Anarchy! (Um . . . Relationship Anarchy, that is.)

[kdt26417]

Well that's a shame, as all three principles sound pretty reasonable to me.

 

[InsaneMystic]

1. All relationships are handled independently, no one relationship has any say over another.
2. Non-sacrifice based associations only, no sexual/romantic exclusivity clause or compromise agreements
3. Relationship setup based exclusively on the people involved with no deference paid to external/social expectations​

[bolding by me]

You already know I agree with a lot of the stuff you post, Marcus. However, I have a big problem with the bolded part.

Being asexual, and in a partnership with a gal who is sexual, I cannot overstress how important compromise agreements can be in relationships. It would be chucking out the baby with the bathwater to firebrand compromise as unethical - there are loving, ethical relationships in which compromise is essential to make them work, and a ban of compromise would lead to a "you must break up, stat" rule imposition. By definition, imposing such a general rule on another couple's (triad's, quad's etc.) relationship is the exact opposite of Relationship Anarchy.

Please don't see this as an attack on what you said. I actually fully agree that having to make sacrifices for a relationship is a sign of a fundamental incompatibility between the people involved, to the point where I'd be highly skeptical that their 'ship has a chance to work out and remain healthy, happy, and ethically sound for everyone involved.

However, I see a massive difference between compromise and sacrifice - to count as compromise, the agreement must be one that has been entered with free, informed consent, and is one all participants can live with in peace and without any stress/pain they consider impeding their quality of life.

A compromise that fulfills these criteria is perfectly fine to make - I see no ethical problem in it whatsoever, and to be honest, individual negotiation that reaches such a compromise is RA in action. Obviously, such negotiations cannot be successful in all cases - sometimes, people really are incompatible to the point that no healthy relationship agreement can be reached between them, which means to me they have the ethical duty to just not be partners. And that's okay, too - if I had reason to believe that R. were caused stress by our complete lack of a sex life together, then I'd strongly suggest to her the option of breaking up, regardless of how well our arrangement works for me. It's not like I had not asked that question more than once in our six years, just to remain sure we still have a healthy agreement. Her answer has always remained the same - yes this works for her, she is happy, and being with me adds to her happiness instead of reducing it. I've learned that not taking her word for this would be presumptuous, belittling her ability to make an informed choice as a grown-up woman.

 

[bookbug]

I've come to explain it this way:

1. Relationship anarchists look at all relationships - romantic, sexual, non-sexual, friendships, platonic (whatever description you want to put in here) as equally important and unique. They do not elevate a romantic relationship above any other relationship as both monogamists and polyamorists do.

2. Relationships should be allowed to evolve organically with no preconceived default societal expectations.

3. Lastly, each person is an autonomous individual. How this applies, is our right to influence begins and ends at our joint relationship; we have no right to control how each of us conducts any other relationship. We trust each other to manage our own lives.

 

[Marcus]

I hope no one confuses what I've said in this thread as trying to dictate how other people should interpret RA. I do not hold RA as something precious and honestly it would be difficult to care less if I am properly fitting into the RA mindset. I adopted RA because of my worldview, not the other way around. If my views stray far enough that it is no longer logical for me to couple my views with RA... I'm going to take it out of my sig and not give it a second thought.

I try not to take offense to disagreement, it is one great way to shine light on worldviews and social stances. If everyone agrees with me then I have to presume I need to double check that I am actually being genuine.

It would be chucking out the baby with the bathwater to firebrand compromise as unethical - there are loving, ethical relationships in which compromise is essential to make them work, and a ban of compromise would lead to a "you must break up, stat" rule imposition. By definition, imposing such a general rule on another couple's (triad's, quad's etc.) relationship is the exact opposite of Relationship Anarchy.

I don't find it necessary to qualify my views as "ethical". I find that the need to rationalize one voluntary relationship approach as more or less "ethical" than the other is purely academic and one should only take on such an endeavor if they have a strong desire to wax philosophical or they are (for some reason) actually concerned that what they are doing is unethical.

I don't find compromise agreements, exclusivity agreements, or other sacrifice based agreements as unethical. Within the context of this conversation I don't find them to be in line with RA, and I personally find them to be counterproductive to flourishing.

I don't care what other people do in their relationship unless it somehow affects or is likely to affect me. If I'm dating someone who takes part in sacrifice agreements I am most likely going to keep an eye on that and make adjustments if it looks like I need to, but I have no interest in imposing my views on others. "You must break up stat" is something that I hope never makes its way out of my mouth... I can't imagine why it would.

I see a massive difference between compromise and sacrifice - to count as compromise, the agreement must be one that has been entered with free, informed consent, and is one all participants can live with in peace and without any stress/pain they consider impeding their quality of life.

I don't see a massive difference between compromise and sacrifice agreements, in fact I believe a compromise to be a sacrifice agreement on a fundamental level.

We certainly don't have to agree on that, but for the sake of clarity I'll explain my viewpoint:

What you have described "without any stress/pain they consider impending their quality of life" might be considered a compromise by the definition of the word, but within the context of the conversation I would find it to be an irrelevancy.

I like restaurant A but my partner who I'm on a date with tonight really has their heart set on restaurant B. However, it's not a big deal, I also like restaurant B, so I agree to go there instead.

This technically falls under the heading of 'compromise' but, it's irrelevant because either outcome is (while not perfectly identical) essentially the same. Giving up something that I don't care about is irrelevant.​

On the other hand, even this minor inconvenience described above is something that happens frequently, should be worked around instead of needing to compromise on. If I want to go to restaurant A then I should go there with someone who wants to go to restaurant A (or go by myself if I so choose). Perhaps going out to dinner isn't what we should focus on when we see each other because we don't see eye to eye... what do we see eye to eye on? Let's do that!

I see no ethical problem in it whatsoever, and to be honest, individual negotiation that reaches such a compromise is RA in action. Obviously, such negotiations cannot be successful in all cases - sometimes, people really are incompatible to the point that no healthy relationship agreement can be reached between them, which means to me they have the ethical duty to just not be partners. And that's okay, too

I try to think of relationship arrangements as being a dial instead of a switch. Sometimes, as you said, it just needs to be ended and it's in everyones best interest, however sometimes the relationship needs to be adjusted in such a way that removes the necessity for compromise. If I need to give up something that is actually important to me (and not some inconsequential thing) then I need to look at what it is about this association that is forcing this requirement. Is it cohabitation? Is it the amount of time we're spending with each other? Is it (and much more likely) our expectations of how we 'should' relate to each other instead of a more voluntary and authentic association?

In my opinion, finding a balance where compromise isn't necessary should have a higher priority than respecting compromise as some fundamental part of all relationships to be proud of. It is a fundamental part of relationships only if they are trying to force a square peg into a round hole. I say, quit forcing it and go find the right shaped peg/hole for that particular desire.

 

[kdt26417]

Side note: We have a bit more RA conversation taking place at: http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?p=286309#post286309

 

[InsaneMystic]

I try not to take offense to disagreement, it is one great way to shine light on worldviews and social stances. If everyone agrees with me then I have to presume I need to double check that I am actually being genuine.

That may be one of the best sentences I've heard in a long time. Kudos to you, that's a level of sincerity and self-criticism you rarely see.

I don't find it necessary to qualify my views as "ethical". I find that the need to rationalize one voluntary relationship approach as more or less "ethical" than the other is purely academic and one should only take on such an endeavor if they have a strong desire to wax philosophical or they are (for some reason) actually concerned that what they are doing is unethical.

Ouch.
Yep, there's a reason why I always, and I do mean always, ask myself that. A neurotic guilt/inferiority complex. Not overly surprising for someone who is both German and an Ex-Catholic, but I rate pretty high on it even among that particular peer group. *sigh*

I don't care what other people do in their relationship unless it somehow affects or is likely to affect me. If I'm dating someone who takes part in sacrifice agreements I am most likely going to keep an eye on that and make adjustments if it looks like I need to, but I have no interest in imposing my views on others. "You must break up stat" is something that I hope never makes its way out of my mouth... I can't imagine why it would.

Cool beans.

I don't see a massive difference between compromise and sacrifice agreements, in fact I believe a compromise to be a sacrifice agreement on a fundamental level. [...]

I try to think of relationship arrangements as being a dial instead of a switch. Sometimes, as you said, it just needs to be ended and it's in everyones best interest, however sometimes the relationship needs to be adjusted in such a way that removes the necessity for compromise. If I need to give up something that is actually important to me (and not some inconsequential thing) then I need to look at what it is about this association that is forcing this requirement. Is it cohabitation? Is it the amount of time we're spending with each other? Is it (and much more likely) our expectations of how we 'should' relate to each other instead of a more voluntary and authentic association?

In my opinion, finding a balance where compromise isn't necessary should have a higher priority than respecting compromise as some fundamental part of all relationships to be proud of. It is a fundamental part of relationships only if they are trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

Well, that's easier said than done if one is asexual. Even gay/Lesbian folks have it infinitely easier to find someone with a compatible orientation - believe it or not if you're used to compare things to the heterosexual norm, but from the eyes of an ace the dating pool for G/L people is both gargantuan and pretty easily visible and accessible.

So, for an ace - one with romantic desires, at least; aromantic aces have it easier here, as they are perfectly fine just having a bunch of what mainstream society calls "good friends" - what's there to do? Nearly everyone they meet won't be asexual. (Again, believe it or not - gay folks run into other gay folks constantly, in comparison. In 40 years of life, I have known one person in "meatspace" whom I suspect was asexual. One. And as she was my grandma, she wasn't exactly dating material, either. ) Of those few, few people they meet who are asexual, naturally a whole lot will be incompatible for other reasons (just as a gay man can't just hook up with any other gay man and hope it will be a super-smooth ride for a serious relationship - "oh you should hook up with Josh, he's gay too!" is a pretty stupid thing most gay folks will have heard in their lives. It's stupid with aces, too, for the exact same reason.).

The only realistic hope they have for a relationship that meets their needs is to prepare for negotiations and compromise... or, well, wait for the magical Mr or Ms Perfect to ride in on a white horse, which is even less of a good success strategy than if a straight person does this (where the chances are preeeeeeetty shit already, too. ).

So, yeah, please don't take this as the tumblr-esque "check your privilege" nonsense... but you are in a very easy position for it to have it work out this way. There are compatible partners for you literally everywhere. For me, I'd guess a workably compatible mate (i.e., one with whom pretty big, but bearable, compromises would have to be made) is still something like one in a couple thousand gals I meet, and likely just one in a couple hundred thousand where it works smooth as a button (is that even a metaphor? Smooth as a button? LOL). R. and I are so close to smooth as a button that I still find it freakin' incredible I actually managed to ever happen upon someone like her, at all, and our ship still needs compromise (mostly, on her part... and, of course, ayup, hello dear old guilt complex. *sigh* Helped me one heck of a lot to face it and grow by facing it, though! I'm a lot less of a "oh god oh god shit don't offend her" worrywart than I was seven years ago, that much I assure you. )

If I saw it like you, I'd pretty much have to say "okay, lifetime singleness, that's obviously my fate". And I dunno, that sounds dreary and unneccessary, seeing as I know now, from six and a half years of experience, that I can be in a mutually happy relationship. Why rob myself of the chance for that with standards may sound good in theory, but that are just not real-world compatible?

I say, quit forcing it and go find the right shaped peg/hole for that particular desire.

Ah, but isn't one beautiful part of poly that you can have multiple holes for multiple pegs of all kinds of different shapes?

(And dude. That sounded a lot less naughty in my head. #AceMoment )

 

[kdt26417]

What role does communication play in RA? Who asks which questions, and who volunteers which answers without being asked? Do we trust those closest to us to do in all things as we ourselves would do? Is it true that some STI's can be spread in spite of using a condom, and if so, do we have sex at all with anyone we can't trust 100%?

I believe HappySquirrel is suggesting that we can't grant each other 100% freedom in our relationships with them because it's not possible to trust anyone 100%. HappySquirrel, feel free to correct me if I have misconstrued what you said.

 

[Marcus]

InsaneMystic, I'm sure glad you are around. I know exactly fuck-all about asexuality and pretty much every time you bump into your keyboard I have the opportunity to learn more.

Why rob myself of the chance for that with standards may sound good in theory, but that are just not real-world compatible?

And with that, I have exactly zero truck. Calling out a concept as irrational, un-ethical, or diametrically opposed to RA is one thing, but identifying that holding that principle would keep you single for the rest of your life and making an adjustment is just being reasonable.

I'm sure that it seems like everyone who isn't ace is just swimming in partners but that really isn't the case. I live in Dallas TX and have learned that my relationship views are WAY out on the fringe (even other poly folk give me a very wide berth) and to get anything that resembles a dating pool I'd need to chuck out fundamental bits of my worldview. Personally, I have decided it isn't important enough to me to have a dating pool and I'll stick with my values; given a bit more time, who could say.

All of us have to make that call for ourselves.

Ah, but isn't one beautiful part of poly that you can have multiple holes for multiple pegs of all kinds of different shapes?

That is certainly a perk of poly, in theory... perv

 

[InsaneMystic]

InsaneMystic, I'm sure glad you are around. I know exactly fuck-all about asexuality and pretty much every time you bump into your keyboard I have the opportunity to learn more.

Thank you! More than glad to oblige!

And with that, I have exactly zero truck. Calling out a concept as irrational, un-ethical, or diametrically opposed to RA is one thing, but identifying that holding that principle would keep you single for the rest of your life and making an adjustment is just being reasonable.

Well, it's not like codes of ethics are immune to being chosen, to a non-trivial extent, by the criterion of "this will improve my life quality"... *shifty eyes*

I'm sure that it seems like everyone who isn't ace is just swimming in partners but that really isn't the case.

Trite trope, but, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed is king... and the blind will be tempted to envy him for his power of relative super-sight.

 

[Marcus]

Well, it's not like codes of ethics are immune to being chosen, to a non-trivial extent, by the criterion of "this will improve my life quality"... *shifty eyes*

If you read any hint of sarcasm or judgment in my statement that we all have to choose to stick by our principles or trash them because they are dragging us down, that was certainly not the message I intended to send.

I am both in favor of being principled and to living a happy and flourishing life. Deciding which one is appropriate is a worthwhile struggle of adulthood. Either decision is a learning experience if we are paying attention.

Trite trope, but, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed is king... and the blind will be tempted to envy him for his power of relative super-sight.

I'm surrounded by sacrifice minded serial-monogamists who date each other willy-nilly like brightly colored frogs hopping effortlessly from one lily pad to another. I am simultaneously glad for them and I want to wring the freaking frolic out of them.

[EDIT: sorry, I'm drifting off topic]

 

[kdt26417]

I wonder if the trick here isn't reminding ourselves (as we often do and have) that polyamory's not for everyone, monogamy's not for everyone, swing's not for everyone, RA's not for everyone ... There's no "One True Way." If there was, we'd have to figure out what that is, and you know that argument would be boundless and endless.

I see no contradiction in two "relationship anarchists" (if they even care to wear that label) having two differing lists of fundamental principles to live by, especially if

• their situations are different,
• one is more ideal-driven in areas where the other is more experience-driven.

Sincerely,
a noisy fly on the wall.

 

[InsaneMystic]

If you read any hint of sarcasm or judgment in my statement that we all have to choose to stick by our principles or trash them because they are dragging us down, that was certainly not the message I intended to send.

I am both in favor of being principled and to living a happy and flourishing life. Deciding which one is appropriate is a worthwhile struggle of adulthood. Either decision is a learning experience if we are paying attention.

No no no, I was just making a self-deprecating quip. 'sall cool.

I'm surrounded by sacrifice minded serial-monogamists who date each other willy-nilly like brightly colored frogs hopping effortlessly from one lily pad to another. I am simultaneously glad for them and I want to wring the freaking frolic out of them.

Heh. Can't say that feeling is strange to me, either.

I wonder if the trick here isn't reminding ourselves (as we often do and have) that polyamory's not for everyone, monogamy's not for everyone, swing's not for everyone, RA's not for everyone ... There's no "One True Way." If there was, we'd have to figure out what that is, and you know that argument would be boundless and endless.

I see no contradiction in two "relationship anarchists" (if they even care to wear that label) having two differing lists of fundamental principles to live by, especially if

• their situations are different,
• one is more ideal-driven in areas where the other is more experience-driven.

Sincerely,
a noisy fly on the wall.

Dude, if that's what you come up when merely fly-buzzing, I'm eager to hear when you make an actual full-blown post. Point noted, and much agreed!

 

[kdt26417]

Thanks ... bzzzzzt ... bzzzt ...

 

[MusicalRose]

Trust is paramount to any relationship, but there are limits. While someone has the right to choose who he or she gets into a relationship with, that person also has a responsibility to his or her partner to have their approval. After all, any additional person you bring into the relationship poses another source for unwanted disease, issues, problems. Polyamory relationships are complicated, harder to maintain than a monogamous relationship because it also offers benefits that monogamous relationships cannot account for e.g. bigger support system, diffusion of burden between partners, etc.

I completely disagree that a person has a responsibility to their partner(s) to have approval. That flies in the face of everything relationship anarchy is about, as far as I can see. If you don't want to identify as relationship anarchist personally, that is fine, but people can absolutely have relationships with others without needing the approval of their existing partners.

 

[LovingRadiance]

If I waited for Maca's approval, I would die in a mono relationship. Because no one will ever meet his approval.

That said, I think its important to be upfront and honest yes.
I even think its preferable that all parties be agreeable.
But realistically; I am my own person. If they don't approve, they are always free to remove fheir consent to having a relationship with me and exit left.
BUT-
They do not (ever again, for those of you who know the history) get a say so in who I date. Period.
They are not required to socialize with one another.
They are not required to like each other.
They are not required to be happy with my choices.
But I will remove MY consent to be partnered with them if they insist on controlling who I date.
Period.

 

[kdt26417]

With the amount of control that's been exerted over you, I don't blame you, and would probably do the same thing.

 

[MusicalRose]

I'm in a very similar boat to LR on that at the moment. Being burned by people who pretend to respect you and your decisions but actually want to control you and emotionally manipulate you really sucks. I did many things thinking I was being "respectful" and "supportive" of my partners' struggles, never realizing that they didn't have any incentive to grow and develop beyond those because I was always too afraid to hurt them. Never again.

 

[kdt26417]

Understandable.

 

[Kommander]

Like Marcus, I use the term Relationship Anarchy because it's a good description of my approach to relationships, descriptive verses prescriptive. Many would probably argue I'm not a "true Relationship Anarchist" or some such bullshit, but I'm generally unconcerned with such people's opinions.

I associate the words "rule" and "rules" with authority. They're not always used in the context of authority, but they are when I use them. Rules are created by those with authority to affect those without it. I have no desire to be romantically involved with someone who sees themself as my authority figure, and I have no desire to be with someone who sees me as their authority figure. Therefore, no authority, no rules.

As for agreements, boundaries, and other limits on behavior, they need to be explicitly discussed or based on reasonable expectations (e.g.: I feel it's reasonable to expect a partner to not try to murder me in my sleep, and feel it's reasonable for me to be upset if I wake up to find her holding a knife to my throat without having to have the cliched "I don't like being murdered" talk before hand.) If there's disagreement over what constitutes a "reasonable expectation" that leads to conflict, it's probably fine if it's discussed once everyone calms down.

As for compromise and making sacrifices, I need to be asked, and I need to make the decision to sacrifice or compromise of my own free will. If it's expected or I feel I'm being manipulated, I have a problem.

Some of the following may be referencing things discussed in the other thread, but I'm too lazy right now to make separate posts or reread the threads, so I'm addressing them here:

Relationship Anarchy being different from polyamory: As has been said, different but not mutually exclusive. One can be both, one, or neither. I'd even argue that one can be an RA and monogamous, if a mono couple has no desire for outside partners but otherwise eschews rules in their relationship, I'd think they qualify.

Negative reactions to the word "anarchist": The word "anarchy" is usually associated with the political philosophy, which I believe is shitty and wouldn't work in reality. The measure of a political system rests in how it deals with what I call "The Asshole Problem." Political Anarchy does nothing to address The Asshole Problem, therefore the assholes would take over and ruin everything for everyone. Most political systems, the assholes end up in power. American Democracy divides the assholes into two parties and plays them against each other in the hopes they'll be too busy to fuck with the rest of us, which is a slight improvement and will have to do until we figure out something better. Political Anarchy would only work if there were no assholes. Assholes exist, therefore it would fail as a political philosophy.

This is the same reason it is an excellent relationship philosophy: it doesn't work if ass holes are present. If a form of pair-bonding has any type of authority or rules, an ass hole can use that authority to make rules and be an ass hole. With Relationship Anarchy, ass holes have no authority, or else it becomes something else.

 

[IndieSolo]

Oh wow, Kommander, I love what you wrote - especially the last two paragraphs.