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

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.

Kommander, can I quote you elsewhere on this? I'm part of a group on Facebook called Relational Anarchy, and this is so relevant to the discussion going on there it's uncanny.
 
Oh wow, Kommander, I love what you wrote - especially the last two paragraphs.
Really? I mostly just rehashed what others were saying. I guess that can make a difference sometimes.


Kommander, can I quote you elsewhere on this? I'm part of a group on Facebook called Relational Anarchy, and this is so relevant to the discussion going on there it's uncanny.
As long as you're not planning on prefacing it with something along the lines of "Look what this idiot said," I'm fine with this. Although, I have a feeling that won't be a problem.

After re-reading my post, it could be perceived as though I was saying that RA is superior to other relationship formats or that it is somehow asshole proof. Neither of these things is true.

RA, from my perspective, is only superior in the sense that it works for me better than anything else. I have a preference, essentially. Some individuals have trouble telling the difference between "this is how relationships work best for me" and "this is how relationships work in general." Some people need rules and structure to feel secure. Some need a sense of authority over their partner, or need the sense that they are under their partner's authority. Some have such a strong emotional need to be pair bonded that they'll sacrifice their happiness and preferences to maintain a relationship even after it becomes clear that there are fundamental incompatibilities.

For me to feel secure in a relationship, I need the freedom to make my own decisions, and I need to trust my partners to make their own decisions. When disagreements come up, I need to discuss them directly and work through them rather than asserting authority and using manipulation. If compromises are made, it needs to be for the purpose of establishing trust rather than forcing incompatibilities to coexist, and I would much rather be alone than cling to someone I'm not compatible with. RA works for me not because its "better" than alternatives, but because it is what I need to feel secure.

It was pointed out here or in the other thread that people can, and do, use Relationship Anarchy to justify being assholes. One can easily make an agreement, break that agreement, and then when called on it say something along the lines of "Why are you mad? We agreed there aren't any rules! I'm a #RelationshipAnarchist so fuck you!" The fact that no rules were broken isn't the point, the point is that such a person is being an asshole. If there are no rules, there is also not a rule that one shouldn't be upset if an agreement is broken. By making such an argument, one is insisting that a rule has been broken and is trying to establish authority, and therefore it ceases to be Relationship Anarchy. "There are no rules" cannot logically be a rule in itself. I acknowledge that anyone I am romantically involved with is free to break any agreement, at any time, for any reason. However, I am also free to be upset if they choose to do so.

That's primarily why Relationship Anarchy is great when it comes to assholes. Not because it prevents people from being assholes, but the opposite: it allows people the freedom to be assholes. This makes them easier to spot, and easier to avoid. If an RA is not an asshole, it's not because the rules prevent them from from being one, but because they choose not to be one.
 
Re:
"If an RA is not an asshole, it's not because the rules prevent them from from being one, but because they choose not to be one."

Makes sense.
 
I would consider myself a Relationship Anarchist, I had my first experience with relationship anarchy when I was young (maybe too young) which lasted for a few years until I was 7/8 (imagine a little boy struggling to explain why the girl he was kissing and in love with wasn't his girlfriend when being teased by the other boys), the relationship eventually ended because a teacher caught us taking turns chasing and kissing each other and shouted that what we were doing was wrong and forbade us from seeing each other. I don't remember much from earlier but I remember the later stages, probably due to how traumatic it was at the time. There was also another boy who also liked the girl who I was in love with, I didn't realise it at the time but looking back it seems that he was very jealous which would explain why he bullied me for a while (If he had said something I would have probably shared, I shared everything).

Later in my teens my ideas of relationship anarchy and polyamory sprouted, I was in a monogamous relationship with a wonderful woman. It didn't feel right at all, their was nothing wrong with the girl but the whole relationship just felt awful. Everything just seemed too traditional and forced, go to cinema (I don't even like most movies) etc. just thinking about it and all of the expectations was too much and I began to isolate myself (what I tend to do when in deep thought about something I find important), I questioned and didn't like any of it. I went to a small halloween party that she hosted with her friends in her back yard (I liked her friends, I thought they were cool) and after hanging around in her shed she was hugging her friend and after her friend said "Are you jealous?", I was not jealous but happy that she had someone she could rely on (I'm pretty sure that I was a dumbass and said yes though), later while I was thinking about how much I dredded the relationship but loved her thoughts about polyamory came up and I just knew. By then it was too late and I had become depressed, everything that I was sick of all came up, bullying, coercive authority, the status quo etc. and after not seeing her for a while she broke up with me but I was too numb to feel the pain. We met up later but I just couldn't go through with a relationship anymore.

Please note that these are my personal opinions

My relationship anarchism is quite literally Anarchism which by the way has nothing to do with politics, it is a philosophy, an analysis of power relations between people and understanding that states if the form of authority cannot be reasonably justified it is to be dismantled to maximize the freedom of individual, politics only come into Anarchism when discussing alternative methods of organizing without forcing people to do things with violence (I'm not here to promote Anarchism so don't ask me any questions that aren't relevant to relationship anarchy, I don't want to derail the thread).

Boundries
All forms of domination in relationships that are not consentual are in direct contradiction with anarchy and thus reason for me to dissasociate with the individual (in effect to end the relationship), this also includes all forms of bigotry; sexism, racism, classism etc. so if for example somebody attacked me because of my race I would not want a relationship with that person. This is not a rule, I won't terminate a relationship the second that they are acting like a bigot, I will discuss it with them, tell them that I don't like it and give rational reasons as to why they shouldn't act in that manner and why I think it's wrong. I wont create any rules that they have to follow with threats if they don't but mutual respect is necessary for a relationship.

Organizing equally without coersion
I view those who call poly people sluts who just want to cheat and are greedy the same way I view people telling women that they are useless and belong in the kitchen, they are imposing a irrational system or "stereotype" and even though their (assumed) ignorance is not their fault that doesn't mean it should be tolerated, I will call them out on it and if they are willing to listen explain. Relationship anarchy is about organizing the relationship on your terms and nobody else's which if you want to have a "successful" relationship means taking all members of the relationship into consideration out of respect for their independance and your own, this includes not coercing a participant to conform to something just because it is a norm or to give into demands, for this kind of relationship to even begin to work it must be mutual.

Hierarchy
An-Archos - Without Rulers, this encompasses hierarchy. There is a hierarchy where sexual relations are on top and friendship is below, i.e. the "friend zone". Relationship anarchy removes the catagories defined by the presence of sexual/romantic relations, making all relation between people equal and ready to be distributed according to your needs and not stereotypes. There is no value assigned to a relationship merely because it includes sex (friends are important too), you are free to do what ever you want as long as all involved consent. This includes all hierarchy in relationships like the hierarchy where monogamy is above polyamory and everything else is "heresy". Relationship anarchy diverges from some forms of polyamory in that it is explicitly against the "primary" and "secondary" hierarchy, no behaviour is restricted to sexual/romantic relations, all relations are important and can help meet needs and desires and deserve whatever amount of time you want with no privilege in regard to sex/romance.

I'm a relationship anarchist and poly becuase I wish to have free relations and to base them on what is right for all involved while avoiding illegitimate authority, to breed an environment based on mutual respect, mutual aid, honesty, communication and because my love is not restricted to one person, to one method. What is right for one is not for all.

Like Marcus, I use the term Relationship 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. Political Anarchy would only work if there were no assholes. Assholes exist, therefore it would fail as a political philosophy.

How do you think Anarchists feel when they have to explain that their philosophy is about organizing without oppression and that it has nothing to do with throwing bombs, something we have become associated with because after someone threw a bomb Anarchists were blamed until the court later dropped the charade, told them that they were being prosecuted because of their beliefs and then proceded to excecute them, while they have "apoligized" we are still associated with the very thing that led to their death and every time anything comes up about the haymarket affair people ignore the historians that point out that the only reason people mobilized to get you the 8 hour work day was because the US government murdered my comrades. Please refrain from talking about politics when it's not relevant, especially when you have no idea what your talking about. If you had actually researched Anarchism you would understand why what you said is absolute bullshit.
 
Last edited:
How do you think Anarchists feel when they have to explain that their philosophy is about organizing without oppression and that it has nothing to do with throwing bombs, something we have become associated with because after someone threw a bomb Anarchists were blamed until the court later dropped the charade, told them that they were being prosecuted because of their beliefs and then proceded to excecute them, while they have "apoligized" we are still associated with the very thing that led to their death and every time anything comes up about the haymarket affair people ignore the historians that point out that the only reason people mobilized to get you the 8 hour work day was because the US government murdered my comrades. Please refrain from talking about politics when it's not relevant, especially when you have no idea what your talking about. If you had actually researched Anarchism you would understand why what you said is absolute bullshit.
Wow. While reading the rest of your post, I was thinking "This person seems reasonable and I more or less agree with what they are saying." Then I read this paragraph and thought the opposite. While you claim that I don't know what I'm talking about and that what I said is bullshit, I think you actually proved my point. You describe those in authority severely distorting and exaggerating anarchist beliefs and then prosecuting them based on those distortions. You condemn those individuals for their actions, and yet you go on to equate my mild criticism of political anarchy to the worst of oppression, i.e.: distorting and exaggerating my position, and then acting based on that distortion. I am not equating what you did with the actions of those you condemn, but I am saying that you appear to be using a similar thought process.

Apparently, you are sensitive to criticism of your ideals. That's understandable. You also responded to what I said with more emotion than reason, that is also understandable. As such, I believe that this is more a case of you taking what I said out of context rather than a case of you being right and me being an idiot who is wrong. I think that we have different perspectives, not that one of us is right and the other is wrong.

If you would care to discuss our differing perspectives in a civilized manner, I'd be happy to; I enjoy learning about and understanding those who are different from myself. However, I have no interest in being belittled or intimidated.

I'm sorry that I offended you, but I stand by what I said. If you would like to change my mind, I'd suggest you try a different approach. Others trying to bully me into submission is an area in which I am sensitive to, and sometimes respond with more emotion than reason. While that might be entertaining for others reading this thread, it would do nothing to change mind, if that is your goal.
 
you go on to equate my mild criticism of political anarchy to the worst of oppression, i.e.: distorting and exaggerating my position, and then acting based on that distortion. I am not equating what you did with the actions of those you condemn, but I am saying that you appear to be using a similar thought process.

However, I have no interest in being belittled or intimidated.

That wasn't what I was trying to do, promise.

Apparently, you are sensitive to criticism of your ideals. That's understandable. You also responded to what I said with more emotion than reason, that is also understandable. As such, I believe that this is more a case of you taking what I said out of context rather than a case of you being right and me being an idiot who is wrong. I think that we have different perspectives, not that one of us is right and the other is wrong.

I'm open to criticism, it's just that I viewed what you posted as misrepresenting Anarchism, I only react that way when people say baseless stuff like "anarchy is chaos" and "Anarchists are just edgy teenagers" and that's how I viewed your post. To be honest I should be used to it now, I've been defending it for longer than I can remember :eek:. Sorry if I seemed threatening.

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.

I also associate rules with authority, my understanding of rules is that someone wishes to coerce another person into doing something and that if they don't they will be punished. I don't see that as a legitimate use of authority, I don't want to rule or be ruled.

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.

This is the same way that literal Anarchists handle conflict, if your partner tried to murder you in your sleep they would be taking a position of authority over you and if it can't be reasonably justified (I'd like to see how they would justify that) then the relationship would be dissolved. Any disagreements are discussed on equal terms and are to be discussed with all relevant people and if you can't discuss it without conflict someone without bias that all members agree to would mediate the conflict. I see relationship anarchy in a similar way, the most popular methods of dealing with "crime" in the Anarchist community are restorative and transformative justice, I think that these methods could be useful when dealing with conflict between people you have relations with.

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.

I bet you'll love restorative justice :)

Restorative justice
"Justice" is a subjective term, to one person it could mean the person who has wronged you saying sorry while to another it could be something like a blood debt where if you kill their brother they believe that you also deserve to die(no you can't justify that), restorative justice allows the terms to be set by all involved and unlike the current system it's all vouluntary, if they can't even bother to turn up to the council then they're obviously not sorry. Restorative justice is a form of conflict resolution that has been used all over the world by indigenous populations to resolve disputes between individuals. An example of restorative justice would be: Bob has smashed Polly's plantpot, Bob feels sorry about this and after discussing the matter with Polly they have agreed that everything is chill if Bob gets Polly a new plantpot. Please note that to be successful you must first agree on what the problem is, how you define "crime". It is also better if you move past notions of punishment and in more serious matters focus on rehabilitation, forcing someone to spend their life in a cell will not solve anything except the wronged parties lust for revenge.

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.

I agree.

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... Political Anarchy would only work if there were no assholes. Assholes exist, therefore it would fail as a political philosophy.

Anarchism quite literally removes any platform for the asshole to get power and an Anarchist society would be full of people constantly questioning any form of authority that they don't like. In the worst case scenario where an asshole does get power a temporary federation is formed and if necessary an armed militia using the medium of the federation organises to deal with the problem (this is assuming that the asshole somehow convinced loads of people to fight with them which would be incredibly difficult, why would you fight for an asshole if you shared struggles with everyone around you? Free stuff!). To try to visualize how this would work imagine that anyone who is effected by the asshole spreads the news and the people who decide to help congregate in a local area, everyone in multiple areas do the same thing. Members of the areas agree on a course of action by sending delegates who can only act as the mouthpiece of the agreed method. I organise relationships is the same manner.

200px-Syndicalism_Outline.gif

Replace self-managed workplace with relationship.

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.

Is it really democracy if you have no choice in the actions they take, how would you feel if someone came up to you, pointed a gun at you and said "I'm either going to shoot you in the foot or in the leg, choose", that isn't a choice, it's a threat! And you can't say I don't want either, I don't accept because they will shoot you anyway. They are fucking you and they're doing it really hard without consideration for your feelings, you are being politically raped. Couldn't the same thing be said about capitalism and the state, they are not the default, if you are to support a political system the burden of proof lies on you, this system does not work, people starve surrounded by food, homeless people freeze to death surrounded by empty, well heated houses etc.. Remove the assholes and organise however you wish, even if it's not Anarchism (lack of state doesn't mean it's anarchy, stateless tribes were not based on Anarchist principles).


With Relationship Anarchy, ass holes have no authority, or else it becomes something else.

I think you may actually understand some parts of Anarchism.
 
Last edited:
That wasn't what I was trying to do, promise.

I'm open to criticism, it's just that I viewed what you posted as misrepresenting Anarchism, I only react that way when people say baseless stuff like "anarchy is chaos" and "Anarchists are just edgy teenagers" and that's how I viewed your post. To be honest I should be used to it now, I've been defending it for longer than I can remember :eek:. Sorry if I seemed threatening.
So it was an emotional outburst. It happens, it's not really a big deal.

I bet you'll love restorative justice :)
Putting the focus on fixing problems and the actual consequences of one's actions instead of manufactured consequences like punishment/revenge. Yeah, pretty much.

Anarchism quite literally removes any platform for the asshole to get power and an Anarchist society would be full of people constantly questioning any form of authority that they don't like. In the worst case scenario where an asshole does get power a temporary federation is formed and if necessary an armed milita using the medium of the federation organizes to deal with the problem (this is assuming that the asshole somehow convinced loads of people to fight with them which would be incredibly difficult, why would you fight for an asshole if you shared struggles with everyone around you? Free stuff!). To try to visualize how this would work imagine that anyone who is effected by the asshole spreads the news and the people who decide to help congregate in a local area, everyone in multiple areas do the same thing. Members of the areas agree on a course of action by sending deligates who can only act as the mouthpiece of the agreed method. I organize relationships is the same manner. Replace self-managed workplace with relationship.
This sounds like a hybrid direct democracy/representative democracy system based on anarchist ideals rather than pure anarchy, which is more what I was criticizing. I was thinking of a system wherein no one has authority. This can only exist if everyone voluntarily gives up authority and chooses not to assert authority. With society as a whole, some people will try to assert authority, and there's nothing in place to prevent them from doing so. Smaller communities would be less problematic, as those who try to assert authority can be excluded. I don't think anarchy is a flawed ideal, I just don't always think it's always practical. For romantic relationships, and possibly all interpersonal relationships, it can be practical. On a societal level, not so much.

The principles of the system above seems similar to those of current democracies; rule with consent of the governed. With either system, there is still a system of authority. The problem is deciding when authority should be applied, how it should be applied, and "The Asshole Problem," what constitutes inappropriate use of authority, and how is it prevented. Who is and is not being an asshole is subjective, and as such, it can be manipulated by assholes to convince others that they are not assholes, or to convince others that non-assholes are assholes. If "The Asshole Problem" is solved, the actual structure of government or society really wouldn't matter, things would be awesome no matter what. However, figuring that out is beyond my capabilities. Pointing out problems is much easier than solving them.

How does the system you described above address that? It's one thing to say that the delegates can only act as a mouthpiece for the general consensus, but how is that enforced? If the delegates go against the consensus, what happens. Technically, the American system works the same way, and there are systems in place for when officials don't uphold the will of the people, recall elections, impeachments, and such. However, they're rarely used.

I think you may actually understand some parts of Anarchism.
Yes, "some parts." My arguments are mostly based on psychology and logic, of which i probably have a somewhat better understanding.
 
This sounds like a hybrid direct democracy/representative democracy system based on anarchist ideals rather than pure anarchy, which is more what I was criticizing. I was thinking of a system wherein no one has authority. This can only exist if everyone voluntarily gives up authority and chooses not to assert authority. With society as a whole, some people will try to assert authority, and there's nothing in place to prevent them from doing so. Smaller communities would be less problematic, as those who try to assert authority can be excluded. I don't think anarchy is a flawed ideal, I just don't always think it's always practical. For romantic relationships, and possibly all interpersonal relationships, it can be practical. On a societal level, not so much.

I'm talking about anarchy in the Anarchist sense (which is also how I view relationship anarchy), what you're describing is chaos. The system I explained is direct democracy, it's not representational because the delegate doesn't represent the people, they can't speak on behalf of them, only things that they have agreed on, they echo their ideas.

What is authority?
There is a clear distinction between being an authority and having authority

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognise no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others. –Mikhail Bakunin
Bakunin was the founder of Collectivist Anarchism.

rule with consent of the governed. With either system, there is still a system of authority. The problem is deciding when authority should be applied, how it should be applied, and "The Asshole Problem," what constitutes inappropriate use of authority, and how is it prevented. Who is and is not being an asshole is subjective, and as such, it can be manipulated by assholes to convince others that they are not assholes, or to convince others that non-assholes are assholes. If "The Asshole Problem" is solved, the actual structure of government or society really wouldn't matter, things would be awesome no matter what. However, figuring that out is beyond my capabilities. Pointing out problems is much easier than solving them.

There is no ruling because there is no system that can force you to do anything (which is why it isn't political), it's not a system but a group of people reacting to others who instigate authority, everything is questioned as to whether they are taking a position of authority over someone, the asshole's attitude wouldn't be what they are judged on but their actions. In most cases authority cannot be justified and someone who uses authority over another must justify their actions as the burden of proof lies with them. So for example if someone hits another person it wouldn't be a question as to whether their actions were bad or good, it would be a question of authority; is the person who acted using authority (which in this case would be true as their actions are influencing them without consent) and then the job of justifying the use of authority would lie with the instigator. An example of legitimate authority would be if a baby is crawling onto a road and you pick them up to stop them from being crushed.

There will always be assholes but that doesn't mean that we have to let them have power over us, removing their authority is something we can achieve. Normally when someone does something you don't like you can dissociate but if they are preventing that (and you don't consent) then they are using authority over you, so for example if you have a relationship with someone and you're regularly kissing and you decide that you don't want to do it anymore normally you would be able to just stop but if they say no and force it on you they are taking a form of authority over you, it is up to you and the community to prevent this, defending yourself is not a form of authority in itself.

Yes pointing out problems is easier than solving them and we have been both pointing them out, thinking about them and proving that we can fix them officially since the 1800s but nobody actually listens to us and ignores all of the historical evidence of it working. Revolutionary Catalonia, The Ukrainian Free Territory, loads of pre-capitalism and pre-industrial era tribes etc..

How does the system you described above address that? It's one thing to say that the delegates can only act as a mouthpiece for the general consensus, but how is that enforced? If the delegates go against the consensus, what happens. Technically, the American system works the same way, and there are systems in place for when officials don't uphold the will of the people, recall elections, impeachments, and such. However, they're rarely used.

That's because the systems in America are a joke, if someone gave a reasonable objection against what politicians are doing they would be laughed at, they have no say whatsoever. You seem to be trying to understand Anarchist societies as if they were based on institutions, there is nobody enforcing anything, the person using authority would be the one enforcing things and everybody else would be reacting to them, either by rejecting their authority over them or accepting it. The state (government) is defined as a group of people who successfully claim the only legitimate use of force within a physical territory, it's ok for people to kidnap, torture, beat and force people to do things if they wear a costume that has the word police on it, they are not police officers, they are people. Is this really the kind of society you want to live in?

Society is a group of people, it would all work on the small scale and that's the point, all of those small scale relationships would combine federally whenever there is an issue that concerns them. The USA does not exist, it's a concept, a group of assholes with money who control a group of assholes who give you the illusion of choice, controlling a group of assholes that convince you that it's all legit that is held up by a group of assholes that use violence against you whenever you do anything they disagree with.

Imagine a society where there is no government, there is no money, everything that the government uses as an excuse to extort you is done instead by the people who are effected by it, if you need more food you take it, if you have extra food that you don't need you give it to people who need it, isn't this how you would structure your relationships with other people, what is governance if not forcing people to relate to each other in a way en masse that benefits those extortionate assholes. Assholes are just assholes if you remove their power, you can ignore them.

Anarchism is relationship anarchism on a mass scale.
 
Last edited:
From what I have seen RA is just a term for insecure or commitmentphobic people to describe and make sense of their poly relationships. It may that it works for them to use it as a concept. But they are often opposing a version of romantic relationships where Hollywood romance threw up on them, people's insecurities made them pray to every relationship standard and where nobody were talking about what was actually going on in the relationship. Maybe RA can work as a sort of relationship self help but I dont see it as a relationship concept.
 
:confused: NorwegianPoly, perhaps you have met some people who claimed to be RA without really knowing what it is. Your impression of what it is, is very strange indeed and does not make sense to me. "Commitmentphobic" and "making sense of" a relationship - that is not like any description of RA nor of anyone who practices RA that I've ever come across. Have you even read any of the posts in this or the other thread about it, or any literature elsewhere on the internet? Either you do not have a clear understanding of Relationship Anarchy, or I am not understanding you. I am curious - exactly what kind of behavior gave you those impressions you have?
 
Last edited:
"Commitmentphobic" and "making sense of" a relationship - that is not like any description of RA nor of anyone who practices RA that I've ever come across.

Agreed. A relationship anarchy orientation by its very definition requires a person to have a very solid and stable sense of self, which generally translates into solid and stable relationships. RA is simply not requiring (within reason) relationship rules. I feel very committed to my loved ones, yet allow them wide berth to make their own life, love and sex choices. Nobody puts rules on me, either, including my husband. Even our marriage has fewer and fewer rules in place as our mutual commitment builds. I'm totally committed to my marriage because we do not have the typical marriage requirements and rules - and I tend to attract stable partners who place a similar value on such freedom.

Frankly, I don't even know what "commitment-phobic" would mean in the context of polymaory, anyway.
 
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

I'll be honest, I hesitated to comment on this because you'd already gotten a few nods on the post and I didn't want to contribute to an avalanche of praise of a post, but I couldn't resist.

I've discussed anarchy many times over the years and it is a very touchy and rather complicated topic. It's slippery and hard to nail down by its very nature and finding the exact right turn of phrase to clearly lay it out is quite a feat. The Asshole Problem is freaking inspired and I am (without permission, I might at) stealing the fuck out of it.

P.S. If you didn't come up with it, don't tell me, just own it.

Frankly, I don't even know what "commitment-phobic" would mean in the context of polymaory, anyway.

Psh, I've heard "fear of commitment" so many times it doesn't even make my eyebrows go up anymore, and I don't *ever* mention RA to people. Hell, even monogamous people give each other grief about having fear of commitment, it seems like a pretty common term to just sling at someone if they aren't lunging headlong into marriage at the first person who winks at them.

I can see how someone who doesn't have any idea what they're talking about, like Norwegianpoly, could come to the conclusion that RA is all about insecurity and fear of commitment if they've met a bonehead or two who were using the term to cover up for the fact that they were boneheads. With a sample size of a grapefruit a person can convince themselves of just about anything.
 
I'm totally committed to my marriage because we do not have the typical marriage requirements and rules - and I tend to attract stable partners who place a similar value on such freedom.

Frankly, I don't even know what "commitment-phobic" would mean in the context of polymaory, anyway.
Well said. I find it very easy to commit to my marriage because it doesn't require me to forsake all others or put limits on my other relationships.

I guess some people get the (wrong) impression that RA is for "commitment-phobic" people because RA intersects with solo poly a lot. However, just because solo poly folks don't want to "settle down" in the traditional way, doesn't mean they don't have committed relationships. Since a big part of RA is about customized commitment, the word "commitment-phobic" (which is based on a very narrow definition of commitment) doesn't make much sense in the RA context.
 
Last edited:
:confused: NorwegianPoly, perhaps you have met some people who claimed to be RA without really knowing what it is. Your impression of what it is, is very strange indeed and does not make sense to me. "Commitmentphobic" and "making sense of" a relationship - that is not like any description of RA nor of anyone who practices RA that I've ever come across. Have you even read any of the posts in this or the other thread about it, or any literature elsewhere on the internet? Either you do not have a clear understanding of Relationship Anarchy, or I am not understanding you. I am curious - exactly what kind of behavior gave you those impressions you have?
I have read lots about RA, and I know the theoretics behind it. I have read Andy in Sweedish and all. It might be that the people I know are bad RA examples - or that, like I said, these people are young, lacks boundries and drawn to RA because it speaks to them somehow.

I see three potentional issues with RA.:
1. a lot of communication theories cover the same material. For instance the Love Languages talk about how people perceive love differently and that you should cater to your lover, not some ideal in your head. Marriage courses also typically encourage you to become known with your partner as an individual, not just an example of "a girlfriend/boyfriend/husband/wife"
2. Poly covers lots of the same issues with monogamy that RA does, and offer a wide spectrum of ways of dealing with close relationships, looser affairs and even one night stands.
But fair enough, you can say that it combines poly and communication theories and still want to say something more. Which is:
3. RAs reluctancy to name and structure relationships. It mimics a lot of the stuff that I have read by Osho (which my ex used to quote). It is a seeking of freedom through refusing to name or set boundries to the relationships you have, weather it be boyfriend/girlfriend, frienship or whatever are similar to these. You should let the relationship flow naturally. While there is someting to be said for doing that, what Osho warns us of, and that I have not seen in RA so much, is that the reluctancy to name can also become a sort of structure. You don't want to deal, to you refuse to name. Things have beome strucured, but you pretend they are not. Or, they hang loose and that creates problems, but you see that as a lack of freedom, that structure is always bad. Duty is bad. Everything you do should be out of a spontanous, joyful heart. Such good ideals, still - how would our society work if we did things like that as a general rule? I remember Jesper Juul told his son, when he did not want to do housework: you don't have to smile doing it, as long as you get it done.Sometimes relationships are a bit like that too, they are grey and it rains, still we try to find something that is not in the moment to inspire that relationship going. A wedding band. A couple's picture - or a picture of the group. The little sweater intended for the first child. Life is a back and forth ride between the wants and the have toos. Sometimes you make choices and you stay by them, or not. Some people stay on the edge of choices - yes, I can be your lover but I can't usually tell when we will meet. Yes, I will be your friend but I won't help you move houses unless I feel like it. That refusal to bind and be bound can be hurtful, too, and not just a wonderful freedom.
 
Life is a back and forth ride between the wants and the have toos. Sometimes you make choices and you stay by them, or not. Some people stay on the edge of choices - yes, I can be your lover but I can't usually tell when we will meet. Yes, I will be your friend but I won't help you move houses unless I feel like it. That refusal to bind and be bound can be hurtful, too, and not just a wonderful freedom.

This way of interacting is bountiful among the monogamous and indeed among the married. As has been mentioned quite astutely several times in this discussion, assholey behavior can be found everywhere. In my experience, the more self-aware and at ease I am with my own choices, the less I engage with or even encounter the asshole you describe. Relationship anarchy is about freedom of choice. Orbiting up with inconsiderate boobs has everything to do with the individuals with whom we are wiling to engage and very little to do with the number of relationship rules we have in place.
 
Last edited:
...
3. RAs reluctancy to name and structure relationships. It mimics a lot of the stuff that I have read by Osho (which my ex used to quote). It is a seeking of freedom through refusing to name or set boundries to the relationships you have, weather it be boyfriend/girlfriend, frienship or whatever are similar to these. You should let the relationship flow naturally. While there is someting to be said for doing that, what Osho warns us of, and that I have not seen in RA so much, is that the reluctancy to name can also become a sort of structure. You don't want to deal, to you refuse to name. Things have beome strucured, but you pretend they are not. Or, they hang loose and that creates problems, but you see that as a lack of freedom, that structure is always bad. Duty is bad. Everything you do should be out of a spontanous, joyful heart. Such good ideals, still - how would our society work if we did things like that as a general rule? ... Life is a back and forth ride between the wants and the have toos. Sometimes you make choices and you stay by them, or not. Some people stay on the edge of choices - yes, I can be your lover but I can't usually tell when we will meet. Yes, I will be your friend but I won't help you move houses unless I feel like it. That refusal to bind and be bound can be hurtful, too, and not just a wonderful freedom.

I have to chime in with Norwegianpoly that, in practice, I'm skeptical of relationship anarchy. Partly it's because I am generally skeptical of anarchy overall. Anarchism, like communism and some other philosophies, seem to me to have a fundamental disconnect from how most people are.

But more specifically, I think Norwegianpoly's point which I quote above is really important. I've seen this very dynamic happen repeatedly in my own little poly world. Of course, they could be assholes or just doing RA poorly. The quality and self-awareness of the person make a huge difference in how relationship structures work out. After all, polyamory in general is frequently used as an excuse to treat others poorly while having lots of sex or refusing to treat a commitment seriously. There are lots of folks 'doing' RA just fine.

But I do think that RA by its structure (and, yes, I believe RA has a structure) can emphasize behavior and ideals that lead to this unhealthy dynamic. It can lead to not acknowledging important realities. I am suspicious that not naming things, not labeling, is insufficient to reduce or end hierarchies. I think hierarchies creep into just about everything we do. A danger is that RA allows folks to not talk about this, not recognize it sometimes. And that can cause great pain. I don't think this is only people being bad at RA. I see inherent tensions in RA that are not so easily explained away by asshole-ishness.
 
From what I have seen RA is just a term for insecure or commitmentphobic people to describe and make sense of their poly relationships.

On the contrary I feel a lot more committed to people that I have relations with without assigning labels (that I find to be both insufficient and forced).

A relationship anarchy orientation by its very definition requires a person to have a very solid and stable sense of self, which generally translates into solid and stable relationships. RA is simply not requiring (within reason) relationship rules. I feel very committed to my loved ones, yet allow them wide berth to make their own life, love and sex choices. Nobody puts rules on me, either, including my husband.

I agree with this.

It's slippery and hard to nail down by its very nature and finding the exact right turn of phrase to clearly lay it out is quite a feat.

It's actually quite simple to identify, it only gets complicated when discussing methods of organization. Anarchism is the analysis of power relations or authority and the belief that the burden of proof that lies with the person instigating the authority must be taken seriously (because authority can be easily misused) and if they cannot justify the authority then it must be dismantled.

3. RAs reluctancy to name and structure relationships. It mimics a lot of the stuff that I have read by Osho (which my ex used to quote). It is a seeking of freedom through refusing to name or set boundries to the relationships you have, weather it be boyfriend/girlfriend, frienship or whatever are similar to these. You should let the relationship flow naturally.

I don't see it as the refusal to name relationships or set boundries but the refusal to conform to a stereotype like friendship or girlfriend/boyfriend, it's defining your relationships on your own terms.

Duty is bad. Everything you do should be out of a spontanous, joyful heart... Yes, I will be your friend but I won't help you move houses unless I feel like it... That refusal to bind and be bound can be hurtful, too, and not just a wonderful freedom.

Yes I think that duty is bad because it either requires you conform to some stupid stereotype ("I'm a man so that means I have to be macho") or be backed up by force. I don't however think that everything should be spontanous, that would be chaos. Why would you have a relationship with someone like that? They shouldn't feel obligated to help them because they're their friend but because they're in need. The structure of friendship, to be bound can also be hurtful and the position lends itself to abuse, how many people do you know who let assholes ruin them "because they're their friend".

I'm skeptical of relationship anarchy. Partly it's because I am generally skeptical of anarchy overall. Anarchism, like communism and some other philosophies, seem to me to have a fundamental disconnect from how most people are.

Please be so skeptical that you actually learn what those terms mean, you will realize why what you said is ridiculous (I don't intend to attack you in this post so please don't take it the wrong way). To say that Communism is fundamentally disconnected from how people are just shows your ignorance of history beyond the small amount of time we've had capitalism and the time that we've had states, you probably also think that we had barter before currency and lived solitary cave-men lives in a nuclear family structure (OK, I was mocking you there a little, sorry). Our species lived most of it's existence in primitive communism where there was little or no war and societies with assholes didn't exist because they would be banished, hunter-gatherers lived in small societies where you couldn't afford to be an asshole due to scarcity.

Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society that has it's resources distributed from ability to need. The USSR and China were not Communist, they had authoritarians in control of their Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat, a transitionary stage in order to reach Communism. Marxism is not equal to all forms of Communism like Anarchist Communism, my comrades and the Marxist Communists would all send your reply right back at you, Capitalism and the state are fundamentally disconnected to how humans "are" (please don't bother me with your human nature fallacies though). I organize my relationships in a Communist fashion, I help those in need if I can and share what I don't need.

polyamory in general is frequently used as an excuse to treat others poorly while having lots of sex or refusing to treat a commitment seriously. There are lots of folks 'doing' RA just fine.

Please use that to understand me, we have to deal with edgy people who don't understand Anarchism using it as an excuse to smash stuff and be general assholes. There were also lots of folks doing Communism just fine until violent people killed them all and tried re-write history in their favour.

I am suspicious that not naming things, not labeling, is insufficient to reduce or end hierarchies. I think hierarchies creep into just about everything we do. A danger is that RA allows folks to not talk about this, not recognize it sometimes.

That's not Relationship Anarchy (or atleast my interpretation of it), it's not a refusal to label, it's a refusal to conform to pointless stereotypes. Hierarchies do creep into just about everything we do, that's because we live in a society that is extremely hierarchical and from a young age we are sent into "educational" (the Prussian model, I don't need to say any more) institutions that accustom people to authority and hierarchy until they leave and have practically no choice other than to submit to authority and hierarchy in the workplace. Likening wage labour to slavery was very common until the US government killed and repressed Socialists in the red scare, it was said that the only difference was that you rented yourself out instead of being bought, the term you don't accept a dictatorship in government so why do you accept it in the workplace is a motto of a labour union that was famous in that era, the IWW.
 
Last edited:
Everybody and everyone is questioning hierarchy and stereotypes. Relationship anarchy is far from alone in doing that. Expectations can be good or bad, functional or disfunctional. The important thing is to consider what you wan, and what might be good for other people.
 
What I'd like to know is where/how I can meet other Relationship Anarchists. You know, like that old cartoon that poked a little fun with the phrase "anarchists unite!" - do they have meetups? Some way of connecting with other Relationship Anarchists? How do I find them?
 
Back
Top