Philosophical Type Question(s) about hierarchy

SEASONEDpolyAgain

Well-known member
For ease, let's think about a triad here.

I'll explain my answers and link the two questions in my explanation. For context, it's from a Reddit polyamory thread.

1) Do you think marriage automatically introduces hierarchy between the married couple? Can a married couple claim to be non-hierarchial? (We've likely debated this before).

2) Barbie and Ken are a couple. Barbie is immunocompromised. As a result, Barbie has strict rules around infection transmission which excludes people with herpes as partners or metamours, among other stringent measures. Ken adheres to these and excludes partners who do not meet the criteria to protect Barbie. Can this couple claim to be non-hierarchial?


For me, the answer to the first question is yes, a married couple can be non-hierarchial, but it takes effort to dismantle the inherent privilege that comes with marriage.

I also think it is context dependent. In some situations, it creates a lot of hierarchy, in others, none. It all depends on the other people involved and their unique circumstances. The ability for the unmarried person to marry others is part of this (so whether it's a closed or open triad, the thread didn't specify).

One person in the comments of the thread touched on this when they raised that the assumption is always around an existing married couple, and an individual who is in the role of the "single third". They brought up the possibility of a more financially affluent unmarried couple who marry one or more other people to share their work related benefits.

That would be an example of dismantling couple's privilege and ensuring that marriage isn't about creating hierarchy. The legal contract provides an alternative to the history shared by the pre-existing couple. The more affluent people aren't doubling up on their assets to the disadvantage of their single partners.

Of course, some people feel strongly that marriage always creates hierarchy, and anyone who says their marriage doesn't is either untruthful or deluded. The reasons are obvious, money, security, societal views, etc.

In relation to the second question, I think that Ken's decision is Ken's alone. I wouldn't call that hierarchy as such. But then I don't think marriage always equals hierarchy.

If Barbie claimed that marriage was always hierarchical, but her arrangement with Ken was not, I'd see that as philosophically inconsistent.

It's not that I think Barbie should not ask her partners for to adhere to those terms. I think she has little choice to do much else. But I'd think it strange that Barbie doesn't view how Ken's commitment to her impacts on who he dates as an indication of hierarchy.

Yes, Ken has agreed to it, and Barbie likely didn't manipulate him into doing so. He wants to protect his loved one. But I don't see it as much different to how marriage restricts your availability to whatever degree you allow. Or nesting. Or just having someone you call a "partner".

This is one of the biggest reasons I've moved away from viewing hierarchy as a tangible topic in polyamory. I feel the same about the boundaries vs rules vs agreements debate and have for some time.

Thoughts?
 
I'm going to address part one with some more philosophical ponderings.

I'm thinking about possible notions of internal or external hierarchy. Internal being the way the triad (or any married couple poly configuration) addresses the possible power imbalances within the polycule, be it a triad or other sized/shaped one. And external being how the "rest of the world" perceive the relationship(s). For example, some people can't be out to their families. Or maybe even friends. Or only some friends. So this can mean the married couple are, by default, to outside appearances, mono. This would surely mean and "external heirarchy" even if on a day to day basis that polycule between themselves make every effort to not practice couples privilege outside of what the state offers regarding taxes or insurance or whatever. Of course, this might be mitigated by forming a legal entity between all members.

Btw, in NZ, we don't have tax payments determined by marriage. Adam and I are taxed completely separately of one another and we don't get to average the incomes to get a lower tax rate. I'm not entirely sure how it would work if we had dependents as there would be family tax credits based on number and age of minors, but we've never had to know about that. Our health insurance is also separate. I never even had the option of adding him to mine when I was working and he wasn't. But then, we also only have insurance for the big stuff since much of NZs health system is still socialised.

We could get creative with accounting if we weren't on salaries/wages and either sole contractor or self employed. There are then ways to get one tax number for a partnership entity (which I believe can have three people involved, I'm not sure). Or form a company or a trust.

But I digress.

Do I think there can be non hierarchical triads, Vs or whatever emotionally and practically on a day to day living basis? Sure. Do I think that it would stand up in court? No. Do I think that people who don't really know about (or disagree with) polyamory would not see hierarchy? No. Especially if they went to the wedding. Sometimes the bias is more from without than within.
 
This would surely mean and "external heirarchy" even if on a day to day basis that polycule between themselves make every effort to not practice couples privilege outside of what the state offers regarding taxes or insurance or whatever. Of course, this might be mitigated by forming a legal entity between all members.
I agree with you here. So much so that I don't think the legal basis quite counteracts the social side of things. I think that not being able to be out does create an intrinsic hierarchy that can only be mitigated by individual circumstances.

Eg. Someone who has their own independent desire not to embark on those aspects of a relationship. I think that individual can argue their triad lacks hierarchy because this restriction is irrelevant to why the boundary is in place. This individual would likely enter relationships saying they aren't interested in the "social side" of relationships. It wouldn't be something they only come to accept as a clause of a relationship with the triad.

I also agree that the "benefits of marriage" are very location dependent. In the US, I find poly people are far more concerned about it than in the UK. I think a socialised health system is a big part of it.
 
Of course a married couple can claim to be non-hierarchical, that doesn't mean they actually are non-hierarchical. Can they be non-hierarchical? I believe so, depending on the couple. In the V I am in, I am technically the single person, and the other two people (the other leg and the hinge) are legally/lawfully married to each other. They claim that all three of us are equal primary partners, and I could doubt that because I'm not part of the married couple, but the bottom line for me is, I feel like they are speaking the truth. All three of us are equal primary partners, me included.

The situation where Barbie is immunocompromised, to me is not a question of hierarchy. It could just as easily be the third partner who is immunocompromised, and who could not have sex with Ken or Barbie because Ken or Barbie had herpes. Or because Ken or Barbie had sex with someone who had herpes. In each case, it's not about who is in a superior/inferior position, it is about being immunocompromised and having safe sex.
 
My apologies for:
1) Being late to this even thought I read it the first day it was posted.
2) Having been a wallflower at this site for so long and never really posting.

Moving on; I found a Reddit thread that while not immediately related, TURNED INTO a conversation about this very topic. With some cursory reading, it *looks* like the consensus is marriage = hierarchy. ( )

That's NOT ME saying it, I don't pretend to know enough to concretely give a best practice here.
 
For ease, let's think about a triad here.

OK, but triads rarely work long term. 😆
1) Do you think marriage automatically introduces hierarchy between the married couple? Can a married couple claim to be non-hierarchial? (We've likely debated this before).

Yes, claim very very easily, and I’m sure many actually think they are. However, the paperwork makes it really difficult to actually achieve.

2) Barbie and Ken are a couple. Barbie is immunocompromised. As a result, Barbie has strict rules around infection transmission which excludes people with herpes as partners or metamours, among other stringent measures. Ken adheres to these and excludes partners who do not meet the criteria to protect Barbie. Can this couple claim to be non-hierarchial?
Again, they can claim all they want, but Barbie’s veto rules and screening process seem to tell a different story.

For me, the answer to the first question is yes, a married couple can be non-hierarchial, but it takes effort to dismantle the inherent privilege that comes with marriage.
To me, this doesn’t make sense from either a practical side or the end goal. The amount of work/time/money/energy to dismantle the inherent privileges of marriage would far outstrip just getting a simple divorce. And by going to such trouble to keep the marriage alive on paper, doesn’t that imply something, even if it's some sort of mental status?



I also think it is context dependent. In some situations, it creates a lot of hierarchy, in others, none. It all depends on the other people involved and their unique circumstances. The ability for the unmarried person to marry others is part of this (so whether it's a closed or open triad, the thread didn't specify).
Context always matters, just like the personalities or the players always matter.

One person in the comments of the thread touched on this when they raised that the assumption is always around an existing married couple, and an individual who is in the role of the "single third". They brought up the possibility of a more financially affluent unmarried couple who marry one or more other people to share their work related benefits.
Health insurance benefits are a math problem. I can solve that.

That would be an example of dismantling couple's privilege and ensuring that marriage isn't about creating hierarchy. The legal contract provides an alternative to the history shared by the pre-existing couple. The more affluent people aren't doubling up on their assets to the disadvantage of their single partners.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean here. Would you explain?

Of course, some people feel strongly that marriage always creates hierarchy, and anyone who says their marriage doesn't is either untruthful or deluded. The reasons are obvious, money, security, societal views, etc.
The simple answer is if it doesn’t, then you don’t mind getting rid of it to prove it.

In relation to the second question, I think that Ken's decision is Ken's alone. I wouldn't call that hierarchy as such. But then I don't think marriage always equals hierarchy.
Ken's participation within doesn’t mean he’s not giving veto power and/or screening power..


If Barbie claimed that marriage was always hierarchical, but her arrangement with Ken was not, I'd see that as philosophically inconsistent.
Me too.

It's not that I think Barbie should not ask her partners for to adhere to those terms. I think she has little choice to do much else. But I'd think it strange that Barbie doesn't view how Ken's commitment to her impacts on who he dates as an indication of hierarchy.
YES.


Yes, Ken has agreed to it, and Barbie likely didn't manipulate him into doing so.
We don’t know that for sure. I’m sure Barbie can be very manipulative at times. 😆
He wants to protect his loved one.
Maybe because she’s on his insurance and they share household expenses and her being sick would suck financially and domestically. A sick Barbie is bad for everyone.
But I don't see it as much different to how marriage restricts your availability to whatever degree you allow. Or nesting. Or just having someone you call a "partner".
It’s the degrees of entanglement.


This is one of the biggest reasons I've moved away from viewing hierarchy as a tangible topic in polyamory. I feel the same about the boundaries vs rules vs agreements debate and have for some time.

Thoughts?
Not sure what you mean by tangible topic. I don’t know one person who was single, dating a married poly person, that didn't get the cold hard slap of reality in one form or another by hierarchy.

To me, the boundaries vs rules debate is often a semantic one. The intent is the same. Consequences are the same.

Agreements are just that, agreements. Don’t agree to something that you know you’re likely to break. People with good character don’t generally do that in other aspects of their lives. I do handshake deals all the time because I know the guys I’m dealing with will honor our agreement. And those of lesser character don’t honor lengthy legal contracts sometimes. So should we expect less in our personal relationships? Should we start writing up those agreements with riders and penalty clauses?
 
The amount of work / time / money / energy to dismantle the inherent privileges of marriage would far outstrip just getting a simple divorce.

If a married couple divorce, but stay in a relationship, it doesn't erase their history. That's what creates that enhanced level of interdependence. Some mono people have that with an ex.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean here….could you explain ?

Building on from that last response, you can't clone that history in a new relationship. Legal marriage to a new partner might give something comparable, but not identical or equal.
 
i don’t know one person who was single dating a married poly person that didnt get the cold hard slap of reality in one form or another by hierarchy.

Was that hierarchy, or the reality of a partner with ongoing established relationships? When we compare this to someone mono leaving a highly entangled married +/- kids, is it more or less the same?

When we date people who already have this type of experience (which comes with age), the chances of their existing commitments and entanglements bleeding into your relationships is considerably higher. Is that hierarchy?

I think a lot of people unsuited to dating a traditionally married but poly person probably wouldn't be suited to dating a divorced co-parent either.
 
If a married couple divorce, but stay in a relationship, it doesn't erase their history.
I don’t think history equals hierarchy.
That's what creates that enhanced level of interdependence. Some mono people have that with an ex.
Maybe in some theoretical way, but I’m having a hard time thinking how that would show itself in any kind of practical way that demonstrates hierarchy.

Building on from that last response, you can't clone that history in a new relationship. Legal marriage to a new partner might give something comparable, but not identical or equal.
Yes, but length of time-duration of a relationship doesn‘t automatically translate into status. Hierarchy is giving/granting preferred status or treatment. Right now, the young woman that walks my dog has more status than my ex-wife by the fact she has a key to my house and the other doesn’t.
 
Was that hierarchy, or the reality of a partner with ongoing established relationships?
It was worse. The claim and frequent pronouncement from the gentleman was that he and his wife didn't operate with with a hierarchy. But over and over again he/they proved that was not the case.
When we compare this to someone mono leaving a highly entangled married +/- kids, is it more or less the same?
In the above case mentioned, the poly couple had no children, and the single partner had several. But as to your hypothetical, I think the kids are the ones given that status, not the ex spouse.
When we date people who already have this type of experience (which comes with age), the chances of their existing commitments and entanglements bleeding into your relationships is considerably higher. Is that hierarchy?
Yes, possibly.


I think a lot of people unsuited to dating a traditionally married but poly person probably wouldn't be suited to dating a divorced co-parent either.
Yes, a strong case could be made for that.
 
1) Do you think marriage automatically introduces hierarchy between the married couple? Can a married couple claim to be non-hierarchial? (We've likely debated this before).
Yes it does imply hierarchy. The people involved need to sit down and specifically address this issue. It is probably true that the married couple has more time together due to shared households, children, or in-laws. However that does not mean the non-married partner's needs for time and inclusion are secondary. It just means there needs to be negotiation and communication. Special sensitivity needs to be paid to the non-married partner, especially if they live in their own separate home.
If minor children are involved with any of these people, they are the priority over anything else.
Example: my Partner has visitation with their children and it often will extend over school breaks to several days/weeks. During that time we adjust our usual schedule, including sometimes not seeing each other at all for many days, so that the children can spend time with their parent. We are all in full agreement on this.

2) Barbie and Ken are a couple. Barbie is immunocompromised. As a result, Barbie has strict rules around infection transmission which excludes people with herpes as partners or metamours, among other stringent measures. Ken adheres to these and excludes partners who do not meet the criteria to protect Barbie. Can this couple claim to be non-hierarchial?

These are apples and oranges.
 
1) Do you think marriage automatically introduces hierarchy between the married couple? Can a married couple claim to be non-hierarchial? (We've likely debated this before).
Yes it does imply hierarchy. The people involved need to sit down and specifically address this issue. It is probably true that the married couple has more time together due to shared households, children, or in-laws. However that does not mean the non-married partner's needs for time and inclusion are secondary. It just means there needs to be negotiation and communication. Special sensitivity needs to be paid to the non-married partner, especially if they live in their own separate home.
If minor children are involved with any of these people, they are the priority over anything else.
Example: my Partner has visitation with their children and it often will extend over school breaks to several days/weeks. During that time we adjust our usual schedule, including sometimes not seeing each other at all for many days, so that the children can spend time with their parent. We are all in full agreement on this.

2) Barbie and Ken are a couple. Barbie is immunocompromised. As a result, Barbie has strict rules around infection transmission which excludes people with herpes as partners or metamours, among other stringent measures. Ken adheres to these and excludes partners who do not meet the criteria to protect Barbie. Can this couple claim to be non-hierarchial?

These are apples and oranges.

Why apples and oranges?
 
Why apples and oranges?

I consider health reasons to not be a matter of rules or hierarchy, but of safety and health. That supersedes talk of rules about what kind of partners are chosen.
Take mask-wearing--- this was heavily debated during the pandemic, and still is to some extent. The debate turned into a political and freedom issue when it should have been all along just a health issue. If a person who is immunocompromised (let's say they are going through chemo) needs to wear a mask, or if they require that people around them wear a mask, it is not about someone's rules or desires or right to dictate partners. It's about health and safety. Those who love or care about the immunocompromised person would wear a mask out of love and safety, regardless of what their political views on mask wearing might be. On a chemo floor in a hospital, no one cares what your political beliefs are. You wear a mask to protect the patients. Period.
 
I consider health reasons to not be a matter of rules or hierarchy, but of safety and health. That supersedes talk of rules about what kind of partners are chosen.
Take mask-wearing--- this was heavily debated during the pandemic, and still is to some extent. The debate turned into a political and freedom issue when it should have been all along just a health issue. If a person who is immunocompromised (let's say they are going through chemo) needs to wear a mask, or if they require that people around them wear a mask, it is not about someone's rules or desires or right to dictate partners. It's about health and safety. Those who love or care about the immunocompromised person would wear a mask out of love and safety, regardless of what their political views on mask wearing might be. On a chemo floor in a hospital, no one cares what your political beliefs are. You wear a mask to protect the patients. Period.

I think this perspective comes from a place where hierarchy is bad and non-hierarchy is good. Rather than just seeing it as being something that 'is'.

People say marriage automatically comes with hierarchy because it ties you to a person in a way that you cannot be tied to others. By choosing to tie yourselves that way, you create inequality. One relationship limits you in others.

If Barbie and Ken wanted to rid themselves of a tie that controls who Ken interacts with, then perhaps Barbie and Ken should up their safety regime since Barbie is at risk. Maybe they should be the ones to use barriers/stick to lower risk sexual acts.

Ken chose to marry Barbie and make himself unavailable. Ken also chooses to prioritise free sexual activity with Barbie over more choice of partners/metamours. If one of these choices constitutes hierarchy, so does the other.
 
Last edited:
i don’t think history equals hierarchy.

Many of the smaller components of being married is to do with the shared history/longevity of relationship. You typically have more shared memories, mutual friends, a deeper and more detailed trust between you.

If you take a long term co-habiting couple and a married couple, the chances of them being out are likely not that different. They'd have the same social pressures to feign monogamy.

The worth of a marriage certificate alone varies greatly. If they've got nothing to split down the middle, you don't need health insurance and neither of you have a notable name, it's just a piece of paper.

It's a long term relationship and the things that usually come with that length of time in a romantic partnership that creates the interdependence between couples.
 
I'm not hoping to reignite past arguments here. But, this came to my attention, and it kind of threw me off because I felt like it changed the DEFINITION of what we were discussing in this thread.

If I could do some conflating... (just hear me out). Part of what attracted me to look at this thread, and soak in as much as I could from what everyone was saying - is that even though my wife and I have done so much decoupling - I still took everyone's critique about the inherent hierarchy. That hierarchy might be inherent in ways MORE Than just being a Nesting Partner and a co-parent.

Then I saw that post on Reddit, and I balked. "Oh man, are we, am I, even using the term correctly?" It can just feel defeating to read-read-read so much, and be so humble, and then have a post come up, and say, "Hey, you ###holes, you're still wrong. And not just wrong, but wrong about the word too!" (I get it, I embellished on tone and message there, I think I'm just feeling a little defeated.)

The weird thing is, well it's actually two weird things:
1) The message from that Reddit poster ends up being, and if I'm reading some of the meaning correctly, a message of hey, if you're making an effort to decouple, etc, then you are doing a lot of this right, and people on the other side of a relationship have a right to NOT be in a relationship with you if they don't feel like they can get the things they want out of it.
2) A lot of people in that thread replying to say that "uhhmm, you know words do change in their meaning, right?" - possibly rendering my entire post on this entirely moot.

If someone gleams anything in that post / thread beyond "Oh man, I think somebody just flipped out because of the etymology of a word vs. how we use it now," please share. And if that's all that post was, then confirmation on that might be cool too.
 
I'm not hoping to reignite past arguments here. But, this came to my attention, and it kind of threw me off because I felt like it changed the DEFINITION of what we were discussing in this thread.

If I could do some conflating... (just hear me out). Part of what attracted me to look at this thread, and soak in as much as I could from what everyone was saying - is that even though my wife and I have done so much decoupling - I still took everyone's critique about the inherent hierarchy. That hierarchy might be inherent in ways MORE Than just being a Nesting Partner and a co-parent.

Then I saw that post on Reddit, and I balked. "Oh man, are we, am I, even using the term correctly?" It can just feel defeating to read-read-read so much, and be so humble, and then have a post come up, and say, "Hey, you ###holes, you're still wrong. And not just wrong, but wrong about the word too!" (I get it, I embellished on tone and message there, I think I'm just feeling a little defeated.)

The weird thing is, well it's actually two weird things:
1) The message from that Reddit poster ends up being, and if I'm reading some of the meaning correctly, a message of hey, if you're making an effort to decouple, etc, then you are doing a lot of this right, and people on the other side of a relationship have a right to NOT be in a relationship with you if they don't feel like they can get the things they want out of it.
2) A lot of people in that thread replying to say that "uhhmm, you know words do change in their meaning, right?" - possibly rendering my entire post on this entirely moot.

If someone gleams anything in that post / thread beyond "Oh man, I think somebody just flipped out because of the etymology of a word vs. how we use it now," please share. And if that's all that post was, then confirmation on that might be cool too.
Interesting. I'd suspect reddit polyamory to be against this view. Let's see
 
Back
Top