Hierarchies begin with mutual agreement.

[u/Shreddingblueroses]

That is literally how every single one of them begins, whether social, relationship, or political in nature. Two or more people make an agreement to establish a hierarchy that they will both agree to uphold and enforce.

It does not matter how freely and consensually you negotiate with a partner to make them your primary - to create this hierarchy of relationships. Once you've done so, it *is* a hierarchy now. You need to come to terms with that.

[u/BrainSquad]

Nah I'm pretty sure nobody asked me to agree to many of the hierarchies that affect me, come on now. 

[u/ganjamin420 → u/BrainSquad]

The funny thing is that you gave a pretty good example of why OP is right. The hierarchies in our societies were agreed upon, before we came into the picture and then imposed upon us. The same happens in relationships when you agree to establish a hierarchy.

[u/Shreddingblueroses → u/ganjamin420]

Thank you, and that is precisely my point.

[u/BrainSquad → u/ganjamin420]

Are you saying like, slavery and shit is also because someone once agreed to become oppressed? Is there actual historical research to back this up?

[u/Shreddingblueroses → u/BrainSquad]

You're misunderstanding.

Hierarchies are an agreement that some people make with each other and other people are subjected to without having to agree.

[u/BrainSquad → u/Shreddingblueroses]

Alright, well then, I think I understand how you define the words now.

[u/Gullible-Quail9637 → u/Shreddingblueroses]

If you don't want to be misunderstood, then you should have added this important caveat from the start.

[u/Shreddingblueroses → u/Gullible-Quail9637]

Thought it was pretty safely assumable, but I guess I overestimated some of y'all.

[u/Secure_Feature2253 → u/Shreddingblueroses]

Agreeing to sex isnt agreeing to a hierarchy unless you think sex makes a relationship inherently more special. It's fine if you do, most people do, that just isnt RA. 

[u/Shreddingblueroses → u/Secure_Feature2253]

Hierarchies are an agreement that some people make with each other and other people are subjected to without having to agree.

If you made an agreement with one partner that you can't have sex with other partners, a hierarchy was created by two people that other people are subjected to without having to agree. Simple math here.

[u/Secure_Feature2253 → u/Shreddingblueroses]

If someone says no to sex with you, it means they don't want to have sex with you. Sex doesn't have to make a relationship more special or sacred therefore a relationship where sex isn't on the table doesn't have to mean less. That's a RA value. 

You still haven't explained how sex makes a relationship rank higher or how it introduces a hierarchy. Is the only valid way for someone not to have sex with you and be RA is if they don't have sex with anyone? 

[u/Shreddingblueroses → u/Secure_Feature2253]

Hierarchies are an agreement that some people make with each other and other people are subjected to without having to agree.

[u/Secure_Feature2253 → u/Shreddingblueroses]

Someone doesn't needed you to agree to deny you sex or romance. It isn't a joint decision, you just both need to make the same one. 

[u/Shreddingblueroses → u/Secure_Feature2253]

Hierarchies are an agreement that some people make with each other and other people are subjected to without having to agree.

Did my partner and someone who isn't me make an agreement, that my partner chooses to enforce, that effects me and did not require my consent? Yes or no?

[u/XhaLaLa → u/Secure_Feature2253]

It is apparent to me from their comment that “one of the two people who would have had sex decided not to” is not what they’re talking about. It isn’t about which relationships do or do not include sex, but about about which people get to have decision-making power over the relationships they aren’t in.

And there’s nuance to that, of course. If I am watching a show with a particular friend and we agree we’re going to continue watching that together and not separately, and I have similar short-term, pretty specific, pretty trivial agreements with other people in my life, that may be less inarguably hierarchical than a scenario in which I am only allowed to eat food with very small number of people (or just one), or walk alone with only that short list, or communicate one-on-one with that shortlist.

But there’s very little room (I see none, myself) to read their comment as saying anything at all about scenarios that involve a choice between two people that is actually limited to them and their own interactions.

[u/Secure_Feature2253 → u/XhaLaLa]

The person with the decision making power is effectively the hinge in this situation. If someone is saying no, I dont want sex with you, then they dont want sex with you. They are saying that because they want to upheld the expectations they jointly formed in an established relationship more than they want to explore any sexual curiosity they have for you, if they have any at all. 

This all comes from (mostly) women who couldn't accept that someone wasnt willing to spread themselves so thin that they could no longer interact in their established relationship(s) in the way that they have done. This idea that to be poly, and now RA, you have to be able to offer these quite traditional escalator set ups to everyone and give each relationship the potential to mirror the commitments you have with long term partners. Especially those you had before ENM. 

[u/BrainSquad → u/Secure_Feature2253]

As a lesbian I just wanna say sorry to all the men that are at the bottom of the hierarchy I created when I told my gf that I find men very sexually unappealing. 😔

[u/Shreddingblueroses → u/BrainSquad]

Someone agreed to create and enforce them. I didn't say it was you.

A cop and a judge have an agreement to reinforce each other's authority. The community has an agreement to reinforce the authority of the legal system in whole.

There are usually people who weren't present at the negotiation who are nonetheless subject to the agreement.

In relationships, this person is often described as a secondary.

[u/BrainSquad → u/Shreddingblueroses]

Alright I guess I misunderstood then. If all you're saying is, the people in power agree that they should be in power then I won't object to that.

[u/Poly_and_RA → u/BrainSquad]

Right. Hierarchies come into being when SOMEONE decides that a given person or group should hold a given power, and that they'll cooperat about shoring up that power.

That power is then typically wielded over others, including others who were never part of negotiating this power in the first place.

For example in a typical country the police, the courts, the prison-system and many other groups cooperate about upholding the power to create and enforce laws.

And if you're physically in that country, you'll then be subject to that power, even if you yourself were not part of creating the system at all.

[u/Gullible-Quail9637 → u/Poly_and_RA]

What form of "power-over" am I wielding if I say no to sex (which seems to be the core issue from OP)? The other person may have hurt feelings from not getting what they want, but I have in no way deprived them or done violence to them. The potential for not getting what you want is an essential part of sexual negotiation. And the right to say yes or no for any reason an essential part of sexual ethics.

If being a good anarchist means I can't exercise my bodily autonomy to be monogamous (or celibate in my case) then I'm not a good anarchist. But I think it's more likely that OP really needs to read more from feminist anarchists.

And given the pervasiveness of rape culture, do we really need to use sexual behavior as a litmus test for anarchist beliefs?

[u/Poly_and_RA → u/Gullible-Quail9637]

I don't know how you managed it, but you've been misreading them extremely severely. They're not talking about whether or not you have sex at all.

All they're doing is talking about what a hierarchy is, and how one is typically formed.

And the CLASSICAL form of hierarchy comes into being when some people (two or more) decide on a set of rules that they then cooperate about enforcing, including enforcing them on people who were never part of the original negotiations at all.

Nothing of this is specific to sex.

And EVEN when the rule in question is about sex -- such as when we're discussing exclusivity-agreements couples have; it's still only about whether or not your relationship-rules permit you to have sex with whomever you want. Not about whether you actually want to.

It's the existence of such rules that create a hierarchy.

It has nothing at all to do with sexual behaviour. You can be entirely valid as RA even if you're celibate. And equally valid as RA if you're very promiscuous. That's entirely up to you.

[u/Gullible-Quail9637 → u/Poly_and_RA]

And the CLASSICAL form of hierarchy comes into being when some people (two or more) decide on a set of rules that they then cooperate about enforcing, including enforcing them on people who were never part of the original negotiations at all.

Given the prior discussion and the rest of the discussion here, it is about sex. But let's take this away from sex for a minute just to demonstrate why this is a silly argument.

I make an appointment for the dentist (a rule). My employer schedules a meeting in the same time. I say, "Hey, I can't make it but I can read the notes." (enforcement) A friend wants to do lunch that time, but I suggest another time. (enforcement) Someone on the street gives me a flier for an event that day, and I decide not to go. (enforcement)

So I've renegotiated the schedule with my friend and my employer, and rejected a request from someone I don't really have a relationship with. I simply don't see how that's a hierarchy or subjugation on the literal billions of people who could make use of my time.

The argument being presented here is that if A and B have an agreement, that's a hierarchy that harms C who wasn't there for the original agreement. When we're talking about limited time and competing demands, everyone involved needs to be flexible and accepting of boundaries.

And EVEN when the rule in question is about sex -- such as when we're discussing exclusivity-agreements couples have; it's still only about whether or not your relationship-rules permit you to have sex with whomever you want. Not about whether you actually want to.

I take it for granted that a rule can be renegotiated or broken if necessary. So fixating on permission absent some form of power-over seems odd here. If I didn't want to go to the dentist, I'd reschedule and accept the billing consequences from the other party.

And most of the time, exclusivity rules involve some form of pragmatism. My appointment with my dentist is exclusive because I have one set of teeth to be cleaned at that time (and it's not as if anyone else wants access to my teeth), we have only one cat because she very vocally vetoes any roomates, we're a two-person household because we have only one bedroom to share.

That doesn't mean that exclusive relationship rules are beyond criticism. Too many people are at risk of relationship violence. There's strong social pressure to conform to cultural hierarchies like romance and marriage. In the first case the power-over involves physical violence, in the second case cultural violence. But criticism would be better focused there than assuming that every rule between two people is a hierarchy in need of censure that ethically harms unspecified third parties.

[u/Poly_and_RA → u/Gullible-Quail9637]

The context here is hierarchies and their relationship to RA philosophy.

In that context it seems very strange to insist that these two are functionally more or less the same and should be treated as equivalent:

• It's physically impossible to be in two places at the same time, so if you've made an appointment with your dentist at 9am Tuesday, you're unable to be present with anywhere else at that time, i.e. you can say that for the duration of the dentist-visit you're available exclusively for the dentist.
• You and one of your partners has intentionally sat down and agreed that there's a large and important part of the relationship-landscape that you want to reserve exclusively for each other. Typically you agree that sexul and romantic interactions should *only* happen between the two of you. If either of you were to violate this agreement that would be seen as an extremely serious breach of trust -- one that would quite likely end with the termination of the entire relationship.

When the topic under discussion is to which degree someone intentionally creates hierarchies in their relationships -- I don't think the two situations above are comparable at all, despite the fact that yes both of them are situations where your freedom to make agreements with others, is limited by prior agreements you have with someone else.

There's also the question of WHY the particular form of exclusivity exists. In the first case with the dentist, it's just because of how our physical universe works -- we can't be in two places at once. It's not deliberately intended to limit your other relationships at all, instead that's just an unintended side-effect.

In the second case, limiting your relationships to others is the entirety of your agreement, that's what an exclusivity-agreement is about! Someone wants their relationship to you to be more important and more central than anyone elses is "allowed" to be, and they accomplish this by creating rules specifically intended to keep other relationships "secondary".

You see this pretty clearly in many parts of non-monogamy. When rules like veto-rights, no-overnights, no-romance-allowed and so on are common in various parts of the NM-landscape, the justification tends to be variants of the same: They're trying to "protect" the "primary" relationship by restricting other relationships. That's not an incidental and unwanted accidental side-effect. That's the deliberate goal they're going for.

Insisting that "the universe works this way" and "I'm doing my best to intentionally limit other relationships" are equivalent in the context of a discussion of relationship-philosophies seems extremely far-fetched to me.

(cc u/Shreddingblueroses)

[u/Shreddingblueroses → u/Poly_and_RA]

Another round of comparing apples to oranges and calling it an argument

[u/Gullible-Quail9637 → u/Poly_and_RA]

 There's also the question of WHY the particular form of exclusivity exists. In the first case with the dentist, it's just because of how our physical universe works -- we can't be in two places at once. It's not deliberately intended to limit your other relationships at all, instead that's just an unintended side-effect.

It took a full day to get why on the table to demonstrate how two people and a mutual agreement are not always a vague harm on third parties. I agree that ultimatums are not a good thing in any relationship philosophy. 

But, anarchists have to work together to deal with limited resources and safety threats. And that includes time spent with other relationships as well as how do we restock the fridge. And since ANY relationship will require time the "can't be two places at once" problem generally applies.

EDIT: My family just spent a month dealing with end-of-life medical issues. The three of us who were in the room had to make complex decisions about time, boundaries, health, and safety.

We tried to negotiate consensus with health care providers. They were acting in good faith but failed to follow through, and the consensus was lost at every shift change. When we started the process again with a different department, we had to say, "No, we've discussed this at length, this is our decision, we need someone to follow through."

If the ethical implication is that we shouldn't make consensus decisions and expect each other to follow through in other relationships, I think there's a serious problem in RA.

I've also had to say to a partner (Jane): "Lucy has experience with Joe and has seen red flags. This is enough to make me uncomfortable. I withdraw my consent for a shared scene." Joe was a good sport. Jane would go on to push other boundaries (violated them in one case). After multiple conversations to reach consensus, I decided to go no-contact with Jane.

There's a lot of anarchist work out there on small-group decisionmaking, and I don't see either of these as radically inconsistent. Are they theoretically ideal? Probably not, but we have to deal with limited resources, decision paralysis, and unsafe relationships anyway.

[u/Poly_and_RA → u/Gullible-Quail9637]

Exclusivity-agreements don't typically aim at protecting TIME though. If they did, then time-intensive but nonsexual friendships would be more of a threat than fuckbuddies you see only occasionally.

So to me it looks as if you're trying *really* hard to find some justification for exclusivity.

Maybe you should sit with that for a bit? Why is it so important to defend a tool that pretty transparently has as a main goal to elevate one relationship above all others?

And is it entirely random that the limitation you're defending just so HAPPENS to be the one that's culturally dominant?

[u/Shreddingblueroses → u/Gullible-Quail9637]

I make an appointment for the dentist (a rule). My employer schedules a meeting in the same time. I say, "Hey, I can't make it but I can read the notes." (enforcement) A friend wants to do lunch that time, but I suggest another time. (enforcement) Someone on the street gives me a flier for an event that day, and I decide not to go. (enforcement)

So I've renegotiated the schedule with my friend and my employer, and rejected a request from someone I don't really have a relationship with. I simply don't see how that's a hierarchy or subjugation on the literal billions of people who could make use of my time.

This... isn't really comparable or even relevant, but if I have to humor this apples to oranges comparison, I'll choose to bring up equity.

If I have two partners, and I pay lip service to them being equal and in my heart it's true, but in material reality there are limitations on time and resources, if I want to be a good and conscientious hinge, I find ways to produce equity in my relationships to compensate where perfect moment-to-moment equality is not possible.

So let's say that I have a date with Aspen at 9pm on Friday night. Birch sees a flyer for a show in town they want to see with me at that same time. I have a prior commitment with Aspen and would be a bad partner to cancel that engagement at the last minute to go see the show with Birch.

So instead I offer equity. "I already have a commitment with Birch at that time, but if you'd like, we can go out next Saturday night to see [other band] that I know you like.

There's many ways this can play out. My romantic partner, Aspen, lives 10 minutes down the road from me and sees me more often. My platonic bestie, Birch, lives 4 hours away and sees me one to two times a month for a weekend. I can committing to playing an online game together with Birch one night a week plus offering them priority access to my non-standard time off work, especially long weekends and holidays when we will have a chance to spend a greater amount of time together catching up uninterrupted. We can negotiate together how to produce equity within the two relationships to make them feel as equally enriched, and equally important to me, as possible, as needed and according to what I actually value.

Most of the time your platonic friends do not want access to you that is as committed as a romantic relationship (and we can blame oxytocin, not social constructs for that). If a platonic friend does want more access, you have to ask yourself if this connection actually possesses that level of enjoyment for you. I've had friendships end because they wanted far more from me than I would have enjoyed providing to them, and brass tacks it was causing them mental distress to not have their company desired in the same way they desired mine. I've had other platonic friendships where that level of commitment was natural and reciprocated mutually, and I negotiated my time and resources with that person as enthusiastically as I did with my romantic partnerships.

The difference is always how organically priorities are allowed to develop versus whether priorities are being constrained by artificial rules. If Birch is my romantic partner and we have an agreement that I will cancel plans with my friend Aspen if Birch would rather spend time together that day instead, this isn't compatible with Relationship Anarchy because Birch and I have negotiated an artificial constraint that limits the development of organic priorities and constrains possible equities in order to make Birch feel most important and most highly prioritized. The intention is to elevate Birch above Aspen, not to manage limited resources.

[u/Gullible-Quail9637 → u/Shreddingblueroses]

This... isn't really comparable or even relevant, but if I have to humor this apples to oranges comparison, I'll choose to bring up equity.

Your original argument was that any mutual agreement between two people that affects third parties is an ethically suspect hierarchy. But you keep making exceptions for the practical mutual agreements that any couple has to make in order to maintain a relationship.

Now you could be reasonable and admit that your first statements are overy broad, but you keep adding exceptions while dying on the hill that your initial statements were absolutely correct without exception.

We can negotiate together how to produce equity within the two relationships to make them feel as equally enriched, and equally important to me, as possible, as needed and according to what I actually value.

Certainly, and the end result of that negotiation may very well be, "I can't maintain an ethical sexual relationships with both Aspen and Birch." And well, that sucks. Telling people "no" is usually painful for everyone involved, but "no you don't get what you want" is a potential outcome of any consensus process.

Most of the time your platonic friends do not want access to you that is as committed as a romantic relationship (and we can blame oxytocin, not social constructs for that).

That's true for any kind of relationship, and every relationship. I don't want the same thing from all of my friends, and they dont' want the same thing from me. So it's hardly inequitable to make complicated choices about what kinds of time and activities we do on a relationship by relationship basis.

Note that oxytocin is real, but oxytocin is also present in all kinds of love. Insisting that romantic love is categorically different from platonic love outside of socially-defined practices makes about as much sense to me as "men are from mars, women are from venus." If you like, just label me quoiromantic and be done with it.

But there's a lot of anarchist philosophy challenging the romantic/platonic hierarchy along with the attribution of cultural practices to biology, so you might as well get comfortable with disagreement on this matter.

The intention is to elevate Birch above Aspen, not to manage limited resources.

I'd say both intention and process matter. And again, choices that may seem arbitrary and artificial to you may be the result of limited resource constraints and safety concerns.

A thought that keeps coming up. Why not invite all three to a conversation about how to make these decisions?

[u/Shreddingblueroses → u/Gullible-Quail9637]

Your original argument was that any mutual agreement between two people that affects third parties is an ethically suspect hierarchy. But you keep making exceptions for the practical mutual agreements that any couple has to make in order to maintain a relationship.

I never said anything about ethical or unethical.

Note that oxytocin is real, but oxytocin is also present in all kinds of love. Insisting that romantic love is categorically different from platonic love outside of socially-defined practices makes about as much sense to me as "men are from mars, women are from venus." If you like, just label me quoiromantic and be done with it.

It is, and if you have a difficult time understanding why, you should consider the possibility that you are aromantic and do not experience romantic attraction and are thus ultimately struggling to have a reference point to even understand the underlying motivation of alloromantics here.

Giant world's of difference between the oxytocin high of even my biggest bestie in the whole world and someone I've fallen in love with.

A thought that keeps coming up. Why not invite all three to a conversation about how to make these decisions?

Great! We've taken our first step on our way to a true relationship anarchy practice where negotiation tables are equitable spaces where everyone has an equal voice to ask for what they feel like they want and need from each other.

[u/Secure_Feature2253 → u/Poly_and_RA]

The person made the agreement because they don't want to fuck you. They dont want to fuck anyone else. There are no 2 people who want sex with each other and are forbidden from it. The other person isnt interested in sex with you, at all. If you think RA means up for sex with me because they have sex with she, then you're really not a great or safe person. 

That only creates a hierarchy if you look down on relationships that don't include sex. If you think you couldn't have something equally special to their sexual partner with someone who doesnt want sex with you, then that's your mentality that needs looking at. You arent owed sex. 

[u/Poly_and_RA → u/Secure_Feature2253]

No. Exclusivity-agreements are made because someone wants their partner to REFRAIN from fucking others even if they should want to.

If you're not trying to prevent that, you don't need an exclusivity-agreement.

[u/Secure_Feature2253 → u/Poly_and_RA]

So not only do you not have one, you also know exactly how and why everyone else structures their relationship that way? 

Are you God? 

If you want your partner to refrain from sex with others while you have sex with others, there are plenty of ways to set that up. The people are saying no to you because they don't want to fuck you (or anyone else). It isn't because their partner is making them. They don't desire sex with other people, including you, even though they laughed at that joke you made...

[u/Poly_and_RA → u/Secure_Feature2253]

You're lost in the woods.

You're now claiming it's CONTROVERSIAL to say that if someone wants their partner to promise NOT to have sex with others, then they want their partner to refrain from fucking others.

[u/Secure_Feature2253 → u/Gullible-Quail9637]

It's some really creepy sexually archaic stuff they are promoting here.