SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
For ease, let's think about a triad here.
I'll explain my answers and link the two questions in my explanation. For context, it's from a Reddit polyamory thread.
1) Do you think marriage automatically introduces hierarchy between the married couple? Can a married couple claim to be non-hierarchial? (We've likely debated this before).
2) Barbie and Ken are a couple. Barbie is immunocompromised. As a result, Barbie has strict rules around infection transmission which excludes people with herpes as partners or metamours, among other stringent measures. Ken adheres to these and excludes partners who do not meet the criteria to protect Barbie. Can this couple claim to be non-hierarchial?
For me, the answer to the first question is yes, a married couple can be non-hierarchial, but it takes effort to dismantle the inherent privilege that comes with marriage.
I also think it is context dependent. In some situations, it creates a lot of hierarchy, in others, none. It all depends on the other people involved and their unique circumstances. The ability for the unmarried person to marry others is part of this (so whether it's a closed or open triad, the thread didn't specify).
One person in the comments of the thread touched on this when they raised that the assumption is always around an existing married couple, and an individual who is in the role of the "single third". They brought up the possibility of a more financially affluent unmarried couple who marry one or more other people to share their work related benefits.
That would be an example of dismantling couple's privilege and ensuring that marriage isn't about creating hierarchy. The legal contract provides an alternative to the history shared by the pre-existing couple. The more affluent people aren't doubling up on their assets to the disadvantage of their single partners.
Of course, some people feel strongly that marriage always creates hierarchy, and anyone who says their marriage doesn't is either untruthful or deluded. The reasons are obvious, money, security, societal views, etc.
In relation to the second question, I think that Ken's decision is Ken's alone. I wouldn't call that hierarchy as such. But then I don't think marriage always equals hierarchy.
If Barbie claimed that marriage was always hierarchical, but her arrangement with Ken was not, I'd see that as philosophically inconsistent.
It's not that I think Barbie should not ask her partners for to adhere to those terms. I think she has little choice to do much else. But I'd think it strange that Barbie doesn't view how Ken's commitment to her impacts on who he dates as an indication of hierarchy.
Yes, Ken has agreed to it, and Barbie likely didn't manipulate him into doing so. He wants to protect his loved one. But I don't see it as much different to how marriage restricts your availability to whatever degree you allow. Or nesting. Or just having someone you call a "partner".
This is one of the biggest reasons I've moved away from viewing hierarchy as a tangible topic in polyamory. I feel the same about the boundaries vs rules vs agreements debate and have for some time.
Thoughts?
I'll explain my answers and link the two questions in my explanation. For context, it's from a Reddit polyamory thread.
1) Do you think marriage automatically introduces hierarchy between the married couple? Can a married couple claim to be non-hierarchial? (We've likely debated this before).
2) Barbie and Ken are a couple. Barbie is immunocompromised. As a result, Barbie has strict rules around infection transmission which excludes people with herpes as partners or metamours, among other stringent measures. Ken adheres to these and excludes partners who do not meet the criteria to protect Barbie. Can this couple claim to be non-hierarchial?
For me, the answer to the first question is yes, a married couple can be non-hierarchial, but it takes effort to dismantle the inherent privilege that comes with marriage.
I also think it is context dependent. In some situations, it creates a lot of hierarchy, in others, none. It all depends on the other people involved and their unique circumstances. The ability for the unmarried person to marry others is part of this (so whether it's a closed or open triad, the thread didn't specify).
One person in the comments of the thread touched on this when they raised that the assumption is always around an existing married couple, and an individual who is in the role of the "single third". They brought up the possibility of a more financially affluent unmarried couple who marry one or more other people to share their work related benefits.
That would be an example of dismantling couple's privilege and ensuring that marriage isn't about creating hierarchy. The legal contract provides an alternative to the history shared by the pre-existing couple. The more affluent people aren't doubling up on their assets to the disadvantage of their single partners.
Of course, some people feel strongly that marriage always creates hierarchy, and anyone who says their marriage doesn't is either untruthful or deluded. The reasons are obvious, money, security, societal views, etc.
In relation to the second question, I think that Ken's decision is Ken's alone. I wouldn't call that hierarchy as such. But then I don't think marriage always equals hierarchy.
If Barbie claimed that marriage was always hierarchical, but her arrangement with Ken was not, I'd see that as philosophically inconsistent.
It's not that I think Barbie should not ask her partners for to adhere to those terms. I think she has little choice to do much else. But I'd think it strange that Barbie doesn't view how Ken's commitment to her impacts on who he dates as an indication of hierarchy.
Yes, Ken has agreed to it, and Barbie likely didn't manipulate him into doing so. He wants to protect his loved one. But I don't see it as much different to how marriage restricts your availability to whatever degree you allow. Or nesting. Or just having someone you call a "partner".
This is one of the biggest reasons I've moved away from viewing hierarchy as a tangible topic in polyamory. I feel the same about the boundaries vs rules vs agreements debate and have for some time.
Thoughts?