Reading · The Paper Pilot's Digital Garden

Consistent with my views on social constructs, I'm not interested in conforming to certain societal expectations surrounding what relationships "ought" to look like.

I consider myself polyamorous, or at least ambiamorous. Recognizing my openness to polyamory is relatively new. I found myself in a queer relationship of some sort, and eventually as I learned more about polyamory I came to realize my own feelings towards relationships and how they eschew our amatonormative society.

To me, being polyam doesn't necessarily mean I must have multiple partners actively, just that having multiple partners is as valid to me as only having one, and similarly that the idea of a partner having other partners doesn't bother me. I find my identity valid irrespective of my current number of partners in the same way a bisexual's orientation is still valid even if they're actively only with someone of a single gender.

A related idea I came across while looking into polyam is Relationship Anarchy. RA is about non-hierarchical relationships, which based on my experience with anarchism really appealed to me. Being non-hierarchical meant seeing relationships as uniquely meaningful, rather than being more important or legitimate based on having sex or other relationship ladder steps (moving in, marriage, having kids, etc.). This aligns with my own views on relationships, where I've always considered friendship and love to be part of a continuum rather than fully independent axes. Indeed, early in the relationship with my now wife I'd brought up how good we got along as friends as the reason for wanting to make our relationship romantic.

That said, I don't consider myself a full relationship anarchist. One key tenet of RA is that you have no control over your partners - you cannot insist on a closed relationship, veto metamours, or even expect "compromises" for your relationship. I personally think it's reasonable for people to have boundaries with your partners. I actually really resonated with this article from Dr. Devon Price where he argues for being jealous, needy, and even having "unfair" requirements for your partners. Even asymmetric agreements, such as one partner having veto but another not, can be valid if freely agreed upon. I don't think this has to imply hierarchy, and it's not useful to purity test how "relationship anarchical" you are.

Above all, poly and RA are meaningful to me in how they reject the pressures of our society and the couple-form / amatonormativity, and allow each relationship to stand in its own uniqueness.

A sort of middle ground between traditional polyamory and relationship anarchy that I'm exploring is relationship design. It fights against the idea of any predefined templates of what relationships "ought" to look like (e.g. the escalator, monogamy, etc.), including even the typical rules the polyam or relationship anarchists argue for. For example, an RA might suggest having a boundary prohibiting your partners from sleeping over with metamours is unreasonable (as they see boundaries only legitimate if they apply only to yourself, not your partners). But relationship design acknowledges the validity of any intentional and consensual rules and boundaries. Just not having rules because you're "supposed" to have them. Additionally, things like structure or even labels (e.g. wife or partner, which are terms I use in my relationship) may be rejected by RA but are allowed in relationship design. The focus is just on collaboratively designing a relationship that is mutually agreed upon. It should also be fluid and revisited often. This even means allowing for breaking the rules that have reasonable justifications, like the arguments against allowing veto rules or against adding mono people to a polyam network.

As for how that relates to the parts of RA I do like, such as rejecting a hierarchy of relationships, I think relationship design just allows for people to intentionally and consensually form both hierarchical and non-hierarchical relationships. I still find non-hierarchical relationships personally appealing, but I agree with the relationship design stance that people should have the agency to enter both kinds of relationships if they choose.

In addition to my views on relationships, I should mention I've been starting to identify as polysexual. Having a nonbinary wife already means I'm not simply heterosexual, but I don't think pansexual is accurate for me. So that makes me polysexual - having an attraction to multiple but not all genders.

The parts of RA that I do like do seem to be carved out in a relatively niche orientation called amarous attraction - it's essentially that idea from before about seeing love and friendship under one continuum. For me it is a natural conclusion around ideas like kissing or sex or any of the other relationship escalator steps not actually making a relationship more significant or meaningful, and thus platonic, romantic, and sexual relationships can all equally involve love. Under that framework, I'm polymari.

Relationships

Further Reading

Comments