motheggs:

queeranarchism:

I am taking some time to process THIS ARTICLE THAT I LOVE and THIS ARTICLE and to do so I am making some flowcharts (or whatever you call these). I think they’re far from perfect but they’re helping me digest things. If anyone else has read the article and wants to comment on these things, feel free. If anyone wants to take these and do something else with it, feel free too.

(I realize that there are way more variations of polyamory than can be seen in this flowchart. that is far from relevant here though so I only made the one.)

(I’m still having doubts about whether I should add even more ‘with or withouts’ to the relationship anarchy community bubble because relationship anarchy can be with or without people you call partner, etc etc and I would hate to think that relationship anarchism means you can’t call someone your partner). 

(I am also worried that I am still not being in-your-face obvious enough about the fact that no this is NOT about ‘not labelling your relationships’ it is about rejecting the superiority of romance and sex and not confining the essense of commitment and community only to the people you share a romantic or sexual connection with and in the process making your connection to people one that capitalism can’t market to you.)

(I am also very much aware that my life is far from relationship anarchy right now and that understanding relationship anarchy and practicing relationship anarchy are two very different things. First and foremost because you can only be a relationship anarchist in connection with others that want to have the same kind of connection. Which goes to show once again that anarchist praxis is empty without a community.)

this ended up on my dash, and I have some commentary. i understand
that the goal of these graphics is to break down the hierarchical
relationship of romantic and sexual relationships, vs platonic
relationships. you’ve stated you aren’t trying to say the labels
aren’t the problem. capitalism, patriarchy, whiteness, etc employ
systematic devaluation of platonic relationships to the point that
they discourage platonic (and often familial!) intimacy entirely.
regardless of your labels for your partners, valuing them equally is
the goal.

that being said, you have used popular community labels as
shorthand for the hegemonic way relationships are portrayed in
american culture. in the terms of this graphic, “primary partner,”
“secondary partner,” etc, designate hierarchical emotional
relationships, implicitly. this is misleading. i don’t think the
prioritization of a relationship indicates emotional hierarchy. nor
does it indicate ignorance or complacency with capitalist
heteropatriachy.

“primary partner, etc” in my experience, is not a hierarchical
term so much as it is a survival method. while organizing your time
and money according to a “primary” partnership does often mean
participation in capitalist systems (marriage, mortgage, etc), it’s
also necessary. maybe you’re going stealth in order to keep your
children, avoid violence, keep a job, or you’re negotiating and
organizing wealth necessary for community building, direct action,
legal/medical funds, etc.

in addition, monogamy is deeply enforced by our culture, to the
point where you know, people are deeply socialized to organize their
time around monogamous partnerships. most people, even polyamorous
folks, might want to prioritize working on one relationship or
another for the sake of time, energy, simplicity, or (as previously
mentioned) access to wealth and childrearing.

having to do those things out of necessity, and needing structure
for your time and energy, doesn’t mean you value any of your
partners less. it also does not automatically mean you condone
capitalism, heteronormativity, exploitation, antiblackness,
patriarchy, or any of the other systems connected to marriage,
accumulation of wealth, property ownership etc.

i have a very hard time reading anything other than “relationship
anarchy (in which you devote the same resources to every intimate and
platonic relationship) is the only ethical anti-capitalist way to
organize your relationships,” which I think is a possibly dangerous
assumption that puts the blame of neoliberal capitalism on
individual, consumer choices

so yeah, I would agree that “labeling your relationships” is
not the issue at hand, but neither is “allocating more time and
resources to a few primary and secondary relationships.” the issue
is “we need to dismantle the systems of heteropatriarchy that
emotionally and economically devalue platonic and secondary sexual
relationships,” and I do not believe that the methodology for doing
that is enforcing an “ethical” way to maintain one’s
relationships.

I have heard several times now that ‘people being pressured into relationship anarchy is a thing’ and unless you mean polyamorists who think relationship anarchy just sounds cool or the kind of douchbag fake relationship anarchism that focusses on fucking people, I am having trouble imagining what that would even look like because relationship anarchy is not a pre-defined relationship form. 

I have also never seen relationship anarchy defined as devoting the same resources to every intimate and platonic relationship and I have trouble imagining how that would even be possible since relationships always range from ‘person I know and trust enough to make long term decisions together’ to ‘person I talked to a few times at a party’ and every state in between. Relationships always vary in intensity. 

I also don’t see how allocating more time and resources to a few primary and secondary relationships is at odds with relationship anarchy at all.

I know there are annoying poly people and fuckboys out there who think relationship anarchy is just another way to be poly and I can see them using it to pressure people into things they don’t want to do but that is not the relationship anarchy I am talking about. 

All that I think relationship anarchy really is is:

• the rejection of sex and romance as necessary for commitments like long-term cohabitation and child rearing
• the freedom to make long term commitments with friends should you want this and be able to do this, the freedom to prioritize friendships over romantic and sexual relationships
• the acknowledgement that the idea that ‘sex and romance is necessary for commitments like long-term cohabitation and child rearing’ is one of the ways capitalism tries to control us (which means that when we reject this idea we notice some of our chains and can make more concious decisions accordingly. It doesn’t mean we’re suddenly free from capitalisms pressure to pair up into amatonormative couples.)
• the rejection of interpersonal coercion such as relationship contracts
• a focus on mutual aid
• a focus on friendship

How is it possible to be coerced into any of that? I genuinely can not imagine what that would look like. 

Like, I can see how people would say they’re “coerced” into this kind of relationship anarchy when they mean “My partner does not accept me coercing them into an

amatonormativity where

sex and romance are mandatory gateways for other commitments
” but like… calling that coercion is a weird role reversal.