Relationship Anarchy

[Vicki82]

If it is as you say, Vicki, then I'm on your side on the matter. I've not yet read that "manifesto". I will, but maybe not tonight.

I borrow components and elements from this and that source, and rarely do I fit neatly into any package. Like most of us here, I suspect.

Anyway, I agree with you that relationships are ... should never be all about one person getting their "needs" met, nor selfish or self-centered. By definition, I'd say.

Relationship is about making things better by being together than they'd be if we were apart. Or something like that. And that always means finding a way to nurture and support all of the folks involved. Not just one of them.

I'm certainly open to discussing the issue and potentially changing my perspective; that's just how I feel now with what I know.

I like your comment that relationships are about making things better by being together- that resonates with me as well. In my personal experience dealing with RA people, though, it seems like they are unwilling to even entertain the concept that "the good of the relationship" might be worth temporary sacrifice or compromise- that they feel that once it's not a net positive, even for a short while, that they're gone.

While obviously relationships SHOULD be a net positive to our lives, I think that part of loving and supporting someone may mean that we're willing to accept a smaller plus if it means increasing their plus, to boil it down that far. We can't always get what we want, and realistically, I don't think that we should. And I definitely believe there are times where things will be temporarily unbalanced, but that to me, compromise is indeed part of "real love". To take from the manifesto, I think that love for another person or people that does NOT involve compromise, isn't "real love" because there's no consideration given for the wants/needs of the other person. It's unrealistic to expect that two people will always be so in lockstep and align perfectly that no one is disenfranchised by both people following their own wants.

 

[vinsanity0]

If it was only the definition quoted from wiki I would be okay with it. Relationships are too complicated to stuff into boxes. However, we do tend to use socially acceptable terms to describe our relationships to others because it is much easier that way. Unfortunately that can lead to confusion, but does it really matter? I really don't need people to describe my relationship for me. I also don't need them to know how I define it, unless I am in a relationship with them as well.

Like Vicki, the sticking point for me is compromise. Any time two people interact in a continual manner there is compromise regardless of what type of relationship it is. The question then becomes how much are you willing to compromise. If the answer is zero one is likely to be alone.

I think some poly people do have expectations that fit into conventional expectations. I've seen it said in here that one is not really poly unless they have more than one committed relationship. I disagree with that because it dies promote conventional expectations like the relationship escalator.

So in my version of poly there are no expectations. When I had several partners, none of the relationships were the same. Worked for me.

 

[River]

The Relationship Anarchy Manifesto looks to me to be less a whole, coherent system of principles or ideas than a hodgepodge. But the core idea is probably the notion that we should all be able to craft our own relationships based on our own values, principles, commitments and such. I don't have a problem with that.

I do have a problem with pretentiousness, and the notion that the RA Manifesto is a coherent systematized statement like a "manifesto" is just pretentious. It's no such thing. It's one solid idea and a bunch of flotsam and jetsam floating nearby. It should not be taken very seriously.

The author of the "Manifesto" doesn't seem to be suggesting that one should never compromise in relationships, but that compromise isn't always called for, instead.

Love and respect instead of entitlement

Deciding to not base a relationship on a foundation of entitlement is about respecting others’ independence and self-determination. Your feelings for a person or your history together does not make you entitled to command and control a partner to comply with what is considered normal to do in a relationship. Explore how you can engage without stepping over boundaries and personal beliefs. Rather than looking for compromises in every situation, let loved ones choose paths that keep their integrity intact, without letting this mean a crisis for the relationship. Staying away from entitlement and demands is the only way to be sure that you are in a relationship that is truly mutual. Love is not more “real” when people compromise for each other because it’s part of what’s expected.

The word "compromise" only seems to be used in the section quoted immediately above. It's not the clearest bit of writing. The author is no great writer or thinker, if you ask me. To this writing I'd say "meh".

 

[Vicki82]

TBut the core idea is probably the notion that we should all be able to craft our own relationships based on our own values, principles, commitments and such.

I don't think that is what defines relationship anarchy. As far as I'm concerned, I think any time you have a relationship that is outside societal norms, we lose universality and create our own boundaries. I don't think that is limited to relationship anarchy.

And yeah, I do believe a relationship is more "real" when we're willing to compromise for it. To me, that means it's important enough that you want to find a way to make both partners happy and not just yourself. No one should always be compromising, but it shouldn't be never compromise either and only do what works for you, which is what I've seen.

 

[vinsanity0]

Explore how you can engage without stepping over boundaries and personal beliefs... let loved ones choose paths that keep their integrity intact, without letting this mean a crisis for the relationship. Staying away from entitlement and demands is the only way to be sure that you are in a relationship that is truly mutual.

Was thinking about it and this seems like the definition of compromise.

 

[River]

I don't think that is what defines relationship anarchy. As far as I'm concerned, I think any time you have a relationship that is outside societal norms, we lose universality and create our own boundaries. I don't think that is limited to relationship anarchy.

And yeah, I do believe a relationship is more "real" when we're willing to compromise for it. To me, that means it's important enough that you want to find a way to make both partners happy and not just yourself. No one should always be compromising, but it shouldn't be never compromise either and only do what works for you, which is what I've seen.

As I've said already, I'm all for compromise in relationships. I agree with you and Vinsanity about that. Compromising, sometimes, is part of how healthy relationships function.

And I also said I'm no fan of the R.A. "Manifesto". If one must write a manifesto, one should make the language much more clear and coherent.

That said, it's worth noting that in the poor wording it says... "Love is not more “real” when people compromise for each other because it’s part of what’s expected".

The part of that sentence which I highlighted modifies the previous portion's meaning. She's not saying that "Love is not more real when people compromise," she's saying that it's not more real when people compromise simply because the usual social norms or "rules" expect it of us.

To my mind, though, it's not worth fussing over any of this, 'cause R.A. is just a nothingburger. It's nothing great or special -- at least not as explained by this "manifesto".

You can't fault R.A. because some folks you know claim to adhere to its doctrines but totally suck at being in relationship, by the way. People claim to be "polyamorous" and suck at it and you can't blame polyamory for them not being any good at that, either. Same with monogamy -- or anything. Bad representatives of an approach to relationships abound, and the fault belongs squarely with the folks who are blowing it. So while I'm not a particular fan of R.A., I'm also going to defend it against sloppy criticism.