0:01

Welcome to the Multi-Amory podcast.

0:04

I'm Jace. I'm Emily. And

0:06

I'm Dediker. We believe in looking

0:08

to the future of relationships, not

0:11

maintaining the status quo of

0:13

the past. Whether you're monogamous,

0:15

polyamorous, swinging, casually dating,

0:18

or if you just do relationships differently, we

0:20

see you and we're here for you. Forcing

0:31

me to form

0:34

myself to fit.

0:38

On this episode of the Multi-Amory podcast,

0:40

we are answering a question from one

0:42

of our Patreon supporters. If you want

0:44

the opportunity to ask a question on

0:46

the show, become one of our patrons

0:48

at patreon.com/multi amory. We're gonna be doing this

0:50

for the next couple of months, releasing an extra episode

0:52

each week answering a listener question, and we're really excited

0:55

to hear from you all what you think about it.

0:57

While we have spent a lot of

0:59

time studying healthy relationship communication, we are

1:01

not mind readers. And our advice here

1:03

is based solely on the limited information

1:06

that we have. So please take it

1:08

with a grain of salt. Every

1:10

situation is unique. So we encourage you

1:12

to use your own judgment and seek

1:14

professional help if needed. The question

1:16

has been edited for time and clarity.

1:19

And this is this week's question. How

1:22

do I put relationship anarchy principles

1:24

into practice when most people you

1:26

interact with don't subscribe to it?

1:29

I love the principles of relationship

1:31

anarchy of customizing relationships, any not

1:33

just romantic ones, as long as

1:35

those in the relationship consent. But

1:38

how can I put these principles into practice more often

1:40

when 99% of the people

1:42

I have relationships with don't subscribe to

1:44

relationship anarchy or even know what it

1:47

is? And that is from Puzzled. Can

1:49

we can we modify this name to be like

1:51

puzzled in Peoria or something to add a little

1:53

alliteration to it? I love that we're going to

1:56

force someone to live in Peoria. To

2:01

help anonymize them further, you know, I

2:03

think that's all right. Right. Yeah.

2:06

Yeah. I mean, this, I really,

2:08

this boils down to, I think the

2:11

thing that so many of us struggle against,

2:13

which is like, I'm doing something that is

2:15

not part of the mainstream. How

2:17

do I survive and thrive? Or maybe

2:20

even I'm doing something that not a

2:22

lot of people understand or people are confused

2:24

by, maybe they've never even heard

2:26

of. How do I survive

2:28

and thrive? I know for myself, when

2:30

I think back on, I've never really full

2:33

time identified as a relationship anarchist, but I've

2:35

identified as a non-monogamous person or as a

2:37

polyamorous person for a very long time. And

2:39

when I think about it, you know,

2:41

a decade ago, trying to explain polyamory

2:43

to people and a lot of people

2:45

being like, what, what, what is that?

2:48

What, poly, poly what? Like, what is

2:50

that? That's less of an issue now, which

2:52

is maybe a bonus that at least people

2:54

have heard the word. But for sure with

2:56

a relationship anarchy, that's a little

2:59

more esoteric, I would say. So

3:01

should we give a quick definition of what

3:03

relationship anarchy even is to all of those

3:05

out there who may not know? Yeah.

3:08

So, you know, relationship anarchy

3:11

was born out of

3:13

a particular queer community in the

3:15

early 2000s. I want to say maybe late 90s, early

3:17

2000s. Sort

3:20

of, I guess, the foundational document, you

3:23

might say, was this short instructional

3:25

manifesto for relationship anarchy that was

3:28

written by Andy Nordgren around that time, I think like 2005,

3:30

2006 or so. And

3:33

it spawned this movement that was

3:35

very much based in this idea

3:37

that relationships don't need to follow

3:40

traditional social rules or expectations.

3:42

You know, people can have any kind of

3:44

relationship they want with others as long as

3:46

everyone is on the same page agreeing and

3:48

consenting. And so some people

3:50

put nomenogamy under the umbrella of

3:53

relationship anarchy. Some people very vehemently

3:56

disagree with making that

3:58

connection, often the example like

4:00

to use to help people wrap their brain around

4:02

it is this idea that, you know,

4:04

maybe you want to have a romantic partner

4:07

but you feel more drawn to co-parent with

4:09

your best friend and roommate. And

4:11

from a traditional social standpoint,

4:14

we think, oh but like you should be

4:16

having a child and cohabiting with your romantic

4:18

partner, not with your roommate and best friend.

4:20

And relationship anarchy principles would posit

4:22

that, no, like if your romantic partner

4:24

is okay with that and your best

4:27

friend is okay with that, everyone should

4:29

be free to define their own relationship

4:31

and create their own relationship the way

4:33

that they want to. I could probably

4:35

talk a lot more, there's probably going

4:37

to be a lot of relationship anarchists that

4:39

are shaking their fists so angry that I

4:41

have left out certain aspects but that's maybe

4:43

the rough nutshell definition I

4:45

would give. And if you want

4:48

to learn more about it from

4:50

us, you can go to episode

4:52

339 where we talk about the

4:54

relationship anarchy smorgasbord. That episode is

4:56

called the smorgasbord of relationships and

4:59

in that we get a little bit further

5:01

into the topic. I also want

5:03

to throw out a amazing episode

5:05

from the Ezra Klein podcast

5:07

where he was talking with

5:09

Rana Cohen who is the

5:11

author of the Other Significant

5:13

Others, Reimagining Life with Friendship

5:16

at the Center. And

5:18

it really does get into some

5:20

of the more nitty-gritty aspects of

5:23

relationship anarchy without necessarily calling it

5:25

that but I think that it

5:27

is a nice kind of introduction

5:29

to some of those concepts and

5:32

just the idea that those who

5:34

are not necessarily our romantic partners

5:36

can still be extremely important to

5:38

us and extremely meaningful and beneficial

5:41

to our lives even going so

5:43

far as like making friendships the

5:45

kind of main focus of life.

5:48

Well, you may also have people

5:50

who you're dating or who you're in

5:52

romantic relationships with but you

5:54

can have friendships be people who are

5:57

super important and who you maybe raise

5:59

children with. or who you live with or

6:01

who become co-parents, things like that. She

6:03

has a lot of different demonstrations of

6:06

what that looks like in her book.

6:08

So I hope that we can have her actually on

6:10

the podcast at some point to check that out and

6:12

to talk more to us about it. So

6:15

thank you for writing in this question, Puzzled.

6:17

I'm excited to get into this a little

6:19

further. But first, I just want to

6:21

shout out to everyone who is a patron right

6:23

now. Thank you for your support of this show.

6:26

You are the reason why we've

6:28

been able to continue doing this for

6:30

10 years now, which is wild to

6:32

think about. But really, it

6:34

does go a long way to helping us

6:36

put this information out there to everyone for

6:38

free. And, of course, we also

6:40

have sponsors of this show which help us to

6:42

keep this going as well. So thank you for

6:44

supporting them. When

6:47

we think about this question

6:49

about, you know, I

6:51

like customizing relationships, they can

6:54

do it and want to know how they can

6:56

put those principles into practice even when people don't

6:59

know about relationship anarchy or don't or maybe they've

7:01

heard of it but aren't interested in it. I

7:05

guess the question that comes

7:07

up for me is, I guess,

7:10

like, is it that there's actively a

7:12

resistance to customizing or is it more

7:14

like I want a shorthand

7:16

for how to get the concept across that

7:18

customizing is even a thing you could do?

7:21

And I guess when I think about that, and

7:23

I remember this came up a lot even before

7:26

I knew about relationship anarchy but just thinking about

7:28

non-monogamy and trying to explain it and trying to

7:30

come up with like what's the shorter way, kind

7:33

of the relatable way to explain it

7:35

to people. And the

7:37

example that I used to use back then was

7:39

just when we think about defining

7:42

a relationship by a label, one

7:44

of the big ones is labeling it as monogamous.

7:48

But I always say if you were to ask

7:50

a hundred different people what exactly

7:52

does monogamy mean or maybe more

7:54

specifically what counts as not being

7:57

monogamous, That you'll get a

7:59

hundred slightly different people. The answers on

8:01

that. And. The reason why I

8:03

would say that is just not to say

8:05

monogamy is bad or non monogamy is better,

8:07

but just to go. We. Can

8:09

I take for granted that everyone else assumes

8:11

the same thing? we do? So.

8:13

I'm wondering if there might be a

8:16

similar version of that with Relationship Anarchy.

8:18

Just. Something to kind of bring up

8:21

as a point to show how

8:23

even if we think that are

8:25

being a boyfriend or girlfriend means

8:27

this set of things or being

8:29

platonic means this set of things

8:31

to kind of bring up some.

8:33

Well. Yeah, but do they always

8:36

that people actually disagree about this?

8:38

So. I just want us to have an

8:40

open conversation about what this means. And

8:42

trying to think what that might be

8:44

like? starting small somehow. Yeah.

8:47

Like like if it's a bow

8:49

it's cynical a to gonna be

8:51

like. You. Know for for some

8:53

people if I have a platonic friends,

8:55

that means we don't cuddle or hold

8:57

hands or or anything and for another

9:00

person is like on super Federally with

9:02

my platonic friends. And that just because

9:04

we use the same label doesn't necessarily

9:06

mean the same thing. And.

9:08

Okay, think of any other examples that might help

9:10

as kind of this short hand to. Get.

9:12

Someone to go? Oh yeah, okay. that is

9:14

a conversation worth having His: yeah, Maybe it's

9:17

not as cut and dry as I think

9:19

it is. Often when we

9:21

think about relationships with our friends

9:23

vs relationships with a romantic partner,

9:25

we kind of put them on

9:27

like different pedestals or on different

9:30

steps of a ladder like. One

9:32

is higher than the other in our

9:34

sense. But. If we were to look at.

9:37

Friends. And if we were to

9:39

look at maybe siblings for instance or

9:41

weird to look at and just multiple

9:43

people there to kind of operate in

9:45

isp in a similar sphere. Like.

9:48

A parent probably wouldn't say okay, that

9:50

child is more important to me than

9:52

this child For and. And.

9:54

I think that that's kind of I

9:56

had an analog for may be looking

9:59

at potentially relationship. Rk That you're

10:01

not necessarily saying this person is

10:03

more important to me than this

10:05

person, It's It's rather. I want

10:07

to be able to have everyone

10:09

sort of bees. It's the meaningful

10:11

to me and different ways and

10:13

I want to discuss what those

10:15

ways are and I want us

10:17

to collaborate on how we can.

10:19

Sort of exists. In. Life

10:22

together not placing each

10:24

other on difference Here

10:26

is in. And how

10:28

we have relationships together? Maybe.

10:31

Arena, I love it. As someone who loves

10:33

relationship anarchy, I love it. I

10:35

just think that. That's. Like.

10:38

The next level? Like I feel like

10:40

that the idea that oh, we just

10:42

don't want prioritize romantic relationships over other

10:44

types of relationships which is usually what

10:47

that boils down to is kind of

10:49

the first challenge to the norm. I.

10:51

I could see that getting a lot

10:53

more resistance right away from someone who

10:55

has not already been thinking about this.

10:58

Then just the idea of.

11:01

How how can we determine what what parts

11:03

go into this relationship and what parts don't

11:05

and county on. Like. The all a

11:07

carte menu sort of analogy could be

11:09

helpful. I like I I want us

11:11

to all get their i just as

11:14

you were saying it I could just

11:16

hear all the voices yelling and it

11:18

being like know, shut out Mainly, No,

11:20

absolutely not. I think I just want

11:22

to create a way for people to

11:24

at least think about it or explore

11:26

it or try to tell them like

11:28

this is what I mean when I'm

11:30

talking about the concept of relationship anarchy

11:32

because people understand. Okay, I have multiple

11:35

siblings or I have multiple kids. And.

11:37

I'm not going to replace one above the

11:39

other in various ways. maybe like deep down,

11:42

but but not raise. You know you're not

11:44

gonna say like I love this kid more

11:46

than this kid. So I know now. I.

11:49

Guess in my mind that's where I

11:51

go to just rented basically give a

11:53

person and understanding of what we me

11:55

and are you know what? we're starting

11:57

out at. I. Think he got his

11:59

him into the legislation I feel like they have.

12:01

They're going to come back and go I guess

12:04

sure. but I'm going to prioritize my kids over

12:06

my mail carrier so user elevated your whole argument

12:08

of course like to you but I got to

12:10

label village you get a higher priority. Nice isn't

12:12

that just isn't that isn't in camp I think. Emily,

12:14

your little. Bit more in the rift, the

12:16

band aid off the leader, certain apps maybe

12:18

original. I'm just trying to like to have

12:21

a conversation with a bomb. Yeah, maybe that's

12:23

ripping the band aid on more. but. By.

12:25

The Ebb: Some people have to figure out

12:27

a way to like. Talk about this. Yeah,

12:29

I think both approaches. To me like

12:32

I think the. More. Deep and

12:34

rip the band aid off Approach is.

12:36

For someone. That. Maybe has

12:38

given you enough signals that like they are

12:40

curious. And open. Yeah yeah. And

12:42

what some are you could be like hey,

12:45

Google Relationship anarchy? Hey, check out the Manifesto

12:47

and then let's talk about a you know,

12:49

like you seem like someone who's who's may

12:51

be ready to. Jump. Into some weird

12:53

shit with me. his. A home

12:55

you know I jump into some

12:57

saw normalise at yeah yeah. No

12:59

normative philosophical stuff with me, or at least

13:02

have those conversations. I think that's maybe a

13:04

good way to start with that person. And.

13:06

Then that is immense. Who it is is for

13:08

someone were maybe you haven't. Gotten those signals? Yeah,

13:11

because to be fair, someone who's coming from

13:13

a more nor me or mainstream point of

13:15

view. I do think

13:17

that the pitch for relationship

13:19

Anarchy ten suggest a sense

13:22

of groundless snus that can

13:24

be very scary. To. People.

13:26

And sometimes it's honestly has seen

13:28

people weaponize the label of relationship

13:30

anarchy to justify some some very

13:32

i guess groundless this producing behavior

13:34

you know I have seen some

13:36

people who may be are in

13:38

a time. In their life where they're like I

13:41

don't want any commitments, I don't want to be beholden

13:43

to anybody. I don't want anyone to have any expectations

13:45

as me I'm a relationship. Anarchist deal with

13:47

it which a you know, I

13:49

take some issue with that particular

13:51

approach, but. So in that case

13:53

I think when it comes down to. You.

13:56

May have to abandon the label

13:58

in that particular com. conversation

14:01

and it may be more about laying

14:03

out these are my values, things

14:06

like I really prioritize time with

14:08

my friends or I really

14:11

make sure that in every relationship I'm sitting

14:13

down to have very specific conversations about what

14:15

our relationship is going to look like or

14:17

I don't want to

14:19

put pressure on particular relationships to escalate

14:21

in a particular direction too quickly. It's

14:23

like these are my values and this is

14:25

what it looks like to me in real life.

14:27

This is how I practice it. And

14:30

of course, you're never going to

14:32

be able to 100% eliminate somebody's anxieties if this

14:34

is new to them but

14:36

yeah, I think that in

14:39

that case it may be more about really

14:41

boiling it down to like what is the value and

14:43

what is the behavior for you? I

14:46

really appreciate what you just said because

14:48

I do know that I've been in

14:50

a relationship where even just the suggestion

14:52

of well, I don't want to label

14:54

you as the absolute most important person

14:56

in my life because I

14:59

have so many amazing important people in

15:01

my life and I don't want to

15:03

put you necessarily above them that that

15:05

was a really big problem for that

15:07

person that I said that to them.

15:10

Even though just I have had you know

15:12

more time with for instance the two of

15:14

you or my mom or my friends from

15:17

home who I care deeply

15:19

about like those types of

15:22

chosen family people are going

15:24

to all kind of exist similarly to

15:26

me in terms of their importance and

15:29

in terms of like the life that I want to have that

15:32

they are involved in. And so

15:34

yeah, I think that's all really interesting

15:36

what you said and just making it

15:38

clear from the beginning. I think especially

15:40

in a new relationship

15:43

to be able to say hey, these are things

15:45

that are important to me and some

15:47

of those things may feel a little bit different than

15:50

the types of relationships

15:52

that you've been in the past

15:54

where perhaps everyone is

15:56

automatically assumed that the romantic

16:00

partner is going to be the most

16:02

important person and I simply want to

16:04

challenge that to a degree and

16:06

talk about the fact that I have other people in

16:08

my life that are very important too. I

16:11

really like the idea of focusing on

16:13

what are the values of relationship anarchy

16:15

that are most important to you and

16:18

leading with those rather than feeling like

16:21

you're presenting this whole new philosophy or

16:23

new way of doing this but kind

16:25

of starting with like what's really

16:27

the important part you want to

16:29

get across. And I think that might vary, you know,

16:32

as it seems like it varies even for the three

16:34

of us in terms of where we might start with

16:36

in it. But it's like what's the part

16:38

that is kind of the most

16:40

important value for you and just talk

16:42

about the value without needing

16:45

to give it this other label because that

16:47

might actually make it feel like, oh

16:49

cool, this is a good conversation we're having and

16:51

not being onboarded into some

16:53

set of beliefs which I

16:56

think can put some people on

16:58

their guard. Yeah, and there's a lot

17:00

that goes into relationship anarchy. I mean,

17:02

the way this person asked this question was like how do

17:05

I put these principles into practice

17:07

when everyone around me doesn't know

17:09

what I'm talking about? There's a lot

17:11

of aspects of RA that

17:14

don't require somebody else's buy-in, you

17:16

know? Yeah, for sure. I'm, you

17:18

know, looking at the short instructional

17:20

manifesto for relationship anarchy, I'm looking

17:22

at things like choosing

17:24

to trust or

17:27

of choosing to express love and

17:29

respect instead of feeling entitlement to

17:31

somebody's time or somebody's body,

17:33

for instance. There's a

17:36

lot of this that doesn't need someone

17:38

else to identify as a relationship anarchist

17:40

for you to put into practice. I

17:43

will say that sometimes having to have

17:45

these conversations or explain yourself or find

17:47

the right words to say, if you're

17:50

doing that over and over again, that can

17:52

be exhausting that does take labor and so

17:55

you do need to find ways to re-energize

17:57

yourself and if you can get around.

18:00

your people, the people who either

18:02

also identify this way or at least

18:04

gel with these same values, if you

18:06

can connect even if it's just one

18:08

person who gets you, that can go

18:10

a long way to refill that tank

18:12

because it takes energy to swim against

18:14

the mainstream. Love that.

18:16

Well thank you again puzzled for sending in

18:18

your question and I hope this was helpful

18:21

to you and I'm glad that it gave

18:23

us a reason to talk about relationship anarchy

18:25

in this shorter format for a little bit

18:27

because yeah coming up with the elevator pitch

18:31

is difficult, right? It's difficult but

18:33

useful, it takes a lot of

18:35

energy. So thank you so

18:37

much for writing in. If you would

18:39

like to have a question answered on

18:41

the show, become one of our patrons

18:43

at patreon.com/multiamory. And if you want to

18:45

discuss our episodes, the best place to

18:47

do that is with other listeners in

18:49

the episode discussion channel in our Discord

18:51

server or you can post

18:53

in our private Facebook group. You can

18:56

get access to these groups and join

18:58

our community by going to multiamory.com/join. In

19:01

addition you can share with us publicly on TikTok,

19:04

X, Facebook, Instagram, wherever

19:06

you like to be online. Multiamory

19:08

is created and produced by Dedeker

19:10

Winston, Emily Matlack, and me, Jace

19:12

Lindgren. Our production assistants are Rachel

19:14

Chenowerk and Carson Collins. Our theme

19:16

song is Forms I Know I

19:18

Did by Josh Ananand from the

19:20

Fractal Cave EP. The full

19:22

transcript is available on this episode's page

19:25

on multiamory.com. have

19:52

made the switch to Nix leak proof underwear and

19:54

there's never been a better time for you to

19:56

try. Save 30% on super

19:59

comfortable machine. and great-looking underwear

20:01

that's perfect for periods and light bladder

20:03

leaks. Choose from a variety of colors,

20:05

styles, and sizes, from extra small to

20:07

4XL. You can even

20:09

match your leak-proof underwear with an incredibly supportive

20:12

and comfortable NYX Wireless Bra. Don't miss this

20:14

chance to stock up on your NYX favorites

20:16

or try something new. It only

20:19

happens once a year at nyx.com.

20:21

That's knix.com for the NYX Anniversary

20:23

Sale. Hurry! The sale

20:25

ends on Monday, May 13th.

20:27

Go to nyx.com. That's knix.com.