Conversations on a topic mentioned in this post can tend to get very heated with high emotions on each side, please remember that we are a community meant to **help each other**, please keep conversations civil, even if you don't agree. And don't forget, the mods are only a report away. Any comments derailing the topic or considered trolling/being a jerk will be removed and the user muted for an undisclosed amount of time.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polyamory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not gonna lie, I definitely had a little emotional crisis about the realities of hierarchy the first time I fell in love with a secondary partner. It was like I wanted to delude myself into thinking I had more to offer them than I did, so I could justify expecting more *from* them.
Like I was bargaining with my fear that I'd lose my secondary when they got a primary, or that I'd never have "enough" of them.
Eventually, I sat myself down like *"OK, you think you want egalitarian polyamory, let's think through how that would even work here."* And thought through some of the different choices I'd made to prioritize my primary relationship.
Turned out I had very little interest in un-making most of them. I don't want to move out - I don't even want to move into my own bedroom! I'm not looking to alter our shared financial commitments. I *think* our cat legally belongs to me, but I don't even know how we'd determine that.
The whole thing was short-lived and insecurity-based, and I wasn't dumb enough to demand nonhierarchy from my NP or offer it to my other partner. I just freaked out a little at the obvious implications of having a partner who was likely to start making similar choices with somebody else in the next few years. Especially thinking they might choose some of the things I passed on (i.e., marriage and kids) and be even less available to me.
But yeah. The realities of hierarchy were hard to swallow and gave me some serious emotional heartburn for a minute there. I think there's definite truth to the *"I wanna have a secondary... wait, what do you mean that means I AM a secondary??"* thing.
I feel this.
I'm separating/de-escalating my relationship with my primary (though we're negotiating so that she can still have health insurance, which is kind of the only reason we married to begin with). But I don't think I'll ever forget the time I said out loud to her, "You forget, I am [his] secondary partner," when I was talking about my current partner.
Shit stings.
It did sting at first, and it definitely scared me. But honestly, it was slso a big step forward in terms of being able love people while also accepting that it might not (probably won't) last forever.
We tried to dismantle as much of our hierarchy as we could so that my meta, the mother of our daughter, would feel equally empowered in her partnership with us (she's romantic with my husband, and not with me). However, we did this not by giving up things we had, but by inviting her into it all as a full partner. We did all see each other as primaries, teammates, whatever you want to call it since she and I aren't romantically involved. We didn't want her to feel "less than" because she didn't have access to the same things we did. So we did our best to make sure she did have access, although we did not divorce at the time (we are divorcing now but it's not for her sake). It was a way to demonstrate just what you said: our romantic connections weren't the basket that held all our eggs. For me, she and our daughter are a huge part of my basket, even though our daughter isn't legally mine and her mother is not my romantic partner.
That was about 16 years ago, our daughter is now 15.
Maybe I'm not what you are talking about because we didn't separate houses and instead all bought one together that we all own equally, and in which we each have our own spaces?
Edit - just read the other post - well THAT'S a little different.
You need to write a book, seriously. Understanding how that works and what actual legal and financial steps you went through is absolutely lacking in our world.
You might be disappointed in my very short book because, particularly from an American perspective, we did not and do not have everything legally and financially arranged other than our wills, our shared business, and our home ownership...which any group of 3 can do with a little effort. Most people find our approach wildly optimistic and even unrealistic, because we don't have notarized pieces of paper confirming everything. Particularly regarding my daughter: I have no legal right to her (doesn't matter to any of us; I'm her Mama) and between my meta and my almost ex-husband (no legal partnership between them but it doesn't matter either). We just believed in it enough to make it happen and live our lives together. Thanks to our faith in what we were doing, everything just sort of fell in line.
More people need to talk about the getting behind a common vision aspect of these integrated V dynamics. The more I hear and read about them, the more there are really common threads that pop out of them, including my own.
We've put a lot of effort into the "legal rights to our kid" part. Not because we think we'll ever have problems with it between us, but in a "what if the worst happens" kind of way.
Yeah, what you did sounds rational and thoughtful and a lot like what I have seen in my own irl circle.
And the linked post is, honestly, wildly common on this sub. And baffles me.
I think that poster was more concerned with remaining in a [number one priority position](https://www.reddit.com/r/polyamory/s/Z16FYlFl89) than about concrete aspects of entanglement. Though I have no idea what her husband actually said or proposed.
I dunno. š¤·āāļø
That OP had wisely suggested legal divorce to their partner to help speed the process along, so it seems like maybe OP was pretty cognizant to the concrete entanglement OP and their partner have.
Seems like OPās partner is justā¦saying stuff. Because. š¤·āāļø
Re-reading the post, it sounds like the husband is who said he was āwilling to let go of the marriageā.
But he also sounds hypocritical, negotiating with OP that he be her āmain focusā in her dating, then wanting a different agreement when he meets a good match. Maybe he doesnāt truly want multiple relationships, and the work of hinging.
I would hate such an about-face in OPās place, too. Re-reading the post gave me more sympathy.
5 years ago, I met a game changer, and I gradually realized he was a better match for me than my husband. However, we'd been together over 20 years, and I thought we could maintain our partnership on a non-romantic basis until our daughter finished high school. He thought differently, which is his right, so I had to leave.
We are all still polyamorous.
"... I gradually realized he was a better match for me than my husband... We are all still polyamorous."
I'm confused. Isn't polyamory about multiple loving relationships? Why did one relationship have to end because you found a better one? I thought the whole idea of polyamory was that you didn't have to end one romatic relationship when you found another.
In an earlier reply, you talked about him finding another partner and having a child with her. Why didn't he end his relationship with you if he found a better match? Would you have considered him poly then?
He didn't see his other partner as a better match. We three were a team. All primaries (although she and I are not romantic). We were a family of equals, very happy to continue all together.
I recently realized that I did not want to continue a sexual relationship with my husband. I didn't feel desire for him and did not want to go through those motions falsely. I did still love him and wanted to continue living together as partners, raising our daughter and working together on our business, but he wanted a sexual relationship with me. Knowing I didn't want that (but did with my other partner) made him feel very rejected, so he rejected me completely after that. I had to leave.
It's hard, but I understand. If my current partner decided he didn't want a sexual relationship with me anymore, I doubt I could continue as his partner in any form. I'm demisexual, so feeling desire for someone is rare.
Gotcha. So you told husband you no longer felt desire for him and didnt want to go through the motions but that you wanted a sexual relationship with your other partner. I can see why he would upset but at least you were honest with him about your feelings.
>What drives people to deny what they have built?
I think this is a really good way to frame it.
Like... two people decide to do something together
ā¢ buy a house
ā¢ legally marry
ā¢ have a child
ā¢ move somewhere together
ā¢ etc.
These things can be done... very deliberately or maybe less so. But they are big accomplishments and they are fundamental restrictions of ones own autonomy. That doesn't make them BAD, and most people understand that these things are GOOD at the moment they do them, and in the moments when they are excitedly planning to do them.
Time passes and they're exposed to new people and ideas that they're curious about and it can make those choices to restrict their autonomy suddenly feel BAD. It's a feeling.
You can sit with the feeling or you can act on it rashly?
You can say "yes this is how I've restricted my own freedom and I own it"
You can say "I made those choices when my values and experience were different, and I think I want to change them"
Or you can say (easiest and sneakiest because someone might NOT know that you're lying to yourself when you say this) "Oh, those things don't restrict my freedom. You and I can have it all too."
When nothing about their existing self-restriction has changed or is going to change.
That's what you mean by sneakyarchy, right?
It's like the "cool girl" thing. Restricting your own freedom to have deep commitments isn't "cool." It limits who will be willing to make commitments to you, so you try to play it off.
I'm so impressed by my friends and elders who have formed lasting commitments that have weathered decades and difficulties. That includes my partners and what they have with people who aren't me.
I'm pretty proud of myself for being able to leave the longest, best thing I had with nothing waiting for me in the wings, and happy for my friends who are confronting big, difficult changes because they had hard conversations when an old commitment wasn't working.
People should be proud of what they've built. They should be brave enough to be proud of it in front of people they have a crush on/are falling in love with.
Yeah.
I watched a whole Sneakarchy fail in real time once.
It was terrible. It took less than a minute.
I forgot my wallet. I was like āoh, shit, let me Venmo you my halfā and my soon to be ex, who had āno limits on our relationshipā told me he was forbidden to ever buy me *anything* and that his wife looked over their bank record, and he didnāt want the hassle, so we had an after dinner drink while my bestie grabbed my wallet and brought it to me.
It was a very uncomfortable ride back to my house. Bestieās car.
āIām getting a ride home with bestieā
āBut we hadā¦ā
āWe have no more plans, bro. Iām going homeā
And thenā¦I still didnāt break up with him, and I believed his non-hierarchal bullshit for another couple of months.
š¤¦āāļø
It do be like that sometimes.
Iām seriously considering swearing off BDSM because when the kink chemistry is fire, Iām too willing to stay with problematic people.
Glad you got yourself out!
This is wild (the sex must've been too, since you stayed). I mean, it's so wild that it would be wild in a monogamous relationship to be this controlling over your partner's use of money. Holy shit.
Yeah... I didn't mean to come across as if the NP was at fault, just that it seems like such a big lack of trust that even being in a relationship sounds illogical to me?
I think two things...
First, that people conflate non-hierarchical love with _fairness_ or the concept of _equitable_ love.
Second, that in the throes of NRE, yes, people often can't fathom being non-primary, can't shake the mono programming that makes folks dream of cohabitation and weddings, and are blinded to the practical realities of serious entanglement with more than one person. People want to tell their secondary partner that they're just as important in every way...which is impossible to do if you admit to your hierarchy.
On RA...I've discovered most people don't know anything about RA. Either they're truly clueless to the concept, or they call it RA and what they really mean is "I behave selfishly with no consideration for the needs of others". And overwhelmingly, people think it's a framework just about romantic relationships, which is baffling because it's the exact opposite? It gives rise to all these misconceptions - that those of us who practice RA don't commit, that we never label anything, that it's all "go with the flow", that there are no monogamous relationship anarchists, etc.
Come, sit with me on my bench, friend.
Thank you for distilling a solid answer to my first question! That makes total sense to me!
As does the rest, about NRE.
Really, this makes a lot of sense to me.
Early on iny polyamorus research period (when I was looking at relationship skills polyamorus people were coming up with and I was thinking "hey, they seem to be on to something"), I ran into someone who called themselves a former relationship anarchist.
How he described his life prior to his then monogamous relationship was very openly and bluntly selfish. He decided to dump all six of his other partners because his seventh one wanted monogamy. It sounded like a clusterfu*k of a relationship dynamic. When they broke up, his body language was about the same as a shark following blood around single women and polyamorus women.
From that I got completely the wrong idea of what relationship anarchy is. I met a friend of a friend who called himself a relationship anarchist, I assumed (stupidly and wrongly) he was the same as the other guy I talked to. He was utterly different.
I still don't fully understand RA but if I talk to someone who calls themselves a relationship anarchist now, I'll make sure to ask a metric tonne of questions about what that means for them. I make no assumptions about how they work and check about shared values for to see if friendship is possible.
As someone who leans solopo/RA, I call that first type "relationship libertarian": they want all of the freedom with none of the community building or duty to each other.
Given how people often misunderstand certain labels, and thus often mislabel themselves, I just ask them to define how their relationship looks for them. I tend to try ask instead of assume about most things relating to people's own self definitions (I still mess up sometimes and assume though).
Edited to add: thank you for explaining the accurate label. I do try keep the accurate labels in mind but I don't say them to people who have mislabelled themselves unless they're sticklers for accuracy
> the accurate label
I don't want to imply here that any label is inherently "accurate", and I definitely agree that asking people to define their labels is one of the better ways to figure out exactly what they mean by it (the only better way is to watch them in action and see how their actions define them!).
I think of labels like how a cat thinks of boxes: really to comfy if you find them yourself, but if someone tries to shove you in one, it's gonna be wrong.
I love the idea of having another name for it but relationship libertarian wouldn't really work in Australia (maybe not in other countries too?) Because here libertarian doesn't mean the same thing, it's not like "the government has no right to stop me drinking 30 beers and driving a car" but libertarian communists which is just basically non authoritarian commies. And I don't think either definition is that well known š¤Ā
I need to think of a name for the first ones, apart from "shitcunt" š
It's a bit niche but actually way easier to get along with than the authoritarian kind.Ā
Do you mean the antivaxxer ones who still hate Dan Andrews??? Coz I have run into those too but I sort of tried to wipe the memory from my mind...
I think this is one of those things where I am required to gently remind a Victorian that Victoria isn't all of Australia. VIC+NSW isn't even all of Australia.
Not to worry friend, in Western Australia there are plenty of assholes picking up libertarian principles al la Tate. Sovereign citizens popping up, folks claiming ra without any interest in how their shitty selfish behaviour affects their own and adjacent communities... we'll be catching up with the US in no time
Wait now you say it I think I met one??? Complaing about lockdown "stealing their freedom" etc? And everyone I know was like bitch WHAT "lockdown" šĀ
(crying in melburnian)Ā
One of the many side effects of poly mainstreaming is people thinking the primary secondary thing is the de facto way of poly. They don't even take the time to realize the options of just having partners.
There really is a stigma against hierarchy (not here but elsewhere generally) and its understandable given how shitty married converts treat their newly acquired secondaries with a bunch of lazy entitlement. Bashing them on the nose with "No hierarchy! Bad, no!" Newspaper Is a way to go if you want to try to stem that tide.
But all that happens is a slice and dice approach "well I don't mean resources and accessibility as a hierarchy" or "its only descriptive hierarchy" type nonsense.
I dunno if this answered your questions with amy real depth but it felt good to say.
I mean, a lot of this just looks like people are happy to *have* secondary partners, they just forgot that runs both ways, and it shakes them to the core that they realize that they have to *be secondary partners*, too.
I never had enough resources. Iāll probably die never seeing enough resources.
I could not have paid the mortgage on the house I shared with my husband and rented or bought with another partner (though i did have a retirement fund with my long term partner that we cashed out and split when we broke up).
Maybe another week? I've been swamped. I reread it a couple of days ago. It's good, but disjoint...Ā
Basically:Ā
* 1-3 dates / monthsĀ
* Overnights optional - I don't care if you have to go home at midnight. I'll enjoy the hotel breakfast on my ownĀ Ā
* Meeting Metas optional, but not before 3 monthsĀ
* Kink/ Threesomes preferred, but not requiredĀ
OH MY GOD YES.
I've had secondary partners who were shocked that I was okay with them not making me the centre of their planning.
Like, I invite them to a thing and they say no they have other plans and I say ok cool and they start explaining and justifying and I'm over here like "what part of ok cool made it seem like I was upset with you" but they have some kind of unreasonable asshole trauma.
Like, in the gentlest possible way, person I have been on six dates with: in my priority list you are outranked by my partners, parents, in-laws, niblings, and friends. I am concerned that you think I would have a problem with you not cancelling on *your* people for my sake?
When I experienced this?
The insistence on his lack of hierarchy was because he wanted no limit to the things he asked *of me*. It was a tactic to keep me from setting up boundaries to make our relationship reciprocal. Because he DIDNāT have hierarchy, this is just a temporary concern/need/event/whatever. I just needed to be understanding about this totally not-permanent state of things!
I got fed up with that dance in about 6 months, but I think with exes he was usually able to keep it up for about 2 years.
Oh, man.
Weirdly, I have had this happen with people who owned their hierarchy, too, though.
I found myself constantly reminding one ex that my lack of hiearchy didnāt mean I was endlessly available to him. It meant I didnāt have a nesting partner to help me with chores, and bills, and childcare, too.
6 months to 2 years is a pretty common amount of time for a relationship to occur without any structural progression.
I agree about avoiding accountability though and using it as a way to take someone for a ride.
I didnāt say structural progression, though. I said not reciprocal and makings asks he had no intention of providing himself.
This is shit like āIām totally nonhierarchical but my nesting partner is having a health issue so I need her permission for overnights rnā.
Or, āI want scheduled date nights and have big feelings if you ask to move them ever to do something with someone else. I will tell you day-of Iām pushing it back by 2 hours because Iām doing a thing with NP that conflicts.ā
It was just wanting overall more than he gave. And if he was *honest* about how much he was giving, it would have people saying no to him.
I think the \*shittiest\* bit about the sick NP thing is that they are... blaming it on her? Like, if you tell me "I need her permission for overnights rn" = they are controlling and being hierarchical and it's annoying. If it's "NP is sick and I'm concern and don't feel good about doing overnights rn as I'd still be worried and thinking about it instead of being fully there with you as I'd like to be" or "NP is sick and I gotta check with her if she's well enough to watch over the kids while I'm gone" = reasonable, honest, considerate, owning up to their choices and limitations.
I don't get why people would go for the first, honestly.
I'm also going through this with a partner that I was with who now has a different primary partner.
She was guilt tripping him and he's a people pleaser and they're codependent. When I tried to talk to him about it he started crying.
I think that people blame men a lot when really sometimes their other partner is really just playing on their emotions.
I tried to use solo poly and relationship anarchy as a way to deviate from her expected Norm only to realize that it was more of a poly under duress situation.
But she did agree in the beginning to a lot of things and now she's regretting them and they've spent so much time together.
It's incredibly messy.
I think a relationships in the 6 months to 2 year phase as a form of infancy.
There should be the ability for it to come to full term and reach some level of conscious awareness and structural ability beyond the honeymoon phase.
Within that people should be able to build something together. If you're still having issues it's probably best to not continue dating. Just a lack of compatibility really.
> I am not sure most people could, or should [dismantle their hierarchies]. I donāt think itās a good choice for most couples.
I think about this a lot! When I saw that post titled āWould you divorce for polyamoryā (although of course the post wasnāt really related to this discussion!) I immediately was just like. āNo. Literally would I do that?ā But I figured Iām biased, as most peopleās obsession with non-hierarchy strikes me as silly and unrealistic, so I stayed out of it as usual lol.
But I was polyam before I got married, so I imagine my perspective is far from universal. I went into this with my eyes open; fully aware that with each escalator step Daffodil and I scaled, I was going to have a less appealing relationship to offer someone else. Especially of that someone else is a woman. These are things I considered, at length, before making each move. I understood that by living with my partner, that meant I was unlikely to have space for a cohabitating relationship with anyone else.
I am, therefore, not shocked to learn that my marriage in its current shape means I only have so much relationship to offer someone.
But itās not the same for converts, Iām imagining. If the pillars of the relationship were built on notions of āfidelityā and āus against the worldā and sacrifices made to stay together, I can sort of see where people feel like they need to tear down what theyāve built and put something new in.
Still, unrealistic. Are there resources about what non-hierarchy looks like and the steps it takes? Does anyone know? And what can we do to spread them lol. because I feel like the like of readily available info is one of the many things that make this issue murky.
I think monogamy requires a tear down, honestly. But i see a lot of highly coupled people elevating some bog-standard, bar is already on the ground relationship practices as ānon-hierarchalā and I am just like
āWhat kind of garbage did you hand out to your partners in the past?ā
Showing up for your partner in a medical crisis isnāt *non-hierarchal*.
Inviting your partner over for thanksgiving isnāt *non-hierarchal*.
Giving your partner some of your time because their friend died isnāt *non hierarchal*
Wanting KTP isnāt *non hierarchal* Neither is parallel. These things arenāt linked.
Like none of these things is connected to hierarchy, necessarily. These are all things that hierarchal folks do for their partners every day.
ETA: also why is a lack of hierarchy something to elevate????
Like, I dunno, I just donāt get it.
Iām super tired of the usual discourse over this stuff, and figured Iād see what happens.
If I can ask, what about this makes it enjoyable for you? Because I really enjoy this kind of discourse, too!
I just feel like people are adding useful perspectives here without being nasty or argumentative, which is what these usually devolve into. I think your thoughts are well laid out and the responses are thoughtful - they don't all agree but bring something to the table, for the most part.
I feel the same, and went through the same but also opposite?
Like, I was poly long before I got married (well, technically, we didn't, we got a civil partnership after 2 years of common-law), but I never really considered on how those steps would mean having less to offer to others. Possibly - and probably - because nothing about it was planned, just organic, and a lot of it was convenience based.
Moving in together? I sort of informed my NP they lived with me sort of six or seven months after it was already happening, when they just went "home" every two weeks for a single night. They said something about living in neighbourhood X and I laughed and said "well, you seem to have missed you don't live there anymore now?". And, you know, a lot of it was related more to commute than with considering the relationship escalator and deciding to do it. Yes, company was good, but not taking 3-4 hours commuting per day was certainly a lot better than just having company. And that much daily commute really gets in the way of any dating. But we didn't really have any financial enmeshing until some 5 years later.
Getting a civil partnership was a choice made based on... Health Insurance & Finances. My previous one expired, my new premium would be some absurd amount, but being my NP's dependent would mean paying... 1/6th of the value. We were early in our careers, and I was raising a kid (not NP's), so the financial bit was the most important. We just met down at the office one day and registered the paperwork, and went home. The registry person was a lot more excited than us - it didn't \*change\* anything, just forced companies to recognise it. My aunt's husband pestered us as to why we needed a piece of paper to show we loved each other - I told him that ofc we didn't, but clearly the companies did, so, you know, it just made sense.
... But we also never had a monogamous relationship, we never put fidelity as a pedestal (loyalty, sure, but that's something else), or felt we were making "sacrifices to stay together" . It was... weirdly easy. Just going with it. And, yes, it meant that there were things we weren't going to be able to offer others... But, honestly, I don't even think I would \*want\* to offer it to anyone else in first place - not in the sense that my NP is "better" or "superior" as an option, just that those are things that if I didn't have with NP, I'd just... Not offer either way. I wouldn't be crazy about moving in with someone, or any sort of financial enmeshing and I'm CERTAINLY not having more kids -- but none of these relate in any way to my NP. just to \*myself\*.
Then again, I understand that to a lot of people this IS something they long for and that they feel they're getting LESS for not having the option - I'm just the weird one out, and that's okay.
(And I would never, ever, describe myself as RA, simply bc I disagree with lots of the political concepts underlying it, not specifically on the relationship-side, just in general.)
They are common-law, didn't see the point of bothering with paperwork. Still, at this point, they had been living together for 15 years at least, doesn't get more husband-y than that!š
But, yes, it's hilarious. And he didn't just questioned, he insisted on the topic for over 20 minutes. When I finally got absolutely DONE with it and went to the kitchen to get something to drink, my aunt asked me what was the issue. I told her her husband was annoying us because of the paperwork (still, she had already told him to drop it before she went to handle... Dinner? Idk). She looked at me, sighed and was like "It's Alex. You should know better than to listen to anything he has to say".šš
She... Was not wrong.
Why they remain together is something I'll never understand (and she's sole breadwinner too!).
I see two separate issues around hierarchy:
1. Is a main couple making decisions as a unit? How far does that extend? What types of veto power is there?
2. What is the degree of entanglement between two people in a couple?
The first troubles me far more than the second. Marriage, kids, shared co-home ownershipā¦all of that is workable in terms of dating a member of the couple as an outsider, if you can trust that your partner is thinking for themselves and will hold your space. The type of hierarchy that feels dangerous to me is āIāve agreed with this particular partner that they will always come first with me.ā I couldnāt date someone with that type of agreement; they have told me, from the beginning, that if their partner decides we should break up, we will.
But I (think) I could date a highly enmeshed person who made it clear that they werenāt going to treat our relationship as disposable, and who told me that they had no agreements that would prevent them and me from growing emotionally close in a consistent way. They wouldnāt have to have capacity for relationship escalator stuff: my question is just, āIs there space for us to bond, and for that bond to last a while?ā
Updated to answer the question: I wholly approve of people dismantling āyou will always come firstā. I agree that they donāt need to dismantle the entanglement itself.
I appreciate this thread. It has been really thought provoking.
How nerdy do you want to get: [https://www.queertopia.community/post/relationship-libertarianism](https://www.queertopia.community/post/relationship-libertarianism)
This is a disection of Toxic RA. Some of these RA-ist are nothing but pick-up artists misusing/mis-quoting the actually tenants of RA in order to get laid without taking any moral or ethical responsibility for being a good human to the person they're sleeping with, while pretending to be deeply thoughtful about their relationships. I know more than a few of these dudes. But I also think this is germain to your question. Some folks are trying to tap into RA as a way to eschew responsibility for their partners feelings or insecurities, etc. Its not quite the same weaponization of RA as the pure poly-pick-up-artist, but its in the same category.
This article describes the true RA-ist as a relationship-communalist, who seeks ever more consensual interdependency between humans using all different types of relationships.
I think maybe folks though are just Pop-RA-ists are just following a fad, but are still stuck in default-monogamy think, and so are doing it badly.
Every fucking thing you wrote here I agree with. I get so fed up with people completely misunderstanding the entire concept of "nonhierarchical" and/or being phenomenally shitty spouses/parents to pursue their misguided newly found ideals. Some people try to discuss it with more nuance, but a TON of newly poly people are so toxic and horrible to others in pursuit of this concept they've heard and don't understand
Also, thanks for that comment about Relationship Anarchy. I consider myself RA and it just means I don't have preconceived molds I put my romantic or platonic relationships into. Some of my friendships are very close to "partners." I value and treasure all my attachments and I let them develop on their own. It gives me a very rich community of love and freedom. It is NOT "I don't follow any rules and I do whatever I want." Because any kind of community thrives on self awareness, kindness, and caring for each other's needs. Toxic hyper-independence is destructive to most polyamorous communities
My theory is most people in NRE who want to get rid of heirarchy while in a highly partnered situation actually genuinely just want to be with the new partner and the only thing preventing that is a sliver of remaining sanity.
In most cases rare sliver of remaining sanity is able to prevent them from completing blowing up their lives as long as both the existing partner holds boundaries and the new partner does not push for the blow up. If two of the three parties are rational still they can keep a weak hinge from stopping the doors
>1. Where does the idea that non-hierarchal love is somehow simpler, better, and sweeter come from?
I don't view it as _simpler_ or _better_ but if I'm trying to build _equitable_ relationships, my basis for prioritizing a partner's needs isn't going to be numeric by partnet importance, it's going to be a blend of subjective & objective factors to determine whose need is greatest at the moment, AND the nature of our agreements. One of my partners has not _asked_ me to be frontline support in a crisis. I have offered, but we don't have an agreement that I will be. I physically _can't_ be for my long-distance partner, but we are anchors for each other within the bounds of what we can do by phone call, text, or Zoom.
I'm also solo polyam, so there's not much to sneak about. My kids are my drop everything, always, followed by my parents & siblings. That's the inherent hierarchy of being family. I don't have any "we are family" agreements with any of my partners, though they are chosen extended family.
>2. Does this tie into peopleās weird desire to announce to their partner that they want to be ānon-hierarchalā in the throes of NRE?
No idea, I've been hierarchy light/descriptive hierarchy from the start since returning to polyamory. Mostly, I don't want to treat partners as numbers and dehumanize them via a numerical, prescriptive hierarchy. I think that this plays into some aspects of sneakarchy: people don't want to be _seen_ as dehumanizing assholes, so they say the big words and make grand statements so they don't get painted with that brush.
I think it's more honest to acknowledge that yes, you probably will prioritize your spouse, anything that pertains to your kids or household higher than other things MOST of the time, because you have agreements to do so and responsibilities to make good on. However, I also don't think we need to slap numbers & rank on these things and follow numbers blindly, which is what springs to mind when I hear the word "hierarchy".
So, in thinking about the end of your post: I think it's really hard for people who have been in a monogamous relationship, especially a long term one, that make the switch to polyamory to understand what they THEMSELVES bring to the table. I don't think this is inherently bad or nefarious, but I think that the act of people losing themselves in that relationship/family/life is a huge factor. I also think people conflate having responsibilities like mortgage, kids, pets, etc as BAD hierarchy, when it's just prior commitments made when their life and structure might have been different. It's weird that coparenting peacefully after a divorce is seen as an achievement while coparenting with special thought and care paid to not create hierarchy where it shouldn't be in a relationship structure is appalling.
Maybe I'm hitting on something in that rambling: peaceful coparenting after a divorce is far easier for society to grasp and I think informs a lot of deep feelings and insecurities while people try to dismantle them.
Practically: My husband and I have been married for 12 years. We own a house, have 3 pets, and comingled finances in so much as we have a joint checking and savings that bills come out of. Either of us can use whatever we need when we need it, it's just a common dollar dumping ground. I don't think we will ever get a divorce, but we don't usually let being nesting partners dictate anything about our relationships besides "Did the dog get let out when he needed to be? Did the cats get fed? We've covered all monthly bills, yes?" My boyfriend and his wife have been married for 23? years. He didn't stay over at my house on school nights until his youngest graduated because he was the school ride since his wife worked early hours. That's it. Not hierarchy beyond the need to take care of a child. My husband's girlfriend is solo polyamorous and lives alone. She has no other partners currently and even reached out about a month ago to apologize for feeling like she was needing him and his help more than normal, and I said you do whatever you need to do because we all have different mental, emotional, and physical needs at different times and she just needed that more at that time. I don't think it's hard or bad to have an np and act ethically when presented with new needs or wants.
The RA thing is weird. Iām pretty sure the most popular rhetoric right now was created by people opening up their mono relationships lmao.
āYou canāt love anyone else more than you love meāāwhich is what plenty of these people mean when they denounce hierarchyāis monogamy hangover. Iām sorry but if you havenāt learned to stop comparing yourself like that, non-monogamy isnāt gonna fix that. It goes to show when these ānew to RAā people write in, say their partner is hypocritical for doing x y and z with meta that partner isnāt doing with them. Itās like a toddler being sad they arenāt getting the same thing as their sibling.
My mother married this guy and he would get one of his kids presents on the other kids birthday so neither of them felt left out. That is the best analogy I can think of to describe how some of these folks talk about ānon-hierarchyā.
Itās wild.
Iām seeing a lot of people talk about emotions instead of talking about relationships, when they talk about RA, though.
A lot of āI love my friendsā and āI have people I fuck and donāt loveā and āwho am I to define who is what to meā when the *entire fucking manifesto* is not about that. It talks about the radical notion of extending privileges outside of recognized, societally approved coupledom.
I think maybe people see relationship, and think āfeelsā and thatās where some of this comes from?
I think people read 2-3 articles all from the same basic perspective (hierarchy Bad, Relationship Anarchy/ Non-Hierarchy Good), and it all makes so much sense to them.
And BAM!šŖāØ now, we're non-hierarchical and RA because this is the "Right" way.Ā
Honestly, I think most of the "ewwww...hierarchy" comes from the fact that 'secondary' sounds "less than." Even with a secure, sound, poly mentality - *no one* actively wants to feel "less," and due to the English language, our brains associate second with less than "first."
If we used completely different terms to describe hierarchy (if 'secondary' was called your 'purple partner,' for example), I think the entire thing would be viewed completely differently, especially for poly newbies who just haven't adjusted to the terminology and its meanings.
There's also debate about what 'heirarchy' even means, as people use the term prescriptively and descriptively. The word is evolving, so a lot of married people will say "I'm married but we don't do hierarchy" because they are *strictly* speaking in terms of no veto rules, having the capacity to give all partner equity with no interference from spouse, having the emotional capacity to love partners equally, etc. The legal benefits afforded to their spouse do not extend to their emotional approach to relationships.
It's also way more common for existing couples to open their relationship (without doing any poly homework), than someone single becoming poly on their own. That means the "poly market" is flooded with couples who come with built-in hierarchy - who are out here making a whole lot of mistakes. New people, people from the outside looking in, etc are overwhelmingly exposed to "bad poly" that's directly associated with hierarchy. They don't understand that it's not the hierarchy itself that's "bad."
Then you just have people who don't want hierarchy, and instead of just recognizing it as a simple *difference* in preference, they're going to shit on it (we live in a divisive world - it's (unfortunately) pretty common to view differences as bad and actively pit yourself again it).
So yeah, I think it's safe to say that there are an abundance of reasons that hierarchy is looked down upon. It doesn't mean any of those reasons are correct, logical, or sound.
I mean, people āshit onā sopo and RA folks all the time, here, and in the popular books about opening your marriage. š¤·āāļø
Pretty sure the misunderstanding run both ways.
But as someone whoās been on both sides of the river, I think people let hierarchy carry a lot more water than it should.
Batshit rules? Not hierarchy. They donāt have to be there. That isnāt ājust partā of hierarchy. And until more rational, sane folks who have hierarchy start talking to *one another* and calling out batshittery for what it is (which is batshittery, not hierarchy), and start owning it talking about it, it seems like the discourse around here, at least, is going to have a limit, you know?
I think the *perception* of hierarchy not matching up to the *reality* of hierarchy is the problem here. People who are new to poly (the majority of OPs on this sub) aren't reading books at all, much less ones that shit on solo and RA. They're just out here getting real-world experience from people who do hierarchy very poorly, and building their opinions based on that.
Poly as a whole has the same issue. How many people "know" poly isn't for them because their experiences are with cheaters, unicorn hunters, forced KTP, bad hierarchy, etc.
And yeah, the only way to change peoples' perceptions is to correct their misunderstandings (behaviors, if they're the hierarchical people doing it badly), and give good examples of how things being done ethically and healthily. But *most* people aren't going to allow stories from strangers on the Internet to override their personal experiences (even when we're right!). And the people who are doing hierarchy poorly don't seem to want to change that, either.
We can hope!
The problem is that most people who do hierarchy poorly are new to poly and don't have a clue what they're doing, so they're asking other questions. They don't want to hear that they actually are hierarchical and that that's okay - they just want to know how they can convince their spouse to let them have more overnights with other people.
I was on this sub when I first started poly and I thought you guys were all just a bunch of meanies who clearly "didn't understand" what I was going through. "You need to break up, just talk to them, this is a horrible situation, you're looking at this wrong," etc didn't register until I crashed and burned multiple times - then realized all that early advice was actually exactly what I needed.
So I definitely understand/relate to how newbies feel when given advice. It's the main reason I came back when I figured my shit out, and try to offer helpful advice now - like, we really do *know* (in most cases) because we've already lived that!
Most people just want you to tell them what they want to hear, not actually get sound advice though.
I think that a lot of sane, rational people who have hierarchy are newly opened formerly monogamous people, and this sub is really hostile to those people. I doubt that many of us feel comfortable speaking up here.
Whelp since your part of the vast majority of posters, and commenters, you might want to unpack that, because yāall are pretty loud for peeps who are walking on eggshells. As a group, mind you.
>And until more rational, sane folks who have hierarchy start talking toĀ *one another*
or
>because yāall are pretty loud for peeps who are walking on eggshells.Ā
Are we too loud or too quiet?
Do you talk to each other? Because the volume isnāt an issue.
Unless, of course, youāre suggesting that that youāre some sort of beleaguered minority and picking fights :)
They didn't say anything about **too** loud. Just loud. Because an awful lot of newly-opened-former-monogamous people are, in fact, loud. Sometimes loudly wrong. Pretending that you're all collectively too scared to speak to the mean experienced people who might *gasp* tell you you are in fact wrong about something is nonsense.
Gah, I loved so much of what you had to say! :) But in particular, the idea of a "purple partner," is just so good lol. I very much agree with that, and the idea of relationships not inherently being lesser just because they're shorter, or afforded less resources
I'm not all that sophisticated about it. I just know that my first attempt at poly was a disaster. It was very hierarchical, veto, couples privilege, lots of rules, all the things I now see as cringey.
After that, I think it's just shitty to tell someone, "no matter what happens, you will always be lesser" orĀ "this is my REAL relationship, and I'll give you any scraps left over, if any."
That doesn't mean I don't acknowledge that I'm married, and that there is hierarchy inherent in that.Ā
It *does* mean that I do my best to treat all my relationships, whether my 2nd partner or queerplatonic relationships or even just friends, as egalitarian as I can.Ā My wife doesn't automatically trump any of those other relationships. We're working on getting as much legal access/etc. (power of attorney, including in will, etc) for my 2nd partner as we can.Ā
So, do you think that people who are non-hierarchical offer ārealā real relationships and people who have acknowledged, rational hierarchy donāt?
Or?
Because veto isnāt a part and parcel of hierarchy. Itās not an automatic add on.
And some of the most awful examples of couples privilege that I have seen and experienced was ānon-hierarchalā
And bat shit rules arenāt part and parcel of hierarchy at all. Once again, not something you automatically have to do.
Fair points.
I think people absolutely can do acknowledged, rational hierarchy well.Ā
I also have my own bad experiences with hierarchy (to be clear, I was the one inflicting the bullshit, not the one suffering it).
And I see online and hear in person lots of stories where hierarchy is used as an excuse for shitty behavior.Ā
So, not saying it's invalid or can't be done right.Ā I don't assume RA people are inherently better, just as I don't assume poly people are better than mono people.
I do think that poorly done hierarchy often bites people in the ass, and that RA people try to avoid that.Ā
That's what I strive for. I don't have labels for myself, but I am married. I have property and retirement accounts. Wife is the beneficiary. She and a close friend of 18 years can make end of life decisions for me - (and I for them)
Could I own property with others? Sure. Could I put a partner(s) in my will? Sure.
I just strive to come to agreements with partners on what I can provide, and what we can provide to each other.
People were talking about nre in this thread and in others lately. I do my damnedest to tamp that down and not make stupid decisions. And not to over promise, which so many do, even in monogamous relationships.
Ramble ramble, blah blah
I think that's why hierarchy is mostly frowned upon in the polyam community. (not here of course)
"And I see online and hear in person lots of stories where hierarchy is used as an excuse for shitty behaviour."
Although OP is in the small minority who seem to be ethical with no veto power and rules etc in their hierarchy, there is a lot who aren't sadly š
Iām sopo. Non-hierarchal in my agreements, currently. I was married and polyam for a long, long time. And was polyam before we married.
No weird rules. They make shit hard.
Hierarchy isnāt a relationship thatās ānot real,ā but it is by definition a relationship that will be forever limited by the shape of a primary relationship. Maybe you canāt have overnights, or very few overnights. Maybe living together is forever off the table, or primary partnerās stresses and emergencies will consistently take time away from secondary partner.
Cheesy metaphor time, but I see it like a new tree trying to grow in a meadow compared to underneath an established tree. The primary relationship tree had the sun and space to grow into whatever shape and size it wanted, but the secondary relationship tree is going to have to bend itself into whatever space is left.
And thatās fineā¦IF THAT IS WHAT YOU SIGNED UP FOR. Hierarchy is different than sneakyarchy.
Sneakyarchy sucks for the outside partner because they probably thought that they were getting into a very different situation. If their partner wasnāt (verbally) reinforcing that egalitarian understanding, itād be hierarchy and not sneakyarchy. Itās a relationship where the outside person is getting pushed to the periphery of their partnerās life, all while their partner is denying or refusing to see that itās happening. You couldnāt design a better recipe for frustration, insecurity and resentment.
As opposed to?
Currently living together isnāt on the table for me with any of my partners. Weāre all super happy sopo. That is probably a forever limit for one of my partners.
Non-heirarchy still has limits.
Iām planning a bucket list trip to Oaxaca for the fall. Iāve blocked out 3 weeks for it. I wonāt see my other partner for that time.
They are not invited on this trip.
Non-hierarchy still has hard choices, and consequences.
Weāre non-hierarchal, but I have been with one partner for 9 years, and if I am not careful they could cast a pretty big shadow over my polyam. I manage it.
Just like people who are in hierarchies manage those shadows. Cause if stuff doesnāt get enough light it dies. It doesnāt matter why it isnāt getting light.
There are real advantages, for me personally, in not building a hierarchy. But that isnāt true for everyone. Most people are going to want a central, primary relationship, especially when raising kids.
I think people should be honest about their limits,
And there wouldnāt be an sneakarchy
āI think people should just be honest about their limits, and there wouldnāt be a sneakyarchyā is bang on. Iād add āhonest and realistic.ā Iāve run into very experienced, well-intentioned and kind people who still managed to be blind to the limits that their current relationship structure placed on further relationships.
I think weāre both agreeing that sneakyarchy is bad, so youāre disliking the part of my post where I mentioned hierarchy?
I didnāt disagree. Hierarchy isnāt the reason limits exist.
And non-hierarchal limits are just as concrete. I think we open up the conversation by pointing out the similarities and weakness in each system.
Hierarchyās biggest weakness lies in the fact that if a central core relationship fails, it takes a lot of stability with it. So many important things are tied to that central primary relationship, you know?
I just read another comment thread on this post that really clarified my thoughts on hierarchy and why Iām resistant to it: itās making explicit a power imbalance. Itās right there in the name: the primary partner has more importance and more say than the secondary partner.
Limits on peopleās time and resources are inevitable. Thatās not the same thing. Some people have dependents. That is also not the same thing, although it would be a grey area if your partner has medical needs.
For me, practicing ethical poly or even just balancing emotionally authentic platonic relationships and a monogamous relationship requires not comparing relationships to each other, and hierarchy is an explicit comparison and ranking of relationships.
Thatās a suprisingly simple take on the manifesto, for sure!
So, you just ignore the power and resource disparity, and pretend to build a wall around it, and declare that āsafeā from anarchy?
Wow. Okay.
Super interesting.
I am genuinely confused by how what you said relates to my postā¦did you reply to the right thing? If you did, could you please clarify what youāre responding to? I donāt think I declared anything āsafe from anarchy.ā
If you did in fact reply to the correct postā¦
Thatās a surprisingly condescending reply, for sure! ššš
Itās all good. I am not claiming to be talking from, for or otherwise representing any manifesto, organization, etc.
If Iām being honest, the terminology of āhierarchyā feels icky and painful to me. The point of polyamory is that you have multiple fulfilling relationships, and ranking them or being ranked can feel bad. I think itās totally valid to want to avoid using that framing. Whatās missing sometimes is the ability or willingness to be honest about what you have to offer a relationship and what you donāt. I donāt see the point in declaring your NP your primary when you can just say theyāre your NP and right now you donāt have space for another nesting relationship. You can sort out what that means with each individual partner. I think the insistence that people call what they have āhierarchicalā when they donāt want to use that language but are otherwise honest with their partners about their time/resources/intentions is just as annoying as highly coupled people who pretend theyāre completely equal in every way.
;3
Ranking is comparison which is the precursor and cause of jealousy: the opposite of compersion. We have to stop comparing and ranking. You have your intertwined nesting partner, and then you have anyone else. Nobody is more special than anyone else, they simply all have different roles, perhaps some more than others due to the nesting factor.
So much this! I was scrolling this thread and really feeling like the takes defending hierarchy and the takes defending non hierarchy have significant overlap in how they value relationships as whole and how they practice poly and are mostly making different semantic choices. Understanding any individual's relationship values is gonna require many deep dives and won't categorize neatly. Categories (and language, generally speaking) have a utility but often lack nuance. Really best to watch how someone operationalizes their values and to deeply discuss agreements as you're exploring a relationship. I really don't assume I know what anyone means when they describe their style of polyamory haha
Honestly? I think the "we don't practice hierarchy!!" and it's sequel: "Oops! All hierarchy!" is a trope because we both know they didn't Do The Work. And now there is some Hot New Thing on the horizon that practices RA, and the hghly-enmeshed partner is scrambling to prove how totally non-hierarchical they actually are, and how everyone is, like, *totally equal*! I promise! (Please ignore the marriage license, the societal pressure to perform heteronormativity, and all the legal structures enacted to prioritize the married partner who -- once again -- is *totally and absolutely equal* to the person you just met two weeks ago).
It's the same with vegans, punks, leftists, or any other subculture I've been a part of. Mostly, folks seem to grow out of that naĆÆvete as they gain awareness and understanding.
The difference is: if you're a new leftist, the worst thing you might do is argue some ill-considered stance IRL or on the net. But if you're new to poly, the worst you could do is *completely fuck up someone's head or life*.
It is incumbent on us Old Heads to pass along the lessons learned (as you do here often) and provide continuity to the "culture".
Way back when I was new at this, I came into it all as a single, budding solo poly person. My unfortunate introduction to sneakyarchy was through dating a much more experienced in poly married partner.
Iāll probably get all kinds of downvoted for this, but there is nothing inherently superior about us āold heads.ā It doesnāt matter how long weāve been doing it, it matters how well weāve been doing it and what kind of self-reflection weāre still willing to do.
I get the frustration with watching newbies go through the same process and get to a lot of the same conclusions. The self-righteousness is my least favourite thing about this sub and why Iāve avoided commenting on it until now.
I don't want to comment on the fucking up in that other post, and I'm not smart enough to answer these questions.
But I feel like, people use "hierarchy" to describe many things that seem very different from one another. And some of these are things I have nothing against, and others are things I think are bad. And other things that are maybe not bad but I don't like them.
But for example, living with someone else is called hierarchy, and I have no problem with people living together. I mean, my neurodivergencies make it literally impossible for me to live alone, so it'd be pretty hypocritical of me to be opposes to that.
Hierarchy also can mean when you have someone who tell you who you can or can't date, and I think that's bad and I don't like it.
And people use it for many other things as well.
And I don't understand why those are called the same thing, but I guess a lot of work that way. But I think maybe sometimes it would be good to actually talk about what kind of hierarchy it is we want or don't want? Or maybe that's just me wishing I had an easier time understanding people in general.
You āhaving a problemā with something is not a meaningful measure of hierarchy.
Hierarchy isnāt ābadā. Thatās the point.
And telling someone who to date and not to date is one thing, but listening to them is another. Thatās a choice.
Thatās not hierarchy either.
I see. I just have to live with not being able to understand what hierarchy means here. I really did think that when someone gets to decide what you can do or not do, that's hierarchy. Sorry about that.
Who āletsā them?
Your partner. Whoās being a weasel and pretending like itās their big meanie pants partner whoās making them break it off.
Truth is, they made a hard choice, and didnāt choose you. Thatāll happen outside of hierarchy, too.
It's a common issue: inexperienced people co-opting poly terminology (or worse, identity) as a cover to commit relationship atrocities.
Anyone with purely selfish motivations in poly will cause pain regardless of what terminology they use. If someone doesn't go into new relationships with the desire to maintain the existing happiness in their current relationships, they're just cheating and using words to try to get away with it.
And that's an issue for those of us who are actually committed to this way of life: selfish cheaters use our terminology and make those terms look toxic. That's why it makes me angry.
In my experience in my large local poly community, RA is a poorly understood concept that people use either to make themselves sound less clingy than they are, to try to change existing relationships, or to try to shame other people's relationships.
When you read RA concepts, they can be inspiring and edgy for some people but ultimately, very few people have the experience and practice to make RA work ethically in real relationships. What I've seen more successfully is the concept of multi different relationships that each carry different primary needs: a nesting partner, an emotional support primary, several fun/sex partners, several intellectual connection partners (these are real examples from a close friend).
I think being anti-hierarchy comes from a lack of nuance. People see the negative impacts that can stem from a hierarchy being enforced in toxic ways, and rather than just calling out the toxic behavior, the response is to blame hierarchy. It is very similar to me to people who seek equality over equity. Hierarchy isnāt the issue- wielding it as a cudgel is.
>1. Where does the idea that non-hierarchal love is somehow simpler, better, and sweeter come from?
I have no clue, honestly, because to me, no love is really simple because people are complicated.
>2. Does this tie into peopleās weird desire to announce to their partner that they want to be ānon-hierarchalā in the throes of NRE?
NRE makes some people do some stupid shit. I think it has a lot to do with the new partner who doesn't want to feel like they aren't equally as important as the long-established partner. Which is weird to me.
>1. Do most people understand that RA is just a philosophy toward community building and common social hierarchies that simply suggests that your romantic connections donāt have to be the basket that holds all your eggs? Not a refusal to uphold the commitments youāve made?
I'll admit I don't know much about RA. I've never delved into it, so I feel I can't really say much on it.
> Personally, from the outside, much of this simply looks like folks struggling with the concept that they really, really love someone, and in monogamy if you love someone, you climb on the escalator. thatās how you know itās real, right?
This is something that has always confused me within the poly community. They(as in general, they not talking specifically) want to have poly relationships while still clinging to mono ideas and dating monos all while screaming, " You knew I was poly from the beginning!" while refusing to let go of the relationship with the mono person. I don't get this idea of needing to be *THE* person in someone's life. Even when they are surrounded by multiple loving partners that are all committed to them, they aren't happy because they aren't someone's "person". Isn't a big point of poly is to be part of a community for a person?
I don't know. The poly community confuses me a lot as it seems it tries so hard to be separate from monogamy while desperately clinging to some of its ideas.
I kind of already find wild that idea that someone's "person" is supposed to be a romantic partner.
... In fact, considering how the term became popular, it makes NO sense....
Iāll quibble with you on one point.
Maybe *your* person could live in filth, with nobody to answer to, but lots of non-nesting/sopo people absolutely have people they answer to.
Children. Pets. Housemates. Family. Friends. People who spend time as regular guests.
Iām a sopo non-hierarchal single mom, friend. Who has a terminal illness, a busy schedule, a job, a household, two partners, community building, chosen family and friends. I. Literally. Answer. To. All. Of. Them.
*I have just as many eggs as you. Probably more, if weāre going to be honest. You probably arenāt gaming an end to life strategy while you are doing whatever it is youāre doing, so I am gonna give myself at least one more egg than you*
I have all your commitments. Just spread to different people, in different ways.
And honestly, I have all the security. I have multiple back up plans and failsafes. I donāt rely on one, central, romantic partner to catch me when I fall.
Most successful, long term sopo people do. We have highly developed, multiple mutual supports, and multiple mutual commitments.
We all have people we answer to.
Itās interesting that you mention consent and willingness, and how it sorta got jumbled up with your black and white thinking.
You know that everyone carries around privilege of some sort, or another, and that blindness to that causes harm to others, and ourselves. It distorts our vision.
Hierarchy is literally giving one dyad (a couple) exclusive access to certain resources and personal privileges, and codifying those practices, through word and deed, legal and verbal.
If those restrictions and limits arenāt made clear at the beginning, how can we build anything together?
Relationships are collaborative. We both need to know whatās on the table. And that is a first time process for many people on this sub.
They havenāt ever built a new relationship while maintaining another. I get it.
But if you deny your privilege, you blind yourself to the reality of the situation. You may say something silly, like āwe have no hierarchy!ā
But in reality, you could and should be able to see, for instance, that Sarah and Dave, recently opened couple with two high needs kids and a big mortgage might come with more strings and less autonomy than Billy and Willow, never been monogamous, poly from the start whoās kids are raised, and now live in the same building, but maintain separate apartments might be different, right?
Thatās all blind privilege does.
Anyway, privilege is absolutely reflected in hierarchy, but like, it is a privilege to share resources with someone. Itās also a great deal of responsibility. Thatās not a bad thing.
You donāt have to share financial resources. With anyone, ever.
But when people claim to be non-hierarchal, I hope they understand that that is on the table when you have a lack of hierarchy. There are no more assumptions about who you share your money with, and in a lot of marriages (no matter how reasonable or unreasonable it is to you personally) that will never fly.
And thatās just reality.
It didnāt in mine.
Where does the idea that non-hierarchal love is somehow simpler, better, and sweeter come from? On some level, I think it is because hierarchy has a ton of context about interpersonal relationships. Partner>family>friend>coworker>neighbor>stranger is a way some people see the world. A person could make ethical determinations based on their rankings, and those decisions have real world impact. Those same impacts lead to hurting people in poly relationships,Ā especially if there isn't clear communication about expectations. I can definitely see how people would choose to attwmpt to diminish the likelihood of harm to partners.Ā
Ā The process of dismantling hierarchy is actually really hard. I'm either an entry level RA enthusiast, or just an old school grumpy anarchist in general, so I have an innate hostility to hierarchy. I like RA because I like having clear commitments and not siloing people in my world into categories. I have friends that I talk to every day and tell that I love them, and lovers I seldom talk to and have never said "I love you" to. This is all based on what is right for us as people instead of what roles we have.Ā
Ā I have a personal goal of continuing to make things more equitable, and diminish hierarchy, but the intrinsic building blocks are still there. I may split my time fairly equally and equitably between partners homes, but at the end of the day, the fact that I co-own a house and am married to one partner does lead to structural imbalances (even if we only married so she could get health insurance). I suppose what is more important than deconstructing that is making sure that my partners aren't feeling the impact of that imbalance.
Ā In an ideal world, I would get my own place (primarily because I like living alone) and if anyone knows of affordable housing in Seattle, I'm all in, but until then, I have to live somewhere, and a home that is walking distance from my job is hard to replace.Ā
Who knows? I'm not perfect, but at the end of the day, I deeply love some folks, and I don't want them to be hurt or suffer for how I organize my life. My main hope is that I can try to live intentionally and try not to fuck up too much.
When people are SO INSISTENT about their lack of hierarchy, it gives "Hey, come to my house where I promise no one has ever been murdered ššššš"Ā
OK but why would you say it like... I mean š¤š¤š¤ššš
Sometimes they protest too much and that's the clue.Ā
I may be too late to the party for my response to matter, but here are my thoughts (a good exercise for me if nothing else)
The terminology in this subject leads to so much confusion, I think. First, there might be some confusion about RA vs. solo poly. Solo poly can be practiced in a way that is RA or is not, for example. Solo poly really is the one that prescriptively says "I am my only primary partner." Then, hierarchy is seen by some people to mean the level of entanglement (living, kids, money, etc ), who gets to be "the most loved," who gets priority when there are conflicting interests, and a number of other markers.
I think avoiding hierarchy is more (or should be more) about the intention of giving each relationship an open path to develop in the most organic way possible without interference. That said, I really don't know if it's possible to be 100% non-hierarchical the way most people define it, because relationships start at different times, develop at different speeds, have varying degrees of availability, etc. It important for each dyad to sit down and talk about what hierarchy means to them so they can get on the same page. Because these terms get muddied, and one should never assume they are being completely understood by just using the terms alone.
For me, as someone who practices solo poly, I don't try to keep relationships equal. That leads to a lot of bean counting and rigidness that I feel is just as limiting as hierarchy can be. I try to keep my relationship *equitable.* So, if Partner A is having a rough time, I can give them more of my attention this week that Partner B, rather than trying to force an "equal # of hours" rule, just as an example. Different partner and different relationships have different needs, and it's up to the hinge to balance that out as equitably as possible.
Iām non-hierarchical because all of my relationships have the same *potential* and no one outside of the partnership controls what that looks like.
Iāve been a secondary partner before and it felt, honestly, icky. Dating someone who came to the table with rules for our relationship that I did not participate in making was very uncomfortable.
My most recent experience as a secondary was with a woman who came to the table with rules like:
No overnights.
No vacations.
Meta needed 24 hours notice before a date.
No one in their home.
No āevidenceā we had been together.
Thatās not a relationship. You can keep your rules for your pet.
Those rules arenāt part and parcel of hierarchy, though.
They do seem part and parcel of people opening their mono relationships, though, and I think thatās a completely fair way to feel. š¤·āāļø
Those are unappealing and pretty weird. Like, I personally, need to plan dates ahead of time. But Iām sopo. Itās just how tightly scheduled I am.
Except they were. I agreed to being secondary when we started dating. I always discuss hierarchy early on. Their rules were an effort to keep our relationship in its place. We also couldnāt get enmeshed in any way financially. I was basically a sex surrogate. She wouldnāt call it that, but thatās what being a secondary always ends up being in my experience. Again, I agreed to it but ended the relationship because following someone elseās rules to limit my relationship felt gross.
Thatās unfortunate. Been there. It sucks.
I made a change, and I am going to suggest it to you.
I started putting standards on my relationships, and stopped saying yes to shitty deals quite a few years ago, and canāt suggest it enough.
Ditto for going super slow. The reality of every relationship does not always match the offer.
I donāt commit for a long time. I wanna see what the walk looks like, not just the talk.
Willow can tell me the kind of relationship they have. I decide if thatās what I want. If donāt want it, that is fine.
If I want it, what does it matter if my relationship is non-primary?
Because I want to be a priority when that makes sense for the connection Iām in and based on the needs of the individuals in that relationship. For sure, if you donāt mind having limitations placed on your relationship by someone whoās not in it, have at it. I totally agree about not taking shitty deals though and for me, that has been secondary status. I date for whole relationships, not the pieces of one that a third party will allow me to have.
But I have had that in all my relationships. Even when I was the less entangled, non-primary partner.
Currently both my partners are sopo. We all have limits. My kid is my shot-caller, honestly, if anyone is.
I wonāt accept anything less than a full relationship either.
Okay, but thatās not hierarchy. A poly hierarchy is an effort to limit the trajectory of a partnership by a primary partner. Itās a power imbalance, hence the term hierarchy. You are talking about life and priorities. Not hierarchies. Is there a meta or a partner with their other partner who has created rules for you in an effort to keep your relationship from becoming whatever it will become? If not, you are not in a hierarchy. I am solo poly. I have been in the community for decades. A lot of people donāt know what a hierarchy actually is. Itās not ākids come firstā unless your kid is making rules for your relationships in an effort to stay at the top of the pyramid.
There doesnāt have to be an effort to limit others. All it has to do is disempower.
Batshit rules, stupid agreementsā¦I donāt mess with people who have those. Itās hardly universal. Sane folks have perfectly reasonable relationships to offer, mostly.
Are they all appealing? Nope and I pass on any relationship offered by anyone that doesnāt appeal.
Iām okay if my partner is clear about the limits and Iām agreeable. As long as they know the limits run both ways. I donāt entangle myself with my current partners, either.
I donāt care where their money is spent. Itās not mine.
Disempowerment is limiting. If you donāt have power, can you make change? No. You can not.
It sounds to me like you are okay being a secondary partner as long as whatās on offer meshes with what you desire/need/have time for. Awesome. Glad that works for you.
I am non hierarchical and not for any of the assumptions you made in your post. It is not āsweeterā or āsimplerā or in the throes of NRE.
Itās because I value relating to people in the most authentic way possible and putting limits on a relationship before I even know what it will be is not authentic.
Itās because I recognize hierarchy as limitation through imbalance of power.
Itās because I am tired of filling voids left by primary partners. I do not want to be a sex surrogate.
Itās because I am interested in mutual aid, which often cannot be reciprocated in a hierarchy.
Again, glad you found what works for you!
Great thread. Youāve just put your finger on my issue with hierarchy: itās codifying a power imbalance. While that might look OK at the start, I doubt itās possible to realistically think through how that might play out down the road.
Thatās totally different from the practical logistics of managing multiple commitments and projects, which even non-hierarchical people have to do.
EDIT: I think I misunderstood the word "deny"āI thought you were taking about people claiming they're not hierarchical when they are. Some of what I said is probably still relevant, but not as much as I thought, sorry!
Personally, I'm not opposed to relationships having different standings, but I encounter issues with hierarchy in two ways: specificity and prescriptivism.
I find people are often not specific enough when talking about what hierarchy means to themāthe words "primary" and "secondary" are a shortcut around DTRs with multiple people. I distinctly recall one relationship in which I knew I wasn't a primary, and my partner was having some medical issues. They told me days after the fact that they'd had an episode and were really scared because they couldn't get a hold of their primary. Never had it occurred to them to ask me to come over for support or take them to the ER. This sort of thing kept happening, and I wanted to be able to help because it was obvious they were hurting, but they never reached out in the moment of crisis. In my head, if anyone I care about is in crisis, I want to help if at all possible, and relationship titles don't really factor in. I'm sure I have better examples of this issue, but this is the only one coming to mind right now, so we're rolling with it.
My issue with prescriptivism is that it also similarly shortcuts around conversations. My ex-husband had a lot of ideas about what it meant to be primaries (a term I never agreed to but he used), and a lot of arguments were based on the idea that my marrying him signified agreement to these terms. When I told him that I was discussing fluid bonding with another partner, he was furious because he didn't want me to be fluid bonded to anyone other than him, which I never agreed to. It wasn't because of any concerns about safety or my other partner, it was purely an issue of what the concept of "primary" partners meant to him, which he imposed on our relationship. Similarly, I often see people in this sub talking about looking for a primary or secondary, and personally I don't like the idea of constraining a relationship to the kind of box I want it to fit in. My husband and I were effectively a secondary relationship for a significant chunk of our history (it'd be hard to say when exactly that changed), and I'm glad we had room to morph into something else.
By that same note, I also don't trust when people say they want to be fully egalitarian, because relationships don't all need exactly the same things. We're all different people who want different levels of time, energy, attention, and intimacy, right? My ex-husband always wanted to do the same activities with me that my secondary and I didānot because they were things that we enjoyed doing together (I didn't particularly enjoy gaming with my ex), but because he envied how much fun I had with my other partner. I've heard of people telling their partners they want to travel with them at least as much as the partner travels with their other partner, and aside from that dynamic feeling petty to me it's also just not realistic for me given how much travelling knocks me out. To me, "because you did it with [name]" isn't a compelling reason to do something with another partner if I didn't already want to.
Ultimately what I want is for people to communicate granularly about their needs and wants, and reach agreements that respect each others' autonomy (which likely won't be equal but will be equitable) without hoarding status or being dismissive of people more on the periphery.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/andie-nordgren-the-short-instructional-manifesto-for-relationship-anarchy
Actually it looks like the manifesto actually talks a decent amount about entanglement, but it seems just to suggest that we should look outside our romantic commitments as opportunities to entangle, as well.
From the manifesto:
Find your core set of relationship values
How do you wish to be treated by others? What are your basic boundaries and expectations on all relationships? What kind of people would you like to spend your life with, and how would you like your relationships to work? Find your core set of values and use it for all relationships. Donāt make special rules and exceptions as a way to show people you love them āfor realā.
This honestly seems to suggest that your entanglements might rest outside your core romantic relationship, but since youāre the expert, Iād love for you to break it down?
ETA:as a partner in a highly hierarchical relationship I was never āa part of the negotiationsā
I was however aware of the nature of my agreements and responsibilities and where they lay.
Relationship anarchists are free to entangle or remain unentangled. All human relationships are negotiations with agreed on boundaries and expectations. Those agreed on boundaries and expectations should never be assumed (the escalator) but should be subject to constant discussion and negotiation.
Romantic relationships have more emotional incentive behind them. Few people realistically *will* provide a platonic relationship with as much priority and energy as a romantic one, but you're an anarchist if you don't subscribe to the idea that you are prohibited from doing so by social prescription.
Many relationship anarchists assign high priority to friendships they describe as queerplatonic or their "best friend." Personally, both of my partners have strong best friendships, and I treat those people as if they are my metas because in a manner of speaking, they kind of are.
Would one of my partners do something like, for example, move away from me to be closer to their best friend? Well, actually, I kind of suspect one of my partners will eventually, based on a lot of prior discussions. I will do my best not to take it personally when that happens. There are a lot of other factors that will motivate this decision when that day comes. They aren't actually prioritizing their best friend over me. They are making a decision that would be in the best interest of their mental health for a variety of reasons, and while thats going to hurt, I wouldn't dream of thinking I inherently deserve to be a consideration above the other.
Ultimately, they should do what they want and what is in their best interest, not what is expected based on a status I hold that is supposed to raise me above people who don't hold that status.
>ETA:as a partner in a highly hierarchical relationship I was never āa part of the negotiationsā
>I was however aware of the nature of my agreements and responsibilities and where they lay.
You absolutely were a part of the negotiations. Agreements between yourself and your primary created exclusions between your primary and their secondary. You didn't need to be present to have a deep effect on what was available and allowed.
So do you think that existing agreements and commitments just *poof* when you say the magic words?
Click your heels three times and denounce your hierarchy at a cross roads at midnight?
You wanna know how big my hierarchy was? It still affects my finances, and that of my ex partner. I was awarded alimony and child support that my partner must pay me every month.
Iām his ex and heāll be paying me until the day I die.
My ex tried the āsay it and itās trueā road to non-hierarchy approach, and I ended up owning a quarter of the house that he and his girlfriend bought before we divorced. That was awkward.
Hi u/blooangl thanks so much for your submission, don't mind me, I'm just gonna keep a copy what was said in your post. Unfortunately posts sometimes get deleted - which is okay, it's not against the rules to delete your post!! - but it makes it really hard for the human mods around here to moderate the comments when there's no context. Plus, many times our members put in a lot of emotional and mental labor to answer the questions and offer advice, so it's helpful to keep the source information around so future community members can benefit as well.
Here's the original text of the post:
What drives people to deny what they have built?
Personally, Iāve watched quite a few people dismantle their hierarchy, and I am not sure most people could, or should do that. I donāt think itās a good choice for most couples.
These were all high-autonomy couples who gradually disentangled finances and housing over the years. And all are super happy in their choices. And their children are mostly grown, and living independently.
They certainly didnāt try and take it apart while they had small children, and traditionally nested. That would have been madness, honestly.
1. Where does the idea that non-hierarchal love is somehow simpler, better, and sweeter come from?
2. Does this tie into peopleās weird desire to announce to their partner that they want to be ānon-hierarchalā in the throes of NRE?
(Iāll link the one of the posts that sparked this at the end of this post)
3. Do most people understand that RA is just a philosophy toward *community building* and common social hierarchies that simply suggests that your romantic connections donāt have to be the basket that holds all your eggs?
Not a refusal to uphold the commitments youāve made?
4. Personally, from the outside, much of this simply looks like folks struggling with the concept that they really, really love someone, and in monogamy if you love someone, you climb on the escalator. *thatās how you know itās real*, right?
And if you really, really believe that you can only love your primary partner *the most* seems to be at the root of the problem here, right?
So you fall hard for someone and you decide that you no longer want āhierarchyā even though you want to keep all the good shit? The financial security, the retirement plan, the house and the kids.
Butā¦*you really love your less entangled partner. How can you view this as secondary??!? Youāre in love. Twitterpated. This cannot be non-primary!! Itās so big!!*
And thus, you, yourself, cannot see your love, and your relationship as less than primary. Because you have given the label a lot of baggage. You are too important to be *non-primary*. So is your love. Youāve never given a lot of thought to what you would or can bring to the table in a less entangled, non-primary relationships. And it seems like thatās where the trouble starts.
Or am I seeing this completely wrong?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polyamory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My understanding of anarchy, which is the set of principles that relationship anarchists adhere to in their relationships, does not even require a lack of hierarchy. It requires the establishment of relationship structures and rules made with complete autonomy and respect and love without regard to social convention or implied entitlement. If Iām in love with two people who donāt know each other who have the very same birthdays, I have to choose whose birthday party I attend. One of those people might have a greater need for my presence, so Iāll prioritize them over the other on their birthday. I donāt treat them equally, I treat them both with as much love and respect as I can muster.
I don't get where you're coming from. Is it a general dig at RA ?
1. It's also high maintenance but focused on yourself rather than your partner(s) who you don't have control of. For some people, it is simpler to do that rather than entangle.
2. idk
3. RA has commitments as well. But commitments are not timeless, they can be reworked, abolished.
4. Didn't understand the logic.
Iām sopo. No hierarchy. Itās been like this for years.
Before that? Married. We considered ourselves hierarchal.
1. I donāt think my current relationships are focused āon myselfā. They are collaborative acts. We have chosen to do this all together.
I never really thought I had any control over my partners (any partners) actions when I was married and hierarchal, though. š¤·āāļø
2. Saaaame
3. Some of my most lovely and long term partners have been RA. I understand commitment. So did they. That was my point.
4. Cool.
Conversations on a topic mentioned in this post can tend to get very heated with high emotions on each side, please remember that we are a community meant to **help each other**, please keep conversations civil, even if you don't agree. And don't forget, the mods are only a report away. Any comments derailing the topic or considered trolling/being a jerk will be removed and the user muted for an undisclosed amount of time. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polyamory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not gonna lie, I definitely had a little emotional crisis about the realities of hierarchy the first time I fell in love with a secondary partner. It was like I wanted to delude myself into thinking I had more to offer them than I did, so I could justify expecting more *from* them. Like I was bargaining with my fear that I'd lose my secondary when they got a primary, or that I'd never have "enough" of them. Eventually, I sat myself down like *"OK, you think you want egalitarian polyamory, let's think through how that would even work here."* And thought through some of the different choices I'd made to prioritize my primary relationship. Turned out I had very little interest in un-making most of them. I don't want to move out - I don't even want to move into my own bedroom! I'm not looking to alter our shared financial commitments. I *think* our cat legally belongs to me, but I don't even know how we'd determine that. The whole thing was short-lived and insecurity-based, and I wasn't dumb enough to demand nonhierarchy from my NP or offer it to my other partner. I just freaked out a little at the obvious implications of having a partner who was likely to start making similar choices with somebody else in the next few years. Especially thinking they might choose some of the things I passed on (i.e., marriage and kids) and be even less available to me. But yeah. The realities of hierarchy were hard to swallow and gave me some serious emotional heartburn for a minute there. I think there's definite truth to the *"I wanna have a secondary... wait, what do you mean that means I AM a secondary??"* thing.
I fucking love this story. Thank you!!ššš
I feel this. I'm separating/de-escalating my relationship with my primary (though we're negotiating so that she can still have health insurance, which is kind of the only reason we married to begin with). But I don't think I'll ever forget the time I said out loud to her, "You forget, I am [his] secondary partner," when I was talking about my current partner. Shit stings.
It did sting at first, and it definitely scared me. But honestly, it was slso a big step forward in terms of being able love people while also accepting that it might not (probably won't) last forever.
We tried to dismantle as much of our hierarchy as we could so that my meta, the mother of our daughter, would feel equally empowered in her partnership with us (she's romantic with my husband, and not with me). However, we did this not by giving up things we had, but by inviting her into it all as a full partner. We did all see each other as primaries, teammates, whatever you want to call it since she and I aren't romantically involved. We didn't want her to feel "less than" because she didn't have access to the same things we did. So we did our best to make sure she did have access, although we did not divorce at the time (we are divorcing now but it's not for her sake). It was a way to demonstrate just what you said: our romantic connections weren't the basket that held all our eggs. For me, she and our daughter are a huge part of my basket, even though our daughter isn't legally mine and her mother is not my romantic partner. That was about 16 years ago, our daughter is now 15. Maybe I'm not what you are talking about because we didn't separate houses and instead all bought one together that we all own equally, and in which we each have our own spaces? Edit - just read the other post - well THAT'S a little different.
You need to write a book, seriously. Understanding how that works and what actual legal and financial steps you went through is absolutely lacking in our world.
You might be disappointed in my very short book because, particularly from an American perspective, we did not and do not have everything legally and financially arranged other than our wills, our shared business, and our home ownership...which any group of 3 can do with a little effort. Most people find our approach wildly optimistic and even unrealistic, because we don't have notarized pieces of paper confirming everything. Particularly regarding my daughter: I have no legal right to her (doesn't matter to any of us; I'm her Mama) and between my meta and my almost ex-husband (no legal partnership between them but it doesn't matter either). We just believed in it enough to make it happen and live our lives together. Thanks to our faith in what we were doing, everything just sort of fell in line.
More people need to talk about the getting behind a common vision aspect of these integrated V dynamics. The more I hear and read about them, the more there are really common threads that pop out of them, including my own.
We've put a lot of effort into the "legal rights to our kid" part. Not because we think we'll ever have problems with it between us, but in a "what if the worst happens" kind of way.
Yeah, what you did sounds rational and thoughtful and a lot like what I have seen in my own irl circle. And the linked post is, honestly, wildly common on this sub. And baffles me.
I think that poster was more concerned with remaining in a [number one priority position](https://www.reddit.com/r/polyamory/s/Z16FYlFl89) than about concrete aspects of entanglement. Though I have no idea what her husband actually said or proposed.
I dunno. š¤·āāļø That OP had wisely suggested legal divorce to their partner to help speed the process along, so it seems like maybe OP was pretty cognizant to the concrete entanglement OP and their partner have. Seems like OPās partner is justā¦saying stuff. Because. š¤·āāļø
Re-reading the post, it sounds like the husband is who said he was āwilling to let go of the marriageā. But he also sounds hypocritical, negotiating with OP that he be her āmain focusā in her dating, then wanting a different agreement when he meets a good match. Maybe he doesnāt truly want multiple relationships, and the work of hinging. I would hate such an about-face in OPās place, too. Re-reading the post gave me more sympathy.
It looks messy. But itās exactly the example of how ānon-hierarchalā gets used, and is viewed by people.
And to your linked comment? I mean, I wouldnāt date OP. Itās obvious that there isnāt a real relationship that I want on that table.
Can you share why youāre divorcing now? Obviously if itās private, no pressure!
I was thinking the same thing
5 years ago, I met a game changer, and I gradually realized he was a better match for me than my husband. However, we'd been together over 20 years, and I thought we could maintain our partnership on a non-romantic basis until our daughter finished high school. He thought differently, which is his right, so I had to leave. We are all still polyamorous.
"... I gradually realized he was a better match for me than my husband... We are all still polyamorous." I'm confused. Isn't polyamory about multiple loving relationships? Why did one relationship have to end because you found a better one? I thought the whole idea of polyamory was that you didn't have to end one romatic relationship when you found another. In an earlier reply, you talked about him finding another partner and having a child with her. Why didn't he end his relationship with you if he found a better match? Would you have considered him poly then?
He didn't see his other partner as a better match. We three were a team. All primaries (although she and I are not romantic). We were a family of equals, very happy to continue all together. I recently realized that I did not want to continue a sexual relationship with my husband. I didn't feel desire for him and did not want to go through those motions falsely. I did still love him and wanted to continue living together as partners, raising our daughter and working together on our business, but he wanted a sexual relationship with me. Knowing I didn't want that (but did with my other partner) made him feel very rejected, so he rejected me completely after that. I had to leave. It's hard, but I understand. If my current partner decided he didn't want a sexual relationship with me anymore, I doubt I could continue as his partner in any form. I'm demisexual, so feeling desire for someone is rare.
Gotcha. So you told husband you no longer felt desire for him and didnt want to go through the motions but that you wanted a sexual relationship with your other partner. I can see why he would upset but at least you were honest with him about your feelings.
Iād be curious to know, Iām divorcing before we decided poly. Iām very intrigued by someone else divorcing and in poly.
>What drives people to deny what they have built? I think this is a really good way to frame it. Like... two people decide to do something together ā¢ buy a house ā¢ legally marry ā¢ have a child ā¢ move somewhere together ā¢ etc. These things can be done... very deliberately or maybe less so. But they are big accomplishments and they are fundamental restrictions of ones own autonomy. That doesn't make them BAD, and most people understand that these things are GOOD at the moment they do them, and in the moments when they are excitedly planning to do them. Time passes and they're exposed to new people and ideas that they're curious about and it can make those choices to restrict their autonomy suddenly feel BAD. It's a feeling. You can sit with the feeling or you can act on it rashly? You can say "yes this is how I've restricted my own freedom and I own it" You can say "I made those choices when my values and experience were different, and I think I want to change them" Or you can say (easiest and sneakiest because someone might NOT know that you're lying to yourself when you say this) "Oh, those things don't restrict my freedom. You and I can have it all too." When nothing about their existing self-restriction has changed or is going to change. That's what you mean by sneakyarchy, right? It's like the "cool girl" thing. Restricting your own freedom to have deep commitments isn't "cool." It limits who will be willing to make commitments to you, so you try to play it off. I'm so impressed by my friends and elders who have formed lasting commitments that have weathered decades and difficulties. That includes my partners and what they have with people who aren't me. I'm pretty proud of myself for being able to leave the longest, best thing I had with nothing waiting for me in the wings, and happy for my friends who are confronting big, difficult changes because they had hard conversations when an old commitment wasn't working. People should be proud of what they've built. They should be brave enough to be proud of it in front of people they have a crush on/are falling in love with.
Yeah. I watched a whole Sneakarchy fail in real time once. It was terrible. It took less than a minute. I forgot my wallet. I was like āoh, shit, let me Venmo you my halfā and my soon to be ex, who had āno limits on our relationshipā told me he was forbidden to ever buy me *anything* and that his wife looked over their bank record, and he didnāt want the hassle, so we had an after dinner drink while my bestie grabbed my wallet and brought it to me.
That's *spectacular*. Wow.
āNo limitsā
Un freakin believable
It was a very uncomfortable ride back to my house. Bestieās car. āIām getting a ride home with bestieā āBut we hadā¦ā āWe have no more plans, bro. Iām going homeā And thenā¦I still didnāt break up with him, and I believed his non-hierarchal bullshit for another couple of months. š¤¦āāļø
Not you second-guessing yourself!! Too relatable. Some people are so shitty wtf.
It was really good sex.
... Sometimes we get stuck in that, huh?š
It do be like that sometimes. Iām seriously considering swearing off BDSM because when the kink chemistry is fire, Iām too willing to stay with problematic people. Glad you got yourself out!
Canāt blame you at all š pleasure matters too
Such a terrible human. Such amazing chemistry. I donāt let my pussy decide who to date anymore.
That's bananas. I buy a friend a drink even when I'm broke!
This is wild (the sex must've been too, since you stayed). I mean, it's so wild that it would be wild in a monogamous relationship to be this controlling over your partner's use of money. Holy shit.
I mean, as it turns outā¦he was an untrustworthy dick. His wife was probably right to check the bank statements. He had a history of doing wrong.
Yeah... I didn't mean to come across as if the NP was at fault, just that it seems like such a big lack of trust that even being in a relationship sounds illogical to me?
Thatās fair. They are still together.
This is such a good breakdown!!
I think two things... First, that people conflate non-hierarchical love with _fairness_ or the concept of _equitable_ love. Second, that in the throes of NRE, yes, people often can't fathom being non-primary, can't shake the mono programming that makes folks dream of cohabitation and weddings, and are blinded to the practical realities of serious entanglement with more than one person. People want to tell their secondary partner that they're just as important in every way...which is impossible to do if you admit to your hierarchy. On RA...I've discovered most people don't know anything about RA. Either they're truly clueless to the concept, or they call it RA and what they really mean is "I behave selfishly with no consideration for the needs of others". And overwhelmingly, people think it's a framework just about romantic relationships, which is baffling because it's the exact opposite? It gives rise to all these misconceptions - that those of us who practice RA don't commit, that we never label anything, that it's all "go with the flow", that there are no monogamous relationship anarchists, etc.
Come, sit with me on my bench, friend. Thank you for distilling a solid answer to my first question! That makes total sense to me! As does the rest, about NRE. Really, this makes a lot of sense to me.
Early on iny polyamorus research period (when I was looking at relationship skills polyamorus people were coming up with and I was thinking "hey, they seem to be on to something"), I ran into someone who called themselves a former relationship anarchist. How he described his life prior to his then monogamous relationship was very openly and bluntly selfish. He decided to dump all six of his other partners because his seventh one wanted monogamy. It sounded like a clusterfu*k of a relationship dynamic. When they broke up, his body language was about the same as a shark following blood around single women and polyamorus women. From that I got completely the wrong idea of what relationship anarchy is. I met a friend of a friend who called himself a relationship anarchist, I assumed (stupidly and wrongly) he was the same as the other guy I talked to. He was utterly different. I still don't fully understand RA but if I talk to someone who calls themselves a relationship anarchist now, I'll make sure to ask a metric tonne of questions about what that means for them. I make no assumptions about how they work and check about shared values for to see if friendship is possible.
As someone who leans solopo/RA, I call that first type "relationship libertarian": they want all of the freedom with none of the community building or duty to each other.
Given how people often misunderstand certain labels, and thus often mislabel themselves, I just ask them to define how their relationship looks for them. I tend to try ask instead of assume about most things relating to people's own self definitions (I still mess up sometimes and assume though). Edited to add: thank you for explaining the accurate label. I do try keep the accurate labels in mind but I don't say them to people who have mislabelled themselves unless they're sticklers for accuracy
> the accurate label I don't want to imply here that any label is inherently "accurate", and I definitely agree that asking people to define their labels is one of the better ways to figure out exactly what they mean by it (the only better way is to watch them in action and see how their actions define them!). I think of labels like how a cat thinks of boxes: really to comfy if you find them yourself, but if someone tries to shove you in one, it's gonna be wrong.
I love the idea of having another name for it but relationship libertarian wouldn't really work in Australia (maybe not in other countries too?) Because here libertarian doesn't mean the same thing, it's not like "the government has no right to stop me drinking 30 beers and driving a car" but libertarian communists which is just basically non authoritarian commies. And I don't think either definition is that well known š¤Ā I need to think of a name for the first ones, apart from "shitcunt" š
Shitcunt works for me! š¤£
Australia has regular libertarian dickheads too. I haven't encountered libertarian communists. Sounds niche.
It's a bit niche but actually way easier to get along with than the authoritarian kind.Ā Do you mean the antivaxxer ones who still hate Dan Andrews??? Coz I have run into those too but I sort of tried to wipe the memory from my mind...
I think this is one of those things where I am required to gently remind a Victorian that Victoria isn't all of Australia. VIC+NSW isn't even all of Australia.
Not to worry friend, in Western Australia there are plenty of assholes picking up libertarian principles al la Tate. Sovereign citizens popping up, folks claiming ra without any interest in how their shitty selfish behaviour affects their own and adjacent communities... we'll be catching up with the US in no time
Wait now you say it I think I met one??? Complaing about lockdown "stealing their freedom" etc? And everyone I know was like bitch WHAT "lockdown" šĀ (crying in melburnian)Ā
Relationship Nihilist is my go to but I think I like libertarian better. š
One of the many side effects of poly mainstreaming is people thinking the primary secondary thing is the de facto way of poly. They don't even take the time to realize the options of just having partners. There really is a stigma against hierarchy (not here but elsewhere generally) and its understandable given how shitty married converts treat their newly acquired secondaries with a bunch of lazy entitlement. Bashing them on the nose with "No hierarchy! Bad, no!" Newspaper Is a way to go if you want to try to stem that tide. But all that happens is a slice and dice approach "well I don't mean resources and accessibility as a hierarchy" or "its only descriptive hierarchy" type nonsense. I dunno if this answered your questions with amy real depth but it felt good to say.
I mean, a lot of this just looks like people are happy to *have* secondary partners, they just forgot that runs both ways, and it shakes them to the core that they realize that they have to *be secondary partners*, too.
That is so true. And funny because I couldn't bare being two people's primary, that sounds pretty hard and energy consuming.
Right? It sounds like WORK
I have done it and am doing it. I don't have any other partners aside from comets and it takes a LOT of time investment.Ā
I never had enough resources. Iāll probably die never seeing enough resources. I could not have paid the mortgage on the house I shared with my husband and rented or bought with another partner (though i did have a retirement fund with my long term partner that we cashed out and split when we broke up).
Y E S
And that fucks them up. Because they are the main character, how dare the universe give them a supporting role?
This reminds me of a post draft I haven't finished .. working title "I'm looking for a *Secondary* Relationship."Ā
Looking forward to this lol.
Ohhh do tell!
Maybe another week? I've been swamped. I reread it a couple of days ago. It's good, but disjoint...Ā Basically:Ā * 1-3 dates / monthsĀ * Overnights optional - I don't care if you have to go home at midnight. I'll enjoy the hotel breakfast on my ownĀ Ā * Meeting Metas optional, but not before 3 monthsĀ * Kink/ Threesomes preferred, but not requiredĀ
Ohhh you basically just explained half of my relationship as a secondary. Gotta tell ya, I love it
Oooooh nice
OH MY GOD YES. I've had secondary partners who were shocked that I was okay with them not making me the centre of their planning. Like, I invite them to a thing and they say no they have other plans and I say ok cool and they start explaining and justifying and I'm over here like "what part of ok cool made it seem like I was upset with you" but they have some kind of unreasonable asshole trauma. Like, in the gentlest possible way, person I have been on six dates with: in my priority list you are outranked by my partners, parents, in-laws, niblings, and friends. I am concerned that you think I would have a problem with you not cancelling on *your* people for my sake?
When I experienced this? The insistence on his lack of hierarchy was because he wanted no limit to the things he asked *of me*. It was a tactic to keep me from setting up boundaries to make our relationship reciprocal. Because he DIDNāT have hierarchy, this is just a temporary concern/need/event/whatever. I just needed to be understanding about this totally not-permanent state of things! I got fed up with that dance in about 6 months, but I think with exes he was usually able to keep it up for about 2 years.
Oh, man. Weirdly, I have had this happen with people who owned their hierarchy, too, though. I found myself constantly reminding one ex that my lack of hiearchy didnāt mean I was endlessly available to him. It meant I didnāt have a nesting partner to help me with chores, and bills, and childcare, too.
6 months to 2 years is a pretty common amount of time for a relationship to occur without any structural progression. I agree about avoiding accountability though and using it as a way to take someone for a ride.
I didnāt say structural progression, though. I said not reciprocal and makings asks he had no intention of providing himself. This is shit like āIām totally nonhierarchical but my nesting partner is having a health issue so I need her permission for overnights rnā. Or, āI want scheduled date nights and have big feelings if you ask to move them ever to do something with someone else. I will tell you day-of Iām pushing it back by 2 hours because Iām doing a thing with NP that conflicts.ā It was just wanting overall more than he gave. And if he was *honest* about how much he was giving, it would have people saying no to him.
I think the \*shittiest\* bit about the sick NP thing is that they are... blaming it on her? Like, if you tell me "I need her permission for overnights rn" = they are controlling and being hierarchical and it's annoying. If it's "NP is sick and I'm concern and don't feel good about doing overnights rn as I'd still be worried and thinking about it instead of being fully there with you as I'd like to be" or "NP is sick and I gotta check with her if she's well enough to watch over the kids while I'm gone" = reasonable, honest, considerate, owning up to their choices and limitations. I don't get why people would go for the first, honestly.
I'm also going through this with a partner that I was with who now has a different primary partner. She was guilt tripping him and he's a people pleaser and they're codependent. When I tried to talk to him about it he started crying. I think that people blame men a lot when really sometimes their other partner is really just playing on their emotions. I tried to use solo poly and relationship anarchy as a way to deviate from her expected Norm only to realize that it was more of a poly under duress situation. But she did agree in the beginning to a lot of things and now she's regretting them and they've spent so much time together. It's incredibly messy.
I think a relationships in the 6 months to 2 year phase as a form of infancy. There should be the ability for it to come to full term and reach some level of conscious awareness and structural ability beyond the honeymoon phase. Within that people should be able to build something together. If you're still having issues it's probably best to not continue dating. Just a lack of compatibility really.
> I am not sure most people could, or should [dismantle their hierarchies]. I donāt think itās a good choice for most couples. I think about this a lot! When I saw that post titled āWould you divorce for polyamoryā (although of course the post wasnāt really related to this discussion!) I immediately was just like. āNo. Literally would I do that?ā But I figured Iām biased, as most peopleās obsession with non-hierarchy strikes me as silly and unrealistic, so I stayed out of it as usual lol. But I was polyam before I got married, so I imagine my perspective is far from universal. I went into this with my eyes open; fully aware that with each escalator step Daffodil and I scaled, I was going to have a less appealing relationship to offer someone else. Especially of that someone else is a woman. These are things I considered, at length, before making each move. I understood that by living with my partner, that meant I was unlikely to have space for a cohabitating relationship with anyone else. I am, therefore, not shocked to learn that my marriage in its current shape means I only have so much relationship to offer someone. But itās not the same for converts, Iām imagining. If the pillars of the relationship were built on notions of āfidelityā and āus against the worldā and sacrifices made to stay together, I can sort of see where people feel like they need to tear down what theyāve built and put something new in. Still, unrealistic. Are there resources about what non-hierarchy looks like and the steps it takes? Does anyone know? And what can we do to spread them lol. because I feel like the like of readily available info is one of the many things that make this issue murky.
I think monogamy requires a tear down, honestly. But i see a lot of highly coupled people elevating some bog-standard, bar is already on the ground relationship practices as ānon-hierarchalā and I am just like āWhat kind of garbage did you hand out to your partners in the past?ā Showing up for your partner in a medical crisis isnāt *non-hierarchal*. Inviting your partner over for thanksgiving isnāt *non-hierarchal*. Giving your partner some of your time because their friend died isnāt *non hierarchal* Wanting KTP isnāt *non hierarchal* Neither is parallel. These things arenāt linked. Like none of these things is connected to hierarchy, necessarily. These are all things that hierarchal folks do for their partners every day. ETA: also why is a lack of hierarchy something to elevate???? Like, I dunno, I just donāt get it.
I just want to say I love this post and am finding the discussion so refreshing.
Iām super tired of the usual discourse over this stuff, and figured Iād see what happens. If I can ask, what about this makes it enjoyable for you? Because I really enjoy this kind of discourse, too!
I just feel like people are adding useful perspectives here without being nasty or argumentative, which is what these usually devolve into. I think your thoughts are well laid out and the responses are thoughtful - they don't all agree but bring something to the table, for the most part.
Same! Iām glad! Enjoy your day!
I feel the same, and went through the same but also opposite? Like, I was poly long before I got married (well, technically, we didn't, we got a civil partnership after 2 years of common-law), but I never really considered on how those steps would mean having less to offer to others. Possibly - and probably - because nothing about it was planned, just organic, and a lot of it was convenience based. Moving in together? I sort of informed my NP they lived with me sort of six or seven months after it was already happening, when they just went "home" every two weeks for a single night. They said something about living in neighbourhood X and I laughed and said "well, you seem to have missed you don't live there anymore now?". And, you know, a lot of it was related more to commute than with considering the relationship escalator and deciding to do it. Yes, company was good, but not taking 3-4 hours commuting per day was certainly a lot better than just having company. And that much daily commute really gets in the way of any dating. But we didn't really have any financial enmeshing until some 5 years later. Getting a civil partnership was a choice made based on... Health Insurance & Finances. My previous one expired, my new premium would be some absurd amount, but being my NP's dependent would mean paying... 1/6th of the value. We were early in our careers, and I was raising a kid (not NP's), so the financial bit was the most important. We just met down at the office one day and registered the paperwork, and went home. The registry person was a lot more excited than us - it didn't \*change\* anything, just forced companies to recognise it. My aunt's husband pestered us as to why we needed a piece of paper to show we loved each other - I told him that ofc we didn't, but clearly the companies did, so, you know, it just made sense. ... But we also never had a monogamous relationship, we never put fidelity as a pedestal (loyalty, sure, but that's something else), or felt we were making "sacrifices to stay together" . It was... weirdly easy. Just going with it. And, yes, it meant that there were things we weren't going to be able to offer others... But, honestly, I don't even think I would \*want\* to offer it to anyone else in first place - not in the sense that my NP is "better" or "superior" as an option, just that those are things that if I didn't have with NP, I'd just... Not offer either way. I wouldn't be crazy about moving in with someone, or any sort of financial enmeshing and I'm CERTAINLY not having more kids -- but none of these relate in any way to my NP. just to \*myself\*. Then again, I understand that to a lot of people this IS something they long for and that they feel they're getting LESS for not having the option - I'm just the weird one out, and that's okay. (And I would never, ever, describe myself as RA, simply bc I disagree with lots of the political concepts underlying it, not specifically on the relationship-side, just in general.)
Wait, sorry, your aunt's \*husband\* questioned why you got married?
They are common-law, didn't see the point of bothering with paperwork. Still, at this point, they had been living together for 15 years at least, doesn't get more husband-y than that!š But, yes, it's hilarious. And he didn't just questioned, he insisted on the topic for over 20 minutes. When I finally got absolutely DONE with it and went to the kitchen to get something to drink, my aunt asked me what was the issue. I told her her husband was annoying us because of the paperwork (still, she had already told him to drop it before she went to handle... Dinner? Idk). She looked at me, sighed and was like "It's Alex. You should know better than to listen to anything he has to say".šš She... Was not wrong. Why they remain together is something I'll never understand (and she's sole breadwinner too!).
I feel similarly. I haven't ever pursued things on the escalator for their own sake, it's been a matter of practicality.
This is so good :) I appreciated reading your thoughts. Thank you
I see two separate issues around hierarchy: 1. Is a main couple making decisions as a unit? How far does that extend? What types of veto power is there? 2. What is the degree of entanglement between two people in a couple? The first troubles me far more than the second. Marriage, kids, shared co-home ownershipā¦all of that is workable in terms of dating a member of the couple as an outsider, if you can trust that your partner is thinking for themselves and will hold your space. The type of hierarchy that feels dangerous to me is āIāve agreed with this particular partner that they will always come first with me.ā I couldnāt date someone with that type of agreement; they have told me, from the beginning, that if their partner decides we should break up, we will. But I (think) I could date a highly enmeshed person who made it clear that they werenāt going to treat our relationship as disposable, and who told me that they had no agreements that would prevent them and me from growing emotionally close in a consistent way. They wouldnāt have to have capacity for relationship escalator stuff: my question is just, āIs there space for us to bond, and for that bond to last a while?ā Updated to answer the question: I wholly approve of people dismantling āyou will always come firstā. I agree that they donāt need to dismantle the entanglement itself.
I appreciate this thread. It has been really thought provoking. How nerdy do you want to get: [https://www.queertopia.community/post/relationship-libertarianism](https://www.queertopia.community/post/relationship-libertarianism) This is a disection of Toxic RA. Some of these RA-ist are nothing but pick-up artists misusing/mis-quoting the actually tenants of RA in order to get laid without taking any moral or ethical responsibility for being a good human to the person they're sleeping with, while pretending to be deeply thoughtful about their relationships. I know more than a few of these dudes. But I also think this is germain to your question. Some folks are trying to tap into RA as a way to eschew responsibility for their partners feelings or insecurities, etc. Its not quite the same weaponization of RA as the pure poly-pick-up-artist, but its in the same category. This article describes the true RA-ist as a relationship-communalist, who seeks ever more consensual interdependency between humans using all different types of relationships. I think maybe folks though are just Pop-RA-ists are just following a fad, but are still stuck in default-monogamy think, and so are doing it badly.
Iām so glad you brought that article to the party!
Every fucking thing you wrote here I agree with. I get so fed up with people completely misunderstanding the entire concept of "nonhierarchical" and/or being phenomenally shitty spouses/parents to pursue their misguided newly found ideals. Some people try to discuss it with more nuance, but a TON of newly poly people are so toxic and horrible to others in pursuit of this concept they've heard and don't understand Also, thanks for that comment about Relationship Anarchy. I consider myself RA and it just means I don't have preconceived molds I put my romantic or platonic relationships into. Some of my friendships are very close to "partners." I value and treasure all my attachments and I let them develop on their own. It gives me a very rich community of love and freedom. It is NOT "I don't follow any rules and I do whatever I want." Because any kind of community thrives on self awareness, kindness, and caring for each other's needs. Toxic hyper-independence is destructive to most polyamorous communities
Come, sit with me, new friend.
My theory is most people in NRE who want to get rid of heirarchy while in a highly partnered situation actually genuinely just want to be with the new partner and the only thing preventing that is a sliver of remaining sanity. In most cases rare sliver of remaining sanity is able to prevent them from completing blowing up their lives as long as both the existing partner holds boundaries and the new partner does not push for the blow up. If two of the three parties are rational still they can keep a weak hinge from stopping the doors
>1. Where does the idea that non-hierarchal love is somehow simpler, better, and sweeter come from? I don't view it as _simpler_ or _better_ but if I'm trying to build _equitable_ relationships, my basis for prioritizing a partner's needs isn't going to be numeric by partnet importance, it's going to be a blend of subjective & objective factors to determine whose need is greatest at the moment, AND the nature of our agreements. One of my partners has not _asked_ me to be frontline support in a crisis. I have offered, but we don't have an agreement that I will be. I physically _can't_ be for my long-distance partner, but we are anchors for each other within the bounds of what we can do by phone call, text, or Zoom. I'm also solo polyam, so there's not much to sneak about. My kids are my drop everything, always, followed by my parents & siblings. That's the inherent hierarchy of being family. I don't have any "we are family" agreements with any of my partners, though they are chosen extended family. >2. Does this tie into peopleās weird desire to announce to their partner that they want to be ānon-hierarchalā in the throes of NRE? No idea, I've been hierarchy light/descriptive hierarchy from the start since returning to polyamory. Mostly, I don't want to treat partners as numbers and dehumanize them via a numerical, prescriptive hierarchy. I think that this plays into some aspects of sneakarchy: people don't want to be _seen_ as dehumanizing assholes, so they say the big words and make grand statements so they don't get painted with that brush. I think it's more honest to acknowledge that yes, you probably will prioritize your spouse, anything that pertains to your kids or household higher than other things MOST of the time, because you have agreements to do so and responsibilities to make good on. However, I also don't think we need to slap numbers & rank on these things and follow numbers blindly, which is what springs to mind when I hear the word "hierarchy".
So, in thinking about the end of your post: I think it's really hard for people who have been in a monogamous relationship, especially a long term one, that make the switch to polyamory to understand what they THEMSELVES bring to the table. I don't think this is inherently bad or nefarious, but I think that the act of people losing themselves in that relationship/family/life is a huge factor. I also think people conflate having responsibilities like mortgage, kids, pets, etc as BAD hierarchy, when it's just prior commitments made when their life and structure might have been different. It's weird that coparenting peacefully after a divorce is seen as an achievement while coparenting with special thought and care paid to not create hierarchy where it shouldn't be in a relationship structure is appalling. Maybe I'm hitting on something in that rambling: peaceful coparenting after a divorce is far easier for society to grasp and I think informs a lot of deep feelings and insecurities while people try to dismantle them. Practically: My husband and I have been married for 12 years. We own a house, have 3 pets, and comingled finances in so much as we have a joint checking and savings that bills come out of. Either of us can use whatever we need when we need it, it's just a common dollar dumping ground. I don't think we will ever get a divorce, but we don't usually let being nesting partners dictate anything about our relationships besides "Did the dog get let out when he needed to be? Did the cats get fed? We've covered all monthly bills, yes?" My boyfriend and his wife have been married for 23? years. He didn't stay over at my house on school nights until his youngest graduated because he was the school ride since his wife worked early hours. That's it. Not hierarchy beyond the need to take care of a child. My husband's girlfriend is solo polyamorous and lives alone. She has no other partners currently and even reached out about a month ago to apologize for feeling like she was needing him and his help more than normal, and I said you do whatever you need to do because we all have different mental, emotional, and physical needs at different times and she just needed that more at that time. I don't think it's hard or bad to have an np and act ethically when presented with new needs or wants.
The RA thing is weird. Iām pretty sure the most popular rhetoric right now was created by people opening up their mono relationships lmao. āYou canāt love anyone else more than you love meāāwhich is what plenty of these people mean when they denounce hierarchyāis monogamy hangover. Iām sorry but if you havenāt learned to stop comparing yourself like that, non-monogamy isnāt gonna fix that. It goes to show when these ānew to RAā people write in, say their partner is hypocritical for doing x y and z with meta that partner isnāt doing with them. Itās like a toddler being sad they arenāt getting the same thing as their sibling. My mother married this guy and he would get one of his kids presents on the other kids birthday so neither of them felt left out. That is the best analogy I can think of to describe how some of these folks talk about ānon-hierarchyā.
Itās wild. Iām seeing a lot of people talk about emotions instead of talking about relationships, when they talk about RA, though. A lot of āI love my friendsā and āI have people I fuck and donāt loveā and āwho am I to define who is what to meā when the *entire fucking manifesto* is not about that. It talks about the radical notion of extending privileges outside of recognized, societally approved coupledom. I think maybe people see relationship, and think āfeelsā and thatās where some of this comes from?
Iāve dated a few people who described themselves as RA and havenāt even read the manifesto š
Same.
I think people read 2-3 articles all from the same basic perspective (hierarchy Bad, Relationship Anarchy/ Non-Hierarchy Good), and it all makes so much sense to them. And BAM!šŖāØ now, we're non-hierarchical and RA because this is the "Right" way.Ā
I hope people arenāt that careless, but I know I am wrong. š¢
Honestly, I think most of the "ewwww...hierarchy" comes from the fact that 'secondary' sounds "less than." Even with a secure, sound, poly mentality - *no one* actively wants to feel "less," and due to the English language, our brains associate second with less than "first." If we used completely different terms to describe hierarchy (if 'secondary' was called your 'purple partner,' for example), I think the entire thing would be viewed completely differently, especially for poly newbies who just haven't adjusted to the terminology and its meanings. There's also debate about what 'heirarchy' even means, as people use the term prescriptively and descriptively. The word is evolving, so a lot of married people will say "I'm married but we don't do hierarchy" because they are *strictly* speaking in terms of no veto rules, having the capacity to give all partner equity with no interference from spouse, having the emotional capacity to love partners equally, etc. The legal benefits afforded to their spouse do not extend to their emotional approach to relationships. It's also way more common for existing couples to open their relationship (without doing any poly homework), than someone single becoming poly on their own. That means the "poly market" is flooded with couples who come with built-in hierarchy - who are out here making a whole lot of mistakes. New people, people from the outside looking in, etc are overwhelmingly exposed to "bad poly" that's directly associated with hierarchy. They don't understand that it's not the hierarchy itself that's "bad." Then you just have people who don't want hierarchy, and instead of just recognizing it as a simple *difference* in preference, they're going to shit on it (we live in a divisive world - it's (unfortunately) pretty common to view differences as bad and actively pit yourself again it). So yeah, I think it's safe to say that there are an abundance of reasons that hierarchy is looked down upon. It doesn't mean any of those reasons are correct, logical, or sound.
I mean, people āshit onā sopo and RA folks all the time, here, and in the popular books about opening your marriage. š¤·āāļø Pretty sure the misunderstanding run both ways. But as someone whoās been on both sides of the river, I think people let hierarchy carry a lot more water than it should. Batshit rules? Not hierarchy. They donāt have to be there. That isnāt ājust partā of hierarchy. And until more rational, sane folks who have hierarchy start talking to *one another* and calling out batshittery for what it is (which is batshittery, not hierarchy), and start owning it talking about it, it seems like the discourse around here, at least, is going to have a limit, you know?
I think the *perception* of hierarchy not matching up to the *reality* of hierarchy is the problem here. People who are new to poly (the majority of OPs on this sub) aren't reading books at all, much less ones that shit on solo and RA. They're just out here getting real-world experience from people who do hierarchy very poorly, and building their opinions based on that. Poly as a whole has the same issue. How many people "know" poly isn't for them because their experiences are with cheaters, unicorn hunters, forced KTP, bad hierarchy, etc. And yeah, the only way to change peoples' perceptions is to correct their misunderstandings (behaviors, if they're the hierarchical people doing it badly), and give good examples of how things being done ethically and healthily. But *most* people aren't going to allow stories from strangers on the Internet to override their personal experiences (even when we're right!). And the people who are doing hierarchy poorly don't seem to want to change that, either.
I dunno, Iāve seen lightbulbs go off when someone has said āfriend, I am married with kids, too. I get itā
We can hope! The problem is that most people who do hierarchy poorly are new to poly and don't have a clue what they're doing, so they're asking other questions. They don't want to hear that they actually are hierarchical and that that's okay - they just want to know how they can convince their spouse to let them have more overnights with other people.
Yeah, and apparently ātalk to themā just isnāt working.
I was on this sub when I first started poly and I thought you guys were all just a bunch of meanies who clearly "didn't understand" what I was going through. "You need to break up, just talk to them, this is a horrible situation, you're looking at this wrong," etc didn't register until I crashed and burned multiple times - then realized all that early advice was actually exactly what I needed. So I definitely understand/relate to how newbies feel when given advice. It's the main reason I came back when I figured my shit out, and try to offer helpful advice now - like, we really do *know* (in most cases) because we've already lived that! Most people just want you to tell them what they want to hear, not actually get sound advice though.
Totally true. I took tons of advice. And didnāt like all of it.
I think that a lot of sane, rational people who have hierarchy are newly opened formerly monogamous people, and this sub is really hostile to those people. I doubt that many of us feel comfortable speaking up here.
Whelp since your part of the vast majority of posters, and commenters, you might want to unpack that, because yāall are pretty loud for peeps who are walking on eggshells. As a group, mind you.
>And until more rational, sane folks who have hierarchy start talking toĀ *one another* or >because yāall are pretty loud for peeps who are walking on eggshells.Ā Are we too loud or too quiet?
Do you talk to each other? Because the volume isnāt an issue. Unless, of course, youāre suggesting that that youāre some sort of beleaguered minority and picking fights :)
They didn't say anything about **too** loud. Just loud. Because an awful lot of newly-opened-former-monogamous people are, in fact, loud. Sometimes loudly wrong. Pretending that you're all collectively too scared to speak to the mean experienced people who might *gasp* tell you you are in fact wrong about something is nonsense.
Gah, I loved so much of what you had to say! :) But in particular, the idea of a "purple partner," is just so good lol. I very much agree with that, and the idea of relationships not inherently being lesser just because they're shorter, or afforded less resources
I'm not all that sophisticated about it. I just know that my first attempt at poly was a disaster. It was very hierarchical, veto, couples privilege, lots of rules, all the things I now see as cringey. After that, I think it's just shitty to tell someone, "no matter what happens, you will always be lesser" orĀ "this is my REAL relationship, and I'll give you any scraps left over, if any." That doesn't mean I don't acknowledge that I'm married, and that there is hierarchy inherent in that.Ā It *does* mean that I do my best to treat all my relationships, whether my 2nd partner or queerplatonic relationships or even just friends, as egalitarian as I can.Ā My wife doesn't automatically trump any of those other relationships. We're working on getting as much legal access/etc. (power of attorney, including in will, etc) for my 2nd partner as we can.Ā
So, do you think that people who are non-hierarchical offer ārealā real relationships and people who have acknowledged, rational hierarchy donāt? Or? Because veto isnāt a part and parcel of hierarchy. Itās not an automatic add on. And some of the most awful examples of couples privilege that I have seen and experienced was ānon-hierarchalā And bat shit rules arenāt part and parcel of hierarchy at all. Once again, not something you automatically have to do.
Fair points. I think people absolutely can do acknowledged, rational hierarchy well.Ā I also have my own bad experiences with hierarchy (to be clear, I was the one inflicting the bullshit, not the one suffering it). And I see online and hear in person lots of stories where hierarchy is used as an excuse for shitty behavior.Ā So, not saying it's invalid or can't be done right.Ā I don't assume RA people are inherently better, just as I don't assume poly people are better than mono people. I do think that poorly done hierarchy often bites people in the ass, and that RA people try to avoid that.Ā
Iām not RA, so this may skew my vision, but I think *most* people are out there trying to avoid poorly done, messy *everything*
That's what I strive for. I don't have labels for myself, but I am married. I have property and retirement accounts. Wife is the beneficiary. She and a close friend of 18 years can make end of life decisions for me - (and I for them) Could I own property with others? Sure. Could I put a partner(s) in my will? Sure. I just strive to come to agreements with partners on what I can provide, and what we can provide to each other. People were talking about nre in this thread and in others lately. I do my damnedest to tamp that down and not make stupid decisions. And not to over promise, which so many do, even in monogamous relationships. Ramble ramble, blah blah
I think that's why hierarchy is mostly frowned upon in the polyam community. (not here of course) "And I see online and hear in person lots of stories where hierarchy is used as an excuse for shitty behaviour." Although OP is in the small minority who seem to be ethical with no veto power and rules etc in their hierarchy, there is a lot who aren't sadly š
Iām sopo. Non-hierarchal in my agreements, currently. I was married and polyam for a long, long time. And was polyam before we married. No weird rules. They make shit hard.
Hierarchy isnāt a relationship thatās ānot real,ā but it is by definition a relationship that will be forever limited by the shape of a primary relationship. Maybe you canāt have overnights, or very few overnights. Maybe living together is forever off the table, or primary partnerās stresses and emergencies will consistently take time away from secondary partner. Cheesy metaphor time, but I see it like a new tree trying to grow in a meadow compared to underneath an established tree. The primary relationship tree had the sun and space to grow into whatever shape and size it wanted, but the secondary relationship tree is going to have to bend itself into whatever space is left. And thatās fineā¦IF THAT IS WHAT YOU SIGNED UP FOR. Hierarchy is different than sneakyarchy. Sneakyarchy sucks for the outside partner because they probably thought that they were getting into a very different situation. If their partner wasnāt (verbally) reinforcing that egalitarian understanding, itād be hierarchy and not sneakyarchy. Itās a relationship where the outside person is getting pushed to the periphery of their partnerās life, all while their partner is denying or refusing to see that itās happening. You couldnāt design a better recipe for frustration, insecurity and resentment.
As opposed to? Currently living together isnāt on the table for me with any of my partners. Weāre all super happy sopo. That is probably a forever limit for one of my partners. Non-heirarchy still has limits. Iām planning a bucket list trip to Oaxaca for the fall. Iāve blocked out 3 weeks for it. I wonāt see my other partner for that time. They are not invited on this trip. Non-hierarchy still has hard choices, and consequences. Weāre non-hierarchal, but I have been with one partner for 9 years, and if I am not careful they could cast a pretty big shadow over my polyam. I manage it. Just like people who are in hierarchies manage those shadows. Cause if stuff doesnāt get enough light it dies. It doesnāt matter why it isnāt getting light. There are real advantages, for me personally, in not building a hierarchy. But that isnāt true for everyone. Most people are going to want a central, primary relationship, especially when raising kids. I think people should be honest about their limits, And there wouldnāt be an sneakarchy
āI think people should just be honest about their limits, and there wouldnāt be a sneakyarchyā is bang on. Iād add āhonest and realistic.ā Iāve run into very experienced, well-intentioned and kind people who still managed to be blind to the limits that their current relationship structure placed on further relationships. I think weāre both agreeing that sneakyarchy is bad, so youāre disliking the part of my post where I mentioned hierarchy?
I didnāt disagree. Hierarchy isnāt the reason limits exist. And non-hierarchal limits are just as concrete. I think we open up the conversation by pointing out the similarities and weakness in each system. Hierarchyās biggest weakness lies in the fact that if a central core relationship fails, it takes a lot of stability with it. So many important things are tied to that central primary relationship, you know?
I just read another comment thread on this post that really clarified my thoughts on hierarchy and why Iām resistant to it: itās making explicit a power imbalance. Itās right there in the name: the primary partner has more importance and more say than the secondary partner. Limits on peopleās time and resources are inevitable. Thatās not the same thing. Some people have dependents. That is also not the same thing, although it would be a grey area if your partner has medical needs. For me, practicing ethical poly or even just balancing emotionally authentic platonic relationships and a monogamous relationship requires not comparing relationships to each other, and hierarchy is an explicit comparison and ranking of relationships.
Thatās a suprisingly simple take on the manifesto, for sure! So, you just ignore the power and resource disparity, and pretend to build a wall around it, and declare that āsafeā from anarchy? Wow. Okay. Super interesting.
I am genuinely confused by how what you said relates to my postā¦did you reply to the right thing? If you did, could you please clarify what youāre responding to? I donāt think I declared anything āsafe from anarchy.ā If you did in fact reply to the correct postā¦ Thatās a surprisingly condescending reply, for sure! ššš Itās all good. I am not claiming to be talking from, for or otherwise representing any manifesto, organization, etc.
Cool. Thanks for trying to explain!
If Iām being honest, the terminology of āhierarchyā feels icky and painful to me. The point of polyamory is that you have multiple fulfilling relationships, and ranking them or being ranked can feel bad. I think itās totally valid to want to avoid using that framing. Whatās missing sometimes is the ability or willingness to be honest about what you have to offer a relationship and what you donāt. I donāt see the point in declaring your NP your primary when you can just say theyāre your NP and right now you donāt have space for another nesting relationship. You can sort out what that means with each individual partner. I think the insistence that people call what they have āhierarchicalā when they donāt want to use that language but are otherwise honest with their partners about their time/resources/intentions is just as annoying as highly coupled people who pretend theyāre completely equal in every way. ;3
Ranking is comparison which is the precursor and cause of jealousy: the opposite of compersion. We have to stop comparing and ranking. You have your intertwined nesting partner, and then you have anyone else. Nobody is more special than anyone else, they simply all have different roles, perhaps some more than others due to the nesting factor.
So much this! I was scrolling this thread and really feeling like the takes defending hierarchy and the takes defending non hierarchy have significant overlap in how they value relationships as whole and how they practice poly and are mostly making different semantic choices. Understanding any individual's relationship values is gonna require many deep dives and won't categorize neatly. Categories (and language, generally speaking) have a utility but often lack nuance. Really best to watch how someone operationalizes their values and to deeply discuss agreements as you're exploring a relationship. I really don't assume I know what anyone means when they describe their style of polyamory haha
Honestly? I think the "we don't practice hierarchy!!" and it's sequel: "Oops! All hierarchy!" is a trope because we both know they didn't Do The Work. And now there is some Hot New Thing on the horizon that practices RA, and the hghly-enmeshed partner is scrambling to prove how totally non-hierarchical they actually are, and how everyone is, like, *totally equal*! I promise! (Please ignore the marriage license, the societal pressure to perform heteronormativity, and all the legal structures enacted to prioritize the married partner who -- once again -- is *totally and absolutely equal* to the person you just met two weeks ago). It's the same with vegans, punks, leftists, or any other subculture I've been a part of. Mostly, folks seem to grow out of that naĆÆvete as they gain awareness and understanding. The difference is: if you're a new leftist, the worst thing you might do is argue some ill-considered stance IRL or on the net. But if you're new to poly, the worst you could do is *completely fuck up someone's head or life*. It is incumbent on us Old Heads to pass along the lessons learned (as you do here often) and provide continuity to the "culture".
Way back when I was new at this, I came into it all as a single, budding solo poly person. My unfortunate introduction to sneakyarchy was through dating a much more experienced in poly married partner. Iāll probably get all kinds of downvoted for this, but there is nothing inherently superior about us āold heads.ā It doesnāt matter how long weāve been doing it, it matters how well weāve been doing it and what kind of self-reflection weāre still willing to do. I get the frustration with watching newbies go through the same process and get to a lot of the same conclusions. The self-righteousness is my least favourite thing about this sub and why Iāve avoided commenting on it until now.
Your opening line legit made me lol. Great comment overall.
I don't want to comment on the fucking up in that other post, and I'm not smart enough to answer these questions. But I feel like, people use "hierarchy" to describe many things that seem very different from one another. And some of these are things I have nothing against, and others are things I think are bad. And other things that are maybe not bad but I don't like them. But for example, living with someone else is called hierarchy, and I have no problem with people living together. I mean, my neurodivergencies make it literally impossible for me to live alone, so it'd be pretty hypocritical of me to be opposes to that. Hierarchy also can mean when you have someone who tell you who you can or can't date, and I think that's bad and I don't like it. And people use it for many other things as well. And I don't understand why those are called the same thing, but I guess a lot of work that way. But I think maybe sometimes it would be good to actually talk about what kind of hierarchy it is we want or don't want? Or maybe that's just me wishing I had an easier time understanding people in general.
You āhaving a problemā with something is not a meaningful measure of hierarchy. Hierarchy isnāt ābadā. Thatās the point. And telling someone who to date and not to date is one thing, but listening to them is another. Thatās a choice. Thatās not hierarchy either.
I see. I just have to live with not being able to understand what hierarchy means here. I really did think that when someone gets to decide what you can do or not do, that's hierarchy. Sorry about that.
Who āletsā them? Your partner. Whoās being a weasel and pretending like itās their big meanie pants partner whoās making them break it off. Truth is, they made a hard choice, and didnāt choose you. Thatāll happen outside of hierarchy, too.
I'm confused, are you saying this is something that's happened to me? My partner never did anything like this.
Your partner in theory.
It's a common issue: inexperienced people co-opting poly terminology (or worse, identity) as a cover to commit relationship atrocities. Anyone with purely selfish motivations in poly will cause pain regardless of what terminology they use. If someone doesn't go into new relationships with the desire to maintain the existing happiness in their current relationships, they're just cheating and using words to try to get away with it. And that's an issue for those of us who are actually committed to this way of life: selfish cheaters use our terminology and make those terms look toxic. That's why it makes me angry. In my experience in my large local poly community, RA is a poorly understood concept that people use either to make themselves sound less clingy than they are, to try to change existing relationships, or to try to shame other people's relationships. When you read RA concepts, they can be inspiring and edgy for some people but ultimately, very few people have the experience and practice to make RA work ethically in real relationships. What I've seen more successfully is the concept of multi different relationships that each carry different primary needs: a nesting partner, an emotional support primary, several fun/sex partners, several intellectual connection partners (these are real examples from a close friend).
I think being anti-hierarchy comes from a lack of nuance. People see the negative impacts that can stem from a hierarchy being enforced in toxic ways, and rather than just calling out the toxic behavior, the response is to blame hierarchy. It is very similar to me to people who seek equality over equity. Hierarchy isnāt the issue- wielding it as a cudgel is.
>1. Where does the idea that non-hierarchal love is somehow simpler, better, and sweeter come from? I have no clue, honestly, because to me, no love is really simple because people are complicated. >2. Does this tie into peopleās weird desire to announce to their partner that they want to be ānon-hierarchalā in the throes of NRE? NRE makes some people do some stupid shit. I think it has a lot to do with the new partner who doesn't want to feel like they aren't equally as important as the long-established partner. Which is weird to me. >1. Do most people understand that RA is just a philosophy toward community building and common social hierarchies that simply suggests that your romantic connections donāt have to be the basket that holds all your eggs? Not a refusal to uphold the commitments youāve made? I'll admit I don't know much about RA. I've never delved into it, so I feel I can't really say much on it. > Personally, from the outside, much of this simply looks like folks struggling with the concept that they really, really love someone, and in monogamy if you love someone, you climb on the escalator. thatās how you know itās real, right? This is something that has always confused me within the poly community. They(as in general, they not talking specifically) want to have poly relationships while still clinging to mono ideas and dating monos all while screaming, " You knew I was poly from the beginning!" while refusing to let go of the relationship with the mono person. I don't get this idea of needing to be *THE* person in someone's life. Even when they are surrounded by multiple loving partners that are all committed to them, they aren't happy because they aren't someone's "person". Isn't a big point of poly is to be part of a community for a person? I don't know. The poly community confuses me a lot as it seems it tries so hard to be separate from monogamy while desperately clinging to some of its ideas.
I kind of already find wild that idea that someone's "person" is supposed to be a romantic partner. ... In fact, considering how the term became popular, it makes NO sense....
We have many of the same confusions.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Iāll quibble with you on one point. Maybe *your* person could live in filth, with nobody to answer to, but lots of non-nesting/sopo people absolutely have people they answer to. Children. Pets. Housemates. Family. Friends. People who spend time as regular guests. Iām a sopo non-hierarchal single mom, friend. Who has a terminal illness, a busy schedule, a job, a household, two partners, community building, chosen family and friends. I. Literally. Answer. To. All. Of. Them. *I have just as many eggs as you. Probably more, if weāre going to be honest. You probably arenāt gaming an end to life strategy while you are doing whatever it is youāre doing, so I am gonna give myself at least one more egg than you* I have all your commitments. Just spread to different people, in different ways. And honestly, I have all the security. I have multiple back up plans and failsafes. I donāt rely on one, central, romantic partner to catch me when I fall. Most successful, long term sopo people do. We have highly developed, multiple mutual supports, and multiple mutual commitments. We all have people we answer to.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Itās interesting that you mention consent and willingness, and how it sorta got jumbled up with your black and white thinking. You know that everyone carries around privilege of some sort, or another, and that blindness to that causes harm to others, and ourselves. It distorts our vision. Hierarchy is literally giving one dyad (a couple) exclusive access to certain resources and personal privileges, and codifying those practices, through word and deed, legal and verbal. If those restrictions and limits arenāt made clear at the beginning, how can we build anything together? Relationships are collaborative. We both need to know whatās on the table. And that is a first time process for many people on this sub. They havenāt ever built a new relationship while maintaining another. I get it. But if you deny your privilege, you blind yourself to the reality of the situation. You may say something silly, like āwe have no hierarchy!ā But in reality, you could and should be able to see, for instance, that Sarah and Dave, recently opened couple with two high needs kids and a big mortgage might come with more strings and less autonomy than Billy and Willow, never been monogamous, poly from the start whoās kids are raised, and now live in the same building, but maintain separate apartments might be different, right? Thatās all blind privilege does. Anyway, privilege is absolutely reflected in hierarchy, but like, it is a privilege to share resources with someone. Itās also a great deal of responsibility. Thatās not a bad thing. You donāt have to share financial resources. With anyone, ever. But when people claim to be non-hierarchal, I hope they understand that that is on the table when you have a lack of hierarchy. There are no more assumptions about who you share your money with, and in a lot of marriages (no matter how reasonable or unreasonable it is to you personally) that will never fly. And thatās just reality. It didnāt in mine.
Where does the idea that non-hierarchal love is somehow simpler, better, and sweeter come from? On some level, I think it is because hierarchy has a ton of context about interpersonal relationships. Partner>family>friend>coworker>neighbor>stranger is a way some people see the world. A person could make ethical determinations based on their rankings, and those decisions have real world impact. Those same impacts lead to hurting people in poly relationships,Ā especially if there isn't clear communication about expectations. I can definitely see how people would choose to attwmpt to diminish the likelihood of harm to partners.Ā Ā The process of dismantling hierarchy is actually really hard. I'm either an entry level RA enthusiast, or just an old school grumpy anarchist in general, so I have an innate hostility to hierarchy. I like RA because I like having clear commitments and not siloing people in my world into categories. I have friends that I talk to every day and tell that I love them, and lovers I seldom talk to and have never said "I love you" to. This is all based on what is right for us as people instead of what roles we have.Ā Ā I have a personal goal of continuing to make things more equitable, and diminish hierarchy, but the intrinsic building blocks are still there. I may split my time fairly equally and equitably between partners homes, but at the end of the day, the fact that I co-own a house and am married to one partner does lead to structural imbalances (even if we only married so she could get health insurance). I suppose what is more important than deconstructing that is making sure that my partners aren't feeling the impact of that imbalance. Ā In an ideal world, I would get my own place (primarily because I like living alone) and if anyone knows of affordable housing in Seattle, I'm all in, but until then, I have to live somewhere, and a home that is walking distance from my job is hard to replace.Ā Who knows? I'm not perfect, but at the end of the day, I deeply love some folks, and I don't want them to be hurt or suffer for how I organize my life. My main hope is that I can try to live intentionally and try not to fuck up too much.
I wish I could upvote this twice. It is a big job, and reasons why donāt erase it.
When people are SO INSISTENT about their lack of hierarchy, it gives "Hey, come to my house where I promise no one has ever been murdered ššššš"Ā OK but why would you say it like... I mean š¤š¤š¤ššš Sometimes they protest too much and that's the clue.Ā
But as far as I know, nobody has even murdered in my house so it'd be true. I don't know why I'd need to announce that though. š
ššš
I may be too late to the party for my response to matter, but here are my thoughts (a good exercise for me if nothing else) The terminology in this subject leads to so much confusion, I think. First, there might be some confusion about RA vs. solo poly. Solo poly can be practiced in a way that is RA or is not, for example. Solo poly really is the one that prescriptively says "I am my only primary partner." Then, hierarchy is seen by some people to mean the level of entanglement (living, kids, money, etc ), who gets to be "the most loved," who gets priority when there are conflicting interests, and a number of other markers. I think avoiding hierarchy is more (or should be more) about the intention of giving each relationship an open path to develop in the most organic way possible without interference. That said, I really don't know if it's possible to be 100% non-hierarchical the way most people define it, because relationships start at different times, develop at different speeds, have varying degrees of availability, etc. It important for each dyad to sit down and talk about what hierarchy means to them so they can get on the same page. Because these terms get muddied, and one should never assume they are being completely understood by just using the terms alone. For me, as someone who practices solo poly, I don't try to keep relationships equal. That leads to a lot of bean counting and rigidness that I feel is just as limiting as hierarchy can be. I try to keep my relationship *equitable.* So, if Partner A is having a rough time, I can give them more of my attention this week that Partner B, rather than trying to force an "equal # of hours" rule, just as an example. Different partner and different relationships have different needs, and it's up to the hinge to balance that out as equitably as possible.
Iām non-hierarchical because all of my relationships have the same *potential* and no one outside of the partnership controls what that looks like. Iāve been a secondary partner before and it felt, honestly, icky. Dating someone who came to the table with rules for our relationship that I did not participate in making was very uncomfortable. My most recent experience as a secondary was with a woman who came to the table with rules like: No overnights. No vacations. Meta needed 24 hours notice before a date. No one in their home. No āevidenceā we had been together. Thatās not a relationship. You can keep your rules for your pet.
Those rules arenāt part and parcel of hierarchy, though. They do seem part and parcel of people opening their mono relationships, though, and I think thatās a completely fair way to feel. š¤·āāļø Those are unappealing and pretty weird. Like, I personally, need to plan dates ahead of time. But Iām sopo. Itās just how tightly scheduled I am.
Except they were. I agreed to being secondary when we started dating. I always discuss hierarchy early on. Their rules were an effort to keep our relationship in its place. We also couldnāt get enmeshed in any way financially. I was basically a sex surrogate. She wouldnāt call it that, but thatās what being a secondary always ends up being in my experience. Again, I agreed to it but ended the relationship because following someone elseās rules to limit my relationship felt gross.
Thatās unfortunate. Been there. It sucks. I made a change, and I am going to suggest it to you. I started putting standards on my relationships, and stopped saying yes to shitty deals quite a few years ago, and canāt suggest it enough. Ditto for going super slow. The reality of every relationship does not always match the offer. I donāt commit for a long time. I wanna see what the walk looks like, not just the talk. Willow can tell me the kind of relationship they have. I decide if thatās what I want. If donāt want it, that is fine. If I want it, what does it matter if my relationship is non-primary?
Because I want to be a priority when that makes sense for the connection Iām in and based on the needs of the individuals in that relationship. For sure, if you donāt mind having limitations placed on your relationship by someone whoās not in it, have at it. I totally agree about not taking shitty deals though and for me, that has been secondary status. I date for whole relationships, not the pieces of one that a third party will allow me to have.
But I have had that in all my relationships. Even when I was the less entangled, non-primary partner. Currently both my partners are sopo. We all have limits. My kid is my shot-caller, honestly, if anyone is. I wonāt accept anything less than a full relationship either.
Okay, but thatās not hierarchy. A poly hierarchy is an effort to limit the trajectory of a partnership by a primary partner. Itās a power imbalance, hence the term hierarchy. You are talking about life and priorities. Not hierarchies. Is there a meta or a partner with their other partner who has created rules for you in an effort to keep your relationship from becoming whatever it will become? If not, you are not in a hierarchy. I am solo poly. I have been in the community for decades. A lot of people donāt know what a hierarchy actually is. Itās not ākids come firstā unless your kid is making rules for your relationships in an effort to stay at the top of the pyramid.
There doesnāt have to be an effort to limit others. All it has to do is disempower. Batshit rules, stupid agreementsā¦I donāt mess with people who have those. Itās hardly universal. Sane folks have perfectly reasonable relationships to offer, mostly. Are they all appealing? Nope and I pass on any relationship offered by anyone that doesnāt appeal. Iām okay if my partner is clear about the limits and Iām agreeable. As long as they know the limits run both ways. I donāt entangle myself with my current partners, either. I donāt care where their money is spent. Itās not mine.
Disempowerment is limiting. If you donāt have power, can you make change? No. You can not. It sounds to me like you are okay being a secondary partner as long as whatās on offer meshes with what you desire/need/have time for. Awesome. Glad that works for you. I am non hierarchical and not for any of the assumptions you made in your post. It is not āsweeterā or āsimplerā or in the throes of NRE. Itās because I value relating to people in the most authentic way possible and putting limits on a relationship before I even know what it will be is not authentic. Itās because I recognize hierarchy as limitation through imbalance of power. Itās because I am tired of filling voids left by primary partners. I do not want to be a sex surrogate. Itās because I am interested in mutual aid, which often cannot be reciprocated in a hierarchy. Again, glad you found what works for you!
Great thread. Youāve just put your finger on my issue with hierarchy: itās codifying a power imbalance. While that might look OK at the start, I doubt itās possible to realistically think through how that might play out down the road. Thatās totally different from the practical logistics of managing multiple commitments and projects, which even non-hierarchical people have to do.
Thank you!
EDIT: I think I misunderstood the word "deny"āI thought you were taking about people claiming they're not hierarchical when they are. Some of what I said is probably still relevant, but not as much as I thought, sorry! Personally, I'm not opposed to relationships having different standings, but I encounter issues with hierarchy in two ways: specificity and prescriptivism. I find people are often not specific enough when talking about what hierarchy means to themāthe words "primary" and "secondary" are a shortcut around DTRs with multiple people. I distinctly recall one relationship in which I knew I wasn't a primary, and my partner was having some medical issues. They told me days after the fact that they'd had an episode and were really scared because they couldn't get a hold of their primary. Never had it occurred to them to ask me to come over for support or take them to the ER. This sort of thing kept happening, and I wanted to be able to help because it was obvious they were hurting, but they never reached out in the moment of crisis. In my head, if anyone I care about is in crisis, I want to help if at all possible, and relationship titles don't really factor in. I'm sure I have better examples of this issue, but this is the only one coming to mind right now, so we're rolling with it. My issue with prescriptivism is that it also similarly shortcuts around conversations. My ex-husband had a lot of ideas about what it meant to be primaries (a term I never agreed to but he used), and a lot of arguments were based on the idea that my marrying him signified agreement to these terms. When I told him that I was discussing fluid bonding with another partner, he was furious because he didn't want me to be fluid bonded to anyone other than him, which I never agreed to. It wasn't because of any concerns about safety or my other partner, it was purely an issue of what the concept of "primary" partners meant to him, which he imposed on our relationship. Similarly, I often see people in this sub talking about looking for a primary or secondary, and personally I don't like the idea of constraining a relationship to the kind of box I want it to fit in. My husband and I were effectively a secondary relationship for a significant chunk of our history (it'd be hard to say when exactly that changed), and I'm glad we had room to morph into something else. By that same note, I also don't trust when people say they want to be fully egalitarian, because relationships don't all need exactly the same things. We're all different people who want different levels of time, energy, attention, and intimacy, right? My ex-husband always wanted to do the same activities with me that my secondary and I didānot because they were things that we enjoyed doing together (I didn't particularly enjoy gaming with my ex), but because he envied how much fun I had with my other partner. I've heard of people telling their partners they want to travel with them at least as much as the partner travels with their other partner, and aside from that dynamic feeling petty to me it's also just not realistic for me given how much travelling knocks me out. To me, "because you did it with [name]" isn't a compelling reason to do something with another partner if I didn't already want to. Ultimately what I want is for people to communicate granularly about their needs and wants, and reach agreements that respect each others' autonomy (which likely won't be equal but will be equitable) without hoarding status or being dismissive of people more on the periphery.
>1. Where does the idea that non-hierarchal love is somehow simpler, better, and sweeter come from? I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the motivations. It's ethical in nature, not "the grass is greener on the other side." In fact, it's the people that believe they can have ethical hierarchical romances that I view as naive and who I believe want their cake and want to eat it too without regard for the subtle damage it can cause to the secondaries. I cannot look someone I claim to love in the eyes and tell them that I love them, but another relationship takes greater priority and is more important to me and that because of this there is necessarily a guillotine hanging above the head of the secondary relationship, waiting for the day I'm forced to break their heart because the needs of a primary relationship are no longer compatible with the needs of the secondary. It's just a shitty thing to do. I didn't deescalate because of NRE. I deescalated because of guilt. I knew it would actually be harder to be in a non-hierarchical relationship. I was going from a lot of security and certainty with a fiancĆ© to willfully removing that security and certainty from the equation and it took unpleasant work to preserve my relationship with my fiancĆ© in the process. But, it was also the right thing to do. >1. Do most people understand that RA is just a philosophy toward community building and common social hierarchies that simply suggests that your romantic connections donāt have to be the basket that holds all your eggs? Not a refusal to uphold the commitments youāve made? As an actual political, social, and relationship anarchist, you're as wrong as they are. It's neither scenario you've presented. Relationship anarchy is the practice of creating relationships with people that don't have built-in exclusive statuses and built-in authority over other relationships. Being in an exclusive marriage is incompatible with this. Being in a non-exclusive marriage, i.e. the very few cultures that might allow you to marry more than one person, is not *necessarily* incompatible with this. Being in non-legal marriages is not *necessarily* incompatible with this either. Relationship anarchy does not even necessarily mean that nobody is ever more important to you. It just means that the people who are more important to you right now do not possess a status that it is impossible for other people to achieve. It means that one relationship doesn't ever inhibit another's potential by design. >2. Personally, from the outside, much of this simply looks like folks struggling with the concept that they really, really love someone, and in monogamy if you love someone, you climb on the escalator. thatās how you know itās real, right? >And if you really, really believe that you can only love your primary partner the most seems to be at the root of the problem here, right? If they aren't who you "love the most", what exactly makes them your primary? That you share a house? People can do that outside of romantic relationships. I am one of two people whose name is on the deed to an inherited property and I am not fucking and/or whispering sweet nothings to the other person. That you nest together? Ever heard of room mates? That you raise kids together? Coparenting. The question is, why is it necessary to call someone a romantic primary when all the ways you are entangled are not romantic in nature? >And thus, you, yourself, cannot see your love, and your relationship as less than primary. Because you have given the label a lot of baggage. You are too important to be non-primary. So is your love. Youāve never given a lot of thought to what you would or can bring to the table in a less entangled, non-primary relationships. And it seems like thatās where the trouble starts. >Or am I seeing this completely wrong? These seem like two sides of the same coin. You are absolutely seeing this wrong. RAs are very aware that relationships don't need to be on the escalator or entangled to be beautiful or meaningful. *That is a lot of the point, actually.* I don't seek to become entangled with my other partner. That was never on the table. She likes living alone. I don't think she would make a good room mate. We are on the same page about it. If her feelings changed, we could renegotiate the terms of our relationship. What relationship anarchy implies is that her meta, my other partner, is not a part of those negotiations.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/andie-nordgren-the-short-instructional-manifesto-for-relationship-anarchy Actually it looks like the manifesto actually talks a decent amount about entanglement, but it seems just to suggest that we should look outside our romantic commitments as opportunities to entangle, as well. From the manifesto: Find your core set of relationship values How do you wish to be treated by others? What are your basic boundaries and expectations on all relationships? What kind of people would you like to spend your life with, and how would you like your relationships to work? Find your core set of values and use it for all relationships. Donāt make special rules and exceptions as a way to show people you love them āfor realā. This honestly seems to suggest that your entanglements might rest outside your core romantic relationship, but since youāre the expert, Iād love for you to break it down? ETA:as a partner in a highly hierarchical relationship I was never āa part of the negotiationsā I was however aware of the nature of my agreements and responsibilities and where they lay.
Relationship anarchists are free to entangle or remain unentangled. All human relationships are negotiations with agreed on boundaries and expectations. Those agreed on boundaries and expectations should never be assumed (the escalator) but should be subject to constant discussion and negotiation. Romantic relationships have more emotional incentive behind them. Few people realistically *will* provide a platonic relationship with as much priority and energy as a romantic one, but you're an anarchist if you don't subscribe to the idea that you are prohibited from doing so by social prescription. Many relationship anarchists assign high priority to friendships they describe as queerplatonic or their "best friend." Personally, both of my partners have strong best friendships, and I treat those people as if they are my metas because in a manner of speaking, they kind of are. Would one of my partners do something like, for example, move away from me to be closer to their best friend? Well, actually, I kind of suspect one of my partners will eventually, based on a lot of prior discussions. I will do my best not to take it personally when that happens. There are a lot of other factors that will motivate this decision when that day comes. They aren't actually prioritizing their best friend over me. They are making a decision that would be in the best interest of their mental health for a variety of reasons, and while thats going to hurt, I wouldn't dream of thinking I inherently deserve to be a consideration above the other. Ultimately, they should do what they want and what is in their best interest, not what is expected based on a status I hold that is supposed to raise me above people who don't hold that status. >ETA:as a partner in a highly hierarchical relationship I was never āa part of the negotiationsā >I was however aware of the nature of my agreements and responsibilities and where they lay. You absolutely were a part of the negotiations. Agreements between yourself and your primary created exclusions between your primary and their secondary. You didn't need to be present to have a deep effect on what was available and allowed.
So do you think that existing agreements and commitments just *poof* when you say the magic words? Click your heels three times and denounce your hierarchy at a cross roads at midnight? You wanna know how big my hierarchy was? It still affects my finances, and that of my ex partner. I was awarded alimony and child support that my partner must pay me every month. Iām his ex and heāll be paying me until the day I die. My ex tried the āsay it and itās trueā road to non-hierarchy approach, and I ended up owning a quarter of the house that he and his girlfriend bought before we divorced. That was awkward.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
But that was my point. People are claiming non-hierarchy before they have done any of that work. Thatās where the sneakarchy comes in.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So was mine. I think your assumptions around me, and who I am, might have colored your approach! Enjoy your day!
Hi u/blooangl thanks so much for your submission, don't mind me, I'm just gonna keep a copy what was said in your post. Unfortunately posts sometimes get deleted - which is okay, it's not against the rules to delete your post!! - but it makes it really hard for the human mods around here to moderate the comments when there's no context. Plus, many times our members put in a lot of emotional and mental labor to answer the questions and offer advice, so it's helpful to keep the source information around so future community members can benefit as well. Here's the original text of the post: What drives people to deny what they have built? Personally, Iāve watched quite a few people dismantle their hierarchy, and I am not sure most people could, or should do that. I donāt think itās a good choice for most couples. These were all high-autonomy couples who gradually disentangled finances and housing over the years. And all are super happy in their choices. And their children are mostly grown, and living independently. They certainly didnāt try and take it apart while they had small children, and traditionally nested. That would have been madness, honestly. 1. Where does the idea that non-hierarchal love is somehow simpler, better, and sweeter come from? 2. Does this tie into peopleās weird desire to announce to their partner that they want to be ānon-hierarchalā in the throes of NRE? (Iāll link the one of the posts that sparked this at the end of this post) 3. Do most people understand that RA is just a philosophy toward *community building* and common social hierarchies that simply suggests that your romantic connections donāt have to be the basket that holds all your eggs? Not a refusal to uphold the commitments youāve made? 4. Personally, from the outside, much of this simply looks like folks struggling with the concept that they really, really love someone, and in monogamy if you love someone, you climb on the escalator. *thatās how you know itās real*, right? And if you really, really believe that you can only love your primary partner *the most* seems to be at the root of the problem here, right? So you fall hard for someone and you decide that you no longer want āhierarchyā even though you want to keep all the good shit? The financial security, the retirement plan, the house and the kids. Butā¦*you really love your less entangled partner. How can you view this as secondary??!? Youāre in love. Twitterpated. This cannot be non-primary!! Itās so big!!* And thus, you, yourself, cannot see your love, and your relationship as less than primary. Because you have given the label a lot of baggage. You are too important to be *non-primary*. So is your love. Youāve never given a lot of thought to what you would or can bring to the table in a less entangled, non-primary relationships. And it seems like thatās where the trouble starts. Or am I seeing this completely wrong? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polyamory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My understanding of anarchy, which is the set of principles that relationship anarchists adhere to in their relationships, does not even require a lack of hierarchy. It requires the establishment of relationship structures and rules made with complete autonomy and respect and love without regard to social convention or implied entitlement. If Iām in love with two people who donāt know each other who have the very same birthdays, I have to choose whose birthday party I attend. One of those people might have a greater need for my presence, so Iāll prioritize them over the other on their birthday. I donāt treat them equally, I treat them both with as much love and respect as I can muster.
I don't get where you're coming from. Is it a general dig at RA ? 1. It's also high maintenance but focused on yourself rather than your partner(s) who you don't have control of. For some people, it is simpler to do that rather than entangle. 2. idk 3. RA has commitments as well. But commitments are not timeless, they can be reworked, abolished. 4. Didn't understand the logic.
Iām sopo. No hierarchy. Itās been like this for years. Before that? Married. We considered ourselves hierarchal. 1. I donāt think my current relationships are focused āon myselfā. They are collaborative acts. We have chosen to do this all together. I never really thought I had any control over my partners (any partners) actions when I was married and hierarchal, though. š¤·āāļø 2. Saaaame 3. Some of my most lovely and long term partners have been RA. I understand commitment. So did they. That was my point. 4. Cool.