Asexuality and nilamorousness (za?) sound like different but overlapping concepts, to me—the latter sounds like it should refer to some other part of this Venn diagram (from here), perhaps the ‘none of the above’ section.
By circumstance. I would include the first two in the term, although being asexual would tend to reduce the likelihood of someone entering into a relationship at all.
Including within the non-amorous (I like this better) those who are so “by circumstance” is nonstandard and pretty confusing. A committed monogamous or polyamorous person defines herself as such whether or not she is currently in a relationship. For the sake of consistency, your status as non-amorous should also be independent of whether or not you are currently seeing someone; that is, you should only call yourself non-amorous if you are so by choice.
By choice, or by circumstance, or are you asexual? (And which of those would you include in the term “nillamorous”?)
Asexuality and nilamorousness (za?) sound like different but overlapping concepts, to me—the latter sounds like it should refer to some other part of this Venn diagram (from here), perhaps the ‘none of the above’ section.
By circumstance. I would include the first two in the term, although being asexual would tend to reduce the likelihood of someone entering into a relationship at all.
Including within the non-amorous (I like this better) those who are so “by circumstance” is nonstandard and pretty confusing. A committed monogamous or polyamorous person defines herself as such whether or not she is currently in a relationship. For the sake of consistency, your status as non-amorous should also be independent of whether or not you are currently seeing someone; that is, you should only call yourself non-amorous if you are so by choice.