Towards a diverse ecology of relationships

Hopes and dreams for a world of intimacy abundance

This is our attempt to combine sets of ideals, values, advice and critiques from poly, relationship anarchy, non-monogamous and monogamous worlds together into one place. I hope this goes some way to a generalized set of ethical principles, that do not distinguish between the types of relationship lenses, such as various forms of monogamy, polyamory, or relationship anarchy, but instead pull us towards a more respectful approach to diverse sets of behaviors than many of us will explore at one time or another. The goal here is to create a framework that draws us in to be allies and respectful stewards of each other’s mutual exploration of social dynamics regardless of identity politic. This is a living document, created from the writing and thoughts of many others* — please feel free to suggest additions.

We ask each other to:

• Question the normalization of jealousy as an indicator of love, but also reject the stigmatization of jealousy and other related feelings. It is normal to feel fear and sadness at times. It is what we choose to do with those feelings that matters.
• Question the idea that a certain kind of intense love is sufficient to overcome practical incompatibilities, should override other different love bonds in your life or cause you to cease to be attracted to anyone else. Conversely, to be wary of the idea that physical attraction is something that should always be acted upon in order for us to be true to our autonomous selves.
• Question the idea that others are there to fulfill your needs, whether that expectation is projected onto one person or onto many different people. Others alone cannot solve your emotions, nor is it their responsibility. At the same time recognizing that humans need other humans in order to survive and to thrive, and that whilst no one person or many people will fulfill your needs, finding a distributed group of humans for social support and care likely maximizes your chances of finding stability and being the best version of yourself. Thus collectively managing our emotions is an important task, we do not exist in a vacuum and as an extreme prosocial species, everything we do impacts the group.
• Question the idea that commitment is synonymous with exclusivity on one hand, and also to question the assumption that monogamous arrangements are always about controlling or restricting one’s partner. Whilst the latter is common (for example, the term monogamous is a term not used to describe one’s own sexual behavior, but the sexual behavior of your partner), not all monogamous agreements are about control, and many people are intentional and consensually monogamous. Equally, non-monogamous relationships are not automatically free of controlling and manipulative dynamics.
• Question that being non-monogamous somehow renders you more skilled, evolved or capable of love. On the other hand we ask you to question the idea that non-monogamous approaches signify an inability to commit or a greedy nature.
• Question monogamy as the dominant form of relating to each other. Such assumptions may reduce the odds of having everyone having their intimate needs met, as each person must look for and hold out for ‘the one’ in order to find intimacy, instead of being able to find different kinds of intimacy in different pairings. At the same time questioning that any other form of relating should be right for everyone or dominate our social spheres either. Instead we might strive for a world where individuals can explore different ways of interacting, that are right for each person at any given point in time. [You can see more about our project aimed at being critical and intentional about a) the creation of desire and b) the allocation of all forms of care, here].
• Question the idea that your insecurities and feelings are by default your partner’s responsibility to operate around, as opposed to your responsibility to work on. On the other hand we wish to critique the idea that the only reason for monogamy is insecurity. There are times to take responsibility for your own feelings and decide how you wish to respond to those feelings, and equally, I hope we can recognize that there are times when it is appropriate to consensually take the needs of others into account even, if that means compromising our ‘freedom to’.
• Question the idea that the extent to which your partner values you is demonstrated by the amount of time, energy or money that they spend on you, and that these efforts are in zero-sum competition with other things they value in life, including other people. At the same time, recognizing that whilst love may be infinite, time is not and there are very real effects of having a wide range of humans comprise your social life.
• Question the idea that your self worth is largely made up by being valued by your partner and that we derive a sense of self-worth out of our ability to attract and or satisfy one or multiple partners. But also to note that until humans stop gatekeeping their social and sexual care to only those they deem ‘worthy’, self value will always feel related to how much others attend to us.
• No approach to relating should remain unexamined: Question the idea that either monogamous or non-monogamous people have a monopoly on ethical and conscious relationships. Lies, deception, manipulation and less than ethical behavior is rampant in both MG and NMG worlds and ethical frameworks are needed that transcend all sets of behaviors. That said, Monogamy often functions as an unexamined norm. It’s rare that monogamy is discussed on it’s personal merits, or that it’s widespread impact on society is considered. Instead alternatives (relationship anarchism, relationship communism, polyamory, solo poly etc) are discussed (and often critiqued) from the starting point of monogamy. The hegemony of monogamy relies on the lack of visible, viable alternatives and thus, in the name of exploration, we should support people attempting to create alternatives even if we don’t want to do those ourselves.
• Question ‘longevity ‘ as a metric of success. The idea that long term relationships are the only ones that have value. The briefest of connections can be extremely meaningful and provide growth and transformation. These are valuable and should not be considered failures because they didn’t transition into something long term.
• Question the idea that sexual, romantic, long term ‘escalator relationships’, or relationships that culminate in marriage and children are the only ways to demonstrate a true commitment. Many different types of relating are valuable, and committed. Sometimes people can be committed and never live together, and sometimes just being attracted to someone and choosing not to act on it, can be a beautiful and enjoyable thing. Not all dynamics need to escalate.
• Question the expectation that monogamous culture is the default set of norms to be upheld, or any other dominant form of relating to one another. The related assumptions i) just because someone has one partner that they are not available, ii) that if they have a second partner, they are cheating, or iii)the assumption that all non-monogamous people must declare themselves as such from the outset in order to preserve monogamous rules, should all be questioned. The cultural and ideological forces that deter people from non-monogamy and reward monogamy are strong, but the reverse is true in some ways also depending on your community and environment. I’ve seen shaming and ‘othering’ rampant in all groups of people. We should strive for a world where agreements between two or more people might differ, where we can celebrate that diversity and be allies to each other in our mutual explorations of social relations. (rather than project shame or pass judgement)
• Question the idea of the couple as the only or best form of dynamic (couple-centrism), and hope that we can learn to value more-than-twos, and the value of the social village (which may contain couples, and two, and triads and all manner of things).
• Question the role of identity politics around our approaches to social dynamics such as love and sex, which suggests that there is only one way for each person. Instead I wish for fluidity and exploration for all people to find modes of giving and receiving care that represent what they need at each moment in time.

* Most of this is accumulated from these wonderful writings and thoughts

On toxic monogamy culture
On toxic non-monogamy culture
The Relationship Escalator
The short instructional manifesto for relationship anarchy
Critical Hedonisms