speculate anything she damn well pleases, but these perspectives are just mental noise without rooting the content in some quality psychology research/data. I can say "it's staggering that no one agrees that it's stupid that kittens can't fly in a flock about me all day," but my opinion would be just a flimsy social construction. Thirdly: Read Gottman on relationships. Or anyone like him. Your head is in a… Read more »
Matt, thanks for sharing the ACE test. I had never seen that or heard of it but that is a really useful tool, for everyone.
Matt thanks good points but maybe a little less harsh:) when we know better we do better!
Asexual doesn’t mean abused.