relationshipanarchywithoutchaos

[relationshipanarchywithoutchaos]

me resisting the urge to call custom relationships or relationship anarchy "LEGO bin relationships"

[relationshipanarchywithoutchaos]

One of the things I have grown to appreciate about non-monogamy, polyamory, relationship anarchy, etc. is that one not only gets to have a lot of relationships, they get to have a lot of break-ups.

Why would we want this?  Why is this a benefit?

For most skills that we acquire in life, we get better at it the more we practice it.  Obviously we want to minimize the number of break-ups we go through, particularly the bad ones, but then I think about how competency in relationships isn’t just about being a better partner, but a more complete individual, a better self-advocate, and role model of resilience and mindfulness.

When I was younger, I did not handle break-ups well.  In fact, the prospect of a break-up was so terrifying that even hindered my ability to get into relationships.  Didn’t hinder my desire for relationships, of course.  But whatever thinking I possessed where I would mentally chart out the course of a decision to its “logical” conclusion made me risk averse, at first.

It’s possible a lot of people do this.  Or we’re conditioned into believing that break-ups should be bad and messy, and act accordingly.

Many years later, even after a stint of trying to avoid the idea of having break-ups altogether (and applying the idea of a “relationship transition” instead, which has been mostly successful), I think I dread break-ups a lot less.  Why?  Because, as with all things where we practice it many times, I think I’m getting better at break-ups.

I don’t want to divert myself too much into attachment theory, but I believe my earlier thinking was “If I have a break-up I will be devastated”, which doesn’t provide a lot of grace or room to do something different.  Today, having done it a few times and reflected on my own behavior, my thinking is “If I have a break-up, it will hurt, but I will be okay.”

What does being good at a break-up look like?

Being true to yourself

Upholding your own boundaries and limits

Offering the possibility of “de-escalating” or “transitioning” a relationship from one form/style/template into another one, and then respecting that transition

Instead of continuing to hold on to the connection, being able to step back from it

Refusing to engage in antagonistic behaviors once the decision(s) are made, except where safety or legality is a concern

Recognizing your own part in the situation that lead to the break-up, and reflecting on it over time

Engaging others (friends, family, therapists) not for the purpose of validating your view or collecting a battalion of allies to go to war with, but rather for supporting your transition and helping you through the grieving process

Remembering one of the axioms of ethical relationships, that the people in the relationship are more important than the relationship

In no way am I suggesting that we should fly towards break-ups with enthusiasm and gusto, but rather to look at the possibility of break-ups with less dread than we once did.  Usually, a break-up is preceded by an irreconcilable disagreement; the time to be thinking about your position in that disagreement could be earlier than the actual break-up.  Knowing how you might feel if the worst outcome occurs will help reduce the intensity of the experience, and potentially the length and recovery time in the aftermath as well. What do you think?  How well do you handle break-ups?  What works for you?

[relationshipanarchywithoutchaos]

May I propose: New Possibilities Energy

Anyone in the ethical non-monogamy spheres long enough is familiar with “new relationship energy” or NRE, or its more broad term limerence. In recent discussions, however, it’s been proposed that there’s an concept that’s very similar to NRE but not specifically about relationships.

Imagine the feelings one gets around having bought a car, getting a new job or a raise, moving to a new city or home, being accepted into a college, or being fully vaccinated against a pandemic disease: anxiety, nervousness, excitement. They can also cause people to be thoughtless about others’ schedules, forget existing commitments, focus our attention on the brand new thing that’s before us.

People around individuals who have this new thing, and the new possibilities they grant, can experience envy, jealousy, compersion, annoyance, or second-hand excitement. Some may even reflect inward and re-evaluate their own situation, wondering why they don’t also have the new thing, or if there’s some way where they can get the new thing too.

It’s particularly prevalent at the time of this writing, when people in the United States and elsewhere are finally getting vaccinated against covid-19, and after over a year of taking precautionary measures and keeping their gatherings few and small, are seeing that there are going to be opportunities to re-engage with those that they have missed.

And many of them are going to want to be doing all the things, and in a very short timeframe, because they can.

Still others will see these possibilities and become overwhelmed by them, either because they became comfortable in their relative solitude during the pandemic or because the possibilities are too numerous for them to organize their lives around.

To propose the concept of “New Possibilities Energy”, or NPE, is to recognize that with each major event or change that impacts us directly, and/or impacts those we hold close relationships with. Because a new relationship also opens up new possibilities, it could be suggested that NPE is a superset that includes NRE.

Like NRE, there are ways to handle it as well as to mitigate others’ NPEs’ impacts upon ourselves. And it’s worth considering since a whole lot of people are going to be experiencing a lot of NPE very soon.

Those who experience New Possibilities Energy should:

remember their existing commitments and responsibilities

continue to make time for themselves in order to prevent the New Possibility from dominating their free time

take regular inventory of what is important to them

consider the level of ability they have to be driven by the energy this new possibility creates

use the excess energy, if possible, to drive or improve their existing habits and practices

use tools and communication to help keep themselves in check if they are aware of their own susceptibility to the energy

Those who are emotionally close to people experiencing New Possibilities Energy should:

take joy, if possible, in the joy that their people experience in the New Possibilities their people discover or entertain

use tools and communication to impress the importance of existing commitments with those people, and continue to advocate for your own needs and desires in changing times

keep and fill time for themselves with important or enjoyable tasks and activities, without their people

be prepared to support their people when their energy levels start to slide or crash

Most importantly for all, NPE should not intrude upon any existing rules, boundaries, or agreements that people already hold. If anything, those guardrails will provide the guidance people need while experiencing, or dealing with someone who has, NPE, until clearer heads have a chance to revisit them through conversation and/or renegotiation.

[relationshipanarchywithoutchaos]

I would love to see a Looney Tunes story addressing reconciliation and restorative justice around the dynamic between Pepe Le Pew and Penelope (despite Pepe being the main aggressor, there are several role reversal episodes where Penelope is the aggressor, thus [sometimes literally] painting their dynamic as abusive codependency). I want these two to work it out.  They don't need to end up together in a relationship, but the cycle of abuse needs to end. Put the disagreements to rest altogether.  Give them a chance to voice their issues and accept responsibility for their actions. I want to see Pepe apologize to his fellow toons for making them uncomfortable, for forcing them to choose sides.  I want to see Penelope acknowledge that she shouldn't be body-shaming. I want them both to see that it's clear they are a bad fit for each other, no matter what temporary and conditional attractions they may have experienced for each other in the past. Warner Brothers shouldn't pretend it never happened, or just say "it was a different time."  Don't sweep it under the rug.  Show people what a healthy dynamic looks like, what reconciliation looks like, what acknowledging that a relationship *is not necessary* even if attraction exists looks like. They have a real opportunity here.

[relationshipanarchywithoutchaos]

Review: A Geek's Guide to Unicorn Ranching: Advice for Couples Seeking Another Partner

I bought and read this book so that you don’t have to.

I'm going to preface this review with the disclaimer that I started reading this book actively wanting to hate it.  The author* is the Facebook page admin for Poly.Land, which has some very cult-like tactics in its image posts, similar in style to scam pages such as David Wolfe, Vani Fari (the "Food Babe"), The Mind Unleashed and Free Thought Project.  Most notably, the page is laced with universally agreeable tweets, tumblr posts and memes, some not even about ethical non-monogamy, interjected with the occasional privileged or problematic post about polyamory or swinging, sometimes with amatonormative or ableist perspectives.

Before I get started, allow me to clarify: while I and many others object to the principle strategies of "unicorn hunting" (or even "unicorn ranching", which makes it sound even more like animal husbandry than "hunting" does), the problematic issue of couples seeking a third is rarely the fault of the potential third (or "unicorn").  It is perfectly acceptable for an individual who understands the risks and dynamics to enter into an arrangement with one or both partners of an existing couple who finds them attractive.  The problems are almost always from the misunderstanding of the unbalanced power dynamic the existing couple places on their targets, most often due to ignorance, greed, or socially-ingrained conceptions of the importance of the relationship over the members of the relationship as marketed by the western matrimanial society.

This book is a very short read: 73 pages, in large font, with a few appendixes for sample relationship agreements.  The paperback is only 1/4" thick.  I started it while waiting for a flight to take off and finished it before we reached cruising altitude.

The book is divided into "lessons" rather than chapters, none of them particularly long.  The first ten chapters run as basically a Polyamory 101, or maybe even a "Pre-Polyamory" class.  The chapters cover things like getting your existing relationship in order prior to opening up, different types of arrangements (vee vs. triad vs. square, etc), the basics of hierarchy, what a metamour is, all the basic stuff.

The only slightly geeky things in the book are a shout-out to the Ferengi meme ("FEMALES") and some minor stuff about math.  The author later describes themselves as the geek; but the title aims to target geeks, and there seems to be no good reason jocks, nerds, goths, or preppies couldn't benefit from the information within.

There is good advice in the book.  The idea of dating separately is explicitly floated, and I was glad to see it.  The idea of a triad not being one relationship, but four or more possible relationships, is also included. Eschewing exclusivity, and looking for partners who are already part of other relationships and arrangements, is also mentioned.  Being as "out" as safely possible is recommended for the emotional well-being of all participants.  The "love us both equally" requirement is talked about as one set for failure.  There is an acknowledgement that unicorn hunting is often looked at poorly by the greater community, and that it's a rookie tactic that many couples take.  While introducing the unicorn as most likely to be a bisexual woman willing to entertain a relationship with a man/woman couple, the rest of the book uses gender-inclusive language.

But there are some major problematic issues in the book which raise red flags.  More than once, the book talks about hierarchy and veto power as an option, but never once talks about the ethical implications.  The words "couple privilege" never once appear.  The descriptions of boundaries, and the appendices of relationship agreements, read more like rules than boundaries or agreements, and it's not talked about why that's a problem, how to amend agreements, and how to avoid building resentment.  The recommendation is to be low-key and discreet at first, which can unfortunately encourage bad behaviors and abuse.  How to deal with one's own children in this situation is never mentioned.  Basic discussions about consent and the sense of a high need for emotional work and emotional intelligence is also lacking, and those are the things that unicorn hunting couples need the most.  Jealousy and insecurity, as well as how to mitigate them, go undiscussed.

There's also a some statements of privilege.  Recommending that a couple get their financial affairs in order before opening up and making plans for couples therapy are not particularly inclusive, as it suggests that only the financially stable and the mentally supported can join in on the fun.  Intersectionality is mostly absent.

Only on the last lesson, "Proper Care and Feeding of Unicorns", is there a discussion about what it's like to be in a triad with someone who wasn't in the arrangement from the beginning, and only barely so; the lesson brings the conversation back to the individuals in the original couple.

The "additional readings" list Sex at Dawn, Stepping Off The Relationship Escalator (shoutout to my friend Amy Gahran), The Ethical Slut, and some other books not related to polyamory (e.g., books on communication and self-actualization). While I don't fault the author for not listing More Than Two among their additional readings, given recent developments, it seems like a blatant snub of the work that Eve Rickert put into the work, particularly given how comprehensive and universal the language of MTT was (even for exclusively monogamous couples).  Not including Tristan Taormino's Opening Up or Elizabeth Sheff's The Polyamorists Next Door, however, seem like egregious errors in judgement and I wonder what the story behind that is.

A section of one lesson is dedicated to "don't bait and switch", e.g., being honest about being part of a couple and, if relevant, that you're looking for someone to join the existing arrangement.  And yet, since there's very little here about the ethics of triad-seeking (or lack thereof), the book itself feels like a bait-and-switch.  Maybe that's a good thing.  After all, unicorns-r-us.com and freesexworkers.com do the exact same thing.

Unlike most books on the subject, this one references very few personal experiences/case studies, and no negative ones.  The author's main argument that unicorns exist and are available, mentioned in the beginning, was that the author has had positive experiences as a unicorn.  At no point is it ever stated that unicorn hunting is problematic.  At the end, there's an assurance from the author that with the right kind of practice within one's an existing relationship(s), the right person will eventually join the ranch.  I feel this is optimism is both dangerous and unwarranted; just going off of several Facebook and FetLife groups on the subject, any given community is filled with thousands of couples who try and fail for years or decades to find "their unicorn", tens of thousands of people who want couples to leave them the fuck alone and/or are angry about them invading queer spaces, and only a handful of unicorns willing to consider joining an existing couple's dynamic for free.  Were I reading this from unicorn-seeking perspective, I would have liked to have seen testaments and stories of couples who were successfully open up and form a triad, and how they did it.  The absence of these stories is telling.

So, like, I didn't hate it, but I can't recommend it. There are other books where you can spend a few extra dollars and receive significantly more information on the relevant subjects, as well as better guidance about the kind of emotional work one needs to do in order to eschew monogamy (A Geek's Guide is $8; Opening Up is $15, and The Ethical Slut is $18, both of which are way more than double in AGG in length). Some even contain workbook questions to think about individually, or with a partner. I think that if a couple read this book, and made no other efforts to read other works or join discussions online with experienced individuals, they would likely be set up for failure.  The author puts all of the scary possibilities up front, which is probably a good thing if it actually makes couples do additional research, but not if it turns them off on the prospect of discovering more about it and just going off on their own, none-the-wiser.

* The author, Page Turner, notes themselves in the back as a polyamory, kink and sex councilor and coach.  I do not dispute this, and I know people who have seen them talk at events on those subjects with expertise.

[relationshipanarchywithoutchaos]

Timidity and Arrogance, or what we learn over time

Yesterday I was doing some dev testing and I found an error during my workflow steps. I checked the logs and it was an error message I was familiar with: other testers had reported it, and while we knew what the problem was, we couldn’t determine the cause.  It wasn’t happening in production, and they could never reproduce it with exact steps in testing environments, despite the error happening pretty regularly (a couple of times per day).

Several of the architects had explained it as a race condition: two users manipulating the same data at the same time.  The error thrown was on purpose: our system was designed to handle the race condition to prevent data loss.  But there was only ever one user, and we couldn’t replicate it to work every time, it was dismissed as a quirk.

But here I was, suddenly able to see what it was, in real time….so I investigated it.  And I found the steps that replicated the problem, every single time. Turns out the problem was environmental and behavior-specific.  It wasn’t happening in production because (a) the production servers are running on better technology (memory, processors, network speed, etc) than the test environments, and (b) the actions of users were much slower than my testing. I had to commit action A then immediately start action B in order to replicate the problem; automated testing suites do something similar.  If I paused at any point during testing–to check email, go to the bathroom, answer a question–for more than ten seconds, the issue wouldn’t reproduce.

I checked logs and event chronology.  I could reproduce this every time if I timed it right.  And the chronology told me exactly what it was trying to do at the moment the data change and caused the failure.

I looked up the method that was changing the data.  It was a method I had written.  It is a very simple method, of singular focus: it hadn’t been changed since the original check-in. 

I wrote it seven years ago; eight months after I’d started working with the application, five months after the finalization of my divorce, and five days before I met my first non-monogamous partner.

Our pre-date talks and our first date discussions about relationship philosophies had been very logical.  I didn’t want to experience the kind of loss that a traditional breakup or divorce entail, ever again. They had just had a recent breakup and weren’t looking to get into anything too deep.  We could make this work, we though.  We both came from highly-educated backgrounds (them more than me), with rational mindsets, and with similar goals in mind.  We came to early agreements and started this experiment in ethical non-monogamy together.

We hadn’t ready any books on the subject, or attended any discussions with others.  We would meet many people over the next several years.  We had many exciting experiences, got into arguments, had heated emotions, broke up, got back together, and slowly molded the dynamic of our relationship that didn’t look like what it did when it started, but is now something that works well for both of us.

I think back then, working within a system for which I didn’t have very much experience, making assumptions that my existing experience would be sufficient and that my minor actions would not have many, if any, downstream impacts.

When one firsts get started with a new project, philosophy, strategy, lifestyle…an individual often goes in with either overconfidence (arrogance) or a lack of confidence (timidity). Timidity comes from fear, being worried about having something to lose: a job, a relationship, an opportunity.  Arrogance comes from clout, but it can also come from a sense of entitlement.

It turns out this minor change in our system, this method I’d written seven years ago (that went through review, approval and testing) was done in ignorance of triggers: automated database processes that fire whenever records are added, changed, or removed.  Triggers are generally avoided these days because they hide functionality, and if a system that isn’t well-documented, people unaware of them can create negative experiences through even minor actions, however well-intentioned or needed those actions are.  But sometimes triggers are still necessary.

And it turns out, as it did with this one method I had written, that the consequences of those triggers can lay dormant for a long time–so long that even after years of experience, seeing the consequences of those actions suddenly appearing, the initial impressions reading reports about them can be of denial or doubt.

I dismissed the concerns of those who had reported the negative behaviors, because they were minor or not happening for everyone. But here I am, seven years after I made a change that couldn’t possibly break anything, with a broken thing on my plate that can’t be dismissed, and now I have to fix it.

In the last seven years, I’ve gone through phases of both timidity and arrogance.  On the other side of both is humility: a hard lesson where one learns to be both skeptical and accepting of the consequences their actions might commit, and, through purposeful work, to be proactive about the actions and changes they partake, rather than just assuming that everything will be okay and nothing bad will happen, regardless of the environment or the behavior of those working in it.  One learns assertive and solution-oriented phrases: “That doesn’t sound like something that I would expect to happen, but let’s investigate it to be sure”, or “This change was made back when our development process was less mature: let’s rework the change using our current processes and see if we can assess all the impacts.”

Now, when we engage in change with humility, development sounds and feels more like therapy.

[relationshipanarchywithoutchaos]

Let's reject the idea that just because you might feel a certain way about someone, it doesn't mean you have to tell them or make awkward hints about it.

[relationshipanarchywithoutchaos]

every time

they: [some question countering essentialism in identity and relationships that can only be chalked up to inexperience]

me, being RA: Yep

[relationshipanarchywithoutchaos]

The more I think about it, the more I convince myself that the problem I have with polyamory is that too many people focus on its definition to mean "having many lovers" instead of a broader idea of "having many strategies for showing love".

I feel that not embracing the broader definition may lead to a lot of the problems poly people seem to have: being singularly focused on equitable partnerships, diving into poly accounting, prioritizing sexual or romantic relationships over platonic ones, emphasizing dating over growth, and the general suffering of the all-or-nothing expectations hung over from mononormative socialization.

[relationshipanarchywithoutchaos]

Can you do something for me, please?

I want you to reblog this if you believe that two people can be very close and physically affectionate with one another, but still have a completely nonsexual, non-romantic relationship. 

Even if the two people in question are capable of being sexually or romantically attracted to one another. 

Because the friendship I share with someone I consider family in a way that transcends blood has been typecast as a romantic relationship ENTIRELY too many times, and I’m beginning to get sick of it. 

[relationshipanarchywithoutchaos]

Falling in love: an antiquated ideal

Last year I broke my ankle. I was shoveling the last of the snow off my sidewalk in order to get my car out, I slipped on ice and landed on my foot. The bones broke in three places, rendering every part of the foot and leg which support each other unable to do so.

It fucking hurt, and when I tried to stand on it, it didn’t feel right at all. I immediately called for an ambulance.

I guess the point of my anecdote here is to introduce and eventually reinforce this statement:

Falling is not a purposeful act

With only a few exceptions involving trust exercises, falling is unintentional. It’s either an accident of circumstance or the result of losing control while executing a purposeful act. People don’t intentionally sky-fall without a parachute, accidentally try to grab a trapeze, or bungee-fall off of a bridge. Even motorcyclists may lay down their bike in order to avoid being thrown in a crash. 

One time I was rollerblading down a hill and realized that I was skating into a busy street at the bottom, so I tossed myself into the grass beside the sidewalk. I had a warning that something was going to happen.  In a split-second I made a decision to risk minor injury in order to avoid major injury, and took control of a situation that was quickly becoming one that I could not control.

Accidents result from a lack of control

Falling in love is not just a common theme in movies and media: it’s the theme. In nearly every story or song, from the initial moments of limerance to the first date to the eventual matrimonial union, the relationship that develops between two people are a combination of unlikely circumstances, random encounters, moments of shared jubilation or tragedy, and a predictable sequence in a comedy of errors. Some call it “fate” or “kismet”, and it’s wonderful and exciting and lovely.

Sometimes, this happens in reality, but the driving forces are often more practical. We develop “relationships of circumstance”, based on a shared need for housing or food or companionship, ignoring many of the little things (and sometimes the larger things) that would normally repel us.

If we were smart, we would recognize that adding love or sex to those circumstances doesn’t “make sense”, but rather complicates the hell out of an otherwise tenuous situation. But usually, we instead imagine the common narratives playing out before our futures according to the scripts with which we’re familiar, and enjoy the ride until the inevitable failure of unspoken expectations manifests and we have to take control.

Unless your purpose was intentionally artistic, could you imagine being so reckless and beholden to the random variables in other aspects of your life: cooking dinner over a gas stove, driving around town, painting a house, or applying for jobs?

And while being spontaneous and unpredictable can seem romantic, it can also be very tiring and frustrating to others, especially over time. Not all surprises are wonderful, even if they came from good intentions. If you and your partner both had the same idea about surprising the other with a home-cooked meal, it might seem like a beautiful and enjoyable moment at the time, but it may also feel like a waste of effort or time, especially if it happened more than once.

The antidote is not control

While being the hapless romantic comedy character and succumbing to the wiles of the unseen screenwriter isn’t ideal, neither is being the director in one’s own story. If you insist on controlling the flow of a relationship to your own ideals at every scene, the relationship will eventually deteriorate.

The “how come” is simple: there’s another person involved, and they won’t like being a hapless character either, especially if the director dictates all.

If, on the other hand, you desire an unpredictable and unreliable relationship, there’s a better way to go about it than telling your partner that “this is how you are”: discuss it ahead of time and come to an agreement that that’s how it will be.

It’s all about intent

Right before I broke my ankle, as my body careened toward the concrete, I found myself lacking everything I needed to keep myself from injury: someone or something to break my fall, a cushion to soften the impact, the proper gear or preparation to keep myself from slipping in the first place. I could also have just stayed inside and not even bother to tackle the situation. There probably a dozen things I could have done or had to keep my break from being so bad, or it happening at all in the first place, and I did none of them, despite my experience with ice and the warnings I’d previously waved away as common sense.

Unlike breaking an ankle, love is generally regarded as a good thing. The pitfalls of a relationship, particularly a romantic one, aren’t from the love itself, but rather the things that we ignore, accept, or don’t bother to ask about in order to maintain that love.

Count on your fingers the number times you’ve heard or said the words “If I had known about [x] I never would have agreed to [y]” for any set of circumstances x and y.  I'd wager that you have more than three fingers up.

A little mindfulness goes a long way: better to not assume that any given behavior or desire is going to be accepted, needed, expected or even desired. Aim to be consciously competent instead of just thinking you know what you’re doing.

Make love something other than a pit or cliff

The standard narratives like to talk about love and relationships as things that are difficult to recover from...and those narratives would be correct if we continue to think of them as accidents.

It took me ten weeks to recover from my broken ankle. How long did it take you to fully get over your most recent break-up or divorce?

If we think of relationships and love as things we build, grow, cultivate, nurture, or develop over time, then we have nothing to fall into. It doesn’t even have to start as love; more than likely, it can’t start as love. It has to start as a friendship, a shared hobby, a business arrangement, or some other form of mutual respect.

If it never quite gets to love, then at least it’ll get to something. You can knock it down or let it collapse through neglect, but it won’t be a hole or a valley that you’ll have to eventually have to climb out of. You can add to a structure, a garden, or a project; the only thing you can do with a hole is dig deeper or fill it up until it’s no longer a hole.

[relationshipanarchywithoutchaos]

Relationship Anarchy is not for fuckboys (or polyamorists)

This is really a great piece. Really great.

Real relationship anarchy is political. There’s just no way around it. How could it be otherwise, when it has roots in political anarchism? Relationship anarchy is not about getting your dick wet and looking cool while you do it. It’s not about sounding hipper than all the other polyamorists. You can do polyamory without any political consciousness whatsoever, and you can definitely do monogamy without it. You can be mono or poly in service of the capitalist hetero-patriarchy. Most people are. But you can’t do relationship anarchy without some awareness of the socio-political context you’re operating in and how you’re attempting to go against that grain out of a genuine belief in certain concrete principles. Those concrete principles are nothing so basic and shallow as “freedom” (to fuck) or “honesty.” They’re the kind of political principles that you can base an effective social movement on: a movement that offers an alternative to the capitalist hetero-patriarchy’s commodification of bodies, sex, and love; to the sabotage of female solidarity in friendship and romantic love; to neoliberal capitalism’s goal of the isolated couple and nuclear family; to the homophobia and toxic gender crap that prevents even nonsexual/nonromantic connection and intimacy between members of the same sex.

[…R]elationship anarchy resonates with me so much because its principles amount to a friendship ethic. The word “friendship” is widely used as a broad, vague, often meaningless term, but to me, friendship as this deep, intimate, important, positive bond between humans is described really well by the above set of principles. Friendship leans away from interpersonal coercion by default and can’t survive under the burden of it for long. Mutual aid and cooperation are in friendship’s very nature; you could even define friendship by those qualities: helping and supporting each other out of desire and not duty. And when friendship is committed, that commitment is done in a spirit of communication, not drawn up as a contract, which what marriage is: a legal contract binding romantic partners.

[…]

Being a relationship anarchist doesn’t mean you have to fuck more than one person at a time, because relationship anarchy is not about sexual nonmonogamy, even though it is usually inclusive of sexual nonmonogamy. Relationship anarchy is not polyamory sans the obvious hierarchy of romantic partners. It’s about doing relationships with community-centric values, not couple-centric values. Above all, it’s about relating to other human beings without coercive authority in play and without hierarchy in your group of relationships or in any relationship itself.

I fucking cringe when I read about polyamorous people defining “relationship anarchy” using nonhierarchal polyamory’s terms, just as I cringe when I hear stories of men pulling the RA card on their casual sexcapades. Not just because of how unbelievably inaccurate, apolitical, and ignorant it is but because in both cases, “relationship anarchy” is falsely used to describe the kind of romance supremacist, friendship-excluding, sex-centric lifestyles that are diametrically opposed to authentic relationship anarchy.

The capitalist, heteronormative, patriarchal state promotes relationship hierarchies based on romance supremacy and amatonormativity. It endorses treating sex like a product, protects heterosexual men in their consumption of female bodies as sexual objects, promotes the buying and selling of women’s sexualized bodies. The capitalist heteronormative patriarchal state WANTS you to invest all of your free time, energy, resources, and emotion into romantic couplehood, into marriage, into sex. It WANTS you to devalue friendship, to stay isolated from everyone who isn’t your romantic partner, to be a self-interested individual with no ties or commitments to anyone but your spouse. Why? Because friendship could lead to community and community could lead to collective political action, which could turn into revolution. And because friendship and community are almost impossible to commodify and harness for the purpose of feeding into the capitalist economy and creating bigger profits for the wealthy elite. Sex and romance make rich people money all day every day. They sell it to you every waking moment. They can’t use friendship and community to sell you shit. They can’t turn friendship and community into products. If they could, they would’ve spent the last century doing so, instead of teaching the public that friendship is worthless and money is more important than community.

So don’t tell me that you’re entitled to call your polyamory or your casual sex “relationship anarchy,” as you conduct your social life with anti-anarchism principles and the same amatonormativity that all the coupled up monogamists preach and believe in. Don’t tell me you’re a “relationship anarchist” when you don’t give a fuck about friendship or community or political resistance, just sex and romance and your freedom to be nonmonogamous.

Relationship anarchy is not a cover for fuckboys. And it is not nonhierarchical polyamory.

[relationshipanarchywithoutchaos]

Relationship Competence, Part 1

Read any number of forum posts or reddit submissions and you’ll see people asking “why does polyamory have to be so hard?” or “why is monogamy so hard?” The hard truth of the matter is that polyamory and monogamy are both difficult because relationships are difficult. And the reason why relationships are difficult is because being able to have a relationship is a form of skill, talent, or ability, and most people have different levels of skill or ability which can take many different forms.

Stages of Competence

We can look at this concept through many different lenses. Today, let’s look at the four stages of competence, where we can find some correlation to how people approach relationships.  Here are a few examples of behavior for each stage:

Unconscious Incompetence - practices assumptive behavior; poor or no communication; no emotional ownership; general shitty/selfish behavior; lack of awareness of one’s own weaknesses and thus being unable to change them; potential to blame others for one’s own weaknesses. Key words: naivete, ignorance, grandstanding

Conscious Incompetence - realizes that they make mistakes but doesn’t know how to prevent or correct them yet; apologies for being awkward; wants to be better; open to criticism but not always accepting of it; sometimes will use their incompetence as a crutch or selling point. Key words: awkwardness, ambition, recklessness

Conscious Competence - understands and employs effective strategies; vocalizes and/or is explicit about desires, needs, and insecurities; strives for consistency in ethical attitudes regardless of the type of relationship (sexual, romantic, platonic, business, familial, etc.), even if the level of importance or investment is not consistent; open to constructive criticism; practices self-critique; uses scheduling techniques for time management. Key words: timidity, expertise, malice

Unconscious Competence - communication, self-critiquing, time management, and consistent application become autonomic in nature; can be assumptive in that everything they are doing works correctly in all cases. Key words: instinct, talent, arrogance

Avoiding the Competence Trap

A lot of the images that one could search for about the four stages of competence show a hierarchy or progression, where one goes from Unconscious Incompetence to Unconscious Competence. This may do well for building technical, artistic, financial, language or culinary skills, but the skill in Managing a Relationship between Chris and Pat could be as different from skill in Managing a Relationship between Chris and Taylor as learning French is to learning how to trade stocks.

If one reads the first description of Unconscious Competence, it sounds like the ideal destination of skill or ability. While this may be true for something routine, it eschews dynamism and can lead to stagnation. For example, one can be an unconsciously competent artist and do nothing but draw caricatures or business logos every day for the rest of their life, but never become a better artist because the work they perform isn’t challenging them.

Imagine a individual who has several long-term partners of varying degrees of affection and entanglement. Suddenly this person meets someone new. They may automatically apply what is already working in their existing relationships to this new relationship. If this new person in their life doesn’t respond the same way as the other partners do, the results could be disastrous. Thus, Unconscious Competence could become Unconscious Incompetence in a matter of a few awkward moments of miscommunication or unintentional expectations.

As is often mentioned in other articles, the (often unconscious, sometimes conscious) negotiations between two people at the early stage of a relationship can determine what previously learned skills can apply to this new relationship, and which deficiencies or new requirements have to be addressed in order for a relationship to grow.  This starts the beginning of a feedback loop which will continue during the entire length of the relationship as it adjusts and mutates with interaction and experiences.

Mistaking Conscious Competence for Unconscious Competence

We marvel at the skills of professional athletes, chefs on television who make it look easy, and artists who generate masterpieces in short order. Some of us even think “well hell, I can do that” when they see it in practice.  What we don’t see, however, is the time, education, preparation, and exercise that went into honing and focusing that skill. So when we see someone else able to accomplish something effortlessly, we tend to ignore the fact that every day, out of our view, they’re still practicing the fundamentals, working rough drafts, untraining bad habits, and experimenting with new techniques in an environment that allows them to fail and try again without it affecting their records or reputations. For relationships, the equivalent of this practice or exercise is open, honest discussion with partners, friends, and other members of the community. And just like in other endeavors like sports, medicine, finance, or art, the consciously competent can spot the wannabe, poser or fraud by examining their practices (or lack thereof). They can also spot the individual who genuinely wants to be better and admit the skills they lack, and may choose to offer advice and encouragement.

Incompetence as a Virtue

Regarded as an informal logical fallacy, the idea that incompetence could be a virtue has some interesting implications. Not having any knowledge or expertise in an area could mean they are a clean slate, ready to learn whatever will help them improve. They could also learn bad behaviors as a result, depending on the conditions of their teaching.

It’s also sometimes seen to be desirable not to be tainted by experience or education. In some ways, this can lead to some incredible innovations, but usually it just leads to disappointment (as is the case with many politicians) or the Dunning-Kruger effect, where someone who doesn’t know how things work has more confidence in their (lack of) expertise than someone who is actually an expert.  Confidence can be very sexy if it helps one succeed, but resorting to luck or the skills of others isn’t always the best approach, especially when it comes to the inclusion of another person, such as is done with relationships. That incompetence becomes recklessness, and many individuals won’t put up with a person who treats their relationship like a practice session only for the benefit of themselves.

Competence as a Bludgeon

Competence can lead to abusive or unethical behavior as much as incompetence can, if improperly applied. Where an individual with unconscious incompetence is simply ignorant in what they’re doing wrong, a competent individual knows all the tricks and shortcuts of their skills, and can abuse, manipulate, gaslight and/or employ unethical behavior in their relationships. If consciously competent, this would be considered malicious intent; if unconsciously competent, arrogant know-it-all-ism.

There’s a meta-competence to be examined within competence, in self-critiquing. Instead of immediately brushing off a criticism as wrong, i.e. “That can’t be true, I’m competent!”, one would need to ask, “Could they be right? Could I have been doing it wrong this whole time?”

Competence as Privilege

It’s important to recognize that their are concerns of privilege when it comes to competence, particularly when it comes to relationships. The privileged are going to be more likely to have help in becoming competent, and certain disabilities or social inhibitors can interfere or prevent competence. A person who works three part-time jobs may have never have the time they need to grow or improve their relationship competence, because they barely have time for a relationship at all. A person with developmental or social disabilities may lack the capacity to become competent as well, depending on the patience of those they are in relationships with.

There’s a fine line here. The competent individual should not look down upon an underprivileged person for their incompetence, but neither should they assume that a person is incompetent because they are underprivileged.

Conclusion

Being in a relationship is not a small or easy thing. One should never take it for granted or assume that all relationships fit into the same box. As you engage in your relationship with another person, regardless of the details of that relationship:

strive to understand your strengths and weakness

open a dialogue with your partners about how you can do better in the relationship (and encourage them to look for areas of improvement)

be explicit in your desires, needs, and insecurities

be a good example to others, without setting expectations

challenge yourself to grow beyond your current state of being

respect others as they try to grow beyond their current states

recognize and call out undesirable, manipulative, or abusive behaviors, especially if you see them in yourself

[relationshipanarchywithoutchaos]

The Familiarity Spectrum

It’s not the best practice to put prescriptive labels on the relationships we have, but sometimes it’s helpful to at least describe our connections with other people and place them into buckets, so as to further analyze those connections and how we treat people in those buckets. This also allows for the possibility of finding new connections where we didn’t see them previously.

So instead of describing the different connections we have with people in terms of the descriptive or prescriptive labels we place on those connections, here’s a way to describe them in terms of familiarity. 

1. People you have never been introduced to

This category of familiarity is composed of, for most people, the bulk of humanity. You have absolutely no connection to them and are unaware of their existence beyond their part of a larger statistic.

2. People you have seen but never been introduced to

Celebrities on screens and stages, people on television, randos on dating sites, friends of friends or other commentors on social media. You are aware of their existence, but they may or may not be aware of yours. The only perception you have of them is the small window through which they’ve let their public self be visible to you, be it an acting role, a profile picture, their appearance at a protest, or an offhand comment. Their identity might be concealed or obfuscated by a username or costume.

3. People you’ve been introduced to but don’t know

People who work on the other side of your building, people who went to your high school but never had the same classes or activities as you, your server at the restaurant, your clients in your store. Name-droppers, stalkers, politicians, salespersons, and the dancer at the exotic club have been known to inflate the strength of this familiarity to seem more important or more connected than it actually is in order to achieve a goal (this is actually true with all levels of familiarity, but other levels inflated seem more terse than this level).

4. People you know but haven’t communicated with

This is a tricky category, because it seems like part of category 3, and how can you really know someone without communicating with them? And yet, there are people in your life you know above and beyond introduction, but you just don’t talk with them. Usually the communication is by proxy, or extremely menial, or it’s through another person. A distant cousin by removal or by physical location, for example: you might have been introduced to them at a family reunion, and you know of them because a closer relative talks about them all the time, and maybe they talk to the cousin about you, but you and that cousin have never really communicated. Other people in this level of familiarity include coworkers on the same email threads or Slack forums, members of a support group who have publicly/anonymously shared their experiences, acquaintances on social media who make frequent updates.

5. People you’ve communicated with but haven’t made a connection with

As anyone who’s been to a relationship discussion group or management conference can attest, communication is the important factor in any relationship between two people or entities. However, just because you’ve communicated doesn’t mean you’ve connected. These people are definitely acquaintances, possibly friends, coworkers, colleagues, metamours, or associated by business relationships (”networking”). The obligations you have with them could be familial, organizational, or contractual (such as with extended family members and people in the same department at work or school), but they are likely residual to circumstances, as opposed to being mutually intentional.

6. People you’ve connected with but haven’t bonded with

In this case, we’re talking about the kind of familiarity where you feel you can discuss topics that are relevant to the accepted or negotiated boundaries of the relationship or arrangement, but really no further. The relationships between coworkers in the same department or team, between college students and professors, or your sibling’s new sweetheart could all fall within this level of familiarity. If the terms of the relationship you have with that person change where they suddenly aren’t communicating with you anymore, you will probably not feel the sense of loss that you would with someone you have a higher level of familiarity with.

7. People you’ve bonded with

When you form a bond with someone, and sometimes you don’t even realize that you’ve done it until after it’s happened, you can probably discuss topics you wouldn’t normally discuss with someone you weren’t as familiar with. The topics may be bound by societal constructs (for example, you could talk about topics like sex, religion, or politics with a partner, best friend, or parent, but probably not with a coworker or vendor, unless you’ve already previously discussed your availability to discuss said topic). If you feel like you’re this familiar with someone and you bring up a topic that they aren’t comfortable discussing with you, then you may have overestimated the extent of your familiarity.

Bonding can be intentional, or it can be circumstantial. Some people also try to force a bond to be made, and this can sometimes feel less “natural” or be offputting when the other participants aren’t keen on the idea.

You’ll also likely note a feeling of loss were the details of the relationship to change. Breakups are the obvious example, but others include a favorite coworker quitting to pursue a new career, a best friend dying, or your soon-to-be-former in-laws.

Important notes about the spectrum

Now that we’ve delineated the types of familiarity, it’s important to note a few things:

The spectrum doesn’t define priority or importance. Some of the people you are most familiar with could be the least important to you, and vice versa. Consider the charities that people donate to--the cause might be extremely important, but their benefactors could be completely unknown.

Familiarity should be looked at through a different lens than attraction. You could be just as attracted to someone you don’t know (infatuation) as someone you know dearly (crushing). Similarly, you could be, and sometimes should be, completely romantically or sexually unattracted to someone you know dearly, such as a close coworker or family member.

Familiarity, as well as intent of familiarity, is not inherently reciprocal. You might know many of the intimate details of a person’s life through their autobiography, but they likely have no idea who you are. You may want to get to know your neighbor a little better, but they might be a private person and want to keep you at a distance.

Familiarity is time-dependent. If you haven’t talked to someone in a long time, or if it’s been several years since your divorce with them, your familiarity could change categories. One source of friction between people, particularly family members, is when the familiarity they once shared is assumed to consistent but turns out to be lost (e.g., “I don’t even know you anymore!” or “What happened, man? You’ve changed since Beta House!”) due to time, distance, lack of communication, etc.

Familiarity is also situational. People put on different faces or hats as they navigate between routines at home, at work, at the gym, with friends, engaging in hobbies, etc. Seeing someone interact in a situation where you’re not usually present can be shocking to your own level of familiarity, for better or for worse.

Next steps

Future articles will refer back to this one, but in the meantime, it’s a worthwhile exercise to think about each of the individuals or groups of individuals that we consider important in our lives and ask ourselves:

What’s my level of familiarity with this person?

What do I perceive to be their level of familiarity with me?

If there’s a disparity between how familiar we find each other, as well as what we perceive our familiarity to be, is that okay, or is it causing a problem? Is there something we should do to alleviate that disparity, individually or together?

How do I react to someone who acts more familiar to me than I feel towards them? How reasonable is that reaction?

[relationshipanarchywithoutchaos]

Sacrifice Is Not Love: or, How I Learned To Like Tomato Soup Again

In the western world, sacrifice is often equated with love. This is the result of centuries of religious indoctrination based on the very idea. Unfortunately this has created some behaviors that, while possibly acceptable in a church, can be toxic in a relationship.

Sacrifice as appeasement

This part gets a little personal, but hopefully not bitterly so.

A few years back, I was shopping for myself--being recently separated and single--and I came across an endcap at a grocery store featuring a display of tomato soup. I probably wouldn’t have have even given it a second thought if it wasn’t a great discount, but it was, so a second thought was given.

And that’s when I realized that I liked tomato soup.

No, wait. I fucking LOVE tomato soup. With grilled cheese sandwiches. It’s my ultimate comfort food.

And yet, I hadn’t eaten tomato soup in almost seven years.

Why would I give up tomato soup for so long. It’s because my ex didn’t like tomato soup, and we always had to eat the same things at home (even though one never does that at a restaurant). And because we always had to order the same things, I had pretty much committed to the idea of never eating tomato soup at home again. And then I had proceeded to forget that I ever enjoyed it.

When did this happen? Probably within the first six months of dating. I don’t even remember.

And that’s pretty scary. What else had I forgotten that I used to like? What else had I given up in exchange for the dubious benefit of not being single? I thought back and realized that I had given up much more: friendships, hobbies, certain movies and games, family routines, my own sense of style, and one point even a burgeoning career. And yet I had convinced myself that I had wanted all these things.

Even scarier...what had they given up for me, that I never even knew about? I certainly didn’t ask for it, but maybe I implied it?

As a takeaway, I think it’s important to analyze the things that we willingly, or perhaps unwillingly, give up for other people and the reasons behind it. Otherwise we get into some potentially hairy situations.

Sacrifice as grooming

Grooming is a behavior in which suggestive or subversive comments and tactics can be used to manipulate another person’s behavior.  Some examples relevant to sacrifice include niggling comments or questions: “Why do you have to go out with the ladies on Wednesdays?”, “Why do you still hold onto that ratty shirt?” and “If you loved me you’d stay home with me instead of watching the game.” And yet, couples seem to do it all the time.

Clearly there are exceptions, such as the opposite of the aforementioned “harmless” things. If a hobby, activity, or vice is so destructive that it actually harms the relationship, or the people in the arrangement, then it’s probably not too much of a dick move to ask that it end. That’s not what I’m talking about here.

If innocuous frivolities and idiosyncrasies such as weekly football games, a weekend motorcycle club, a hankering for Olive Garden three times a week, a penchant for romance novels, or a desire to clean out the garage every month are a threat to your relationship, what does that say about the strength of your relationship?

And by asking someone to stop enjoying the things they enjoy, what does that say about your respect for their happiness and well-being?

Sacrifice as deceit

Similarly, giving up something you enjoy for another person even though you didn’t really want to is another dick move. If you did it because they asked you to, you’re essentially lying to them, as well as yourself. You may also be fostering resentment over time. 

For example, if you stopped eating meat just so you could date the hot vegan who was interested in you, are you likely to keep abstaining from meat after you break up? Are you going to cheat on them with occasional fast food runs after you drop them off or before you get home?

Again, it’s important to consider what such deceit is worth to you. Is it worth the disrespect that you have for that person’s desires and beliefs? Is it worth being in a relationship with them that’s already rocking on an unstable foundation of trust and respect?

Sacrifice as extortion

Another form of deceit is sacrificing something that the other person never asked you to give up. Maybe the vegan you wanted to date doesn’t care about whether or not you eat meat--the decision to be vegan is theirs alone. Did you ask them? Did they ever even mention it?

If you give up something without their asking, or without even discussing whether or not you should, you’re basically creating a reason to hold them in resentment. The only value of such resentment is a bargaining chip to throw back into their face later, should they ever specifically ask you to change or should you want them to change in a way that they don’t want to.

Forget what that says about your relationship: what would that behavior say about you?

Sacrifice as betterment

Giving up something that you enjoy that is destructive to yourself, to others, and/or your relationships is the exception. If tomato soup gave me terrible heartburn that occasionally sent me to the hospital, then it’s probably best that I give it up. If giving up meat makes you feel better about your health or for the world, then give it up. If it doesn’t, then don’t.

Sometimes the sacrifice is for the relationship. If your partner enjoys the cozy warmth of their own home and doesn’t like going over to your place, you can either change your place to suit both of your needs, or you can just always visit them at their place. Is it worth the gas? Will it make them happy? Will it mean that you get to spend more time together?

Ultimately the decision to sacrifice something you enjoy is yours, without the pressure of your partners or potential partners, without the political or social capital of determining what’s in it for you. 

Single or partnered, every one of us should evolve and adapt in a way that makes things better for us while minimizing the negative impact on the people we care about most. Seeking a compromise is one thing: compromising your personality or your well-being is a different animal.

And what you’ll likely notice when you give something up for the betterment of yourself and others: if you were willing to give it up, and that sacrifice doesn’t make you unhappy, then ask yourself: was it really a sacrifice? Or was it just no big deal?

Follow up edit, several years later

Rereading this, I'm struck with the observation that much of the objection to "Sacrifice is Love" comes from a rejection of amatonormativity, which is the assumption of being coupled as more desirable and inherently valuable than not being coupled.

The mind boggles to consider how manipulative relationship behaviors such as expectations of sacrifice might be reduced if these assumptions weren't present, or called out as societal prescriptivism when they appear.

[relationshipanarchywithoutchaos]

on being an asshole's exception

So this guy hates EVERYONE… except for you. He’s a broody, arrogant misanthrope who just can’t stand people… except for you. You alone are the special, interesting, unique person worth his time, attention, and respect. Everyone else, as far as he’s concerned, is a tedious waste of time because they just don’t get it. They don’t get him! Sure, his general misanthropy is kind of a character flaw, but it makes you feel sort of special that someone who hates everyone actually likes you. And maybe you can work on those rough edges! He’s nice to you, and that’s what matters, right?

Don’t buy into it, Jane Eyre. This kind of person may make you the exception for awhile, but why? Sure, you’re interesting and unique and you have a lot to offer, but so do some of the people he summarily dismisses. What’s the difference between you and them?

When someone is an asshole to literally everyone but you, he’s not an interesting, brooding soul. He’s an asshole. He wants something from you, so he’s willing to bend a little; he doesn’t think it’s worthwhile to show respect or courtesy to anyone he doesn’t want something from. And all that arrogance doesn’t mean he actually has anything to be arrogant about.

Don’t settle for someone with the personality of a rotten fish. You’re not being let into some exclusive club; you’ve just met an asshole who wants something from you. Pay attention to how a potential partner treats people he doesn’t have to be nice to. It’s a pretty important clue to whether he’s fit company for human beings.

[relationshipanarchywithoutchaos]

Coupling Is Not Therapy; Sex Is Not Medicine

A couple of days ago, a good friend suggested that a mutual friend of ours will feel better and perhaps start acting more sociable once they start dating again.

I know that the sentiment was expressed with the deepest care and respect, but my immediate response was that I couldn’t support that suggestion.

...Which may have been mild, since my tacit reaction to that sentiment was a sphincter-closing emotional sickness that would take me two days to adequately explain.

Coupling is not therapy

Breakups and relationship transitions are usually difficult.  This is not a profound idea, nor is it news to anyone.  Most people need time to figure out what they want, to rediscover what they’ve been missing, and reconnect with those they’ve not had time for. That “recovery” time can be hours, but it could also be years. Some people never “recover” from a relationship ending or changing: just look at widows and widowers, many who never remarry.

I use “recover” and “recovery” with quotes, because it suggests that the default form of “recovery” is “recoupling”.  That suggestion is a social construction, not an objective one.

First of all, the idea that being uncoupled makes one incomplete is a form of singleism (the underlying discrimination and social pressure placed on the uncoupled), a construction that social psychologist Bella DePaulo, Ph. D on which has written numerous books and blog posts.

Secondly, the idea that coupling up solves a person’s problems is ludicrous. Coupling, even brief coupling, might provide a brief or placebo-like respite, but ultimately if someone uses coupling in order to solve their problem, now they have two problems, and they’ve brought another person in to share in their problem-ness.

It’s difficult to understand why a person would purposefully burden someone they are interested in or care about with their own drama; do they want to scare them off? It’s one thing if a person is willing to take on that burden, but it should never be assumed that “their problems are now your problems” as many wedding adjutants like to say, for some (fucked up) reason.

Third, the “couple up to be happy” idea is what is responsible for what the non-monogamous community likes to term as “serial monogamy”: a eye-rollingly predictable strategy that many monogamous individuals employ, where they go from partner to partner with very few gaps of singlehood, and sometimes with a little bit of overlap between them.  A groundswell of limerance usually accompanies the beginning of each new relationship; the individual is usually nauseatingly cheerful at the beginning with this new person, so much that they ignore many of their existing friendships and responsibilities.

There’s a certain irony that the “recovery” time which many intend to employ for introspection and reconnection is usually spent on attempts to recouple, but this is often enforced by those missing connections who espouse the sentiment I’m railing against, that they’ll be better if they start dating again.

Singlehood is not crisis

Matrimania, or the mindset that coupling is the ideal arrangement behind many popular but singleist views and policies (such as tax and Social Security benefits), enforces the idea that being single is a condition of incompleteness or problem. Think about the times when someone has remarked that they are amazed that someone is single, and they wonder aloud what is wrong with that person, or what are they doing that’s keeping them from finding a person to couple up with (George Clooney, prior to his marriage, comes to mind).

In previous decades, the “happy bachelor” trope has been used to explain why a homosexual individual has never gotten married, but in today’s United States that trope means less now that gays can marry...and even now, many gay individuals still espouse the same matrimaniac ideas.

To blame a person’s social, mental or emotional problems on the fact that they are single is to ignore and potentially erase the source of their actual problems. Imagine if we casually handwaved an individual’s physical conditions on their singlehood.

“Their broken leg won’t feel so bad once they find their better half.”

“They wouldn’t feel so depressed if they had a girlfriend.”

“She’s single? Well it’s no wonder she has cancer!”

A friend of mine committed suicide when he was 20. He was in a happy relationship with another good friend of mine. Being coupled up didn’t help him one bit.

Which leads me to my final set of thoughts....

Sex is not medicine

Another trope we see in both media (especially romance comedies) and in real life is the idea that sex can solve problems. You’ve heard it before:

“I’ll be fine eventually, I just need to get laid.”

“She could really use a good, deep dicking.”

“He just needs to sow his wild oats for a while, then he’ll settle down again.”

Promoting the idea that sex can solve problems puts a fucking lot of pressure on the act of sex, as well as the partner(s) that said sex is engaged with. And if the sex doesn’t resolve those problems (and it usually doesn’t), it can turn the individual off of the act altogether and/or their partner as well.

The pressure on the other person to resolve one’s problems through sex can be coercive, leading to abusive behaviors and/or rape.

If an individual has problems that need to be resolved, and they aren’t actively addressing those problems through means specifically designed to resolve those problems (attending counseling, filing for bankruptcy, engaging in physical therapy, etc.), then engaging in sex is at best a distraction and at worst a disruption. There’s nothing wrong with distraction, of course, except for when it interferes with life, livelihood, and responsibilities.

The notion of “sex as medicine” also devalues asexual individuals: if an individual isn’t interested in sex, then how on earth will they solve their problems? (hint: using means specifically designed to resolve those problems) Are they forever broken, since they will likely never be able to find a sexual release with another person? (hint: no)

Speaking of another person...”sex as medicine” also devalues and shames the act of masturbation. For some reason, doing it by yourself = bad, but doing it with another person = good?

And this doesn’t even address that sex can actually create problems (STIs, hurt feelings), complications (pregnancy), or unhealthy personal practices (addiction) when engaged in without responsibility.