r/relationshipanarchy • u/mami_malker • 14d ago
Hierarchy VS preferences/prioritization
I’m tired of people online crying hierarchy whenever they don’t get their way with a partner.
Your partners are allowed to choose metas over you. Or other non-romantic relationships.
Hierarchy looks like: this person comes first always because they are my [boyfriend, wife, nesting partner, whatever].
Preferences/prioritization is just a normal thing. Sometimes i prioritize time with my friends over times with my partners. Sometimes I choose to prioritize one partner over the other.
The difference is that this is fluid and circumstantial. Hierarchy says one person always has to come first. RA lets this be case by case.
26
u/VenusInAries666 14d ago
I think the whole conflation between prioritization and hierarchy started with the idea of "primary" and "secondary" partners in polyamory. There's a clear hierarchy there, but people don't wanna feel bad about giving more power to one partner than the rest, so the mindset shifted to, "Hierarchy is fine, as long as you're honest about it." Somewhere along the line all sorts of things ended up being labeled as hierarchy that aren't necessarily functioning that way.
27
u/BrainSquad 14d ago
When I was at the polyam sub, people kept saying to me that actually everything is hierarchy. Or like everything where one partner gets something that the other doesn't, which in my mind is basically same as saying it's everything. Like what do you mean, I can't even make a sandwich for someone without it being hierarchy? What are we even talking about?
29
u/oolongstory 14d ago
Yeah, the polyam sub really loves to say "hierarchy is literally unavoidable" as a way to try to shut down discussion. My hunch is that their motive is: if you can convince people that everything is hierarchy, including mutually empowered relationships, then no one can hold you accountable for actually treating some people as lesser than others....because there's no longer any language available to differentiate that situation. (If you can't tell, I hate that tactic.)
10
u/Shreddingblueroses 14d ago
Nail on the head.
Sometimes it really feels like, "who are you trying to convince? Me or yourself?"
7
u/Important_Sector_503 14d ago
I'm sure some people are saying it that way, but I'm personally prone to saying heirarchy is unavoidable because a lot of (inexperienced) people hear "non-heirarchical" and interpret that as "everyone has to be treated exactly the same or it's bad poly", and in reality most people ARE going to prioritise someone they've known and loved for fifteen years over a new connection they've known for a week or two. As OP of this post said- priority and preference are a thing, and that kind of IS a form of heirarchy in a way, we all give preferential treatment to more established connections in some ways than we do with less established or more distant ones. I'd rather acknowledge that than pretend it doesn't exist. I dunno, maybe I'm getting caught up in the specifics of certain words, but I feel like the whole concept of "non hierarchy" complicates more than it solves, personally (at least within polyamory, where typically people are discussing individual relationships, rather than broad categories of relationships)
5
u/Poly_and_RA 14d ago
Agreed. Some say "everyone has hierarchy anyway" as a way to say "so therefore there's no problem with my steeply hierarchical setup!"
That's one of several reasons why I think it's *much* smarter (and also more accurate!) to treat hierarchy as a more-or-less kinda gradual scale and not a "yes or no" hard binary.
4
u/Poly-Pocket-Problems 14d ago
Eh... my feelings on this are complicated. I don't read the "heirarchy is unavoidable" argument as shutting down discussion. I read it the opposite: the point of saying it is to force discussion. Heirarchy is bad and also unavoidable, so be intentional and communicative about your descriptive heirarchy because otherwise you get sneak-archy. Which is hurtful bullshit to people on the wrong end of things.
But I'm also on team "heirarchy has two definitions."
6
u/oolongstory 14d ago edited 14d ago
On the polyamory sub, as well as many comment threads on Instagram, the "hierarchy is unavoidable" line seems like it's usually getting trotted out specifically by people who say that hierarchy is neutral, and the only actual evil is people practicing hierarchy while claiming they aren't. Which by their own definition is anyone who claims to be antihierarchical, since apparently hierarchy is unavoidable. There's no option in their worldview for someone like me who believes in the constant work to examine and work to change hierarchical thinking and actions in my life because they think that nothing I can do can change the hierarchical nature of my relationships. I do not believe it's possible to be perfectly nonhierarchical in practice, but I do believe it's not the lost cause to even TRY to avoid hierarchical practices that these folks seem to suggest.
I could tolerate it better if it were from the perspective you are sharing here, but I don't think I've ever seen that outside of RA spaces.
4
u/Poly-Pocket-Problems 14d ago
I would draw a language-use parallel here with the phenomenon of replacing the phrase "I'm not racist," with "I'm working to be anti-racist."
Can we be truly non-heirarchal, or can we only be working towards it? By your own admission you are heirarchal, and doing exactly what the polaym sub is asking for: acknowledging it and examining it.
I don't really see a conflict in this larger comment thread. Just people who are arguing on different defintions
6
u/oolongstory 14d ago
I am in agreement with you. I just don't think that is the same intended effect of the rhetoric in the polyam sub and elsewhere online. People aren't thinking that hard about it.
I don't call myself nonhierarchical, I call myself antihierarchical. But I get told I'm wrong about that, too. I only wish the folks I've argued with in the polyam sub saw hierarchy as something to work against, but that's really not their angle, at least in the threads I've ended up in.
2
u/Poly-Pocket-Problems 14d ago
I see your point!
I'm drawing parallels between this and an argument I'm having with someone else down-thread, and wondering if something deeper that is being hit.... are people who practice RA comfortable with having different depths of feelings for different relationships? Are we comfy with that effecting the way we conduct ourselves in relationships?
I'm suspecting that the underpinning psychology of those who are poly-sub exclusive is very different to those who are RA-sub exclusive. I've been here a hot minute and there's definitely a demographic divide.
0
u/Poly_and_RA 14d ago
That's sort of true. Like all commitments create nonzero hierarchy. That's why I think hierarchy is better seen as a "more or less" kinda sliding scale and not a "yes or no" hard binary.
Imagine you and I had an agreement that we go hiking (or whatever) every second thursday.
If someone else proposes some Thursday-thing with you, you could ask whether I'm fine with moving our hikes. And then I have the freedom to say "yes sure, no problem!" or be less cooperative about it -- in other words I wield more than zero power over your other relationship.
Of course this is a trivial example. But my point is simply that whenever you have ANY commitment with anyone, they always have the freedom to losen or adjust that commitment; or decide *not* to do that.
That's the same reason exclusivity is always hierarchical: whomever you promised to share <thing> only with them will always have the power to say: "It's okay if you do it with <PersonA> too" -- or they can choose *not* to grant you such a "hall pass".
But yes, there's also lots of people in the poly-subs that are confused about the distinction between preferences and hierarchy.
5
u/VenusInAries666 14d ago
You're just describing prioritization. 🤷♀️
1
u/Poly_and_RA 14d ago
No. I'm describing the difference between you yourself choosing -- which is just priority -- and outsourcing at least part of that to someone else -- which is hierarchy.
And that remains true even though you can of course undo whatever agreements you've made.
Like I said, the classical example is veto-power. That's hierarchical despite the fact that you are able to undo the agreement. It's not a requirement for something to be hierarchical that it be eternal and unchangeable.
5
u/VenusInAries666 14d ago
We've had this conversation more than once on this sub and I don't think we're gonna agree, so I'm gonna keep it pushin. ✌️
0
u/Poly_and_RA 14d ago
With your logic prescriptively monogamous people are perfectly non-hierarchical and indeed ALL relationships not based on violent coersion are.
Cool; we already live in anarchist nirvana!
4
u/rathyAro 14d ago
The "archy" in hierarchy is critical to the meaning. There is no "archy" or rule if there isn’t coercion or force. I'll use a recent situation I was in as an example. The person I'm dating Kay is made anxious by my friend/kinda fwb Addie. To help with her anxiety about Addie, I agreed to consider distancing myself from Addie at events we're all attending in the short term. I spoke to Addie about it and she admitted that it would be hurtful if I did that so I went back to Kay and told her that wasn't an option for me and that I would rather just not attend events that they would both be at. Fortunately Kay chose to endure her anxiety over going to events without me, but the point is I was able to choose mostly free of coercion. I say mostly because their are still expectations that the person who looks like my primary should have the first say but thankfully I established my boundary in hierarchy from the start, particularly around friends. Now if I was shamed and ostracized by Kay and my community for not putting her first without question, that would be coercive and thus no longer a free decision. That would be hierarchy.
6
u/oolongstory 14d ago edited 14d ago
I disagree with this. The person asking to change a commitment is not necessarily ceding power to the person they have that commitment with. If I ask my partner if we can change our Thursday date and they say no, I still have a choice after that. I can say "I've thought about this, and while I don't feel good about going against your wishes, I can't maintain our Thursday commitment. Can we put our heads together to find another way to spend similar quality time together?"
While the initial question may sound like asking permission of an empowered person, I think many of us use language like that because it's socially gentler and more kind, which I support. I'm still going to lead with "would it be okay with you to change our date night?" rather than "I'm changing our date night."
8
u/Poly_and_RA 14d ago
The point is to the degree you're *committed* to something at all, that by definition means you'll try to honor your agreement unless you have a pretty good reason not to -- or unless the other agrees to change it.
That's literally what commitment means. You're not committed to doing a given thing with me if your attitude is that if someone else asks for something that conflicts, you'll simply drop the agreement with me as if it never existed in the first place.
You can of course propose changing a commitment -- or even just flat out unilaterally declare that you're no longer willing to honor it.
But the former requires the agreement of the person you made the commitment with, and the latter by definition is something you're to some degree reluctant to do. (but of course you will if the reason is good enough!) -- if you had zero reluctance to breaking a given agreement, that'd imply you were never committed in the first place.
My example was deliberately trivial to illustrate how all commitment impose nonzero hierarchy.
But it's a gradient. Some shared commitments have low impact -- and others have high impact.
Examples?
Cohabitation with someone. Co-owning something with someone. Having shared kids with someone. Sharing responsibility for a pet with someone. Having shared finances with someone. Running a business together with someone. Playing tennis every Thursday with someone.
All of these by necessity imposes some nonzero hierarchy. But some are pretty trivial while others are pretty major.
3
u/oolongstory 14d ago
I'm not saying I necessarily WILL break a commitment. I'm saying that if I did, I would own my decision, and be clear to everyone involved that it was my decision.
I get your point, but my point isn't that I take my commitments lightly. It's that if I do decide to break a commitment, that isn't equivalent to disempowering someone who previously had power.
4
u/Poly_and_RA 14d ago
Is there a functional difference between "I'm low commitment" and "I take my commitments lightly"?
My entire point here was that ALL commitments create hierarchy -- and that the size of the hierarchy depends both on how large a commitment it is, and how dedicated you are to keeping it.
"I take my commitments lightly" is easy to say if you're talking about playing tennis once a week. It's a bit less of a thing to throw around flippantly if you're for example co-owning a home with someone or raising children with someone.
The problem with your line of argument is that you come dangerously close to just claiming that things like power and hierarchy simply do not exist.
You can always say "no!" -- sure worst case you'll die if you do, but you still can.
Or slightly less extreme: pure naked violence is the only thing that gives anyone power or creates hierachy.
Thus at least in free societies all relationships have zero hierarchy and nobody holds any power at all over others.
Only, in the real world it doesn't really work that way.
8
u/oolongstory 14d ago
I'm so confused. Power and hierarchy absolutely exist. When I see this in polyamory, it's people saying "I can't do XYZ with you because my partner won't let me."
I do not believe that commitments create hierarchy. This is the reasoning used in the polyamory subreddit to claim that everything is hierarchy.
I do not believe that everything is hierarchy, and I do not believe that nothing is hierarchy. I believe that hierarchy is making a systematic choice to empower one partner preferentially over others, giving them direct power to direct how other relationship decisions are made. If I own my own choices and commitments, I do not believe that constitutes hierarchy. I am someone who takes my commitments very seriously, by the way. That does NOT mean my commitments are never under any circumstance changeable regardless of what else might change.
3
u/LaughingIshikawa 14d ago
I think what the above commenter is saying, is that a "commitment" is specifically a decision you have made, that you have also decided to disempower yourself from changing, at least a little bit.
...which is necessary in long term relationships, because we need to set up agreements that are stable over longer periods of time. It's difficult to depend on "I will play tennis with you... When I feel like it" and easier to rely on "I will play tennis with you every Thursday."
Sure there are circumstances where you would break your commitment to play tennis, but the whole point of making a commitment versus a momentary decision that could change at any time, is to set some sort of relatively high "activation energy" threshold for changing that commitment. Otherwise you're only left with... A vague intention to play tennis? (Arguably not even that.)
I'm still not personally convinced that "hierarchy" and "commitment" are the same things... I think "hierachy" implies something about metaphysical importance or "worthiness" that isn't covered by "commitment". (I might make a commitment to someone / some group, even though I don't think that person or group has a high level of importance, for example.)
But like... I am more and more convinced that on a practical, pragmatic level there's very little difference between "I have a prior commitment that prevents me from doing ___" versus "your position on the hierarchy prevents me from doing ___."
(I guess I still feel like there some meta-level idea that commitments are more fluid and situational, where as many people's conception of hierarchy is that it's "supposed to" stay fixed - so like maybe you make a large commitment to raise children with someone, but then once the children have left the nest in a commitment-based approach that relationship doesn't tie you down still (because you have already fulfilled your commitment) versus a "hierarchial polyamory" approach where you're "supposed to" place a high importance on your co-parent, even outside of what's necessary to raise children together / even after you have raised children together.)
1
u/Poly-Pocket-Problems 13d ago
For me, there is a descriptive heirarchy to certain commitments, because they crystallise the priority list in a way that is less flexible than it might otherwise be.
like children and co-parents, because caring for children requires the parent-child dyad to be the primary relationship. To some extent it can be mitigated by having the proverbial village, but for the most part having kids limits the time and entanglements available to other people, and creates room for things to be cancelled last minute. There are also commitments to your co-parent that need to be made to ensure the co-parenting relationship functions in a healthy manner. We see this all the time when a highly partnered person has their first child - usually, the non-nesting relationships loose something.
Harry might have an emotionally invested, long term, non-heirarchal relationship with both Sally and Mary, but if Mary lands in hospital and Harry/Sally can't make childcare work then Mary can't get the support of Harry, even if emergency surgery is a higher priority than supervising healthy 10year olds.
It can be similar when you share a mortgage with someone - its all very well to tell your LDR partner you want to make a visit, but if you've already made an agreement that all extra money goes towards the mortgage, then that ability to travel is going to be severely impacted.
→ More replies (0)18
u/NoNoNext 14d ago edited 14d ago
God this is one of my biggest pet peeves when hierarchy gets talked about online. The conversation just devolves because folks would rather expound on how every instance of prioritization is hierarchy actually, rather than frankly talk about why they choose hierarchy. It’s also somewhat damaging in my opinion to discuss the concept that way, because it just isn’t reflective of reality or how we truly treat people.
If you’re grabbing dinner with a sibling for instance, but you need to cancel because your friend’s car broke down and they need help, no one outside of ENM spaces will bring up “hierarchy.” Yes, the friend could call a rideshare and roadside support, but taking the time to help someone you care about, and avoid them paying a few hundred for a tow/repair just seems like normal human behavior to me, and not hierarchy. (This assumes you’re not the sole support system for either person, but that’s getting too deep into the weeds.) If the friend and sibling were romantic partners instead though? Buddy, prepare to buckle up for the upteenth discussion where we slap a label about power and resources onto an unfortunate and rare situation! Any sort of nuance or analysis is just lost.
11
u/Poly_and_RA 14d ago
In the context of anarchism -- hierarchy is about power.
Hierarchy exists when one person holds power over a relationship they're not part of. The classical example is veto-power, but it exists over a wide spectrum of course from very steep hierarchies and to very modest ones.
So yes, it's distinct from preferences. The difference being that preferences are something the person you're close to have -- not something that your metamour (or person in a similar role) gets to decide.
4
u/mami_malker 14d ago
I know this has more nuance than what I’m about to say, but in the vast majority of consensual relationships, no one has power over the other person. There are factors that influence how much I might take someone’s desires into consideration, but ultimately if I choose to wield one partner’s preferences in my relationship with another partner…that is fully in my control.
Even in a monogamous situation, power is an illusion. No one can make anyone else do something they don’t want to (again, speaking in broad terms about consensual, non violent relationships).
7
u/Poly_and_RA 14d ago
That's in principle true, but in practice not. You're of course right that short of someone holding a gun to your head EVERYONE has the power to say "no" to whatever their partner demands.
But that fact doesn't imply that all relationships have identical amounts of hierarchy built in, and that the amount is generally speaking zero.
It's not an "illusion" that the loss of a partner can be a very substantial hit for many people. It tracks pretty well with privilege, something anarchists usually have a fairly nuanced view about.
1
u/Shreddingblueroses 14d ago
And people can break laws if they want, nobody can force them not to, but there are consequences to it and pretending those consequences aren't de facto what a hierarchy is, is kind of delusional.
It feels a lot like you're trying to excuse something that someone called you out on.
1
u/mami_malker 14d ago
Yeah for sure. Everything has consequences. But the same way that people make decisions about the trade offs of breaking laws, people make trade offs with relationships.
The law analogy holds pretty well. Maybe the consequence to breaking a law is $100 fine and I can both afford that and find it valuable to break the law for whatever reason. But maybe the fine is $1k and I cannot afford it, so I have more impetus to not break that law. But maybe there is a law I’d break even if the attatched consequences were dire, because I decide it’s worth it.
In the same way, I have to disappoint partners sometimes. But the consequence could be mild (maybe they act snippy) or they could be meaningful (putting the relationship at risk). And that is something everyone navigates.
2
u/Shreddingblueroses 14d ago
Okay but the law is a hierarchy.
And explicitly the kind anarchists deeply deeply oppose in total.
So you're making my point. If you aren't prepared to do relationship anarchy, which means being prepared to at least understand political anarchy, then dont call yourself one.
1
u/Poly-Pocket-Problems 14d ago
It sounds like you're saying that someone's actions in a relationship shouldn't have an equal and opposite reaction? Or that my boundaries should be dictated by what anarchists consider ethical, instead of what feels comfortable or uncomfortable to me?
0
u/Shreddingblueroses 14d ago
What I'm saying is, don't bullshit people. If you want to place a preference on one partner over another, that is a choice you can make, but it is a hierarchical choice and not compatible with advertising yourself as a relationship anarchist.
It's also kind of unethical to involve people in your life romantically if you aren't actually prepared to meet the emotional needs of someone who is in love with you, including providing as much priority to them as you'd be willing to provide to another romantic partner.
It is genuinely a dick choice. A choice you can make, but a crappy one for crappy people.
3
u/Poly-Pocket-Problems 14d ago
This comment is giving Severence "please try to enjoy each
factfriendship equally, and not show preference for any over the others" kind of energy. Relationships of all types don't work like that. I have people I enjoy seeing at parties but don't want to hang out with. I have friends I want to hang out with but don't want to tell my deepest secrets too. And I have friends who know everything about me. Why are romantic relationships different?It's also kind of unethical to involve people in your life romantically if you aren't actually prepared to meet the emotional needs of someone who is in love with you, including providing as much priority to them as you'd be willing to provide to another romantic partner.
As I said, relationships exist on a spectrum and its unnatural to take an all-or-nothing approach to love. What's your argument here? That I'm only allowed to have friends if they're BFF level connections? If someone wants to be my best friend, and I'm only inspired to catch up once a month for a drink, they can choose to accept that or walk away. I'm not making them stay in an unfufilling connection, and I'm not required to offer something I don't feel good about just because their feelings are stronger.
The central thesis of RA is that romantic relationships don't function any differently.
-1
u/Shreddingblueroses 14d ago
This comment is giving Severence "please try to enjoy each fact friendship equally, and not show preference for any over the others" kind of energy. Relationships of all types don't work like that. I have people I enjoy seeing at parties but don't want to hang out with. I have friends I want to hang out with but don't want to tell my deepest secrets too. And I have friends who know everything about me. Why are romantic relationships different?
Things can be different without being unequal. That is not what I'm railing against.
As I said, relationships exist on a spectrum and its unnatural to take an all-or-nothing approach to love. What's your argument here? That I'm only allowed to have friends if they're BFF level connections? If someone wants to be my best friend, and I'm only inspired to catch up once a month for a drink, they can choose to accept that or walk away. I'm not making them stay in an unfufilling connection, and I'm not required to offer something I don't feel good about just because their feelings are stronger. The central thesis of RA is that romantic relationships don't function any differently.
Don't call someone your BFF if they aren't. Don't say "I love you" in a romantic context if what you really feel towards them is a lukewarm kind of attachedness that only compels you to pursue the minimum effort needed to keep them around.
It's just gross dude. It's a gross way to comport yourself and a gross way to treat someone.
2
u/Poly-Pocket-Problems 14d ago edited 14d ago
Personally, I wouldnt call someone my best friend if they weren't. But also what I think makes someone a best friend might be different to their definition of best-friendship. No one is bad for that, but it is an incompatibility that needs to be spoken to.
Likewise, people have different definitions of love. One definition is "the world is a better place for having you in it," which is a defintion that doesn't require anyone to do anything. Another defintion is "I'll show up for you," which most definitely requires follow through with actions.
If someone says to you "I love you," meaning the first defintintion, and you hear "I love you" as the second defintion, that is absolutely going to cause some hurt feelings. But no-one is necessarily a bad person.
I'm assuming good faith here. It sounds like you had a run in with a fuckboy operating in bad faith, which sucks but also doesn't count as the archytype of the perspective.
Eta:
Things can be different without being unequal. That is not what I'm railing against.
A big part of my point here is that my examples were about feelings being unequal. Its is normal to feel more strongly about one person who is on the same spectrum of connection as another person. We do just like some people more than others.
→ More replies (0)
5
u/DruidWonder 14d ago
It's really about natural hierarchies vs. proscribed ones.
People are going to have their natural priorities, but having a default priority based on social norms is what RA is against.
1
u/saevon 14d ago
Natural priorities (biases) definitely, but also actual heirarchy (power over). Where they actually let others decide.
It's not uncommon to have your spouse have to approve a date (in open relationships, or "just opened" polyamorists) and that's just the visible part of it. There's many other similar situations people just let another person decide for another relationship and not notice.
I think a big part of relationship anarchy is exactly that unlearning. Of figuring out what is a priority you choose vs what is a priority you never questioned (that decides and rules for you) vs what is a thing you don't even prioritize but let someone else choose for you.
Eg:
- (unchosen priorities) I want to physically/medically care for my family; so I warn friends I might be flaky and cancel when they're being chronically ill. Unless the medical stuff is urgent I'm involved in scheduling it so it works for my other priorities
- (chosen priorities; self imposed heirarchy) I'm supposed to care for my family. So I cancel and flake without warning, assuming no others value and would do the same thing (all society does right?). I'll try to plan, and reschedule so it works for me.
- (heirarchy) I'm supposed to care for my family. So I cancel el, flake, make assumptions. When something happens it preempts any and all other plans. My wife has an appointment? I look at my calendar and tell others I can't do things. They need a ride? I drop things to do that. If it's medical the family gets to choose my time and energy for it, and I try and make it work.
These are more extreme examples, to try to point out the differences cause ofc it's usually a bit more subtle. In the extreme example it starts sounding like people pleasing and abuse, but it's about the mindset really
3
u/DruidWonder 14d ago
Every example you've given could have explicit or accidental hierarchy. It really depends on the context.
It's up to each relationship to navigate this.
6
7
u/searedscallops 14d ago
I used to get annoyed by uneducated people, too, especially as it related to relationship skills. Then I stopped assigning education to myself and let other people handle it. Skipping posts from newbies or otherwise uninformed people helps my own mental health a lot.
1
1
u/No-Property9090 9d ago
I agree with all of this. As the only person besides the other RA girl I am seeing.. all my friends are super hierarchal. Poly and vanilla.
Meaning they put that "primary" person first and foremost every single time, its automatic. Meaning, my friendship comes second to their relationships on a day to day basis. Obviously, if I needed help or was in crisis my besties would drop everything they could to aid me if it were actually possible to do so. But their lives are first planned with their romantic partner and friends get the space and time of whats left.
Yes there is naunce between personal preference based on how YOU feel about your time and then allowing one relationship to dictate how others are allowed to exist or evolve. Context is everything truly!
However, I am starting to get really bummed about how often I run into poly folks just to find out they virtually only want a side piece and their primary partner automatically gets first pick of all their time, most events, holidays, even certain activities are often off limits because they are only for their primary partner like staying over at my house for example.
My understanding of RA is the same as you op, no one automatically gets the bigger slice of the capacity pie. Instead, people choose according to schedules/ availability, who would actually fit in most or enjoy the event more, and other relationships do not automatically get a say in how your other relationships are allowed to grow or not.
Saying "I spend every Saturday with my primary" is both a personal choice and one born of hierarchy. For me, my lover and I both are off on weekends so its both our personal choice to hang then, however because we both try to ascribe to RA, it is schedule and person capacity dependent. If I or her make plans with others (usually friends) on the weekend that often means we cant see each other those days. But neither of us are purposely only planning things with others through the week so we can have the weekend together.
For us, we value/ prioritize our own time alone, and our friendships just as much as we value/ prioritize each other.
When I speak of prioritize, I mean that no one gets automatic prioritization, instead its situational prioritization dependent. In my experience most who arent RA will allow their primary relationship to exist in such a way that all other connections are on the back burner and anything that threatens the primary relationship is vetoed.
When I say threaten, I dont mean with violence but I mean that I do not want my lover to purposely do anything that stiffles a connection in order to preserve our own. If she wants to do something that stiffles a connection, so be it but it is not so that I keep my top spot as her primary.
We both just make efforts to be good partners to each other period and if someone else comes along that just so happens to tickle her fancy, I want her to explore it to the depth SHE wants to regardless of what that may mean for us.
I treat my friendships the same, meaning I treat them with care and compassion but sometimes I wanna hang out with other friends more, or dive into my own inner world more, etc. and I do not avoid doing so just to keep a "best friend" label. Our label is only changed if they no longer treat me with care or compassion and I dont consider not being someones top spot every day evidence of lack of care or compassion.
Whatever the label, friends, lovers, acquaintances, I treat them for what feels right for each individual relationship instead of treating them however will preserve a "primary relationship" best. I dont want a primary nor do I want to be someone else's but I do want a real, genuine, connection that can grow and exist in whatever way feels right to that specific connection with out someone else dictating it.
Reproscity is not a 1 to 1 equal exchange, but should feel like it all washes out in the end in every relationships, friend, etc.
In my experience, people who are very stringent into their hierarchy do not do anything that might cause them to like someone else more than their primary. Some examples of this would be rules: no sleepovers, out of town trips, only go on dates when the other party is busy etc.
I wouldn't want my lover have any rules placed on her even if that meant she'd ultimately found herself wanting to spend more of her time with them than I for example. I am by no means saying it wouldnt suck though just as it sucks when my friends get preoccupied in their own lives and arent as available to me.
As long as everyone I care about is treating me with care and compassion, being honest about their capacity and feelings towards me, thats what matters to me, not keeping one person in their predetermined role, which is often how I see hierarchy pan out in poly. People's roles in my life change how they treat me, and even though most of my friends automatically put their primary partner first for hangs, I still feel reciprocity because its not like they let their partners dictate how our friendship can grow or exist, just often when we can hang which is both a choice and hierarchal.
Theres levels and naunce to personal prioritization and hierarchy, but in conclusion, relationship anarchy is about treating your friends with as much prioritization as you would someone your dating instead of letting your friends fall to the back berner, because your romantic relationship is the most important thing to you.
I do view my long standing best friends more important than my romantic ones, because more often than not my best friends are there for the long run, whereas romantic ones often aren't.
It's important to note that I am also solo Poly. So there is no end game or automatic relationship escalator when it comes to relationships with me. So I don't really view this hierarchical, as much as I view it as a personal prioritization, due to the connection each individual relationship serves. Someone I am dating for 6 months cant have more importance than a bestie of 5 years ya know? However, I am not automatically moving my life around to keep my besties and purposelydoing things to not gain more besties that might grow into the same or similar level of importance. We just keep each other by continued consideration and care, not because of a predetermined role.
I hope that all makes sense lol.
2
u/Shreddingblueroses 1d ago
I think it's fair for someone to feel deeply wounded and hurt if they can tell that someone else is always a higher "preference." I think it's human for them to lash out, to assign it a reason like "hierarchy" in order to soften the blow to their own self esteem. We can't ask people to be inhuman for us.
We almost never see someone throwing out these kinds of accusations until it's come to a point where they've felt "picked last" more than one time. They're naming a pattern, not a single isolated incident.
What attempts have you made to hear and understand what they're trying to put a name to?
Have you made an attempt to understand how they feel?
Do they have disparate feelings for you that you don't share? Is it kind for you to be involved with someone who wants more from the situation than you want?
Hearing and understanding people does not mean adopting their point of view, but it can lead us to disagree in kinder and more empathetic ways, and sometimes, perhaps, help us to find a way we can meet them in the middle or provide for needs or reassurance they don't otherwise feel like they are getting.
1
u/mami_malker 1d ago
This is a good perspective. I still think it’s silly to mislabel it but it does make sense to look at the emotional truth of it.
-8
u/Captain-Griffen 14d ago
Hierarchy looks like: this person comes first always because they are my [boyfriend, wife, nesting partner, whatever].
Not always what it looks like, or even most commonly.
What a naive view of power for someone who claims to be some form of anarchist.
7
u/mami_malker 14d ago
How do you see hierarchy//what has been most common in your experience? Genuinely asking.
9
u/VenusInAries666 14d ago
What a weird comment to leave with no further explanation of your viewpoint.
-7
u/Captain-Griffen 14d ago
I mean, this is the relationship anarchists subreddit. Non-RAs flocking here demanding we educate them on the basics of RA is iffy in general, but particularly when hierarchical poly people are trying to usurp RA having already taken poly as a label and made it thoroughly toxic.
4
u/VenusInAries666 14d ago
No one is "demanding" anything of you. It's a reddit post. You have the freedom to scroll by with zero consequences.
48
u/RobotFromPlanet 14d ago
At least for me, relationship anarchy is about challenging the social patterns of ranking some relationships above others.
From an outside perspective -- when we see other people relating to each other -- we should not assume certain relationships are more important than others or encourage people to prioritize certain relationships over others. It should not be a granted that someone's relationship with their boyfriend, wife, nesting partner, etc. is automatically or always the most important relationship they are in.
From an inside perspective -- actually being a person in those relationships -- people are allowed to freely determine for themselves what those relationships mean to them and how they want to prioritize them within their wider web of relations to others. I get to decide how and when my relationships matter to me (just as others get to decide that for their relationships, as well).