Adopting Relationship Anarchy as CNM

Introduction

According to an article by Jessica Yu, Relationship Anarchy (RA) is “a philosophy comprising values that encourage people to form relationships based on their own wants and needs rather than traditional social rules.”

I’m honestly not sure when I first came across Relationship Anarchy, but it’s definitely been an integral part of my relationship philosophy for at least a couple of years now. I definitely took lessons and cues from Relationship Anarchy as a philosophy, but I treated it just as that, a philosophy that can be used as a helpful lens. It wasn’t until I recently read Polysecure by Jessica Fern that I connected RA with the CNM (Consensual Non-Monogamy) umbrella and to me it seems like the most apt description a lifestyle that I would want to adopt and practice. To me Relationship Anarchy is like Non-hierarchical Polyamory, but in a way that is closer to how I experience the world as an aromantic person.

I believe that RA integrates my lived experience and philosophy neatly together into a way that matches how I want to engage and form relationships with people going forward. I want to have deep, fulfilling relationships with people in a way that operates out of an abundance mindset. RA need not be adopted as a non-monogamous practice, but in this article I will explain below why I chose to do so and why I chose it over something like polyamory.

Why Non-Monogamy?

I am sure that non-monogamy isn’t for everyone, but at the same time I doubt that monogamy is for everyone as well. I can understand monogamy as the default because of its efficiency, but I do not think that it is inherently better to deserve its place as a “logical default”. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that I’m against monogamy nor would I say I’m someone who needs multiple partners either. I think that even if I don’t end up having multiple partners, I certainly wouldn’t mind if my partner has other partners.

I personally don’t see how monogamy benefits me other than it being a way to be with someone else who wants to be monogamous. In general I am a large proponent of leaning on your broader support network, i.e. multiple of your friends and family members, and not just on your partner. Many people solely rely on their partner for things like advice for workplace issues, picking them up from an airport, and finding new recipes. I think it is a lot to ask of one person to be your everything and I think it is severely limiting to your community as well.

What about Relationship Anarchy resonates with me?

All the principles of relationship anarchy are great and I highly recommend that everyone read them, but there are two in particular that resonate me with the most. I have quoted them below with explanations of how I personally relate to them.

Love is abundant, and every relationship is unique

Relationship anarchy questions the idea that love is a limited resource that can only be real if restricted to a couple. You have capacity to love more than one person, and one relationship and the love felt for that person does not diminish love felt for another. Don’t rank and compare people and relationships — cherish the individual and your connection to them. One person in your life does not need to be named primary for the relationship to be real. Each relationship is independent, and a relationship between autonomous individuals.

I think that there are many loves of your life and that I think that as a society limiting it to one leaves a lot on the table. It always makes me very sad when people stop hanging out with their friends as much when they get a partner, essentially sacrificing that platonic love for romantic love.

I am also in concordance that relationships need not be ranked. I’ve written about this before, as a piece on non-hierarchical friendship, but I think my argument applies to all types of relationships. I think that this idea also extends to the “types” of love as well. I believe that love is valuable across all relationships and that “romantic love” isn’t inherently more special, deeper, or better than love between friends or family.

Customize your commitments

Life would not have much structure or meaning without joining together with other people to achieve things — constructing a life together, raising children, owning a house or growing together through thick and thin. Such endeavors usually need lots of trust and commitment between people to work. Relationship anarchy is not about never committing to anything — it’s about designing your own commitments with the people around you, and freeing them from norms dictating that certain types of commitments are a requirement for love to be real, or that some commitments like raising children or moving in together have to be driven by certain kinds of feelings. Start from scratch and be explicit about what kind of commitments you want to make with other people!

Before I realized I was aromantic I thought I wanted all the traditional things like marriage, buying a house together, having kids, etc. However, upon further reflection I never really imagined myself getting married in the traditional sense with a wedding, etc, but instead always imagined a sort of domestic partnership/nesting with someone. I don’t think that person who I live with has to be my partner nor do I think that if I was that I would share a bedroom with them. I also am open to splitting shared costs with a partner but I do not see the point of having shared finances beyond that.

Beyond my personal feelings, it just makes sense that you can have shared commitments with people other than a romantic partner. You could raise a child with a friend or share finances with your sibling. A great worksheet/exercise that I think best illustrates this point is the Relationship Anarchy Smörgåsbord, which lists a variety of different things you could include in a relationship, kind of like bundling all the things you want and none of the things that you don’t.

Why RA and not polyamory or something else?

Polyamory (hierarchical or otherwise) is usually defined on the idea of multiple sexual and/or romantic connections, and even if that isn’t the official definition, it can sometimes feel that way to me. As an aromantic-asexual person I don’t understand my relationships to be romantic or sexual. Even if the behavior matches it or looks like it on the outside, I don’t choose to internalize them as such. I want to have a practice or concept that more closely matches my own ideas and experiences, hence why I chose RA.

Beyond this, I think that saying you are polyamorous conjures a certain idea in other people’s minds, both in people who are monogamous and non-monogamous. I feel like Relationship Anarchy as a more obscure concept sidesteps this entirely, which is helpful to me. While it does have the drawback of having to explain what RA is to people, I would prefer filling in a blank slate than to fight against preconceived notions.