You don’t get a post for a month, and then when you do it’s a rant. Aren’t you guys lucky?? I will at least try to make it an eloquent rant.
Over the last few years, I’ve spent quite a lot of time hanging out in communities which are, to varying degrees, on the fringe of mainstream society. It started off with me hanging out defiantly in the Goth Corner as a teenager (yes, we had an actual corner,) hating and hating everyone who laughed at us and thinking we were so much cooler. Over the years, that teenage rebellion has grown into me spending the vast majority of my time in LGBT, feminist, BDSM and polyamorous spaces, amongst others. It’s come to a point where I actually find “totally normal” (by 21st Century Western society ideals) people somewhat exhausting to deal with in large doses. I like the understanding and acceptance that comes in my little socially radical corner of the world.
As a teenager, I found home among the other weirdoes, the other social outcasts, the others who banded together and said “fuck the world that doesn’t like us.” I’ve always found comfort among groups where everyone shares in at least one of my brands of weirdness.
But there’s a thing that I have been noticing more and more. In many fringe communities, another kind of exclusion has crept in. Namely, I’m talking about the fallacy of “you’re not a real ABC unless you do XYZ!”
This policing has the effect of attempting to keep undesirable behaviour out of our spaces, yes – I for one will always fight the corner that if you’re cheating, you’re not poly and you should keep your hands off our label. I know this opinion will be unpopular with some, and I’m fine with that.
However. I think it also has another, much more insidious and much more damaging effect. And that effect is that spaces which claim to be radically inclusive become instead just like the cliques of high school. Similarly, people end up trying so hard to fit in that they end up turning away from what will make them really happy, because their supposedly safe space is telling them that they are doing it all wrong.
It’s commonly seen in kinky community. You’re not a Real Sub if you have limits and safewords. You’re not a Twue Dom unless you want to be Master 24/7 all the time. These kinds of notions mean that people, especially newbies, end up getting involved in all kinds of stuff which falls anywhere from “not their thing” to “frankly dangerous” in a desperate attempt to be seen as legitimate and real within their community.
Take, if you will, the ongoing debate about the place of rules in polyamorous relationships. If you want to run your relationship with no rules at all, that’s absolutely fine. However, I find having some concrete agreements (which, as my beloved Nomad points out, is really all rules actually are) helps me to feel safe and secure and helps to bind my relationship together. Yet the look of horror on people’s faces sometimes when I inform them that something is against the agreements of my relationship is actually quite astounding! “What? You’re not allowed to do absolutely anything you want all the time? NOT POLY!” I could try to force my relationship into the newly-popular “relationship anarchy”[1] model, but I’d be miserable and so, I expect, would my partners(s) and metamour(s.) It simply isn’t how we work.
The brilliant Meg Barker calls this phenomenon “crab bucket.” Call it whatever you like, it’s destructive and it’s dangerous.
It’s this which means that when a girl speaks out about being raped, assaulted and abused, she’s silenced and disbelieved and eventually vilified by people she thought were her friends, because breaking the illusion that everything is super safe and awesome all the time is just the worst thing ever.
It’s this which means that when people try to express their very real, very pressing emotions to their partners, they are told that real poly people don’t feel such things, or if they do they certainly don’t admit it, or if they admit it they know it’s all their responsibility to sort out without anyone else taking any responsibility ever.
It’s this which means people who don’t enjoy casual sex are accused of being repressed and unenlightened or just plain old fashioned prudish, and end up shagging a bunch of people they later regret in an effort to be seen as sex-positive enough.
I say that we say NO. Whatever you are, whatever you identify as, whatever you feel – that is real. However you want to conduct your romantic and sexual life with other consenting adults, that is valid and it is real.
The rest of the world shoves us out and tells us we don’t fit in because we’re not normal enough. Let’s not let the safer spaces of our own creation turn into the same thing.
We’re supposed to be radical and accepting. Let us start acting like it.
_____________________________________________________________
[1] Don’t even get me started on all the issues I have with this particular term.
I remember when I was crazy into horse riding and I was told I wasn’t an experienced rider because I hadn’t broken anything! I’ll just leave that hanging there…
Good post, hon!
It’s a tricky business, knowing where the line is on these things. Making a term too inclusive strips it of all meaning whatsoever. As you point out, for instance, cheating _isn’t_ a form of polyamory. Yes, there are some folks who will insist loudly that it is. They are wrong.
In the Anarchist community, we see a lot of the same. Especially since there are so many different “flavours” of Anarchism — Anarcho-Syndicalism, Anarcho-Communism, social Anarchism, Anarcho-Collectivism, and so on. I’m not interested in purging all who don’t agree with me 100% so, as far as I am concerned, those are _all_ parts of Anarchism. However, once again inclusion only goes so far. So-called “anarcho”-Capitalists are NOT Anarchists.
As a side note: Personally, I think that self-proclaimed “Relationship anarchists” are idiots. Partially because they have no idea what the word “Anarchy” actually means — it refers to no RULERS, not an absence of rules. And partially because, in the absence of a power imbalance, “rules” are just another word for “agreements”. I find a rule prohibiting agreements amongst my partners to be far more onerous than any actual agreements that I have _ever_ had in _any_ of my relationships.
Back to the meat of your post. I am always equal parts baffled and infuriated when you present one of these examples, like the ones above. If you have agreements, you’re not really polyamorous; if you won’t sleep with anyone (i.e., the person making the accusation), then you are sexually repressed. Balderdash!
(And don’t even get me started on the hypocrisy you encountered from your so-called friends in the UK bisexual community when you came out about being raped! Feh.)
I like your conclusion, about cliques emerging that mimic what too many of us encountered as adolescents. Seems well beyond time for far too many people to learn to grow up.
Oof, thank you thank you thank you. Yes. It really is scary if you think about it, and as marginalized communities we want so very badly for everything to be cut and dry, black and white, and above all else, totally okay and explainable and able to be validated by someone. The truth is that there ARE spectrums and grey areas, and we REALLY need to be okay with that, and encourage others to do the same.
Personally I like your rants.
Unfortunately I’ve had to go do some quick research on “relationship anarchy” and now have a strong desire to punch people in the face.
The line between RA as described by Andie Nordgre (who seems to be who everyone online is ultimately quoting) and a reasonably ethical take on poly seems to be very, very thin.
Of the “8 points” often bandied around, at least 6 of them (and arguably the other 2 as well) are simply good ideas for relationships generally, be they mono, poly, casual or permanent. That’s if you read the original translation of course.
When you see it re-quoted on another site though, it frequently seems to be followed up with “and that means I can fuck who I like! and I don’t need to consider the feelings of anyone else because I’m being spontaneous! isn’t it awesome?!?!?!
*warning – unverified personal psychobabble ahead*
It all seems a bit like people jumping on the bandwagon a bit. It’s a new and trendy label, it’s “like” poly but for people who “truly get it”
Witness this piece of bile inducing waffle. (Taken from the comments thread on one of the RA pages)
“For people to have the capability to comprehend RA, first they need to emerge out of the conditioning they are born and grown into. Else, this whole concept looks sickening especially for the individual who believes in the ‘current’ definition of an ideal relationship
If you are able to free your mind and think from an outsider’s perspective, you will begin to observe that the society we now live in is shaped based on the thoughts of a few individuals who led the change from a society in the ancient times”
…yeah… anyway….
Now I freely admit that I’m biased here. This reminds me to much of talking to over-zealous vegans, or “I’ve found the one true way” pagans, or rampant nerd boys explaining that anyone who doesn’t run a 21/30/0 arcane spec mage in World of Warcraft is a noob who shouldn’t be allowed on the internet. People who’ve suddenly found their soapbox and have a terrible need to preach, and if you don’t agree with them you must be *WRONG*
(admittedly that’s a sweeping generalisation, there are probably some perfectly sane and nice people who would identify as RA. They’re just not the ones who managed to set my teeth on edge)
Frankly, it all smacks of the insecure jumping on the bandwagon of the obscure so that they can somehow feel superior to those around them.
Anyhow, rant over. (sorry) Nice post Jess
Ooh! Ooh! I’m reading this paper, and it’s totally mentioning examples of when gay communities become exclusive by defining what makes someone, like, “legit gay.” Thought of you and this post. Here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1632653
Your rants are just fine! I appreciate them, often because I’ve felt the same way before.
I’m concerned by the label-bashing here.
I know a couple of people who refer to themselves as subscribing to relationship anarchy, and I definitely don’t think they’re idiots. They don’t have concrete agreements in their relationship – everything is perpetually up for discussion. They also don’t take responsibility for each other’s happiness; either of them may take responsibility for their own happiness via negotiation with the other, but it’s not seen as the other’s job to provide what the first wants. That seems to be what the label means to them as far as I can tell, anyway, and that structure seems to suit them just fine. It might not be how I do relationships but if they’re happy then why complain?
I think _any_ telling consenting adults ‘you should do/not do your relationships like XYZ’ is a problem. If someone wants to call themselves a relationship anarchist and wear a tea cosy on their head, then I might not want to date them but that doesn’t mean they should change the label or take off the tea cosy. If they call themself a relationship anarchist, wear a tea cosy on their head, and are telling me my relationship model is wrong – then it’s the act of telling me I’m wrong that’s the problem, still not the label or the tea cosy.
As far as my rant goes, it’s not the concept of RA itself that bothers me. It’s the people running around waving their label in other people’s faces and loudly pronouncing that their label is superior to other labels and that other people are not proper ‘insert label here’ due to not being exactly like them.
Relationship Anarchy seems like a perfectly sensible idea (if that’s your choice) it just seems to be in danger of being over-run by idiots, as Good Ideas all too often are.
I apologise if it seemed like I was attacking the idea itself, that was not my intention.