Solo Poly vs Relationship Anarchy

Arius

New member
Is there a useful distinction between solo poly and relationship anarchy (RA)? To me it seems that they are both about rejecting normative relationship scripts and negotiating each relationship (including friendships) on its own terms.

I'm sort of casually seeing someone who identifies as Solo Poly, and I think I'm a Relationship Anarchist, or both. Either way, we both seem to want the same things and have the same approach to and ideas about relationships.

Based on my readings, it seems that solo poly has a bit more structure to it than RA. Example: a friend/lover and I have lived together off and on for the past few years depending on what makes sense for us at the time. We don't see living together or not living together as a sign that our relationship is any more or less "serious" or "intimate" or whatever. (I'm very drawn to us not living together because it gives the relationship more space to breathe, but we spend so much time together that it gets annoying travelling back and forth.) I get the sense that solo poly is more about a strict adherence to not living with any partner.

I also think maybe there's a subtle difference in focus. Solo poly, the way it is often framed, strikes me as lonely; a commitment to solitude. RA seems more about having MORE relationships. Not sure if that's just my perception. I don't like the word "solo."

I'm just wondering if it's a po-tay-to / po-tah-to situation or if there's a meaningful difference that I'm missing.

Thoughts?
 
I think there is a difference. I know a woman who has a Household, and she considers herself a practitioner of Relationship Anarchy, but several partners live with her.

It was more her somewhat chaotic approach, along with the very important fact that she does NOT do hierarchy...so there is no "primary" couple, which many see as almost the default mode of polyamory (the married couple that "opens up" is so common.) No, she had no primary relationship, and therefore no couple privilege. And she might place as much weight on a sexual or a nonsexual relationship, as it please her, or one where she was Dominant or submissive (because she is also into BDSM) or whatever. She will be to each relationship whatever it suit her at the time.

Solo poly on the other hand implies no escalation, unless I am wrong, typically yes the solo poly person lives alone, and has their relationships in whatever manner or configuration please them with no intent to escalate. I was solo poly when I was actively...polying. Then things did get somewhat more deep with one of my partners and talk of escalation (moving in together etc) began to crop up. But I believe that following my divorce, being in a lease and living in an apartment with no partner(s) made the best sense for a while, and to not rush into any "escalator" relationships.

(Escalation/Escalator: The relationship path with set milestones such as moving in together, possibly marriage, etc.)

Solo poly folks see relationships as being absolutely just as meaningful, even if there are no concrete entanglements of the logistical sort to "prove" it. They might have one or more solid longterm relationships, they might have a bunch of casual lovers, or anything in between. Just no picking out china patterns, as I used to say.
 
The only thing I can add to what Spork said is that living alone doesn't mean one is lonely. Since I no longer have an anchor partner I think I'll keep it that way. I see it as giving me my alone time. It also gives me more control of my scheduling options. Living alone means I can decide when I am available. If something spur of the moment comes up I can act on it.
 
I think solo poly tends to be a bit more structured than RA, though there can easily be exceptions to the rule.
 
What I'm gathering is that it seems like escalation is an OPTION in RA, where as it's intentionally excluded in Solo Poly (SP). So that an RA relationship without escalation might appear on the surface to be identical to an SP relationship, even though the participants in the two relationships could have completely different intentions / reasons / ideologies driving the absence of escalation.

Yes?
 
The only thing I can add to what Spork said is that living alone doesn't mean one is lonely.

To be clear, I didn't mean that living alone is lonely. I love living alone, or with other friends. I just feel like, based on the reading I've done and conversations I've had, SP places more of an emphasis on being alone. I'm not really sure why I feel that way... it's just been my experience so far. I could be wrong.
 
To be clear, I didn't mean that living alone is lonely. I love living alone, or with other friends. I just feel like, based on the reading I've done and conversations I've had, SP places more of an emphasis on being alone. I'm not really sure why I feel that way... it's just been my experience so far. I could be wrong.

I think it is not so much an emphasis on being alone, as it is on INDEPENDENCE.

I mean, I do not yet live with a partner, although plans are for that to change, but when I was actively poly, I was with a quad (married couple, our boyfriend, and me, and we were all one relationship of four)...and I also had my own relationship with my Sadist off to the side. I most certainly was not "being" alone very often, at all! If anything I was stretched a bit thin. I often spent the night at other people's homes. I had my own place, but I didn't sit home by myself all the time. I still don't even though I now only have the one sexual relationship.

Also, I have a teenage son who lived with me...but I could just as well have had platonic friends who were my roommates or anything like that. Not living with a partner, need not even mean living alone!

Sometimes it just makes sense for one reason or another, to keep from entangling your life with people just because you're in loving relationships with them. *shrug* It also doesn't mean that your relationships are necessarily "casual."
 
I think it is not so much an emphasis on being alone, as it is on INDEPENDENCE.

Agreed. There is certainly the risk of loneliness for solo folks, but that's more an issue of figuring out what our social needs are and making sure to get them met.

I live with several people, one of which is occasionally a romantic interest. The solo community apparently views this as 'deciding not to be solo anymore', but I think they are missing the point. I have my own space, I am fully in charge of my own time and energy, I'm splitting rent in an incredibly expensive city, and I am doing this with people I love.

Sometimes it just makes sense for one reason or another, to keep from entangling your life with people just because you're in loving relationships with them. *shrug* It also doesn't mean that your relationships are necessarily "casual."

This whole "casual" thing gets a little irritating to explain to people. The accepted way to do relationships is to hop gleefully on the escalator, move in, get pet names, share finances, get married, have kids, etc. It seems difficult for people who associate love with these things to see a relationship that *doesn't* include those traits as anything but "casual".

It's a fundamental difference in how folks value associations.
 
What I'm gathering is that it seems like escalation is an OPTION in RA, where as it's intentionally excluded in Solo Poly (SP). So that an RA relationship without escalation might appear on the surface to be identical to an SP relationship, even though the participants in the two relationships could have completely different intentions / reasons / ideologies driving the absence of escalation.

Yes?

I think you are trying to hard to separate the two. Someone who is solo poly can be RA. It's my understanding that RA people don't really accept things like "relationship escalators". All relationships are equal, whether they are romantic, platonic, casual or whatever.

I agree with the other two that solo simply means living independently. My ideal situation moving forward would be to have at least two steady relationships that just don't include living together. There would also be room for more casual relationships. I suppose that would make me a Solo Relationship Anarchist...but I despise labels anyway :D
 
I was Solo poly for the vast majority of 2015-2016. I gravitated towards that for what other people have posted: Independence.

I have been married, didn't want that then. I have had kids. I have had living with people, and all that escalator stuff. I'm still not sure I want that but right now living on my own is what I want. I am happiest right now with having a lover who does not live with me, I don't mind having roommates, but I actually prefer just me and my cat, and I don't mind living with family. (kids or bio family).

I was friends with benefits (now just friends) with an RA person.

I found our styles very different. He wanted kitchen table style poly, and no rules or structure what-so-ever with multiple lovers/partners/play partners. We shared google calendar but we never became partners in any sense. We weren't dating to me because we paid our own stuff, and we weren't invited to things like birthdays, family gatherings, etc. I felt even as RA there was still unsaid hierarchy because of allocation of time/energy/funds. It was RA in that no one had any say in his choices in life, at all, not in who he dated, or anything. This was just too far the other direction for me.

As Solo poly I personally identified with, "no I don't want to get married/have kids, but I wouldn't mind house sharing sometimes," like live together but not 24/7. Or have separate rooms, or not mingle finances, or be travel partners and sex partners, or be play partners or romantic partners but not sex partners and any permutation above. I know other SP that do not do hierarchy like I do, but I tend to be hierarchical. That's more a personality trait than a SP thing. And honestly, no matter what label is given, I think the persons personality is the deciding factor not if its SP or RA...I also enjoyed the fact that I could have multiple casual lovers and it not impact on my living situation. I could schedule people in for different days of the week and go, yes I'd like to have this person then, and this person then and not have to get approval from anyone else.

The downside is that I did think at times, it'd be nice to have some stability, as it seemed that this wasn't sustainable for years and years, as in, my partners would not be interested in maintaining a long term relationship. So now I'm just thinking dropping the label Solo Poly all together and just be Star, and be single and not committed and see where it goes.
 
Is it more important to shape oneself (head, heart, practices, surroundings) into something that fits neatly into someone else's trendy preconceived notion of Perfection, or to figure out how to build a life & an environment (& maybe even a world) that best suits oneself?
 
Great question! Short answer: yes, there is a difference between Solo Poly and Relationship Anarchy, but there are enough similarities between the two approaches that many, but not all, people who do one also do the other.

I practice both solo poly and relationship anarchy. I consider them distinct but overlapping parts of my identity and/or relationship style.

I am solo poly for these reasons: I do not want to live with a romantic or sexual partner, I do not want to merge finances with a partner, I do not want a primary partner, I do not practice hierarchical polyamory (except in that I consider myself my own primary), I prefer to identify as single rather than partnered, I consider myself single by choice, I dislike the idea of being "coupled" with someone, I reject societal expectations about "coupledom" stuff, I am not interesting in "riding the relationship escalator" to a socially acceptable "committed" relationship, I am not interested in marriage, I am child-free by choice, I need a lot of alone time, I enjoy solitude and am committed to maintaining a happily solitary life, and above all I value independence and autonomy and freedom.

(A lot of that is about being "solo" regardless of whether or not I am poly. People can be solo and monogamous--for example, people embracing the "Living Together Apart" movement, who might be monogamously married but live in separate houses. I am poly, in addition to being solo, because I can and want to date more than one person romantically and sexually; but if I weren't poly I would just be solo).

I am a relationship anarchist because I approach each relationship individually and non-hierarchically, with an emphasis on individual autonomy and the idea that no one can own another person or impose rules on another person. As a relationship anarchist, I do not prioritize romance over friendship; I find the boundaries between friend and lover and romantic partner very blurry and I like it that way; I feel that relationships are fluid and changeable and do not have to be permanent to be meaningful; I value maintaining deep and meaningful friendships with exes; I value all types of relationships from deep platonic friendship to serious romance to casual flings; I defy expectations about relationships; if I connect with someone, I let it develop naturally and we could end up as long-term but casual sex partners or lover-friends or platonic life partners or something in between; I do not practice hierarchical polyamory; I reject labels such as boyfriend/girlfriend if they are not useful to me; I value the freedom to explore my sexuality with no restrictions; I value deep love and connection; I reject societal expectations about "coupledom" stuff; I do not feel it's necessary to "ride the relationship escalator" to a socially acceptable "committed" relationship, and above all I value independence and autonomy and freedom.

You can see that for me, the definitions of Solo Poly and RA overlap word-for-word in places, but also have differences. They emphasize different things.

My partner of 5 years identifies as RA but NOT as solo poly. He and I live separately; we began casually, grew into friendship, grew into being in love, and now consider ourselves committed non-hierarchical partners who will never live together. Unlike me, however, he does not want to live alone and does not value solitude (he thinks it's lonely; I think it's great!) and he is hoping to live with a partner someday. He is very extroverted and sexual and kinky, and he has had a lot of friendships that involve sex, and ex-girlfriends who became lifelong friend,s and platonic friends that he's very cuddly with. He and I have never used the word boyfriend/girlfriend for each other, but everyone who knows us uses that label for our relationship.

I am in Facebook groups for both Solo Polyamory and RA. Many people are in both groups, but many people are in just one. For example, one of the leaders of the Solo Polyamory group does not identify with the term RA because she does not feel that the difference between romance and friendship is blurry for her. She likes having partners who are clearly romantic, serious, committed, and long-term, but simply don't live with her or share finances or "enmesh" their lives together. She is a big proponent of "off the escalator" relationships and has even written a book with that title. But she doesn't practice RA.

Does that help clarify the distinction between RA and solo poly?

(Let me point out, of course, that not everyone will approach either RA or solo poly the way I do. There are many solo poly people who have children and were previously married, for example. There are many solo poly people who do not enjoy solitude as much as I do. Also, many RA people are asexual or demisexual or aromantic and identify with the RA concept because of the particular emphasis on non-sexual or non-romantic but deeply meaningful relationships.)
 
Back
Top