Towards a diverse ecology of relationships

5 min read

A living document combining ethical principles from poly, relationship anarchy, non-monogamous, and monogamous worlds into a generalized framework for diverse approaches to intimacy.

Towards a diverse ecology of relationships

Hopes and dreams for a world of intimacy abundance

This is our attempt to combine sets of ideals, values, advice and critiques from poly, relationship anarchy, non-monogamous and monogamous worlds together into one place. I hope this goes some way to a generalized set of ethical principles, that do not distinguish between the types of relationship lenses, such as various forms of monogamy, polyamory, or relationship anarchy, but instead pull us towards a more respectful approach to diverse sets of behaviors than many of us will explore at one time or another. The goal here is to create a framework that draws us in to be allies and respectful stewards of each other’s mutual exploration of social dynamics regardless of identity politic. This is a living document, created from the writing and thoughts of many others — please feel free to suggest additions.

We ask each other to:

  • Question the normalization of jealousy as an indicator of love, but also reject the stigmatization of jealousy and other related feelings. It is normal to feel fear and sadness at times. It is what we choose to do with those feelings that matters.
  • Question the idea that a certain kind of intense love is sufficient to overcome practical incompatibilities, should override other different love bonds in your life or cause you to cease to be attracted to anyone else. Conversely, to be wary of the idea that physical attraction is something that should always be acted upon in order for us to be true to our autonomous selves.
  • Question the idea that others are there to fulfill your needs, whether that expectation is projected onto one person or onto many different people. Others alone cannot solve your emotions, nor is it their responsibility. At the same time recognizing that humans need other humans in order to survive and to thrive, and that whilst no one person or many people will fulfill your needs, finding a distributed group of humans for social support and care likely maximizes your chances of finding stability and being the best version of yourself. Thus collectively managing our emotions is an important task, we do not exist in a vacuum and as an extreme prosocial species, everything we do impacts the group.
  • Question the idea that commitment is synonymous with exclusivity on one hand, and also to question the assumption that monogamous arrangements are always about controlling or restricting one’s partner.
  • Question that being non-monogamous somehow renders you more skilled, evolved or capable of love. On the other hand we ask you to question the idea that non-monogamous approaches signify an inability to commit or a greedy nature.
  • Question monogamy as the dominant form of relating to each other. Such assumptions may reduce the odds of having everyone having their intimate needs met. At the same time questioning that any other form of relating should be right for everyone or dominate our social spheres either. Instead we might strive for a world where individuals can explore different ways of interacting, that are right for each person at any given point in time.
  • Question the idea that your insecurities and feelings are by default your partner’s responsibility to operate around, as opposed to your responsibility to work on. On the other hand we wish to critique the idea that the only reason for monogamy is insecurity.
  • Question the idea that the extent to which your partner values you is demonstrated by the amount of time, energy or money that they spend on you, and that these efforts are in zero-sum competition with other things they value in life, including other people.
  • Question the idea that your self worth is largely made up by being valued by your partner and that we derive a sense of self-worth out of our ability to attract and or satisfy one or multiple partners.
  • No approach to relating should remain unexamined: Question the idea that either monogamous or non-monogamous people have a monopoly on ethical and conscious relationships.
  • Question ‘longevity’ as a metric of success. The idea that long term relationships are the only ones that have value. The briefest of connections can be extremely meaningful and provide growth and transformation.
  • Question the idea that sexual, romantic, long term ‘escalator relationships’, or relationships that culminate in marriage and children are the only ways to demonstrate a true commitment. Many different types of relating are valuable, and committed. Not all dynamics need to escalate.
  • Question the expectation that monogamous culture is the default set of norms to be upheld, or any other dominant form of relating to one another.
  • Question the idea of the couple as the only or best form of dynamic (couple-centrism), and hope that we can learn to value more-than-twos, and the value of the social village.
  • Question the role of identity politics around our approaches to social dynamics such as love and sex. Instead wish for fluidity and exploration for all people to find modes of giving and receiving care that represent what they need at each moment in time.

Sources

References

Graph View