I Promise a Work in Progress

As a Flexible Asexual that has spent the majority of my adult life (thus far) as my primary partner, over the years I have agreed to enter into several different types of relationships both known and unbeknownst to me.

Unbeknownst means I have been with people who claimed one thing when it was another. Known means I have consensually entered monogamous, non-monogamous and polyamorous relationships. This isn't as progressive as it sounds. Also, there are many ways of being involved in such relationships, which is the progressive part of it imo, obviously.

What I've learned (thus far) from not being particular about things such as emotional exclusivity and bodily possession within romantic relating circumstances is that the only thing that actually matters is if the relationship(s) works. Work = if you're becoming more of yourself through them via (primarily) neutral and positive learning experiences.

We live on a nihilistic planet of limitation, so negative experiences abound and are inevitable to encounter. One needn't really plan for such experiences so much as let them do their job when they show up to be learned from.

Because I hold this belief right now—I am 100% subject to change, which doesn’t mean I will, but also doesn’t mean I won’t—I'm not adamant about most insecurity "prevention methods" in romantic bonding that people rely upon to feel safe(r).

I don’t plan for the negation of my preferences. I simply state my preferences as straightforwardly, aptly and honestly as seems or proves to be necessitated. I also always learn from my experiences and, thereby, update my preferences where that is called for. Whether with the same person, or by passing my learning from one relationship onto another with another person.

For the past 5 years I've been thinking a lot about how Patriarchy and Classism exhibit themselves in romantic relationships. Patriarchy shows up in how we're socialized to believe it can be or should be our right to possess other's bodies that aren't our own or else they lose "value" (to us). One might imagine Capitalism did this, but Capitalism wouldn't be possible without the Patriarchal construct of "manhood." Which is to say, the idea of “hereditary ownership.” With “hereditary” becoming a common synonym for “natural.”

Classism shows up in how we're socialized to imagine that certain emotional ties + experiences with others should (“naturally”) beget a hierarchy of affection that allows us dominant access to a loved one in comparison to people of other types of relations. Whether those people be "friends," "partners," "strangers," "colleagues" etc. in relation to the person feeling a way about accessibility to another at any given moment.

The thing is, there is no agreement that a past version of you made that a present version of you won't break for the right reasons. Promises are great, but sustainable relations require in the moment accountability. One needn’t negate the other, but one will definitely outweigh the other if we’re talking genuine compatible, sustainable relating. I think in a Capitalist and Patriarchal society that somehow can come off as negative.

But if the above it true, then the opposite must also be true. They help define one another. So there is ALSO no agreement that a past version of you made that a present version of you wouldn’t keep for the right reasons. This being the case, the only thing we really need to plan for in our relationships is being our most beloved and genuine selves.

As a(n actually) natural byproduct of this, the monogamous will be with the monogamous, the non-monogamous will be with the non-monogamous, the polyamorous will be with the polyamorous, the asexual will be with varying kinds of relationships depending on where they are on the spectrum, and the amorphous will continue being amorphous.

Simply stating our preferences can get us all into synchronous arrangements of natural inclusion and exclusion. Because what isn’t for you isn’t for you to have. Similarly, what is for you is for you to have. Choosing something is not choosing something else. That exclusion happens without regret when we are truly choosing towards our preferences. When we are lying to ourselves, the exclusion(s) breed(s) dissatisfaction and anxiousness.

At the same time, the individual is ALWAYS CHANGING. The fact of the matter is not everybody can or will want to grow in tandem with us depending on what we are intending for ourselves and our lives. That's not wrong. We're allowed to grow outside ("outgrow") our relationships as we know them if that's what's going on. This doesn’t have to be a religiously antagonistic revelation since we all know it happens often enough not only within the humxn experience, but as a regular function of our personal experience as well.

Here's where being in alternative relationships to asexuality and monogamy isn't actually that progressive or interesting tho. The dating pool is made up of people who grew up in the same bullshit invention of humxnity as everybody else. They have ALL THE SAME PROBLEMS as people in more commonly accepted types of relationships.

Not to mention the construct of manhood—which is a patriarchal construct even while there is the fact of an actual manhood (that is the closest to “Not All Men” you’ll ever get from me. lol)—has long been and is still 90% fuckshit + 10% the idea of courage instead of the inhabitance of it. Patriarchal Manhood is the very definition of basic so the constructs it creates are going to grow up like Dad.

Which is to say that just like in business and in the home, men routinely overestimate their abilities to actually do the work they VOLUNTARILY apply for. A man's capability to handle one relationship in a way where both partners are truly honest with each other, healthy on their own and happy together is remarkably low. Not only in regards to each other, but in regards to any parenting they might be doing together.

So the idea that dudes are out here doing such a thing with more than one partner and creating whole, happy families is legit laughable. It is, plainly, ludicrous. Which is to say, I would be happy to be with one cishetero man who is truly honest with me, healthy on his own and happy together with me. ONE. Like, over a lifetime I would be happy with that. Because even if we didn’t stay romantic, we would stay in each others lives due to the healthiness of our bond overall.

The number of WHOLE ASS PEOPLE doing that on this whole Earth is easily lower than 10%. That's not even pessimism considering the hixtory, the narrative and the conditioning. It's idealism. So the idea that more than, like, 2% of men worldwide are in "relationships that work" re my earlier definition and the above is HI KEY UNLIKELY AS FUCK.

I really wish that weren’t the case because I would rather men be better than to have to lay their shit bare on them. But the emperor has no fucking clothes on and we don’t GAF about nudity or whatever, but dude is GASLIGHTING US for pointing out his bare ass nakedness and I won’t be lied on or to and grow into a reasonable or willing kind of person. These are just the facts of logic. Reap, sow. Basic. Logic.

That being acknowledged, I'm working on de-classistizing & de-patriarchalizing my romantic relationships FOR MYSELF. So imma do it even if I'm out here like a whale in a puddle. Why yes, it is a small compatibility pool overall! No lie! Which is fine, as we know I call myself a Flexible Asexual for this reason. As well, we are not entitled to every kind of companionship that we know to exist, which also doesn’t mean we won’t have access to every kind of companionship anyway. The contingency here is where there is expectation.

The ways that Classism and Patriarchy exhibit themselves in romantic relating (+ all relating) creates a false culture that is less based on genuine ongoing compatibility and is more based on past social agreements that are intrinsically tied to governmental + other power structures who are REALLY NOT WITH YOU and YOUR RELATIONSHIP(S) SHOOTING IN THE GYM.

They won't even teach universal sex-ed, y'all! When there are near 8 billion of us who was sexed onto the planet. Beyond that, it makes people nostalgic for something that never actually existed on the scale or to the degree to which they have been conditioned and trained their expectation.

All the while, these expectations are more about how others are with us (“preventative measures”) than they are about how we get to be to, with and for ourselves. THEN how others can relate to us as a RESULT OF WHO WE ARE FROM THE PRESENT.

I do understand that this scares many. This idea of “leaving it up to chance.” As if the agreement to sign a contract with the government has ever made a social body MORE reliable or act unequivocally and “naturally” better as a result. So the gag is that if you leave it up to chance and trust that you can be yourself regardless, then you would be with all those who are naturally disposed to have aligned interests.

Thus, your bonds and the cultures they created would be more authentic. Which would in turn make them more sustainable. Which in turn would make them more natural. Which in turn would make them more likely to stick around.

I'm advocating only for the path that works for YOU and yours. I myself am committed to no path in particular. That being the current standard of my sentiment, I remind you that regardless of having this position on socio-romantic bonds I HAVE SPENT THE MAJORITY OF MY ADULT LIFE (thus far) SINGLE. Sometimes out of choice, but definitely mostly just out of having few compelling reasons to do the alternative. Though obviously I have also done the alternatives.

This is because of a lot of things including:

a) There being limited romantic relationship ma(t)terials to work with (people, objectives, opportunities, time, etc. Do not confuse “chances” with “opportunities.” There are spectrums to this)

b) Being a particular ass person all by myself no chaser (particular beliefs, particular practices, particular vocation, particular callings, particular desires)

c) Place n' time limitations (meaning I was born in a colonized time in the 1900s and so the social pool is what it is: passports, borders, monetary exchange, hierarchies, inaccessible conveniences, poor communication and I could go on but I won’t)

d) A pandemic + quarantine (safety first and men and safety are like the antonyms of each other at the moment and for some time. Again, unfortunately) and

e) To keep it really really . . . it's mainly because I insist on transparency in my relationships

My friends, family, colleagues and clients can tell you I WILL HAVE THOSE HARD CONVERSATIONS. I won't be coming to it with no laziness either. I will show up to our disagreements with a formality and a fortitude that will annoy the living fuck out of you in the moment. I am more than willing to be uncomfortable for sustainability reasons.

At the same time, if I'm talking to you like that, I'm also hearing you like that. If you’re in my life you’re in my life for a reason and on some level I always know that. Even if we’re strangers and especially if we’re having a more intimate relationship (including family, friends, lovers, colleagues, etc.). These days I don't come to anyone with some straight bullshit ANYMORE, even though I may need to come more correctly! Which I learn from when I am not coming correctly enough.

So imagine the kind of men who are attracted to my physicality when they FULLY meet the personality that determines access to my physical body. Most don't know what to do, some shrink back entirely, many become more aggressive or cocky and THE LEAST of them hang where I am engaging them from. That is, WITH the being they are claiming they are desiring. Me, myself and I. The person they claim to be engaging.

I remain true to my character because THAT IS THE ONLY WAY TO BE MET AS I AM. I trust that just like friends, family, colleagues and clients, those THAT ARE FOR ME AS I AM TO MYSELF will remain in my life. Those who are not will go on their way. This is a fair and valid exchange: what is and isn't preferred for our lives via our mutual experience.

I also remain true to my character because I trust myself to be myself and still find acceptance. So long as I can be myself and be met as that person/those persons by those outside of me, I can guarantee that Me's companionship. I cannot predict who I will become, but I can account for who I know myself to be by BEING HOW I KNOW MYSELF TO BE with others. If I am being myself with others, I must be being myself with myself.

I can't lie to the people I choose to coexist with because I can barely keep up with THIS ME. I am changing all the time. I'm willing to let you see and perceive me BECAUSE I’m always in development. But I will do the same in return! I can’t treat you other than how I designate my own experience.

So if men won't be accountable WHILE being willing to be FULLY ACKNOWLEDGED with me, then they negate themselves from my life through osmosis. You know, the natural way.