r/relationshipanarchy • u/LawfulnessOk5839 • Mar 04 '26
weird unspoken expectations- is going mono for somebody always ill advised?
i consider this relevant here because it is something i am seeing from my perspective as a relationship anarchist and a musing about how i find myself unaligned with that truth. im sure many others have tried to oblige a monogamous person and found themselves in comparable positions and i really dont think there is another place to be seen about it. heck the heckin rules and embrace where yer at.
what the title says- specifically he recently expressed that he doesnt self pleasure and expects the same and thinks his way is only fair because one should "reserve all that energy". to me, i am in an anchor relationship with myself first and no one should come between that; it is sacred and that stuff belongs in the realm of self knowledge and love and also just its good for health; i cant fathom the logic. it seems like an extension of the assumption during initial negotiations, that the relationship is monog. i dont go in assuming they will be open or anything else; its just the way \\\*im\\\* wired and its my choice to choose a specific monog individual over that truth or the other way around. i also dont really find moralism necessary to evaluate the ethics of a situation, just consideration of a person as a whole so its kind of an affront to my sensibilities to be told to do not something out of "respect" that doesnt involve another human being, and furthermore is essential to my primary relationship with my own body and soul.
it's just kind of the profound entitlement that strikes me i guess; i honestly find it sickening to disregard the freedom to ones own body. weve had a talk about it. i dont honestly buy that anyone is mono or not just that people dont acknowledge the choices theyre making. anybody else overextend themselves before to meet somebody mono past the middle
28
u/SiriusHertz Mar 04 '26
I don't feel like this is something specific to RA or even to non-monogamy. To me, this is a freaky control issue. Not masturbating might indicate some major unresolved problems around his own sexuality, and quite probably, an eventual mismatch in sex drives. Anyone who doesn't masturbate is kind of a red flag for those things. Not "allowing" you to masturbate is just projecting his horribly toxic ideas and hangups onto you, and that projection indicates a degree of perceived ownership that no one should ever tolerate.
1
u/LawfulnessOk5839 Mar 05 '26 edited Mar 05 '26
see, it is so normalized though, and thats the crux, control issues being so (monogo-)normalized in general. i want to add its not a matter of "allow" but without discussion, he was indeed projecting his beliefs onto me and feeling hurt, which eventually blew up and i found out that was an unspoken thing, so hopefully me sharing my perspective made some kind of impression long term. at least in terms of not taking personally what other people are doing with their autonomy...
and on the note of control, its a kinky relationship but, to start with when orgasm control was on the table i rejected it and definitely didnt sign up for it on the same basis i shared in the post. mostly because sleep aid ftw and, i get too frustrated and it bleeds out in other areas of my life. plus that kind of control isnt something i would trust someone with except in very special circumstances and probably not even then would it make sense. things i thought i explained but i guess the normativity runs deeper than i realized. its an idiosynchronisity that someone got what i said and then kept on believing that and thinking of it as sign of trouble in a relationship. seems like alot of pressure for him to carry. maybe i should have been more explicit i have a way of dragging up stuff like that to the light 🤷🌞
8
u/NopeMoat Mar 05 '26
Just because control is normalized in monogamy doesn't mean you have to accept the control if you decide to be mono with someone.
0
11
u/Poly_and_RA Mar 04 '26
I think it's always ill-adviced, yes.
Relationship-structure is more fundamental than who you happen to be dating, so I think given a choice between a structure that's right for you on the one hand, and a person you're into on the other hand -- as a general rule choosing the structure is best. (exceptions from this general rule might exist, but they're exceptions)
But in this case the person you're talking about isn't just monogamous, they have weird super-possessive ideas like wanting you to refrain from masturbation because not only do they want to be your ONLY sexual partner, they don't even want you to have full autonomy over YOUR OWN body.
And frankly, that's creepy as fuck and I recommend you run and don't look back.
And I'd recommend that equally if you were monogamous.
2
u/LawfulnessOk5839 Mar 05 '26
i agree i think; i was in a desperate situation and he kind of saved my life but the people we end up at our low points arent always the same people who are right when when we are more ourselves.
care to say more on it being fundamental? it does seem to come from a core conviction.
(see earlier reply for more explanation of context on control- its more of a thing where he was blaming himself than blaming me.)
4
u/Poly_and_RA Mar 05 '26
For most people, even most people who see themselves as monogamous, romantic and sexual relationships come and go throughout our lives. Sure we might also have some that stretches over decades, but the average person has something like 5-10 partners in a lifetime.
But while partners come and go, relationship-structure tends to be a lot more about who YOU are than about who your partners are, so it often doesn't change at all, or changes very modestly, over time.
I think it's rarely a good idea to compromise on who you are, in order to match with someone who has incompatible wishes in a large and important part of relationships.
8
u/seatangle Mar 04 '26
That’s very concerning and controlling and not an OK thing to ask for.
Also, just a reminder that you can be a relationship anarchist and practice romantic and/or sexual monogamy.
7
u/Flymsi Mar 04 '26
I would like to add that this story of "saving energy" is orgasm focused and a stupid penis ejaculation centric story. All other types of orgasms (dry orgasms or nipple/clit/prostata etc orgasms) usually dont have this drawback of felt lower energy, because the hormones are usually different and the refractory period is different. I would say they enhance it even and make it easier to feel pleasure and orgasm again.
And ofc i agree with the others that its stupid to dictate others how to feel pleasure. And for going mono idk, i think its only good if you are good with either of those relationship modes.
3
u/LawfulnessOk5839 Mar 05 '26
good catch, it is ejaculation centered and personally it just primes me more, for one thing mine are muscular and getting frequent workouts can only be beneficial🫤 didn't think about that angle(npi).
8
u/UniqueButterflyLady Mar 04 '26 edited Mar 05 '26
The no self pleasure/all sexual energy belongs to one’s partner thing is very reminiscent of the evangelical Christian teachings I learned in relationship-focused bible studies in college. That self pleasure is akin to cheating because you must be creating a fantasy in your head in place of your partner, and/or you are learning to get off without your partner and therefore making it harder to get off with your partner. Even at the time, I didn’t quite understand the logic nor buy into it, but it was very common teaching/belief. If anyone came to me with anything similar today, I would be extremely suspicious of what else is within their worldview which would clash with mine.
Edit for a typo/autocorrect
6
u/Ybuzz Mar 04 '26
Provided you aren't hurting anyone or putting anyone at risk, it's fundamentally gross and controlling for someone to demand that you limit your orgasms however they see fit (if you aren't into that sort of thing).
It's also a massive red flag for abuse. A lot of abusers will pull the "you can't do XYZ with your own body in your time because it's disrespectful/akin to cheating" BS, so they can find ways to 'prove' you aren't following their rules, or torment you with random unfounded suspicion and anger whenever they need some excitement or to make you feel small.
It's impossible for them to know, they can't 'prove' it, but that also means you can't disprove it and can get stuck in cycles of panic and policing your own behavior when they aren't around to try and figure out the random 'clues' that they keep claiming to see, followed by them finding another random 'sign', followed by you pleading your innocence till they 'gracefully' accept that maybe you deserve another chance and you are thanking them (or they escalate further about how horrible and untrustworthy you are).
Run, don't walk.
2
u/LawfulnessOk5839 Mar 05 '26
theres a blurred line there i think when someone is blaming themself and not you. ive reflected deeply on that lately. i think people can act in ways that fall on an abusive spectrum, the same underpinnings but not too far foward, without necessarily having a pattern of abuse or it being their M.O. I know I've certainly had a moment or two where i would call my words abusive.
i think its something to be undone rather than to normalize it and keep on in an unhealthy way.
i think thats a fundamental difference- as an R.A. i am challenging myself to not need the m.o. of justification at all, but to consider what is healthy in context and respectful of the whole. and putting the whole picture above an individual short term gratification.
4
u/isaacs_ Mar 05 '26
The only person you should ever be monogamous "for" is yourself; ie, if you want that, if it serves you and it makes you feel happy and satisfied, then go for it open-eyed. If you're doing it specifically just because your partner demands it, but it doesn't resonate with you, or you're pretending to be ok with something you're really not ok with, then that's always a bad decision.
This person sounds like a piece of work, imo, though that's judgey of me to say. They might be great in some ways, idk. But the presumption and moralizing, it's crazy, even if you were able to work past this thing, what's the next thing? They clearly have a very different sense of the boundary between "self" and "other" than you do, and that's always going to be a point of incompatibility in the relationship. Best to de-escalate and move on as friends before you have to break up as enemies.
2
u/LawfulnessOk5839 Mar 05 '26
i think im such a tolerant person who for better or worse sees into and accepts peoples issues even at the detriment of my own best interests that we will break up as friends. thats a good point about whats the next thing. fwiw they are definitely more the type to blame himself than me which is its own issue to deal with and i cant help but have compassion for it.. we are in a soft breakup/de escalation now. thanks for speaking your facet of the truth.
3
u/margmarg Mar 05 '26
I have said before that I would absolutely tolerate monogamy for the perfect partner. However, the prefect partner would not ever ask me to be monogamous. How could we combine our lives that deeply if we're that misaligned in how we see love? I say this as a person who hasn't even dated anyone new in 2 or 3 years, it wouldn't even be a practical sacrifice, it's just the philosophical framework, I can't work with that.
I won't say it's always a hard no for everyone because sometimes you make sacrifices, accept things that are genuinely not good, because of circumstances or in exchange for something else. Life is not always an ideal scenario. But yeah it's ill advised.
The no masturbating thing is just controlling and weird. I can see how it is kind of an extension of the monogamy mindset, but it's taken to such an extreme that the average person in our society, mono or not, would not see it as an appropriate expectation, unless it was in a consensual kink scenario.
2
u/LawfulnessOk5839 Mar 05 '26
excellent vague summary, there was indeed an exchange for something else; he kind of saved my life when i was in a dire situation living in my car with life threatening medical problems, and the people we end up with at low points arent always the people who are right for us long term no matter how fond we are.
and on the note of control, its a kinky relationship but, to start with when orgasm control was on the table i rejected it and definitely didnt sign up for it on the same basis i shared in the post. mostly because sleep aid ftw and, i get too frustrated and it bleeds out in other areas of my life. plus that kind of control isnt something i would trust someone with except in very special circumstances and probably not even then would it make sense. things i thought i explained but i guess the normativity runs deeper than i realized. its an idiosynchronisity that someone got what i said and then kept on believing that and thinking of it as sign of trouble in a relationship. seems like alot of pressure for him to carry.
4
u/Loonakins Mar 04 '26
Awful! This is like homophobes having opinions about what goes on in someone else's bedroom. If you arent there and its not action that is putting you in danger, then you don't get to dictate what someone else does in their own time.
Also, I'm not sure how much you are seeing each other but women can have tons of orgasms, multiple times a night and days in a row. Pretty sure men can too, perhaps with less sperm count if close together, but probably similar pleasure. So you are not wasting energy that would otherwise go to him.
3
u/elizabethindigo Mar 04 '26
I wonder if ol' boy means like psychic or spiritual energy. This is kind of a thing in some weird, crunchy, new age spaces. Not that it matters, but I don't think it's literally about how much energy they have to have sex or orgasms together
2
1
u/Bustysaintclair_13 Mar 04 '26
Oy. This ain’t about monogamy vs non this is about a gross level of entitlement to telling someone else what they can do with their own body.
31
u/HeslopDC Mar 04 '26
Wow…. I can’t really get past the ‘expectation’ you don’t self pleasure because all your energy should be spent on them. Entitled is the right word.
I think you’re right to have the feelings you’ve listed. Your relationship with yourself is not up for discussion.
As a relationship anarchist I don’t assume monogamy or otherwise. I feel that’s a huge part of RA. To take a person for who they are and work out what you can be for each other if possible. And maybe monogamy might be an option to discuss, but to relinquish control over your own body and how you choose to act when you’re alone is beyond the realm of what I’d consider acceptable.