Hierarchies

[ElMango]

Hierarchical polyamory, when I first discovered I was poly, seemed to be much more accepted than now only like...2 years later.

I used to really hate the idea of it; but I now don't I just look at it differently and see that there are different types to me imo.

Type A- The initial couple is top of the pyramid. Everyone else is lesser than that relationship

Type B- Certain relationships carry more weight and value than others. Your NPs are higher up on the pyramid than a FWB. There are multiple pyramids in this type.

These are the two I can think of right now, does anyone have any others?

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with Type 2 if that works for you. It doesn't mean you're giving over control of all your relationships to your partner(s), to me it just means you're considering your feelings, then their feelings as a priority.

So I'm wondering, what do others think about a hierarchy? Why has there seemingly been a shift away from them?

Thoughts?

 

[vinsanity0]

I don't see your type B as hierarchical, necessarily. For me, hierarchy means you put one partner's needs above anyone else's, no matter what.

With a NP you have certain responsibilities you have agreed to. You may or may not be able to afford cohabitating with someone else. Or maybe you can. Your nesting relationship needn't dictate how your other relationships go.

 

[breathemusic]

I've always been a pretty staunch defender that when people automatically shit all over hierarchy, they're being just as bad as the thing they hate.

The reality is, anyone can want what they want, and people can relationship however they want to relationship. What matters is that they communicate their expectations and boundaries appropriately to all parties involved so that everyone can consent to what they're signing up for. Someone wants to be hierarchical, fine. But they should be super clear to anyone that isn't their primary about what the boundaries are going in so that the secondary isn't surprised later. If someone accepts those boundaries and then later decides they don't like them and is hurt, it's their choice to stay or go.

Someone doesn't like hierarchies, don't date people who have hierarchies. And vice versa. To me it's not about good or bad, it's about whether different dating and relationship styles and preferences align between partners.

And I say this as someone who doesn't consider myself to be hierarchical in the sense that my NP doesn't automatically always come first or get any say over my other relationships, but at the same time I *do* spend more than 50% of my time with him and prioritize giving him more time because that is my personal choice that I have made (and also because living with someone and sharing responsibilities means that not all of our time together is fun date time, so it takes more time to strike that balance).

 

[kdt26417]

I am not a strong believer in hierarchies, however I do believe that in many cases a hierarchy is what works best for those involved. The key factor is knowledge and consent; that is, that everyone in the polycule/network knows that there is a hierarchy, and who takes priority over whom, and is okay with that. Everyone should have knowledge of the hierarchy ahead of time so that they won't be blindsided by it.

I have always been in a V where we are all equal partners. We all three are primary partners to each other. We all live in the same house, and none of us is dating (or is likely to date) anyone outside the V at this time (or anytime in the future). That's what works for me.

 

[ElMango]

I've always been a pretty staunch defender that when people automatically shit all over hierarchy, they're being just as bad as the thing they hate.

To me it also shows what seems like some insecurity too.

And I say this as someone who doesn't consider myself to be hierarchical in the sense that my NP doesn't automatically always come first or get any say over my other relationships, but at the same time I *do* spend more than 50% of my time with him and prioritize giving him more time because that is my personal choice that I have made (and also because living with someone and sharing responsibilities means that not all of our time together is fun date time, so it takes more time to strike that balance).

I agree with this 100%

---

Kevin,

I am not a strong believer in hierarchies, however I do believe that in many cases a hierarchy is what works best for those involved. The key factor is knowledge and consent; that is, that everyone in the polycule/network knows that there is a hierarchy, and who takes priority over whom, and is okay with that. Everyone should have knowledge of the hierarchy ahead of time so that they won't be blindsided by it.

For sure! Consent to relationship set ups is key and they should be discussed first! As well as the fact that, if part of the polycule have a legal marriage to someone, or a mortgage, lease, kids, etc with each other it does change parts of the dynamic.

I have always been in a V where we are all equal partners. We all three are primary partners to each other. We all live in the same house, and none of us is dating (or is likely to date) anyone outside the V at this time (or anytime in the future). That's what works for me

Right now that's basically how my polycule is. There is a possibility of having my NPs having other LTR partners. None of them have really ever expressed interest in the idea of adding another NP although, so long as they mesh with the group, we're all good with that idea. But, again, they have to really fit in with the polycule. None of us want to live with conflict. So in that way, we're prioritizing each other over a new addition

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

The reasons why hierarchy has a bad name is because depending on your expectations, one can be extremely insulting with their beliefs about the role of people outside the primary relationship.

Take your worse kind of unicorn hunter. They'd expect someone to "join their relationship", not have other relationships, not have the security benefits of marriage, not have kids (but look after theirs), could have a rule where only husband and wife get 1v1 sex (unicorn gets threesomes), closeted (so everyone thinks she's a weird friend), love them both equally, etc. So as you can see, their expectations are huge compared to what they're offering and if you challenge them, they'll say of course they cannot relax these rules and let some troublemaking unicorn mess up their marriage. Al thee assumptions are really insulting and objectifying for a new person. Telling them upfront does allow them to at least consent, but it doesn't change the fact that they'd be prepared to treat someone that way.

 

[breathemusic]

The reasons why hierarchy has a bad name is because depending on your expectations, one can be extremely insulting with their beliefs about the role of people outside the primary relationship.

Take your worse kind of unicorn hunter. They'd expect someone to "join their relationship", not have other relationships, not have the security benefits of marriage, not have kids (but look after theirs), could have a rule where only husband and wife get 1v1 sex (unicorn gets threesomes), closeted (so everyone thinks she's a weird friend), love them both equally, etc. So as you can see, their expectations are huge compared to what they're offering and if you challenge them, they'll say of course they cannot relax these rules and let some troublemaking unicorn mess up their marriage. Al thee assumptions are really insulting and objectifying for a new person. Telling them upfront does allow them to at least consent, but it doesn't change the fact that they'd be prepared to treat someone that way.

The thing is.... YOU say it's horrible that a couple would treat someone that way, but if they tell someone 100% up front that those guidelines are specifically what they are looking for and all they are up for and those are their boundaries, then that's their call. In my opinion, having all those rules and boundaries should make it damn near impossible to actually find someone willing to put up with that, at least for long. But that's then going to be the consequences of their choices. There IS still a small chance that they could meet some unicorn that actually WANTS to date a married couple and is super into threesomes and doesn't really care as much about 1 on 1 sex, and has no desire to have a baby but is fine dating people that do have kids, and basically all of the things you outlined. Do I think it's likely? Nope. But do I think that all of those people should be able to have that sort of relationship if they're ALL fully aware, consenting, and happy with the agreed boundaries? Sure. Because it's not my relationship and not my business.

The whole point is that if everyone is happy and consenting to the dynamic that exists, then for THOSE people, that relationship configuration is great. The fact that it may not work for other, or even MOST people doesn't make it bad for everyone. It just makes it bad for most people (me included, I would never stand for being treated like that.... but those are MY boundaries).

 

[vinsanity0]

The thing is.... YOU say it's horrible that a couple would treat someone that way, but if they tell someone 100% up front that those guidelines are specifically what they are looking for and all they are up for and those are their boundaries, then that's their call. In my opinion, having all those rules and boundaries should make it damn near impossible to actually find someone willing to put up with that, at least for long. But that's then going to be the consequences of their choices. There IS still a small chance that they could meet some unicorn that actually WANTS to date a married couple and is super into threesomes and doesn't really care as much about 1 on 1 sex, and has no desire to have a baby but is fine dating people that do have kids, and basically all of the things you outlined. Do I think it's likely? Nope. But do I think that all of those people should be able to have that sort of relationship if they're ALL fully aware, consenting, and happy with the agreed boundaries? Sure. Because it's not my relationship and not my business.

The whole point is that if everyone is happy and consenting to the dynamic that exists, then for THOSE people, that relationship configuration is great. The fact that it may not work for other, or even MOST people doesn't make it bad for everyone. It just makes it bad for most people (me included, I would never stand for being treated like that.... but those are MY boundaries).

Yeah, the big problem is it's going to be rare for anyone to tell a potential partner they are going to treat them like shit. Even worse, many couples don't realize they will treat someone badly.

 

[icesong]

I think the biggest problem with hierarchies is stating rules at the outset THAT CAN NEVER BE CHANGED. *Life* changes. I mean, that's just true facts. So the idea that *even* if you're with someone for years your relationship can never change because someone else says no, that's not really fair or ethical, no matter what you agreed to at the beginning.

 

[ElMango]

The whole point is that if everyone is happy and consenting to the dynamic that exists, then for THOSE people, that relationship configuration is great. The fact that it may not work for other, or even MOST people doesn't make it bad for everyone. It just makes it bad for most people (me included, I would never stand for being treated like that.... but those are MY boundaries).

I agree. If people have consent and it's very open and very honest, that's their life.

Honestly, if there was a couple where I wanted to date both of them...I may do a unicorn thing. It wouldn't be the most serious relationship; and while I would do things like MAYBE babysit or do like a family date, I wouldn't live with them. I don't want kids so having that choice removed wouldn't bug me...yeah I wouldn't mind being a unicorn. I'd come to the table with my own boundaries and stuff; really hash things out before. But it wouldn't be 100% objectionable to me.

I think the biggest problem with hierarchies is stating rules at the outset THAT CAN NEVER BE CHANGED. *Life* changes. I mean, that's just true facts. So the idea that *even* if you're with someone for years your relationship can never change because someone else says no, that's not really fair or ethical, no matter what you agreed to at the beginning.

Agreed! That makes no sense to me! Having a fluid hierarchy where things do change and people "move up" the hierarchy and such, yeah that makes sense. Having ones that are set in cement and nothing changes or is allowed to change is just stressful! And contradicts how emotions work.

Again, that may be a bit of a learning curve. People go into certain things, like say a FWB situation, where after a while the emotions change and evolve and so does the relationship; that would be surprising for a person who has never experienced that before. So they'd need to make a choice that was right for them. And learn from it, and then adjust for the future.

In the end, relationships can fail for many reasons; and if the rules are set in stone, and everyone knows this going in, and knows what may happen if emotions change, then really that's their prerogative.

 

[ElMango]

It's interesting that some folks in this forum believe there is such a thing as "treating someone badly" while at the same time not agreeing that there is any such thing as "treating someone badly". Hmmm.

Oh, I guess it's all a matter of personal opinion or "taste".

Can you elaborate? I think I'm picking up what you're putting down I just want to be sure

 

[River]

Can you elaborate? I think I'm picking up what you're putting down I just want to be sure

Sorry, ElMango. That comment of mine should never have been posted -- and I deleted it, but not before you quoted it. I regret posting it. Discussing it here at all would only distract from the thread. Let's just let it pass. Thanks!

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

The thing is.... YOU say it's horrible that a couple would treat someone that way, but if they tell someone 100% up front that those guidelines are specifically what they are looking for and all they are up for and those are their boundaries, then that's their call. In my opinion, having all those rules and boundaries should make it damn near impossible to actually find someone willing to put up with that, at least for long. But that's then going to be the consequences of their choices. There IS still a small chance that they could meet some unicorn that actually WANTS to date a married couple and is super into threesomes and doesn't really care as much about 1 on 1 sex, and has no desire to have a baby but is fine dating people that do have kids, and basically all of the things you outlined. Do I think it's likely? Nope. But do I think that all of those people should be able to have that sort of relationship if they're ALL fully aware, consenting, and happy with the agreed boundaries? Sure. Because it's not my relationship and not my business.

The whole point is that if everyone is happy and consenting to the dynamic that exists, then for THOSE people, that relationship configuration is great. The fact that it may not work for other, or even MOST people doesn't make it bad for everyone. It just makes it bad for most people (me included, I would never stand for being treated like that.... but those are MY boundaries).

I don't think it's necessarily horrible but it does speak of some values that not everyone would find admirable.

 

[Tinwen]

The thing is.... YOU say it's horrible that a couple would treat someone that way, but if they tell someone 100% up front that those guidelines are specifically what they are looking for and all they are up for and those are their boundaries, then that's their call. In my opinion, having all those rules and boundaries should make it damn near impossible to actually find someone willing to put up with that, at least for long. But that's then going to be the consequences of their choices. There IS still a small chance that they could meet some unicorn that actually WANTS to date a married couple and is super into threesomes and doesn't really care as much about 1 on 1 sex, and has no desire to have a baby but is fine dating people that do have kids, and basically all of the things you outlined. Do I think it's likely? Nope. But do I think that all of those people should be able to have that sort of relationship if they're ALL fully aware, consenting, and happy with the agreed boundaries? Sure. Because it's not my relationship and not my business.

The whole point is that if everyone is happy and consenting to the dynamic that exists, then for THOSE people, that relationship configuration is great. The fact that it may not work for other, or even MOST people doesn't make it bad for everyone. It just makes it bad for most people (me included, I would never stand for being treated like that.... but those are MY boundaries).

I don't think it's necessarily horrible but it does speak of some values that not everyone would find admirable.

There's an interesting clash in ... should we, as a society, have any "objective" values, or human rights that are non-negotiable regardless of consent? Most people would agree that some things are objectively wrong. Most people(*) would agree that it's a good thing that you can't sell yourself into lifelong slavery, taking away your own right to withdraw consent.

People in the bdsm and poly minorities (myself included) tend to give more weight to individual consent, then the major population. We try to adhere to the principles of freedom and thus do our best to be accepting of relationship dynamics', kinks, body modification, gender identities etc. However, taken to the extreme, one would have to conclude that eg. there's no psychological abuse, if the person is physically free to leave.

With unicorn hunters described above, the phrase 'as long as everyone is consenting' is put to a test in two ways.
First, what is consent? Say, our couple does find someone happily willing to go on with their demands. The outside observer must ask - does she know what she's doing? what were the conditions in her family of origin? is she just happy to be there because of past trauma? if she knew other kinds of relationships, would she still choose this one? why is her judgement so different from most people's?
Second, is subjective consent really the highest value here, or do we hold other 'objective' values and beliefs - like equality and dignity and encouraging each other to live a full life. If you were talking to the unicorn... would you tell her "Hey, totally up to you", or would you go with "You deserve better"?

What serves you better? What serves society as a better standard?

Unicorn hunting (and hierarchy) is a fringe area in terms of competing values. It's ok to have differing judgements.

(*)I know some libertarians wouldn't, but then they have other values which they hold as "objective". ?Almost? everyone has.

 

[ElMango]

First, what is consent? Say, our couple does find someone happily willing to go on with their demands. The outside observer must ask - does she know what she's doing? what were the conditions in her family of origin? is she just happy to be there because of past trauma? if she knew other kinds of relationships, would she still choose this one? why is her judgement so different from most people's?

But, what if, someone does not have any of the above issues? What if said person has their own voice, knows how to use it, and is willing to not accept certain demands, demands respect, and can and will bail if they need to or want to? Myself as an example; I would enter a relationship as a unicorn; but I wouldn't accept unreasonable, to me, demands. I would not take shit laying down.

Bodily autonomy, mental autonomy, is allowed and to me should be encouraged as it IS an empowering act. Voluntary human euthanasia is an example. If, for an incurable, unfixable, unmanageable condition mental or physical is ruining your quality of life, has no end in sight; professional have been consulted, you have the right (at least where I live), to die humanely and with a doctors assistance. Why should a romantic relationship remove your autonomy? Why is, because it is poly, we forget that people have relationships with people we disapprove of, who are not healthy, and in the end there is nothing we can do but let them live their lives.

As was advised to me about the meta I dislike for valid reasons; I cannot stop my NP from seeing her, from dancing with that devil, it is a lesson HE must learn. So, why because this person is choosing, with full frontal consent, to unicorn, any different? Why do we view it so different from a triad with a potentially unhealthy dynamic? Or a V with one?

Second, is subjective consent really the highest value here, or do we hold other 'objective' values and beliefs - like equality and dignity and encouraging each other to live a full life. If you were talking to the unicorn... would you tell her "Hey, totally up to you", or would you go with "You deserve better"?

I agree with this. We can encourage and advise people in certain situations but in the end their choices and actions are up to them. People do dumb shit all the time, and unless it's illegal, they're allowed to.

What serves you better? What serves society as a better standard?

The status quo serves society the best, but usually not most individuals unless you are a straight, cis, white, christian, middle-upper class male.

Defaulting from the status quo is what moves society forward for the most part; which benefits more people, but is a sadly long and hard road.

@SEASONEDpoly,

many people have qualities that aren't bad that people don't find admirable. Doesn't mean those qualities are bad.

Many people have qualities that are bad that many people find good.

Looking at things on an individual level tends to give a more accurate picture.

--

So while we can say "Unicorn hunting has X reputation for Y reasons, and people should evaluate and educate themselves on those reasons and see if THEIR relationship is not abusive" we cannot say "All unicorn hunting is bad and wrong and if you're a unicorn you'd obviously abused or incorrect"

Same with a hierarchy. It is OKAY to have one, so long as it is not abusive. It can be wrong and abusive for X reasons, please educate yourselves on that to avoid abuse; but if your hierarchy works, and everyone consents, that's your call"

 

[breathemusic]

I think the points made in the last several posts are all good. My argument of saying "hey, if everyone is consenting, then it's not bad" is meant to be just that. Pointing out that ALL parties must be consenting. I acknowledge that if a couple comes in with all sorts of outrageous rules and demands, the chances of them finding someone who is willing to consent (and I mean consent with FULL understanding) is going to be slim to none! And it probably should be!

Now, is it possible that there's a "unicorn" out there that likes dating couples but doesn't want all of those other things that are limiting, sure, I guess it's possible. Just highly unlikely. And I think the reality is that any unicorn hunting couple is going to find that if they really want a triad they'll end up having to re-evaluate their values and hierarchies and such. And if they DON'T give the full picture such that someone can give fully conformed consent, then they're assholes and they don't deserve the person that they're mistreating.

And yes, I think it's important to always consider anyone's mental state, background, history, triggers, and anything else that might dictate what they're looking for in a relationship.

Bottom line, most unicorn hunters are shitty. I'm totally on board with that.

I was merely pointing out that we rather quickly devolve into language that indicates that any sort of hierarchy whatsoever is shit and people who have hierarchy are shitty people, etc. And I think that's fundamentally untrue. There are plenty of people who have some degree of hierarchy (maybe not as extreme as married unicorn hunters that have a long list of restrictions), who are very up front with what they want and what they are willing to offer, and have relationships that work just fine. And as long as all of those people are happy, good on them.

 

[ElMango]

I was merely pointing out that we rather quickly devolve into language that indicates that any sort of hierarchy whatsoever is shit and people who have hierarchy are shitty people, etc. And I think that's fundamentally untrue. There are plenty of people who have some degree of hierarchy (maybe not as extreme as married unicorn hunters that have a long list of restrictions), who are very up front with what they want and what they are willing to offer, and have relationships that work just fine. And as long as all of those people are happy, good on them.

^^^ This! Thank you for saying it so well!

 

[Tinwen]

I'm not disagreeing with anyone, I was highlighting a clash of paradigms

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

But, what if, someone does not have any of the above issues? What if said person has their own voice, knows how to use it, and is willing to not accept certain demands, demands respect, and can and will bail if they need to or want to? Myself as an example; I would enter a relationship as a unicorn; but I wouldn't accept unreasonable, to me, demands. I would not take shit laying down.

Bodily autonomy, mental autonomy, is allowed and to me should be encouraged as it IS an empowering act. Voluntary human euthanasia is an example. If, for an incurable, unfixable, unmanageable condition mental or physical is ruining your quality of life, has no end in sight; professional have been consulted, you have the right (at least where I live), to die humanely and with a doctors assistance. Why should a romantic relationship remove your autonomy? Why is, because it is poly, we forget that people have relationships with people we disapprove of, who are not healthy, and in the end there is nothing we can do but let them live their lives.

As was advised to me about the meta I dislike for valid reasons; I cannot stop my NP from seeing her, from dancing with that devil, it is a lesson HE must learn. So, why because this person is choosing, with full frontal consent, to unicorn, any different? Why do we view it so different from a triad with a potentially unhealthy dynamic? Or a V with one?



I agree with this. We can encourage and advise people in certain situations but in the end their choices and actions are up to them. People do dumb shit all the time, and unless it's illegal, they're allowed to.



The status quo serves society the best, but usually not most individuals unless you are a straight, cis, white, christian, middle-upper class male.

Defaulting from the status quo is what moves society forward for the most part; which benefits more people, but is a sadly long and hard road.

@SEASONEDpoly,

many people have qualities that aren't bad that people don't find admirable. Doesn't mean those qualities are bad.

Many people have qualities that are bad that many people find good.

Looking at things on an individual level tends to give a more accurate picture.

--

So while we can say "Unicorn hunting has X reputation for Y reasons, and people should evaluate and educate themselves on those reasons and see if THEIR relationship is not abusive" we cannot say "All unicorn hunting is bad and wrong and if you're a unicorn you'd obviously abused or incorrect"

Same with a hierarchy. It is OKAY to have one, so long as it is not abusive. It can be wrong and abusive for X reasons, please educate yourselves on that to avoid abuse; but if your hierarchy works, and everyone consents, that's your call"

I don't think we do view it so differently. I don't think all hierarchy is bad but I think someone who hadn't even considered the needs or desires of someone they're considering as a partner is selfish enough for me not to want to associate with them on a social level. For me, selfishness is bad and that's why it isn't admirable.

Also, being upfront about hierarchy means being honest about why rules exist. I was dating a guy who said that we absolutely must wear condoms because his wife has a condition which means she catches STDs "easily". I pointed out that even if she does have some immunity issues, there has to be an STD present for her to catch it but assured him I would have also insisted on condoms. It turned out that her health had nothing to do with his insistence on condoms, it is a rule they have designed to protect their relationship via exclusivity rather than prevent STD transmission. She didn't like the thought of him ejaculating inside anyone else and wanted something sexual to be just for them and he didn't which agree to that thing being oral sex. Had I known earlier, I would have called things of sooner knowing I don't mesh with that type of hierarchy..

 

[Dagferi]

While I do not practice hierarchical polyamory if all parties go into a relationship with full knowledge and consent I see no issue.