Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 05-17-2014, 02:11 AM
ColorsWolf's Avatar
ColorsWolf ColorsWolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: CA, U.S.A.
Posts: 360
Default

In many ways the way that I see relationships can be likened to Relationship Anarchy in that there is no "1 way" to deal with or treat all relationships.~

Every relationship is unique whether I feel love for some one, sexual attraction, etc. depends on those involved: me and them.~

I feel what I feel and they may feel what ever they may feel, we talk about these things to let each other know what we think and feel of each other.~

It's all very "simple" to me.~

I just throw all the other stuff about "restrictions", "exclusitivity", "rankings of importance", "requirements", etc. out the window as I never saw them as applying to me in the first place.~

Other people may make claims that this way of thinking is "selfish", "impulsive", etc.~

But who exactly has the answer to every thing, who has the authority over what is the "best" and what is the "worst" of any thing?~

People still question the raising of children with Homosexual Parents, Polyamorous Parents, etc. or raising children in a "settled-down" lifestyle as opposed to a nomadic one.~

You could raise 2 children exactly the same and both could turn out completely different: such as 2 children being raised in a house-hold with love and support with no history of any abuse in any way what so ever and 1 becomes a Lawyer and the other becomes a Serial Killer.~

We do the "best" with what we see as the "best", but our "best" may not be the same as others' "best".~

It may not even be about what is "best", but just what things are.~


You could raise 3 children with 3 parents: you, Jill, and Jack.~

You and Jill are sexually involved with each other, but you feel no romantic-kind-of-love for each other.~

You and Jack feel a romantic-kind-of-love for each other, but you are not sexually involved at all with each other.~

Jill and Jack feel a love for each other but do not find the words to describe it.~

You all have relationships outside of each other that you feel love with, but that can not be described as "friends" nor "more than friends".~

None of you are "exclusive" in any way at all, but none of you are in any relationships that are exactly the same as the each other and none of these relationships matter any more nor less to any of you.~

The 3 of you live together and have agreed to "parent" your 3 children and of course your children are important to you all, but the fact that you 3 have "agreed to be parents of these children" does not prioritize you 3's relationships with each other, it is simply the way things have turned out.~


This was simply 1 possible example, but any thing is possible depending on what you and those involved in each every relationship you have feel and think.~
__________________
Love yourself, you are beautiful!~ ^_^

*Believe in yourself, you can do anything*!~ ^_^

Appreciate every thing, every thing is precious.~


Last edited by ColorsWolf; 05-17-2014 at 02:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-18-2014, 06:23 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is online now
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Yelm, Washington
Posts: 5,892
Default

Re: hyperskeptic's OP ... I was introduced to Relationship Anarchy (RA) by a guy named Richard (username levitte) on Polyamorous Percolations. Relying on his guidance, I assembled the following entry for the glossary on that site:

Quote:
RA = Relation Anarch, Relation Anarchist, Relation Anarchy, Relationship Anarchy, or unlimited relations. RA is a form of polyamory in which relationships are not formally defined, so that one is not expected to behave strictly as a "friend," a "spouse," a "lover," a "partner," or what have you, in the company of any one (or more) other person (or persons). Many relationship anarchists simply call everyone they know "friend." This freedom from RD (Relationship Definitionism) enables several parallel relations that can each be friendly, sensual, and sexual. As with other forms of polyamory, RA depends on the acceptance of all persons involved.
RA principles:
  • You can love many, and each relationship is unique.
  • Love and Respect is to have no demands (no templates).
  • Give yourself a solid point of view (no exemptions).
  • Remember the heterosexual norm but don't be afraid.
  • Spontaneity instead of duty.
  • Fake it til you make it.
  • Trust instead of suspicion.
  • Change through communication.
On-site threads:Off-site references:With finpoly being perhaps the best of the above.
Re: does RA make sense ... certainly.

Re: is it tenable ... not for everyone, but for many people yes.

Re: am I, Kevin, ready to set sail on the RA ocean ... nope, too chicken/comfortable with the structured relationships I've already got. This is largely because I don't think my two poly companions would go for the RA adventure.

Re: is RA a subset of poly ... no. It is arguably a subset of (responsible) non-monogamy, but it covers more ground than poly. I do think poly and RA can overlap.

Re: is anarchy really the best word for it ... if you visit Wiktionary, you'll observe that anarchy doesn't necessarily entail violence. It just means that one is shrugging off the agents of authority that predetermine one's life. It means the shrugging off of the traditional order of things. Is the word "anarchy" loaded with violent connotations? Yes (at least in the U.S.). But those connotations are technically misinformed, and in any case, I'm pretty sure the phrase "relationship anarchy" is here to stay, so we might as well get used to it and make the best of it.

Re: what about "relationship-queer" ... good idea, but alas, "relationship anarchy" has already taken hold. That's my assessment anyways.

Re: the rest of this thread (after hyperskeptic's OP) ... it seems to me that many/most polyamorists are inclined to define polyamory (and other poly-related words) in their own way (which is probably why polyamorists in general are infamous for arguing about semantics). I am thinking RA is destined to follow the "same" kind of path, and already is headed that way. My own interpretation of RA is crude, subject to change, rather subjective, and perhaps not cool of me to talk about here ... but I do find the topic interesting and thought I'd share what I know. Having read the whole thread I suppose know more now, but I have to say I liked Marcus' posts best in the sense that they gave me the greatest sense of clarity about what RA is (and what it means). Second place then goes to hyperskeptic for framing what I thought were the most important RA-related questions.

Glad I noticed and checked out this thread; it was a good learning experience for me.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-18-2014, 06:21 PM
ColorsWolf's Avatar
ColorsWolf ColorsWolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: CA, U.S.A.
Posts: 360
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdt26417 View Post
Re: hyperskeptic's OP ... I was introduced to Relationship Anarchy (RA) by a guy named Richard (username levitte) on Polyamorous Percolations. Relying on his guidance, I assembled the following entry for the glossary on that site:



Re: does RA make sense ... certainly.

Re: is it tenable ... not for everyone, but for many people yes.

Re: am I, Kevin, ready to set sail on the RA ocean ... nope, too chicken/comfortable with the structured relationships I've already got. This is largely because I don't think my two poly companions would go for the RA adventure.

Re: is RA a subset of poly ... no. It is arguably a subset of (responsible) non-monogamy, but it covers more ground than poly. I do think poly and RA can overlap.

Re: is anarchy really the best word for it ... if you visit Wiktionary, you'll observe that anarchy doesn't necessarily entail violence. It just means that one is shrugging off the agents of authority that predetermine one's life. It means the shrugging off of the traditional order of things. Is the word "anarchy" loaded with violent connotations? Yes (at least in the U.S.). But those connotations are technically misinformed, and in any case, I'm pretty sure the phrase "relationship anarchy" is here to stay, so we might as well get used to it and make the best of it.

Re: what about "relationship-queer" ... good idea, but alas, "relationship anarchy" has already taken hold. That's my assessment anyways.

Re: the rest of this thread (after hyperskeptic's OP) ... it seems to me that many/most polyamorists are inclined to define polyamory (and other poly-related words) in their own way (which is probably why polyamorists in general are infamous for arguing about semantics). I am thinking RA is destined to follow the "same" kind of path, and already is headed that way. My own interpretation of RA is crude, subject to change, rather subjective, and perhaps not cool of me to talk about here ... but I do find the topic interesting and thought I'd share what I know. Having read the whole thread I suppose know more now, but I have to say I liked Marcus' posts best in the sense that they gave me the greatest sense of clarity about what RA is (and what it means). Second place then goes to hyperskeptic for framing what I thought were the most important RA-related questions.

Glad I noticed and checked out this thread; it was a good learning experience for me.
Relationship Anarchy in the simplest way can be defined as, "Relationships Without Pre-Set Rules".~

It's actually kind of ironic don't you think?~ That people need a "name" for what relationships basically are before you start talking about what you and those involved want in the relationships.~

Polyamory and Monogamy are terms used to pre-define and describe the kind of relationships you may want or have developed into.~

I suppose Relationship Anarchy is a way to say that your relationships have not followed the same "pattern" that could be described in one or more terms for all of them.~


This thread was buried under more "recent" threads since it was over a year long, but I found it while searching for "relationship anarchy" and I thought this was a great thread to, so I posted my new thoughts on it.~

I'm glad I could help make this more noticeable for you, Kevin.~ ^_^

Love,

ColorsWolf
__________________
Love yourself, you are beautiful!~ ^_^

*Believe in yourself, you can do anything*!~ ^_^

Appreciate every thing, every thing is precious.~


Last edited by ColorsWolf; 05-18-2014 at 06:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-22-2014, 04:37 PM
Tomcat27 Tomcat27 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Portland Oregon
Posts: 6
Default

This whole thread has been so helpful, because I am the type to avoid labels, but totally can relate to the relationship anarchy idea.

I recently started a new romantic relationship with one of the people who share the house I live in and she defines herself as "poly". but I'm thinking "relationship anarchist" would be a better definition (although as I said earlier labels kinda irk me). I also agree with this type of perspective, because I do not desire to have any expectations, control, or authority over her, or any other "partner".

We have talked about boundaries, and mostly (since I'm new to open relationships) I am concerned with hygiene, and safe sex. There is a responsibility people must acknowledge when they are sexually active with more than one person.

So far, being in an open relationship has had ups and downs (just over 4 months), and I have already experienced pain and hardship regarding my emotions. They eventually subside, and I can then focus more on loving and enjoying my new "partner" (haha I usually call her friend) in the moment when we are together.

I look forward to meeting more like minded people, but the online dating thing is not working out for me too well, so my next attempt will be a poly meetup.

Anyway, thanks for all the good stuff on this forum. I especially like ColorsWolf's explanations. It's good to hear someone else project the same types of thoughts that I have.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-23-2014, 09:50 PM
ColorsWolf's Avatar
ColorsWolf ColorsWolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: CA, U.S.A.
Posts: 360
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomcat27 View Post
This whole thread has been so helpful, because I am the type to avoid labels, but totally can relate to the relationship anarchy idea.

I recently started a new romantic relationship with one of the people who share the house I live in and she defines herself as "poly". but I'm thinking "relationship anarchist" would be a better definition (although as I said earlier labels kinda irk me). I also agree with this type of perspective, because I do not desire to have any expectations, control, or authority over her, or any other "partner".

We have talked about boundaries, and mostly (since I'm new to open relationships) I am concerned with hygiene, and safe sex. There is a responsibility people must acknowledge when they are sexually active with more than one person.

So far, being in an open relationship has had ups and downs (just over 4 months), and I have already experienced pain and hardship regarding my emotions. They eventually subside, and I can then focus more on loving and enjoying my new "partner" (haha I usually call her friend) in the moment when we are together.

I look forward to meeting more like minded people, but the online dating thing is not working out for me too well, so my next attempt will be a poly meetup.

Anyway, thanks for all the good stuff on this forum. I especially like ColorsWolf's explanations. It's good to hear someone else project the same types of thoughts that I have.
Glad I could help!~ ^_^

I'm sympathetic to your situation of online-dating not working out for you, even though you may find a wonderful site like did with OkCupid the truth may still be that there aren't that many people who "resonate well" with you.~

Too many times I have found some one who seems awesome, but often they turn out to be too picky and never respond to me because I don't happen to be at their finger tips or within driving distance of less than a few miles.~

Oh well, I'm focusing on what I want to do in my life.~

I ideally want to meet some one doing some thing I am passionate about and maybe we could be passionate about that some thing together if we resonate well enough together (what others call "clicking" or "meshing").

But I'll leave my information online of expressed thoughts for any one who might be interested or who just might find the courage to express their true selves to their world by reading my novel of a profile!~ ^_^

I'm on OkCupid.com as ColorsWolf.~

Nice talking to you!~ ^_^
__________________
Love yourself, you are beautiful!~ ^_^

*Believe in yourself, you can do anything*!~ ^_^

Appreciate every thing, every thing is precious.~

Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-25-2014, 12:45 PM
InsaneMystic InsaneMystic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdt26417 View Post
Fake it til you make it.
Can you elaborate on that one a bit, please? Kinda rubs me the wrong way on first glance...
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-25-2014, 02:21 PM
Marcus's Avatar
Marcus Marcus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 1,308
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneMystic View Post
Can you elaborate on that one a bit, please? Kinda rubs me the wrong way on first glance...
It's part of the short manifesto about relationship anarchy written by Andie Nordgren (linked in my profile).
Sometimes it can feel like you need to be some complete super human to handle all the norm breaking involved in choosing relationships that don’t map to the norm. A great trick is the “fake it til’ you make it” strategy — when you are feeling strong and inspired, think about how you would like to see yourself act. Transform that into some simple guidelines, and stick to them when things are rough. Talk to and seek support from others who challenge norms, and never reproach yourself when the norm pressure gets you into behaviour you didn’t wish for.
I presume it is addressing a situation where our intellectual agreement to non-traditional values comes into conflict with our socially enforced instincts to behave (or appear to behave) otherwise. In this situation if one wants to uphold their norm busting values they might need to go through the motions even though their instincts are telling them it's sinful.

I don't personally find this part of the article informative nor exactly central to the theme. It was most likely included because of a specific issue the author worked through or knew someone who had worked through it and seemed important at the time he wrote the article.
__________________
Independent (Anarchist) Non-Monogamy

Me: male, 40, straight, single
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-25-2014, 07:48 PM
ColorsWolf's Avatar
ColorsWolf ColorsWolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: CA, U.S.A.
Posts: 360
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
It's part of the short manifesto about relationship anarchy written by Andie Nordgren (linked in my profile).
Sometimes it can feel like you need to be some complete super human to handle all the norm breaking involved in choosing relationships that don’t map to the norm. A great trick is the “fake it til’ you make it” strategy — when you are feeling strong and inspired, think about how you would like to see yourself act. Transform that into some simple guidelines, and stick to them when things are rough. Talk to and seek support from others who challenge norms, and never reproach yourself when the norm pressure gets you into behaviour you didn’t wish for.
I presume it is addressing a situation where our intellectual agreement to non-traditional values comes into conflict with our socially enforced instincts to behave (or appear to behave) otherwise. In this situation if one wants to uphold their norm busting values they might need to go through the motions even though their instincts are telling them it's sinful.

I don't personally find this part of the article informative nor exactly central to the theme. It was most likely included because of a specific issue the author worked through or knew someone who had worked through it and seemed important at the time he wrote the article.
Nor do I find it applicable, because it's basically telling you to lie to please the perception of others.~

Relationship Anarchy is all about no pre-set rules: freedom to handle your relationships how ever you choose to, what ever you choose to do with your relationships make sure it is what you decide to do NOT what others have pressured you into doing.~

What ever some one else did with their relationship was their decision, the whole point of Relationship Anarchy is for each individual to handle their relationships how ever they choose to, NOT for every one to handle their relationships exactly the same as another.~
__________________
Love yourself, you are beautiful!~ ^_^

*Believe in yourself, you can do anything*!~ ^_^

Appreciate every thing, every thing is precious.~

Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-25-2014, 08:41 PM
InsaneMystic InsaneMystic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 152
Default

Thanks for the clearup, Marcus!

It's just the wording then that ticked me off - it does sound reasonable when explained that way... but I agree with you and Color, it does not seem like a central/main component of RA philosophy, in general.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-26-2014, 01:55 AM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 7,423
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColorsWolf View Post
Nor do I find it applicable, because it's basically telling you to lie to please the perception of others.
You missed the point altogether. "Fake it 'til you make it" isn't about lying at all. Sheesh, where did you come up with that? It's about giving oneself certain self-motivating cues when one feels less than confident, capable, or secure in new situations. Basically asking yourself what a confident person would do or say, or what a wise person would do or say, and then emulating that kind of person and doing those things to find your own sense of confidence from doing/saying those things before you actually feel confident. It is a way to become more grounded in expressing and/or living with your choices by using an exercise that is about practicing what you preach, and building a foundation from the outside in.
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

"Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me." ~Bryan Ferry
"Love and the self are one . . ." ~Leo Buscaglia "

An excellent blog post on hierarchy in polyamory:
solopoly.net/2014/10/31/why-im-not-a-secondary-partner-the-short-version/
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
anarchy, radical, terminology, theory

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:04 AM.