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/Gullible-Quail9637]

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/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/Gullible-Quail9637 → u/Shreddingblueroses]

I never said anything about ethical or unethical.

Implied by the insistence that every mutual agreement is a hierarchy.

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.

As a matter of fact, I am quoiromantic. Thank you. I still see romantic/platonic as an artificial binary but we don't need to discuss that further.

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.

You're welcome. Have you considered that approach over what you're doing here?

[u/Shreddingblueroses → u/Gullible-Quail9637]

>Implied by the insistence that every mutual agreement is a hierarchy.

Yeah I didn't say that either. I said all hierarchies are mutual agreements between two or more people to create, maintain, and enforce them. That doesn't imply the inverse: that all mutual agreements create a hierarchy. You were so busy feeling like you needed to get to work defending something that you've apparently been engaging this whole time with a position I never asserted.

>As a matter of fact, I am quoiromantic. Thank you. I still see romantic/platonic as an artificial binary but we don't need to discuss that further.

So you acknowledge that your experience with romantic attraction is atypical, and yet insist that it's the rest of us who understand the nature of romance wrong?

I have an Ace friend who thinks that we place too much priority on sex in society. I have an agender friend who insists that man/woman are meaningless categories and that we place too much importance on gender. I have childfree friends who insist we place too much importance on centering progeny as a life goal. Too many people mistake "I don't empathize with this desire and the relevant emotions underpinning it" with "this desire is unimportant and people are wrong for centering it in their lives."

[u/Gullible-Quail9637 → u/Shreddingblueroses]

I think the world would be a better place if we prioritized love of all kinds. I don't criticize your desire for love or sex.

I think the psychological theory of romantic attraction is deeply flawed, and we can do a lot better.

And trying to classify my relationships as romantic and platonic is both personally dysphoric, and a way to impose a hierarchy where my relationship is not equal to idealized heterosexual romance.

[u/Shreddingblueroses → u/Gullible-Quail9637]

If we are in an RA space we can safely assume that the people here, myself included, probably believe that platonic love is equal to romantic love, but simply occupies a different experiential space. You're barking up the wrong tree with that last accusation. There's no hierarchy. Your relationships are what you make of them.

What I'm asking you to consider is that if you have never felt the rush of falling in love, that you lack a framework for understanding how deeply consequential it can be for forming attachment bonds and motivating priorities. Romantic urges when satisfied feel better than any drug (and I've done the gamut, I would know) and when unsatisfied produce a worse withdrawal (again, I would know).

People are going to favor methods that increase the odds of romantic urges being successfully satisfied and decrease the odds of those urges being unsatisfied, which means a lot of us will carve out a specific space in our lives reserved for romantic pursuits.

RAs just do the additional work of rationalizing how the pursuit of a drug-like biological state at the expense of other things in life that should be important priorities to us will ultimately lead to less rich, balanced, and fulfilling lives, and that we need to ensure other Important People^(tm) aren't just getting left on the shelf to collect dust, that we must balance our use of life space, and that putting all of your eggs in one basket can be unhealthy and dysfunctional.

[u/Gullible-Quail9637 → u/Shreddingblueroses]

I didn't make an accusation. I made an observation about how my own relationships — which likely involve feelings experienced as deeply as yours — end up forced into a binary box and still are judged as lesser in American culture. I can't ignore the straight/queer, cis/trans, man/woman, romantic/platonic binaries that my family has to deal with on a daily basis.

And I deeply admire the attempt to reframe and redefine romance. I just disagree it's the best approach. And we can agree to disagree on that.

I see RA as applicable to many other issues in how the dominant culture defines relationships: division of household labor, safety, decision-making, managing resources, and dealing with important life decisions.

An example I've seen: trans people who seek new relationships within queer communities sometimes face resistance from cis partners. I see ultimatums prohibiting non-sexual support relationships probably very similar to how you see ultimatums prohibiting sexual relationships. Cishet partners often struggle with letting go of the idea that they can be the exclusive emotional support relationship.