Is this stance really necessary?

freakyfa

New member
The Internet takes us to some strange places. I was randomly Googling for roommate arrangements and found this nifty little treatise on the structure and social impact of relationship modalities, specifically monogamy


Just to be clear, I’m horrified by their views. If you maintain a rigid pro or anti anything stance pertaining to anyone’s personal relationship style then your ignorance belies your belief in equality, free choice, and tolerance. I wish everyone would learn to respect everyone else’s individuality.
 

kdt26417

Official Greeter
Staff member
Hmmm. Sounds like they have a bit of an issue with live-and-let-live. I guess I can't blame them, if they feel that monogamy (and couple-based relating) is destroying our world, and hurting relationship anarchy. I don't think that's a necessary stance, but I guess I am sympathetic if they believe otherwise.

I am more of a believer in persuasion by example. And I believe a world can be fashioned in which ethical monogamy and ethical nonmonogamy can live side-by-side in harmony (although probably with more nonmonogamy and less monogamy). And, while I am not personally interested in hierarchical polyamory, I can imagine how it might work for others.
 
I left reddit's community in disgust when I said that I was trying to find advice on feeling unfulfilled during the time of COVID and I was overtaxing my GF with her family and my needs. It is pretty much like that website above, strict RA or you're "controlling."

I answered some questions they asked. Her, her husband, and I are not trying to find anymore romantic relationships in our arrangement other than a future primary of mine. It is mutually agreed on by everyone, and while my future primary may find time for more than just one other that is something that was irrelevant to the scene.

They told me the bigger issue was not that I was unfulfilled but that she was being controlled... by a boundary her and I hashed out with all three of us in real time. That was followed by continued ignorance and judgement to the point I left. I suspect that website will be hardliners like that who repel anyone other than what follows their groupthink.

Also, without revealing too much I work in the public sector and am pretty damn good at my job. If anything that reads like this comes across my desk I would toss it out.

"patriarchal, heterosexist, ableist, cissexist, ethno-nationalist, white supremacist, and capitalist"

Looking at the rest of the site, one could argue we need to abolish voting because voting was historically for wealthy, white men in certain countries. I could provide examples that makes voting any one of those things they claim.

This website misses that monogamy was weaponized as a tool of oppression and is not the source of oppression. They lost the forest amongst the trees.

As for "anarchistic values of anti-authoritarianism, individual autonomy, and community cooperation"

I died laughing. About two hours drive from me a right-wing version of this mentality started a town that had to close down because neighbors would not stop feeding bears. Like it or not humans need to settle disputes one way or the other and while the thought it easy, in practice it isn't - regardless of the scale. I doubt that monogamy stopped individuals from putting themselves ahead of others. Do poly people need to be more thoughtful? Sure. But I would say that this correlation is not causation, just as basketball does not create tall people.

But then again, this is why I feel so thankful for this forum. Everyone here has been so respectful and thoughtful and considerate to my situation while providing advice and stories from their own. Kevin and I enjoy different relationship styles, but during my first post here he was one of the first people to offer an electronic hand in figuring it out.

I am selfishly a bit glad this website is slower than reddit and others because it really feels home-ish.
 

3908

Member
I read that websites mission statement, it was so confusing, like its pushing and pulling in a bunch of directions. like we welcome everyone, but no we dont.

my brain hurts thinking about all of it LOL
 

HaloOnFire

Active member
I left reddit's community in disgust when I said that I was trying to find advice on feeling unfulfilled during the time of COVID and I was overtaxing my GF with her family and my needs. It is pretty much like that website above, strict RA or you're "controlling."

I answered some questions they asked. Her, her husband, and I are not trying to find anymore romantic relationships in our arrangement other than a future primary of mine. It is mutually agreed on by everyone, and while my future primary may find time for more than just one other that is something that was irrelevant to the scene.

They told me the bigger issue was not that I was unfulfilled but that she was being controlled... by a boundary her and I hashed out with all three of us in real time. That was followed by continued ignorance and judgement to the point I left. I suspect that website will be hardliners like that who repel anyone other than what follows their groupthink.


Another Reddit Refugee™ checking in, I hear ya on that. And to answer your suspicions about the hardliners, it is not merely confined to that sub. I would wager most of the site is like that and I was there, in various forms, for almost 10 years.


But then again, this is why I feel so thankful for this forum. Everyone here has been so respectful and thoughtful and considerate to my situation while providing advice and stories from their own. Kevin and I enjoy different relationship styles, but during my first post here he was one of the first people to offer an electronic hand in figuring it out.

I am selfishly a bit glad this website is slower than reddit and others because it really feels home-ish.


Agreed. :)
 

icesong

Moderator
Staff member
Whew. Ok, there’s a lot going on here, but hey, I’m in an exuberant mood so I’ll play

First off y’all aren’t wrong, we’re wildly friendlier than Reddit. I’m in some other groups on FB that are friendly but frankly too big, and others with different purposes (more of a social justice focus) and a few that are as or almost-as relationship anarchy focused as the writing linked above, but I think I’m most vulnerable in this one just because of the smaller size and slower pace. (And honestly, because people on this board were really amazing to me when I showed up here in a VERY vulnerable state.

That said… relationship anarchy is a VERY different thing than polyamory, rooted in different philosophies, and I don’t think it really helps anyone to judge one from the stance of the other nor to even compare them, really. Relationship Anarchy actually does make perfect sense IF you start from the same set of “givens” (think geometry proof) that they do. IF Capitalism is the root of many evils and IF the nuclear family is an integral part of Capitalism (and honestly it is, or at least the modern expression of it is) and IF monogamism as practiced in the 20th century is a prop to both of those things, THEN it does make sense to oppose it and break it if it can be broken. (I am firmly of the opinion that party C can not break a relationship between A and B without one or both of them making that possible).

And yes, I am hardline of the opinion that person B does not get a vote on how person A and C interact (I would never do 3 way “negotiations”). If I’m person C, I only want to know what my person, A, wants and can give to and from our relationship - as long as A is being honest with B (and that’s actually a high bar, lying by omission is still lying) - B’s feelings about how A/B’s relationship work are up to A and B. But…. Frankly A’s treatment of B is going to inform my opinion and expectations about our relationship. If A lies to B they will lie to C, etc etc.

I suspect that website will be hardliners like that who repel anyone other than what follows their groupthink.
Ehh, sometimes websites and/or communities are focused on the people who agree, and are not a platform to debate. Acutally I enjoy reading things by people who can be this pure about their philosophy; it makes me think about where I am compromising or deferring to a philosophy I don’t actually agree with just from soceital habit. I’m … pretty damn far to the left. Enough that I consider myself a leftist and not a liberal, anyway. And I actually often enjoy reading things by people much farther to the left of me, and much farther to the right, as it makes me think. That’s the opposite of groupthink, really, it’s the refusal to compromise on one’s position no matter what the majority of society says.

Looking at the rest of the site, one could argue we need to abolish voting because voting was historically for wealthy, white men in certain countries. I could provide examples that makes voting any one of those things they claim.
Or, y’know, maybe it is? I’m not anti-voting. But I’m far from believing that voting solves…well… anything.

This website misses that monogamy was weaponized as a tool of oppression and is not the source of oppression. They lost the forest amongst the trees.
Sometimes you can attack the weapon and that stops some oppression even if it isn’t the source. Break a dude’s sword and he’ll be a lot less likely to hurt you, even if he’s the “source” of the danger.

I died laughing. About two hours drive from me a right-wing version of this mentality started a town that had to close down because neighbors would not stop feeding bears. Like it or not humans need to settle disputes one way or the other and while the thought it easy, in practice it isn't - regardless of the scale. I doubt that monogamy stopped individuals from putting themselves ahead of others.
Your example is the opposite of actual anarchy - you’re right that things are more difficult in practice, but if you are looking at it as valuing only individual autonomy, you’re missing the significant belief in community that goes along with the lack of laws or contracts.
 
I think your response Icesong is why I enjoy it here so much, we disagree on many things but your compassion and reasoning for yourself is valid and respected. I was a bit confused (I took a sleeping pill) by the A/B/C thing. If that was in reference to my reddit example her, her husband, an I only hashed it out due to extremely limited resources amongst our schedules and stress it was causing our triangle. But I only put it up there as an example of how sometimes echo chambers can be awful (also, see half the world's current political crises). Rather than give your thoughts and views, and explained it with respect, I found out it was mostly a rotten-fruit-throwing session. That aside;

I agree that one might look at a system, maybe even a "battlefield," and identify a certain portion of it as problematic. However, I do not believe that if the summation of parts equals a problem then the entirety of the summation is a problem. That is confusing correlation with causality. For this example I believe that monogamy/the nuclear family is not the part in question as this state has existed in many different political and economic systems. From the Egyptians to Romans to proto-India and China marital relations have always existed. But you are correct, disarming can be part of solving a problem - I just am critical of the group thinking this is solely the reason things are wrong in the world and find that such a change would not do too much to fix other issues stemming from current economic circumstances.

I am a bit interested in your last point. A completely small, independent-focused commune seems to be the aim of both organizations. I understand anarchy (the broad and not a specific brand) is ultimately up to the individual. That said, without perfect information and morality (as ethic, which is decided by relativism and society), everyone would need to have the same morals or else problems would need to be solved amongst two parties which isn't exactly feasible to my mind. Which means that by default, the same exact morals of everyone would be societies ethics as there would be no disagreement. To me this is unachievable, I believe that there always needs to be some sort of agreed upon system of justice (as imperfect as it may be) to settle differences and encourage collaboration for larger threats and issues in the world (be it food security, climate change, etc.)
 

Marcus

Well-known member
I am a bit interested in your last point. A completely small, independent-focused commune seems to be the aim of both organizations. I understand anarchy (the broad and not a specific brand) is ultimately up to the individual. That said, without perfect information and morality (as ethic, which is decided by relativism and society), everyone would need to have the same morals or else problems would need to be solved amongst two parties which isn't exactly feasible to my mind. Which means that by default, the same exact morals of everyone would be societies ethics as there would be no disagreement. To me this is unachievable, I believe that there always needs to be some sort of agreed upon system of justice (as imperfect as it may be) to settle differences and encourage collaboration for larger threats and issues in the world (be it food security, climate change, etc.)

Anarchy is a concept that gets people pretty twisted up, but I think it's because it presumes there can't be any agreed upon rules of any kind. This has never been my understanding of anarchist structures.

I find anarchy easier to understand when it is imagined as being "communities run by internal consensus". These independent communities would function by the rules they decide on, and these rules cannot be overruled by an external authority.

For the most part I am in favor of anarchistic concepts, and I think that their rejection may be a central agitator to a society's ability to flourish in healthy ways. That being the case, the "not exactly feasible" argument is always where anarchy falls off of the rails, certainly if the assumption is that the current standard of living would need to remain in place. Small communities running themselves would look a lot more like being in a tribal village, with other tribal villages as neighbors. I don't think this kind of concept would leave room for mass consumption of high calorie foods, empty and abundant digital entertainment, and the ability to intervene in global events; this would be a very small world consisting of very small communities. I don't think that's a bad thing, but it's not something that is a real goal that a reasonable person would hold as attainable.
Ehh, sometimes websites and/or communities are focused on the people who agree, and are not a platform to debate.

It's popular to be "offended" by people expressing opinions they don't agree with, but I don't find being offended to be particularly informative.

That group makes it very clear what the purpose of the group is. They make their rules and priorities perfectly clear right out of the gate, and if someone finds those rules offensive or "horrifying", they are allowed to go make their own group. If a free society is what we are actually interested in, we should embrace a groups ability to express themselves and their opinions (regardless of whether or not we agree with them).

Personally I find that group to be a hard leftist, highly politicized version of anarchy. I think it's dumb and I wouldn't have any interest in getting into that group. They wouldn't like me and I wouldn't like them. AND I'm glad that they have the right to build a safe space for their discussions take place.
 

couple6458

New member
The Internet takes us to some strange places. I was randomly Googling for roommate arrangements and found this nifty little treatise on the structure and social impact of relationship modalities, specifically monogamy


Just to be clear, I’m horrified by their views. If you maintain a rigid pro or anti anything stance pertaining to anyone’s personal relationship style then your ignorance belies your belief in equality, free choice, and tolerance. I wish everyone would learn to respect everyone else’s individuality.
Amen
 
Top