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.