Originally Posted by
Unfated33
Just so we're clear... do you actually know what you've gotten yourself into? Like, you know what relationship anarchy is, other than a term to resist against with me? Because it becomes increasingly difficult to tell if you know which end of the pool you are in.
relationship anarchy as i mean you to understand it is relationship chaos.
poly/swinger/enm is not, in its nature, relationship chaos. ive known some who practice that way, i don't.
So, first off... I did not say swinging was relationship anarchy. Nor even non-monogamy. BUT I get now that you do not see difference in those terms. So, I'll confess to saying "I don't know what the f* you're talking about, then." Based on your terms, you lump a whole lot of people together that don't tend to want to be lumped together. It seems like you're trying to say that you don't want to see any difference between the spectrum of relationship models that fall under non-monogamy. Perhaps this is typical for your cohort, but it is atypical for the presentation of non-monogamous groups online. In fact, I think the swingers and the poly people online might take you to task over the way you blend their colors.
im not lumping anyone to together, im saying you are trying to draw lines through groups of people by nonsensical definitions. especially when you consider that poly, and swingers are often times THE EXACT SAME GROUP OF MOLECULES
Second, you have previously said in the thread that there should not be rules, nor necessarily norms, in your relationship. This is a term associated with relationship anarchy. I don't know what you think relationship anarchy is, but what it really is matches the type of stuff you spout. Again, if this is a terms issue and that term just bothers you, insert whatever other term you want for rules-free non-monogamous relationship. Yet you self-describe yourself as "poly". When you say poly, are you using that as shorthand for some other terms, such as non-monogamy or relationship anarchy? When I read you say poly, I'm presuming you are in a primary model that follows polyamory. My argument is that practicing poly where you are rule-free is actually practicing relationship anarchy. Your response is, "Hey, don't define me, man." Very beat generation.
not having rules with which to control another persons actions is not anarchy, or chaos. not using the threat of leaving in order to gain compliance with expectations is not anarchy or chaos either. my relationships are based on mutual consent, the desire to be together in some way, not a set of rules or expectations that if not complied with, will end the relationship.
when i say poly, or ENM, it just means that i am NOT monogamous. like atheism, its a statement of a negative, ie, i am not monogamous. it is not a statement of any other single set of relationships. i have and actively practice several different types of relationships besides that. this is why your trying to draw a line through this doesn't make sense.
Third, you go on for a couple of paragraphs that talk about the increased opportunity for harm in non-poly environments or due to increased access. This is really irrelevant, and does not change that there are studies, and those studies show that non-biological persons in a family home increase the likelihood of child abuse. I know you don't want that to exist, because it is problematic for a concept that your peg works for every hole. It may very well be that the causal underpinning of this study is exactly as you say - more access leads to more harm. However, it is determined statistically significant that non-biological "parental-like" units are a higher risk than biological parents. Think of it this way: poly people are only just as likely to cause harm as step parents and not statistically found to be any worse. There, you're normalized! Congrats.
lets get into those studies and see if they actually say poly child rearing is worse or not ....