Relationship Anarchy
- Laura Boyle
- Jun 10, 2020
- 4 min read
This one gets a worse rep than it deserves for a couple reasons. First, people hear anarchy and think “oh gosh everything will collapse,” because most people don’t understand anarchy as a leftist-libertarian political theory and guiding principle, but have heard it used to describe the collapse of worlds and governments. Second, there are a bunch of people in the polyamorous community who are selfish assholes and excuse it with the double claim “You don’t hold up your own emotional processing and I never agreed to take on helping with that,” and “Of course it’s OK that I offer none of my 7 partners emotional support - I’m a relationship anarchist and we never explicitly said I had to.”
BIG GIANT BOLD NOTE: I DON’T THINK MOST RELATIONSHIP ANARCHISTS DO THAT. I ACTIVELY BELIEVE A LOT OF THE TENETS OF RELATIONSHIP ANARCHY ARE CORRECT. BUT SOME JERKS MEAN A LOT OF PEOPLE GET VERY CAGEY WHEN YOU SAY THAT’S YOUR APPROACH.
So, having got all those caveats out of the way, what is Relationship Anarchy (RA) anyway? In the most basic and technical sense it’s the application of political anarchy theory to relationships. It’s anti-hierarchy, anti-government intervention in relationships, pro-autonomy, pro-community interdependence, and anti-monogamy. In being extremely pro-autonomy, it’s also very in favor of setting (preferably pre-emptive) explicit agreements, and a lack of explicit agreement means an absence of responsibility on that subject - or at least that after the immediate situation is over, a discussion to determine responsibility sharing on that subject and an amicable explicit agreement is required to not need to unfold it all the next time.

Generally, this is compatible with non-hierarchical forms of polyamory. If you’re self-aware enough to communicate well and work in explicit agreements, and don’t particularly require the privileging of romantic over non-romantic connections, then your relationship with a relationship anarchist will probably go just fine. The places where you might get hung up, and where relationship anarchists will go “oh no I’m not polyamorous, I’m A Relationship Anarchist,” are, principally, the issue of whether romantic relationships should get precedence above say, old or emotionally intimate but platonic friendships, or familial relationships; whether partners get any say in someone’s interactions with someone else and what the ‘oppressive ownership’ undertones of that are; and that of believing in marriage as anything except intentionally exploiting a governmental system that shouldn’t be there at all for some Life Efficiency Gain, and disregarding all the cultural baggage around it. (Relationship Anarchists are your poly friends who live in a half-commune, run the local food pantry, and maybe got married at city hall and you didn’t realize it until a decade later when one of them made a comment in an online forum that starts, “well I’ve been ethically non-monogamous and married for ten years, so…”) Basically, if you’re non-hierarchical and willing to own up to a rule you agreed to being “my policy is to X” rather than saying it as “well my partner prefers X so I do X,” you can be polyamorous and involved with a relationship anarchist.
The reasons they get their own label are threefold: First, that they’re a separate relationship philosophy - they think you can be in inherently unethical relationships, even with everyone’s consent, because not supporting autonomy and opposing ownership models and codependency is always wrong. Second, because in not applying a hierarchy between those on and off the relationship escalator, and trying to dismantle categories like “friend” as opposed to “lover” as opposed to “partner” and leaning into communal cooperation and families of choice, they are actually more radically reshaping relationship discourse than most polyamorists are, and moreso than current culture is generally comfortable with. (That’s one of the things that makes me, personally, a polyamorist, not a relationship anarchist - I most likely with spend my old age with my heart-friends like a bunch of Golden Girls and have romantic/sexual partners who visit; but I find a lot of personal comfort in labels and in the internal hierarchy of friends and romantic partners.) Last, Relationship Anarchy as a movement self-defines as rebuilding social expectations around relationships from the ground up, where polyamory is renovating those norms and expectations - so not only are we respecting their personal identification, but we’re acknowledging the difference between buying some land and building your house, and doing either a minor reno (for very hierarchical forms of polyamory or closed polycules) or a variety moving up to a gut job (less and less hierarchy moving to “non-hierarchical and regardless of knowing my metas they have no say in my relationship’s progress and choices”). The latter might look a lot like the end result of rebuilding from the ground up but it was a very different process to get there, so RA is its own thing, separate from but overlapping polyamory under the ethical non-monogamy umbrella. There’s a lot more to say about this form of ethically non-monogamous relationship, but I’m trying to stick to an overview.
A relationship anarchist can practice polyamory as a relationship style, but they are still a believer in relationship anarchy. A polyamorist can support some or most of the underlying premises of relationship anarchy and not be a relationship anarchist because the one or two they don’t are A Big Deal in RA. So, essentially, RA is an autonomy-focused, community-building, non-monogamy-espousing way of life that aims to rebuild our views of human interrelationship that is compatible with but not identical to non-hierarchical polyamory.
Here’s a link to the relationship anarchy manifesto, if you’re interested.
Next time, instead of an RA manifesto, my own, of sorts.
Like this blog? Want to support it and the podcast coming later this month?
Instagram @readyforpolyamory
Twitter @lauracb88
Facebook Ready For Polyamory
(Or subscribe and get an alert when new posts go up!)




sunwin hôm bữa mình cũng chỉ tò mò vào nghía thử chứ không có ý định ngồi xem kỹ từng thứ. Vừa mở lên thấy trang làm khá “dễ thở”, khoảng trắng nhiều nên nhìn không bị rối mắt. Mình thích nhất là cách họ chia nội dung thành từng khối rõ ràng, kiểu lướt một vòng là biết phần nào nằm ở đâu, không phải kéo lên kéo xuống mệt. Mấy mục chính được gom lại gọn gàng nên bấm qua lại cũng nhanh, cảm giác như họ ưu tiên cho người mới vào khỏi bị ngợp. Nói chung mình chỉ xem giao diện thôi mà thấy ổn áp, nhìn thân thiện kiểu không cần suy nghĩ nhiều. Menu…
Reading about how some people misuse 'relationship anarchy' to avoid emotional support made me think of puppet hockey – both involve specific rules (or anti-rules) that can be misunderstood.
hitclub mình mới ghé thử vì thấy bạn bè nhắc hoài, kiểu tò mò xem trang họ viết gì thôi chứ không có ngồi nghiên cứu sâu. Lướt qua phần giới thiệu thấy cách trình bày khá “dễ thở”, chữ to vừa, đoạn ngắn nên đọc nhanh vẫn hiểu. Có nhắc chuyện họ đầu tư Unreal Engine 5 với bảo mật Blockchain, mình thấy họ kể theo kiểu hành trình phát triển chứ không nhồi thuật ngữ cho sang. Mình cũng thích mấy tiêu đề dạng hỏi đáp như “có thực sự uy tín không”, nhìn tự nhiên như đang dẫn mình đi từng ý. Kéo xuống không bị rối vì mỗi khối nội dung tách rõ, heading lớn nên…
hm88 mình thấy dạo này hay bị nhắc tên nên cũng ghé thử cho biết, chủ yếu xem giao diện với mấy bài giải đáp chứ không có “cày” gì. Lướt qua thì kiểu trình bày khá thoáng, chia nội dung thành từng khối nên đọc nhanh vẫn nắm được ý. Có đoạn họ nói về cơ chế minh bạch dùng thuật toán ngẫu nhiên được kiểm định, đọc thấy viết thẳng, không vòng vo nên cũng đỡ lăn tăn. Mình thích nhất là phần tiêu đề với menu nhìn nổi, bấm qua lại giữa các mục không bị rối, kiểu ai mới vào cũng dễ theo dõi. Nói chung cảm giác site làm gọn gàng, mấy box “giải đáp”…
UU88 mình lướt thử do thấy bạn bè nhắc, kiểu vào xem giao diện ra sao thôi. Vừa mở lên thấy bố cục khá gọn, nhìn “sạch” nên đọc không bị rối mắt. Mình dùng điện thoại là chính, bấm qua lại mấy mục thấy phản hồi nhanh, không kiểu đứng hình hay giật lag khó chịu. Có cái mình để ý là họ có phần FAQ viết khá dễ hiểu, câu hỏi nào ra câu hỏi đó, trả lời ngắn gọn nên mình đọc lướt vẫn nắm được mấy thứ cơ bản. Nói chung cảm giác trang được tối ưu ổn, không phải dạng nhồi chữ. Mình thích nhất là cách họ chia nội dung thành từng khối rõ…