Originally Posted by london
The risk, from what I've seen and experienced from people who subscribe to this model, is that the person lets a partner down and then uses this relationship anarchy theory to tell them why they didn't let them down and also why they were pretty stupid/naive/controlling to have that expectation of them in the first place.
It seems to me this is a risk with any
idea or principle or outlook. In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of a single human idea that could not be or has not been used by someone, at some point, as a pretext or an excuse for acting like a jerk. That includes 'polyamory', as we see demonstrated, now and again, in stories on this forum.
I guess I'm more interested in the merits of the idea itself: assuming a reasonable person of good will makes a principled commitment to living by the idea of relationship anarchy, how viable might that idea turn out to be?
For the sake of argument, I'm taking at face value Nordgren's statement that RA is about commitments
to other people based on principles
or, as the Manifesto would have it, "core values".
Originally Posted by wildflowers
I can be a bit irked by RA when it seems rather dogmatically anti-dogmatic, but see the appeal as long as it stays mellow and flexible.
I agree that anarchy is a bit of a loaded term, but I think queer is moreso, so I prefer the former. Still, I wouldn't take a "storm the barricades" approach. The key is that you have freedom in your relationships, but you also allow it to others, so you can't throw bombs into their traditional structures just because you don't want one.
Speaking for myself, I'm a pragmatist about such things: I'm not much swayed by dogma, not even anti-dogmatic dogma.* When I try out a new idea, like RA, I'm mainly asking: Does this idea help me to make sense of part of my experience? Does this idea help me to figure out what to do - and what not to do - as I make my way in the world?
So, yeah. Mellow and flexible.
Don't expect to find me marching down the street with my fist in the air and this on my t-shirt:
(It's pretty cool, though, as symbols go.)
*That's where my user name came from: I'm irked by self-described skeptics who become dogmatic in their attacks on dogma, so I go a step further . . . if only to point out that "dogmatic skepticism" is a contradiction in terms.