Relating since 1994
Jun. 20th, 2022 09:08 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
greenstormMy side of a conversation I had about relationships, when asked what I meant by relationship anarchy. I think it's readable without the other person's side, which I've just praphrased in brackets. I think 2022 is my year of "taking no bullshit, giving no fucks" with potential relationship connections of interest. This is also an excellent example of how I'm feeling "more autistic" lately, that is, I'm not afraid to admit that I analyze human behaviours and I'm likewise not afraid to talk about what I see and what I need and how I think. Here goes:
Hm, you're looking for the practical rather than the philosophical? It generally means I talk a lot about what to expect from any given relationship, and I strongly resist assumptions that committing to do A also implicitly involves committing to do B. Further it means some of my relationships are very, very far from any of the typical obligation/interaction bundles that go into the standard relationship categories of spouse, primary, secondary, friends with benefits, friends, or whatnot. I work very hard to figure out which parts of a connection are a good fit and which parts are a bad fit, and to customize each relationship to only include what works for both people. It also in practice means I have a lot of cometary and long-distance folks right now who I consider very important and will prioritize time and energy for, but whose role in my other relationships is a popcorn gallery and advice panel; they don't have power to shape them.
(something on use of labels and how they sadly don't communicate everything that's needed)
Oh, I love labels! But it's important for the folks involved to know what is involved, and not assume based on the label -- "friends" or "partners" always do x or y, or never do x or y, it's really an ongoing process to daylight those assumptions and make sure they're grounded in consent. And as you say once relationships start to be really customized, outside folks just are not going to hear what's going on from those labels. Intimacy is by its nature so personal to the folks involved that as it deepens it becomes opaque to everyone else, I think.
My neurotype and calling won't allow for traditional relationships so I've ended up breaking it all the way down, and have been since I was 14 so I've had a lot of practice assuming I can do things and then failing. It's not a way I like relating to people I love, failing like that. It's so much work to do things this way! But it's also very rewarding.
I will quite often use shorthand to evoke more accurate understanding in folks, especially folks I'm not going to entangle with romantically or physically. This kind of discussion we're having here, about the details of relationship, is in itself a kind of relationship I don't want to have with every person, even people who might need to know something about my relationship status. Sometimes, then, I'll use "primary" (though most often these days 'my farm is my primary') to evoke "I prioritize my relationship with this person(/thing) over my relationship with you and don't feel like disclosing more about my decision-making process".
(something about toxicity of unicorn hunting and hierarchy)
TBH I'm pretty happy to destigmatize all that kind of language. Poly these days feels kind of dogmatic, which seems to force people to describe or avoid describing in certain ways, which leads to incompatible folks not speaking openly about their incompatibilities. I'd rather people do what works for them, have it all open and above-board, and allow folks to select in or out.
(something about all relationships having value)
Drawing one's value (or the relationship's value) from a relationship structure, that's haunted our society for so long, hasn't it?
I think the value of the relationship, one's commitment to it, and the structure of the relationship can all be decoupled (and in my personal case, should be) regardless of what that structure is.
Well, stigmatizing language also won't get you what you want, because if there's a desire/feeling of connection with someone and you're both wanting to explore the connection, that's the time when folks round themselves up or down to fit what they think the other person wants. So if you call hierarchy toxic they're unlikely to say "yeah, my spouse and I are going to prioritize keeping our relationship with each other intact if there's a serious issue, rather than me prioritizing this new relationship with you, and we agree together to this hierarchy". So then you won't know.
And it won't get them someone who maybe is looking for something without a level of long-term commitment, or who has a robust safety net and doesn't need certainty and can roll with that other nexus of power being present.
Ha, you have entered the infodumping zone.
(something on prescriptive vs descriptive hierarchy)
Ha, well, and here's one further for you to think about: depending on what you mean by prescriptive, does that mean it's ok to have a hierarchy as long as you haven't explicitly talked about it and agreed to it? Because I'd prefer to relate with someone who had sat down with their wife (for example) and agreed that they would prioritize certain things, which they could then explicitly list to me, rather than waiting until after events went down and saying, "well, looks like you prioritized those things"
When I'm scouting someone out for something with big emotions or big time commitments or whatever, I (ok, this is genuinely funny) tend to ask about how they've handled past tough things, because I find creativity and values show up big in those examples. Because most folks don't have a ton of lists.
So to clarify, prescriptive meaning trying to predict into the deep future?
These days I'm wrestling with intention and the unexpected in the future of relationships, so I'm right there with you on what prescription actually means in a relationship. We like to think we know ourselves, our partners, and the world, but life is fundamentally unknowable and partnerships with room for that are what survive.
("Can I reflect on my entire thinking and get back to you?")
Hm, you're looking for the practical rather than the philosophical? It generally means I talk a lot about what to expect from any given relationship, and I strongly resist assumptions that committing to do A also implicitly involves committing to do B. Further it means some of my relationships are very, very far from any of the typical obligation/interaction bundles that go into the standard relationship categories of spouse, primary, secondary, friends with benefits, friends, or whatnot. I work very hard to figure out which parts of a connection are a good fit and which parts are a bad fit, and to customize each relationship to only include what works for both people. It also in practice means I have a lot of cometary and long-distance folks right now who I consider very important and will prioritize time and energy for, but whose role in my other relationships is a popcorn gallery and advice panel; they don't have power to shape them.
(something on use of labels and how they sadly don't communicate everything that's needed)
Oh, I love labels! But it's important for the folks involved to know what is involved, and not assume based on the label -- "friends" or "partners" always do x or y, or never do x or y, it's really an ongoing process to daylight those assumptions and make sure they're grounded in consent. And as you say once relationships start to be really customized, outside folks just are not going to hear what's going on from those labels. Intimacy is by its nature so personal to the folks involved that as it deepens it becomes opaque to everyone else, I think.
My neurotype and calling won't allow for traditional relationships so I've ended up breaking it all the way down, and have been since I was 14 so I've had a lot of practice assuming I can do things and then failing. It's not a way I like relating to people I love, failing like that. It's so much work to do things this way! But it's also very rewarding.
I will quite often use shorthand to evoke more accurate understanding in folks, especially folks I'm not going to entangle with romantically or physically. This kind of discussion we're having here, about the details of relationship, is in itself a kind of relationship I don't want to have with every person, even people who might need to know something about my relationship status. Sometimes, then, I'll use "primary" (though most often these days 'my farm is my primary') to evoke "I prioritize my relationship with this person(/thing) over my relationship with you and don't feel like disclosing more about my decision-making process".
(something about toxicity of unicorn hunting and hierarchy)
TBH I'm pretty happy to destigmatize all that kind of language. Poly these days feels kind of dogmatic, which seems to force people to describe or avoid describing in certain ways, which leads to incompatible folks not speaking openly about their incompatibilities. I'd rather people do what works for them, have it all open and above-board, and allow folks to select in or out.
(something about all relationships having value)
Drawing one's value (or the relationship's value) from a relationship structure, that's haunted our society for so long, hasn't it?
I think the value of the relationship, one's commitment to it, and the structure of the relationship can all be decoupled (and in my personal case, should be) regardless of what that structure is.
Well, stigmatizing language also won't get you what you want, because if there's a desire/feeling of connection with someone and you're both wanting to explore the connection, that's the time when folks round themselves up or down to fit what they think the other person wants. So if you call hierarchy toxic they're unlikely to say "yeah, my spouse and I are going to prioritize keeping our relationship with each other intact if there's a serious issue, rather than me prioritizing this new relationship with you, and we agree together to this hierarchy". So then you won't know.
And it won't get them someone who maybe is looking for something without a level of long-term commitment, or who has a robust safety net and doesn't need certainty and can roll with that other nexus of power being present.
Ha, you have entered the infodumping zone.
(something on prescriptive vs descriptive hierarchy)
Ha, well, and here's one further for you to think about: depending on what you mean by prescriptive, does that mean it's ok to have a hierarchy as long as you haven't explicitly talked about it and agreed to it? Because I'd prefer to relate with someone who had sat down with their wife (for example) and agreed that they would prioritize certain things, which they could then explicitly list to me, rather than waiting until after events went down and saying, "well, looks like you prioritized those things"
When I'm scouting someone out for something with big emotions or big time commitments or whatever, I (ok, this is genuinely funny) tend to ask about how they've handled past tough things, because I find creativity and values show up big in those examples. Because most folks don't have a ton of lists.
So to clarify, prescriptive meaning trying to predict into the deep future?
These days I'm wrestling with intention and the unexpected in the future of relationships, so I'm right there with you on what prescription actually means in a relationship. We like to think we know ourselves, our partners, and the world, but life is fundamentally unknowable and partnerships with room for that are what survive.
("Can I reflect on my entire thinking and get back to you?")
no subject
Date: 2022-06-22 12:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-06-22 05:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-06-22 07:54 pm (UTC)