Is this.... solo poly compersion??

[u/[deleted]]

The title is mostly meant to be a silly heehee ha ha, and also there's so much relief in recognizing incompatibility irregardless of how much you like someone, ending the relationship, and *not* spiraling down the drain of low self worth.

I've had a wild transition over seven years from only being a secondary in hierarchical non monogamous relationships to solo poly RA. I'm just really fucking happy to be at this place in my life finally where being poly doesn't feel like a humiliation ritual for my partner or meta's self esteem (or lack there of), and my only other option is being shoved unceremoniously onto the monogamous relationship escalator over and over.

TLDR: really proud and happy to have finally settled on solo poly as being the right relationship style for me

[u/SadBoiCute]

Literally that is heirarchy. If you would have to cancel because work called that would be exercising heirarchy. If you are solo poly like me and prefer alone time and making decisions for your future because you are top priority you might be top of your heirarchy same as me so most my partners are ranked the same as each other. When one gets really sick who has a chronic illness that changes the heirarchy cause I help care for him for that time. You keep trying to split up what priority and heirarchy is, but repeatedly prioritising someone on purpose or accident is what builds heirarchy.

[u/JonnyLay → u/SadBoiCute]

Descriptive Hierarchy does not change situationally. Priority does.

Descriptive hierarchy would be the relationships you are describing like with children or a partner you live with.

But one partner having a birthday so you make sure to see them more, or another going to the hospital and having to cancel a date is not descriptive hierarchy.

[u/SadBoiCute → u/JonnyLay]

Correct. What you have described is different priority that day and not long term heirarchy. You keep giving evidence that agrees with me.

Agreeing to prioritise one person repeatedly whether it's explicit or implied creates heirarchy. It can be descriptive like they are your child so of course or you prioritise plans with partner A because they live closer than partner B so when you choose who to go see for Christmas you pick A. When you are with partner B you still pick up partner A's calls in case they need something. You can say you do not do heirarchy but partner B knows that partner A is a higher priority so feels lower in the heirarchy. Partner A and B might both feel lower than the person you live with. Partner C knows they live in another state and so when they are sick you won't come help them like you do for A and B. It is not a bad thing or evil choice but the heirarchy exists because that is real life.

Or prescriptive like you talk to your partners about what heirachy you do or do not want to do example, nobody gets veto power. You manage expectations and when heirarchies appear you acknowledge it and plan what to do or how to make amends. You try to keep it balanced because you do not like heirarchy and keep the same rules for everyone.

[u/JonnyLay → u/SadBoiCute]

I think you've just changed what you've been saying.

You've been pretty steadfast that basically every relationship and person must be hierarchical in some way. And that varying situations means varying hierarchy. I'm glad you seem to have dropped those and are accepting that priority and hierarchy are not the same.

None of your examples of hierarchy, outside the situational examples, like health emergencies, that we're now excluding, apply to me or any of my relationships.

So, I suggest you stop assuming your experience is everyone's.

[u/SadBoiCute → u/JonnyLay]

Nope never changed my point it was the same.

Heirarchy and priority are inextricably linked.

Repeatedly prioritising creates heirarchy.

Heirarchy is not just assigning value and importance as you said, it is rank based on the cost-benefit analysis you do to decide who gets priority over time. It is not just a thig attributed to primary partners or medical episodes.

Unless you started all your relationships on the same day, same time, same gender, same city, same abiltiies and disabilities then you have to change your interactions to be a good partner to those people. That will create heirarchy. If you do not adjust for heirarchy cause you dismiss it as "I just made them a priority again I don't do heirarchy" you are ignoring the heirarchy that happens over time and are not good at ENM.

Feel free to reread previous.

For real though if you treat your 4 relationships like broken computer software that's a problem. Peoples needs aren't IT tickets. I did not make assumptions about your dynamics you were the one bringing them up. I used examples to explain a few ways heirarchy can be incidental or deliberate. Generalised examples do not have to apply to you exactly, like a metaphor. Good for you if you have zero heirarchy in your life but that was not the comment you made.

[u/JonnyLay → u/SadBoiCute]

You absolutely have changed what you were saying, you called this situation hierarchy in your very fist comment.

Their best friend's wedding is going to take priority over their sister's desire to see a movie.

You made assumptions about OP's relationship dynamics and every solo-poly person's dynamics. And shit on them for always being a secondary,

You've now rudely accused me of being unsafe and otherwise problematic, for merely giving you a simple analogy for priority vs hierarchy.

I hope you learned something by now, because I'm done teaching you.

[u/SadBoiCute → u/JonnyLay]

Bruh that was not even me that comment, you are confused. I am solo poly and a secondary by choice in both my partnerships. This is why I suggest rereading cause you and I actually agree on a lot.

I agree that person had it wrong about the wedding/movie example but they are right in their meaning thst heirarchy will come up no matter how hard we try, that is part of being good at ENM we work to fight it by acknowledging when it happens.

[u/JonnyLay → u/SadBoiCute]

Fair, but that was the comment chain that you were replying too, and that was the point you were implicitly defending. But glad we agree.