#liberatory relating

[dailyanarchistposts]

“The here and now is a prison house. We must strive, in the face of the here and now’s totalizing rendering of reality, to think and feel a then and there… Queerness is that thing that lets us feel that this world is not enough, that indeed something is missing.” — José Esteban Muñoz, Cruising Utopia

“I want a world where friendship is appreciated as a form of romance… I want a world where our worth isn’t linked to our desireability, our security to our monogamy, our family to our biology.” — Alok Vaid-Menon

Our Manifesto

Romance is inherently queerphobic

The organisation of queerness around the celebration and pursuit of romantic desires and pleasures reinforces queer oppression

Queer liberation must abolish romance as its long-term goal

[fuckthegovfucklove]

My progression through the relational orientations

This is a timeline of my progression through the different relational orientations, how I landed on each one and a summary of my analysis that led to the next.

monogamy

This is the universal level 1 that most of us begin and remain at. The values of monogamy are instilled in us from day dot. We adopt the love ideology, the idea that it is natural for us to experience romantic love that drives us into exclusive pseudo-matrimonial bonds. Two become one, one becomes two + [x] number of children and the nuclear family is formed. We are told that romantic love can only be shared by two people who must then build a life project together.

I’ve been in three monogamous relationships and was only sexually faithful in one. My poor effort at fidelity wasn’t what drove me to other options, I don’t think I ever cared for exclusivity much and always found myself wanting to “share” my partners anyway. I could be quite the escapist so I didn’t enjoy feeling responsible for meeting my partners every need or being guilted into doing things I didn’t want to, I didn’t want children for precisely this reason (although now I’m more of an anti-natalist). Truly, I was only monogamous because I was ignorant to other options so once I discovered the term polyamory on a BBC article and did more research, I was sold.

polyamory

Polyamory is defined as the freedom to maintain more than one romantic/sexual relationship with the consent of all of those involved. The poly sales pitch usually consists of jaunty declarations such as “love is abundant”, myth-busters like “one person can’t fulfil all your needs“ and disclaimers eg. “it’s not about sex“ to pacify the puritan. Most polyamorous folk see polyamory as an innate disposition so respect monogamy as a choice.

I loved the concept of polyamory and even went as far as to do two workshops on how great it was. My first poly relationship started off as a triad. It was fun, tricky to navigate at times especially since two of us went to the same university while the third studied in a neighbouring city so we saw less of them. Things started to get tricky the more in touch with myself I got.

Post-infatuation phase, I wanted my individuality back. The couple comes with it’s own code of conduct and rules, exclusive or not. It requires you to act a certain way at social events, keep your partner up to date with your every move and thought, plan all aspects of the future with them (or keep them in mind at least), policing and the breaking up of boundaries is considered justifiable  etc. I cared for my friends just as much as I cared for my partner but now I had to de-prioritise them and make all my important decisions with essentially a friend who I was also having sex with? It didn’t feel right. Streaks of dependency started creeping up and I started to feel my autonomy weakening. Also while jealousy wasn’t something I personally experienced (aromantic here), it was a recurring issue which while I was compassionate, it honestly made me feel like more of possession than a person.

relationship anarchy

This is an interesting one, it’s core is in releasing love from the private realm of the couple. Relationship anarchy essentially applies anarchist principles such as self-governance, voluntary association, anti-hierarchy and anti-coercion to interpersonal relationships. It advocates for the de-hierarchisation of romantic/sex-affective relationships and redistribution of physical/emotional intimacy, life partnering i.e child rearing and cohabiting and other typical coupley activities amongst all relationships. So for example having children and cohabiting with your childhood best friend, whilst running a football team with a romantic lover would be a viable decision. Everything that makes up a relationship is explicitly discussed and no assumptions should be made about the nature. It’s important to respect individual autonomy and boundaries too.

The title struck me as a bit eccentric but I was gung-ho for the concept. Finally a model that honoured my autonomy and individuality, and allowed me make decisions with whoever I wanted regardless of whether we were having sex or not. There’s something farcical about introducing oneself as a relationship anarchist so I just left it at non-monogamous. Clumsy title aside, this new way of conceptualising relationships was freeing. It also led to me forming my own personal politics with Anarchism as a base. My thoughts wandered back to aromanticism. I started thinking more about my disdain for romance, how I thought it was a wilful delusion and a method of mass mind control. I refused to build any meaningful relationship premised on a delusion. I felt like I was passed being aromantic but more anti-romance. Anti-love in fact, and all it’s trimming. I stumbled across this article on Pinterest that captured both my desire for free association and critique of love and romance that opened up another portal to explore.

agamy

Agamy does not present itself as another alternative non-monogamy model. It’s not tampering with the ‘mono’ part of monogamy or the ‘poly’ part of polyamory nor does it recognise ‘being in a relationship’ as synonymous to a romantic one. It’s concerned with the elimination of love, the bonds (gamic) that come with it and the alienating consequences.

Agamy recognises that love isn’t innately good  and is often deployed as a smokescreen for other agendas (sometimes unconscious to us). Even when love is perceived as good it’s largely unnecessary. Agamy, unlike gamic relational models, prioritises ethical judgement and reason over feelings and love. Love can no longer be a valid excuse for unjust or erratic behaviour. Love can no longer separate people from wider humanity. It’s about rejecting the establishment of relationship models.

You may then ask, how do you refer to different types of relationships and what is their make up? Well, relationships remain as the relationships themselves. They are freely and consciously managed by the people involved. This may sound vague and unnecessary (bc surely titles aren’t that deep), but in order to self-liberate we have to depart from customs that seek to categorise and control us, customs that don’t serve us and prove to be irrational after real thought.  Agamy is not an emotional, sexual or family vacuum, but a different, non-loving organisation of these elements.

More on agamy to come!

[dailyanarchistposts]

The Freedom to Love

A recent study of the dating preferences of 960 people (942 cis) found that:

88% of respondents refused to date trans people

89% of gay men refused to date trans men

82% of gay women refused to date trans women

63% of bisexual/queer people refused to date trans women; 51% refused to date trans men

Despite the queer celebration of the “freedom to love,” most trans people are excluded from romance based on their gender even within the queer community, before other forms of marginalization like race, class, and ability have been considered—let alone the cis-heterosexual notion of romantic fit in terms of “personality.”

Only two respondents indicated a lack of interest in romance.

Most queer people want to date.

Queerness itself, we assume, wants to date.

For many queer people, same-gender intimacies are queer because they are unabashedly romantic in a world that insists on keeping romance between a cis-man and cis-woman.

The modern queer movement has organised itself around the rhetoric of “freedom to love”: particularly the recognition of gay marriage and other queer romances.

But “freedom to love” within a hierarchical structure of desire replicates that very hierarchy. Many are loved only violently, fetishised as objects without complex needs of their own. Many remain unloved and unwanted.

Staunchly defending the idea that people “can’t help who they love” (or not), the queer movement has often inhibited an interrogation of the heteronormative power structures governing all desire.

If straight people can’t help who they love, then neither can gay people. Nor, one might suppose, racists and transphobes, and people who find disability and fatness unattractive.

Queer oppression is not just the experience of prohibited desire. It is also the experience of hierarchical and violent desire. It is also the experience of undesirability.

[dailyanarchistposts]

Antagonizing Polyamory & Polynormativity

Just to be clear, while monogamous couples are the worst offenders, Polyamory does not escape this critique. Polyamory is built on the same foundations of the Relationship Escalator, amatonormativity, enforcement of commitment, and control of others’ behaviors and desires. There may be more flexibility in the interpersonal agreements made by partners in Polyamorous relationships as compared to strict monogamous ones (for example, lack of total sexual exclusivity and more explicit communication about expectations instead of following the default model); however, there is still a clear divide who is “in a relationship” and that confers a near-identical set of social privileges and coercive power dynamics.

Some of the challenges Poly folks rally around — like feeling unable to be “out” to family members about important people in their lives and a lack of State-sanctioned marital rights — are not exclusive to Polyamory nor are they addressed by performance of Monogamism in sets of three, four, or an interconnected web of couples built on control and coercion of “partners” (both directly and through third-party consent). Polyamory does not disrupt mono-normativity; rather, it is an assimilationist approach that simply aims to include more people under its particular brand of oppression. Using “partner” to describe people relating in this way may be accurate — and is still not an effective argument for the legitimacy of “partners” in any worthwhile vision of Queer liberation.

What about the (re-)naming of queerplatonic relationships (QPR) as queerplatonic partners (QPP)? This appropriation of queerplatonic to fit it into a partner model — a framework that necessarily reinforces amatonormativity by privileging romantic and coupled relationships with the social roles discussed above — is antithetical to the original utility of the term. While queerplatonic was originally intended to describe non-normative relationships that do not adhere to the romantic-sexual-couple model, assimilationist neoliberal forces have wrested this terminology from the communities that created it. QPP fails to address the harms of “partner,” and even QPR is still a relationship label that differentiates a “type” of relationship to form a de facto social hierarchy. Breaking down the belief that couples and romantic-sexual relationships are the best or only place for many forms of intimacy, vulnerability, and collaborative life projects creates the possibility for any of one’s relationships (broadly, as any shared interaction with others) to take on these roles. It can be hard to build relationships that challenge amatonormativity and monogamism, as those ideas are actively forced on us almost every moment from many directions. Do not neutralize this difficult and revolutionary work by falling back on dominant terminology that will be used against all of us! QPP is yet another form of refashioning Queer relationships in the form of straight coupledom, relying on the same harmful structures that keep people trapped in that model. Let’s break down the validity of “partners” altogether, instead of finding ways for Queer folks to pander to and recapitulate mono-cis-het-normativity!

[dailyanarchistposts]

Monogamy is privileged, even in “non-monogamous” spaces

In mainstream US society, monogamy is presented as the default–or only–way of relating. Most people have not seriously considered non-monogamy in any form, and may have never seen it represented positively, if at all. If a “non-monogamous” option is considered, it is some form of polyamory, in which one can have multiple “partners,” but all parties still value and define relationships on the basis of rules, exclusivity, and control. There is little revolutionary about having more than one partner; polyamorous social norms are still explicity Monogamist. In most ways, polyamory is simply monogamy with more people.

In subcultures or spaces where non-monogamy is widely accepted or even the norm, this is seen as a personal choice or “relationship style.” Even when someone considers themselves a Relationship Anarchist (or other brand of unpartnered hooligan), this is regarded as an individual choice or identity rather than a political position or strategy. This makes it harder to recognize that the prevalence and systemic power of monogamy significantly influence our choices, and that people who oppose monogamy cannot choose at all whether they are exposed to or indirectly governed by others’ rule-based relationships.

Even people who aren’t participating in monogamy or other rule-based relationships are expected to prioritize and uphold Monogamist agreements. Guides on polyamorous dating advise asking questions like “Do you abide by hierarchy in your relationships?”, “What are your rules with existing partners?”, and “How do I know you aren’t cheating?” When there is conflict between pro-monogamy and anti-monogamy perspectives, the ethical rightness of choosing monogamy is assumed. Deviation from monogamy is so routinely assumed to be unethical that many people in non-monogamous relationships feel the need to address this without prompting through adopting the label of “ethical non-monogamy.”

If people participating in monogamous arrangements (or vocally supporting them) want validation or support for their behavior, they can look essentially anywhere around them. The dominance of Monogamism assures that there will always be somebody (usually many people, including authority figures) loudly saying that they are right and good for supporting monogamy. Monogamist messaging abounds in every kind of media and field of discourse. Even in the most deviant spaces, it is exceedingly rare for monogamy to actually be marginalized; meanwhile, anti-monogamy is suppressed and subject to near-universal disdain and ridicule.

[dailyanarchistposts]

Vision of a Different Future

Aromanticism is difficult to imagine in our society. so much of our social infrastructure does not support it. However, we should see this as a productive challenge, not a reason to dismiss aromanticism.

After all, queerness has never been about the convenience of normality. Queerness has always been about rejecting normality in favour of justice.

A capitalist model of society based on hetero-nuclear family results in a competitive world, where it is every family (whether biological, organisational, or national) for themselves.

What if we instead designed our infrastructure around an aromantic vision of society: communal housing, spaces, and facilities; communal activities like urban farming and sex-positive education; a sharing economy based on long-term reciprocation, not one-off transactions; shared care for children, the elderly, and the less-abled by the immediate community; pooled insurance based on communal care, not profit-motivated corporate schemes?

The nuclear family is the basic building block of a competitive society, expected to prioritise its interests over those of everyone else. Aromanticism transforms our social narrative from one of competition to cooperation.

Whatever it is, the point of aromanticism as a queer counterpublic is that it cannot be done alone. It must be a social movement, in the way romance is not and could never be.

We don’t have all the answers, but we hope to explore them with you.

[dailyanarchistposts]

Personal Control, Systemic Control

As products of and participants in a Monogamist culture, visions outside this paradigm are rare and often silenced. While it is important to break down Monogamist practices — in part through discrediting oppressive role labels — abolition is about creating something new just as much as destroying the old, harmful system. What does it mean to refuse to label someone as your “partner?” Are you afraid of being unable to control or “veto” their actions, of others not seeing your relationship as valid or important, of being devalued in their eyes? By valuing these things, you prioritize the control and coercion that Monogamism has conditioned you to care about.

[dailyanarchistposts]

Monogamism & The Relationship Escalator

Labels like “partner” typically refer to relationships based on the Relationship Escalator, a default set of norms for how relationships “should” look and progress through defined stages from casual interactions to merging into a shared life and family. This performance of relationships is founded in Monogamism, a system that prioritizes sexual and romantic relationships that adhere to normative social scripts over other types of intimacy. It controls people’s behaviors and desires through amatonormativity (linkage of romance and sex with intimacy), the couple form (two autononomous individuals merging into a couple-unit), and pedestalization of sex (prioritizing sex as a distinguishing factor in a relationship, and valuing relationships that include sex over others).