Yeah, it’s pretty weird and fucked up IMO.
Comment on Anon self-improves
Classy@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks agorelationship anarchist
Man, people these days will do absolutely anything that can to shrug off any commitment or intimacy with their partner. I wouldn’t even try to date a RA, that sounds miserable, dude.
KyuubiNoKitsune@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
valentinesmith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
I mean you can be heavily invested in a relationship as a relationship anarchist.
The anarchy part is that you do not take for granted how a relationship should be structured and that you are open to have very unique and consensually agreed upon aspects in your relationship.
If you want commitment and reliability and loyalty you can for sure ask for it and name it as something that is essential for your relationship and if they do not give it to you it might just be best to split ways.
Of course I understand that there will be people who weaponise relationship anarchy to just do whatever the fuck they want to and rationalise/justify their behaviour but I think the concept isn’t condemnable per sé. There are also people who weaponise therapy speak to gaslight and I wouldn’t want to generally talk bad about therapy.
Just wanted to give a counterpoint because I think engaging with relationship anarchy and for example looking at a smorgasbord can even help monogamous people to figure out what is important to them and what they want.
Classy@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Sounds like an unnecessary way of complicating simpler and more universal concepts like “communication” and “healthy boundaries” to me. It’s really cool if a couple comes to terms with their own personal desires in a relationship but I don’t see why we have to shove political philosophy into it.
“I don’t want to do dishes”
“No, you’re a modernity anarchist fighting heteronormativity!”
Please
valentinesmith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
I mean yes sure couples have to communicate but relationship anarchy isn’t really about who does the dishes but if a relationship includes sharing finances, includes financially / emotionally caring for each other or if it is potentially a „purely“ sexual relationship. Or just a platonic relationship.
The anarchy is not meant in the same way as its political ideology counterpart but states that you do not adhere to established rules or hierarchies within traditional relationships.
Maybe as a relationship anarchist you want someone you only fuck from time to time but you also want to share finances but you don’t want emotional sharing. This would be an uncommon constellation that could be easier to make sense of using their concepts. You could also obviously get there with other means but likewise maybe this also generally just wouldn’t work/vibe with you - which is also fine.
I really just wanted to give people the chance to engage with potential tools to talk about their relationships differently and maybe that helps.
Either way connecting and communicating with people and partners is always complicated and you have to train it and keep the communication working. So yeah it might be more complicated but maybe thats why it might work for different folks.
Classy@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
I consider myself relatively traditional in my relationship views, even as an atheist, but I also just talk to my partner and we figure out what makes us both happy with each other and ourselves. How is this any different from “relationship anarchy” without carrying the baggage of describing my personal relationship with political philosophy? I’m a guy and I like some traditionally feminine things like cooking and sewing, but I don’t think I’m “smashing the patriarchy” for it.
valentinesmith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
I‘m not that deep in relationship anarchy and in a currently monogamous queer relationship.
I do think the difference lies in the traditionality you have touched upon in that you and your partner have a script / rough idea that has/is guiding aspects of your relationship and that relationship anarchist would want to explicitly frame/structure themselves in most of the relationships they engage in. This is more in the direction of: my romantic partner is also a partner I share finances with or plan to cohabitate with or think about offspring with etc.
I don’t think there has to be an inherent value judgment in this. Different people prefer different things so I think it always works out and either way you have to communicate with your partner in what works in your relationship. (Who does what housework, what do esch of you want out of the relationship, etc.)
Classy@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
I guess I can respect that when one accepts a worldview that it will have an inherent impact on one’s relationships, and if one generally has views on life that are anarchistic that it would follow that they would want to seek such openness in other aspects of their life, too.
When I describe myself as traditionalist, a lot of it is in things like, as the man in the relationship, I feel a deep desire to sacrifice financially and physically to ensure my family is well provided for, and my partner as the woman generally orients herself towards caring for our child in ways that I might not. It’s inherent to our relationship, and neither of us has talked about it nor had any issues for the times we’ve broken from these roles. That ‘traditionality’ fits us well and I feel like we do a good job raising our child compassionately but also with structure and respect.
I ultimately don’t care what people do if they’re not hurting others. If whatever you’re doing works well for you and your partner I’m happy to hear that. I wouldn’t say I align with your views but it’s a big world, isn’t it?