Relationship Anarchy

[SSRIs Fail]

I'm not particularly interested in that idea. First of all, I reject the notion that only having one romantic partner means that your love is limited and finite. You can love 100 people completely, but you can only make serious commitments to a few. That's why I prefer to have one significant other and one or two best friends. The trust and intimacy that either sort of relationship entails isn't something I have the time or energy to give to very many people. Additionally, I tend to dislike the "no labels, just feel your feelings" path. Yes, that may make sense to a certain point, but ultimately people who agree to spend time with you are going to want to know if you are on the same page with them regarding how serious the relationship is. I think that's perfectly normal and valid.

[Faelights]

But at what point does "open and honest communication" become "scaffolding"? If I'm open and honest and tell you that you're my favorite friend and my favorite person to be around, and that I hope you're around for a long, long time, have I broken some RA rule? If you suddenly jump ship and i'm heartbroken, have I again broken some RA rule?

I'm personally in favor of some relationship guidelines because they are very helpful in setting up proper/ realistic expectations. If we are dating, then I have the reasonable expectation that you will break up with me if unhappy, not just suddenly disappear. If we are "friends", I have the reasonable expectation that you will not try to have sex with me. Using those labels seems easier than having to reinvent the wheel with every single person you interact with.

Does that make sense? I can try to clarify my issues if not.

I'm confused... Rules? What rules? XD

The "rule" that there are no rules in RA. It seems to me that if you start throwing up expectations of how someone else should act, you're not longer practicing RA. But I don't really know how relationships can function well long-term without expectations.

Geez, that was a much easier way to say it than my previous attempt! :)

Well, if I were in a relationship with someone like you, who prefers having expectations/relationship guidelines... I would definitely try to work with that, especially if I thought the relationship was worth it. XD

Of course, I couldn't speak for anyone else.

I'm not particularly interested in that idea. First of all, I reject the notion that only having one romantic partner means that your love is limited and finite. You can love 100 people completely, but you can only make serious commitments to a few. That's why I prefer to have one significant other and one or two best friends. The trust and intimacy that either sort of relationship entails isn't something I have the time or energy to give to very many people. Additionally, I tend to dislike the "no labels, just feel your feelings" path. Yes, that may make sense to a certain point, but ultimately people who agree to spend time with you are going to want to know if you are on the same page with them regarding how serious the relationship is. I think that's perfectly normal and valid.

You have a point there about how you can end up spreading yourself thin. On the other hand, I'm not sure that not using a specific label means that the people in the relationship can't still come to a good mutual understanding of what exactly the relationship is, particularly if there is open and honest communication.

[Nathan Blair]

But at what point does "open and honest communication" become "scaffolding"? If I'm open and honest and tell you that you're my favorite friend and my favorite person to be around, and that I hope you're around for a long, long time, have I broken some RA rule? If you suddenly jump ship and i'm heartbroken, have I again broken some RA rule?

I'm personally in favor of some relationship guidelines because they are very helpful in setting up proper/ realistic expectations. If we are dating, then I have the reasonable expectation that you will break up with me if unhappy, not just suddenly disappear. If we are "friends", I have the reasonable expectation that you will not try to have sex with me. Using those labels seems easier than having to reinvent the wheel with every single person you interact with.

Does that make sense? I can try to clarify my issues if not.

I'm confused... Rules? What rules? XD

The "rule" that there are no rules in RA. It seems to me that if you start throwing up expectations of how someone else should act, you're not longer practicing RA. But I don't really know how relationships can function well long-term without expectations.

Geez, that was a much easier way to say it than my previous attempt! :)

I think you're confusing Anarchy and Chaos.

There can be rules in RA.

Maybe this quote from wikipedia would make it clearer:

"Relationship anarchy [...] do[es] not divide relationships of partners and non-partners, but have a more flexible approach to relationships where everything is allowed so long as everyone can accept the agreement."

I'm not particularly interested in that idea. First of all, I reject the notion that only having one romantic partner means that your love is limited and finite. You can love 100 people completely, but you can only make serious commitments to a few. That's why I prefer to have one significant other and one or two best friends. The trust and intimacy that either sort of relationship entails isn't something I have the time or energy to give to very many people. Additionally, I tend to dislike the "no labels, just feel your feelings" path. Yes, that may make sense to a certain point, but ultimately people who agree to spend time with you are going to want to know if you are on the same page with them regarding how serious the relationship is. I think that's perfectly normal and valid.

Of course it's difficult to love 100 people. That's not what RA is about.

You can love three people, be romantically 'involved' with two of them, sexually 'involved' with one of these two, while you avoid touching the other one, and just be intimate with the third one - or even be sexually involved with him/her but not romantically. If everyone's fine with it, why not?

That's just one of the infinite options RA allows.

[hotsexgary]

I find some of the comments here quite ironic. This is a forum for asexuals to come together and share commonalities in a world largely populated by sexuals, most of whom think that asexuals don't exist.

Yet some people here don't believe polygamy can exist. Isn't it hypocritical, to realise that so much of the world think that you're lying about not feeling sexual attraction, to then turn around and tell others that they're lying about being in love with multiple people, and sexually tied to any number of others?

[Treval]

I'm poly, so I'm in a similar camp already, but I seriously doubt this theory is one I'd be comfortable living by. The one thing that does kind of get me about this is that it could be a way to ignore a partner/some one you're close to's request without considering what the consequences would be...and to use that theory to justify it.

That said, I have no problems with anyone else following it as long as it's not forced on *me*.

[Faelights]

I'm poly, so I'm in a similar camp already, but I seriously doubt this theory is one I'd be comfortable living by. The one thing that does kind of get me about this is that it could be a way to ignore a partner/some one you're close to's request without considering what the consequences would be...and to use that theory to justify it.

That said, I have no problems with anyone else following it as long as it's not forced on *me*.

Forgive me for saying this, but I would be inclined to reexamine my relationship with a partner/someone I'm close to if they constantly ignore my requests without considering the consequences, regardless of which school of relationship theory I happened to belong to, whether it's monogamy, polyamory, relational anarchy, or something else altogether.

I also want to point out that just because someone uses something as a theory to justify their actions, it doesn't necessarily mean they're actually abiding by the principles of that theory. This is, of course, not to say there aren't some that do; I am merely stating that there are some that are just looking for any excuse at all. There are other excuses that people can use to ignore the opinions and requests of others: "they're ignorant", "they're just selfish", "they're being unreasonable", "they don't know the whole story", etc, etc.

Basically, it feels like you're saying that even though a knife can be used to prepare good, wholesome food, it shouldn't be trusted because people can kill others with it. The theory and label of relational anarchy is merely a tool for understanding how a person approaches their relationships with others, just like the labels of "monogamy" or "polyamory". Just because one person--in my humble opinion--misuses it, doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

Simply put, I don't understand what unique connection there is between relational anarchy and ignoring your partner/someone important to you. Are monogamy and polyamory really immune to the same criticism?

I personally would not be able to bear forcing someone else to abide by the same ideals about relational anarchy, because it would actually be in complete opposition to my own understanding of relational anarchy.

EDIT: Forgot to say this, but I support Nathan's statement that anarchy should not be confused with chaos. Rules can exist in RA; it's just that they're not predetermined or existing prior to the formation of a relationship. Basically, enter a relationship without presuming certain things are definitely going to happen. (Disclaimer: This is my understanding of RA.)

[Treval]

I'm poly, so I'm in a similar camp already, but I seriously doubt this theory is one I'd be comfortable living by. The one thing that does kind of get me about this is that it could be a way to ignore a partner/some one you're close to's request without considering what the consequences would be...and to use that theory to justify it.

That said, I have no problems with anyone else following it as long as it's not forced on *me*.

Forgive me for saying this, but I would be inclined to reexamine my relationship with a partner/someone I'm close to if they constantly ignore my requests without considering the consequences, regardless of which school of relationship theory I happened to belong to, whether it's monogamy, polyamory, relational anarchy, or something else altogether.

I also want to point out that just because someone uses something as a theory to justify their actions, it doesn't necessarily mean they're actually abiding by the principles of that theory. This is, of course, not to say there aren't some that do; I am merely stating that there are some that are just looking for any excuse at all. There are other excuses that people can use to ignore the opinions and requests of others: "they're ignorant", "they're just selfish", "they're being unreasonable", "they don't know the whole story", etc, etc.

Basically, it feels like you're saying that even though a knife can be used to prepare good, wholesome food, it shouldn't be trusted because people can kill others with it. The theory and label of relational anarchy is merely a tool for understanding how a person approaches their relationships with others, just like the labels of "monogamy" or "polyamory". Just because one person--in my humble opinion--misuses it, doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

Simply put, I don't understand what unique connection there is between relational anarchy and ignoring your partner/someone important to you. Are monogamy and polyamory really immune to the same criticism?

I personally would not be able to bear forcing someone else to abide by the same ideals about relational anarchy, because it would actually be in complete opposition to my own understanding of relational anarchy.

EDIT: Forgot to say this, but I support Nathan's statement that anarchy should not be confused with chaos. Rules can exist in RA; it's just that they're not predetermined or existing prior to the formation of a relationship. Basically, enter a relationship without presuming certain things are definitely going to happen. (Disclaimer: This is my understanding of RA.)

I never said that it was a bad thing, I simply said that it was something that, I, personally, wouldn't be comfortable living by, because the chances of it being misused makes me uncomfortable. Frankly, it would probably play havoc on my anxiety issues as well, so it really is *not* a theory I should probably live by. I apologize if it came off differently, that wasn't my intention.

What I think about the theory as a whole is basically that if it makes you happy, and you aren't hurting anyone/forcing it on anyone, then I have no issues with you or it. Nothing more, nothing less. I also apologize if I come off rude, but I'm a little puzzled where you got that I was against it as a whole seeing as I said that I wasn't in my first post?

[Faelights]

I'm poly, so I'm in a similar camp already, but I seriously doubt this theory is one I'd be comfortable living by. The one thing that does kind of get me about this is that it could be a way to ignore a partner/some one you're close to's request without considering what the consequences would be...and to use that theory to justify it.

That said, I have no problems with anyone else following it as long as it's not forced on *me*.

Forgive me for saying this, but I would be inclined to reexamine my relationship with a partner/someone I'm close to if they constantly ignore my requests without considering the consequences, regardless of which school of relationship theory I happened to belong to, whether it's monogamy, polyamory, relational anarchy, or something else altogether.

I also want to point out that just because someone uses something as a theory to justify their actions, it doesn't necessarily mean they're actually abiding by the principles of that theory. This is, of course, not to say there aren't some that do; I am merely stating that there are some that are just looking for any excuse at all. There are other excuses that people can use to ignore the opinions and requests of others: "they're ignorant", "they're just selfish", "they're being unreasonable", "they don't know the whole story", etc, etc.

Basically, it feels like you're saying that even though a knife can be used to prepare good, wholesome food, it shouldn't be trusted because people can kill others with it. The theory and label of relational anarchy is merely a tool for understanding how a person approaches their relationships with others, just like the labels of "monogamy" or "polyamory". Just because one person--in my humble opinion--misuses it, doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

Simply put, I don't understand what unique connection there is between relational anarchy and ignoring your partner/someone important to you. Are monogamy and polyamory really immune to the same criticism?

I personally would not be able to bear forcing someone else to abide by the same ideals about relational anarchy, because it would actually be in complete opposition to my own understanding of relational anarchy.

EDIT: Forgot to say this, but I support Nathan's statement that anarchy should not be confused with chaos. Rules can exist in RA; it's just that they're not predetermined or existing prior to the formation of a relationship. Basically, enter a relationship without presuming certain things are definitely going to happen. (Disclaimer: This is my understanding of RA.)

I never said that it was a bad thing, I simply said that it was something that, I, personally, wouldn't be comfortable living by, because the chances of it being misused makes me uncomfortable. Frankly, it would probably play havoc on my anxiety issues as well, so it really is *not* a theory I should probably live by. I apologize if it came off differently, that wasn't my intention.

What I think about the theory as a whole is basically that if it makes you happy, and you aren't hurting anyone/forcing it on anyone, then I have no issues with you or it. Nothing more, nothing less. I also apologize if I come off rude, but I'm a little puzzled where you got that I was against it as a whole seeing as I said that I wasn't in my first post?

@_@

=/ I didn't actually take it that you were against RA as a whole; I did understand that you were talking about yourself personally. In my above post, I was trying to express that I couldn't see how RA in particular could be any more misused than monogamy or polyamory, and explaining why I couldn't see it, thoroughly (perhaps overly so), and was seeking more explanation from you. I guess I went a little too far with the knife analogy... >_>;; It was supposed to be a short response! I don't know how it got all rambly and 5 paragraphs long!!! I'm sorry!!! ; _ ; *hides*

[eamonn]

By scaffolding I suppose I meant the ideas we have about relationships and their categorisation and so on. The post was written in haste.

Anyway, I think it would be pertinent, given the mention of rules, to link relationship anarchy to political anarchy. Lay understandings of the latter equate anarchy with chaos; in reality, anarchy usually involves the formulation of rules and laws but not by a powerful, singular authority such as the state. Instead, rules and laws are agreed upon by every member of the anarchist society. (I should add the caveat that there are a lot of definitions of anarchy.)

So relationship anarchy should not be necessarily equated with chaotic relationships.

Nor should it necessarily be considered good or bad; its effects may be either.

[ArtemisLiCa]

So, if I understand RA correctly, it's really just treating each relationship as an individual relationship. That is, it rejects the idea of relationship templates(You only do this with a friend and that with a lover. If you do this with a person you are in such and such a type of relationship). Instead, you create the terms of the relationship with the person(s) with the understanding that those terms may be revisited at any time and altered as all parties involved feel appropriate.

Is that correct?

If so, I certainly agree with it! It doesn't seem to necessarily exclude the possibility of monogamous or polyamorous relationships. It just recognizes the fact that people's emotions aren't going to be governed by socially defined limits and expectations.

Personally, I would prefer an exclusive relationship, but I don't see the need to limit that to one person. Couple, triad, polyamorous, er, group? All are fine, but I would want to know that only those within the couple/triad/group are romantically/sexually 'together' with other members of the relationship.

And I've always known that I would without hesitation or exception end things with someone who cheated on me. Not because I would really mind my SO being with someone else, but because I would feel betrayed that my needs and emotions are being ignored. I would much prefer to have my partner come to me and tell me they are experiencing a desire/interest/whatever for someone and discuss the situation.

If my partner DID come to me and say "I want to have sex with this other person" or "I want to date this other person, but I still want to be with you too" I don't think I would mind despite my feelings on/preference for exclusivity. Obviously it would be a case-by-case situation, but having a partner discuss this with me before acting on those feelings would 1)lessen the fear of being possibly being tossed aside for someone else 2) reassure me that I'm still loved despite these other feelings and 3)reassure me that my partner would not betray me/ignore my feelings, needs, etc.

Which, if I'm understanding RA correctly, is just what is meant by "everything is allowable and allowed by mutual acceptance and agreement." Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.

(Wow, sorry for the long post and telling you more about me than maybe you wanted to know!)

[Faelights]

So, if I understand RA correctly, it's really just treating each relationship as an individual relationship. That is, it rejects the idea of relationship templates(You only do this with a friend and that with a lover. If you do this with a person you are in such and such a type of relationship). Instead, you create the terms of the relationship with the person(s) with the understanding that those terms may be revisited at any time and altered as all parties involved feel appropriate.

Which, if I'm understanding RA correctly, is just what is meant by "everything is allowable and allowed by mutual acceptance and agreement." Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.

I would agree with your summary of it--it's definitely how I interpret RA, anyway. ^_^

[JerseyArenal]

I'm actually having a hard time understanding the full meaning of RA it's multiple partners. It doesn't really make sense to me, not that Multiple partners doesn't make sense. It works in theory and some people are OK with it. I wouldn't be but to each their own. What I don't get is it's Partners that "Everything is allowable and allowed by mutual acceptance." If that means that If I talk to a girl and say I want another girl and she agrees that's OK? So it's basically an open relationship except you let them know who you want to be with instead of keeping that open part out of your everyday life.

I'm not quite sure how it's suppose to work, honestly. If it works how my example is then It kinda makes sense if your into that idea. But usually I felt like your SO is your SO because it's who you trust more then anyone else. I wouldn't kiss my girl friend and then kiss her best friend even if it was ok with her because that would make my kiss feel like it was worthless. It's like selling kisses which makes no sense for me. But then again I might not be fully understanding it.

[Faelights]

I'm actually having a hard time understanding the full meaning of RA it's multiple partners. It doesn't really make sense to me, not that Multiple partners doesn't make sense. It works in theory and some people are OK with it. I wouldn't be but to each their own. What I don't get is it's Partners that "Everything is allowable and allowed by mutual acceptance." If that means that If I talk to a girl and say I want another girl and she agrees that's OK? So it's basically an open relationship except you let them know who you want to be with instead of keeping that open part out of your everyday life.

I'm not quite sure how it's suppose to work, honestly. If it works how my example is then It kinda makes sense if your into that idea. But usually I felt like your SO is your SO because it's who you trust more then anyone else. I wouldn't kiss my girl friend and then kiss her best friend even if it was ok with her because that would make my kiss feel like it was worthless. It's like selling kisses which makes no sense for me. But then again I might not be fully understanding it.

It sounds like even if your girlfriend would be okay with the situation, and her best friend is okay with the situation, you wouldn't be okay with the situation. So that would not be "mutual acceptance".

[JerseyArenal]

So it is basically an open relationship that everyone agrees with. If it works for people more power to them. I don't think I could do that though, just because of how it'd feel with it. Once more people get added to the group it feels more less important. It's interesting though.

[Disabled Account]

Wow. This sounds a lot like me! Never knew there was a term for it. Cheers for sharing! Now I know (:

[FeckingFrigid]

Additionally, I tend to dislike the "no labels, just feel your feelings" path. Yes, that may make sense to a certain point, but ultimately people who agree to spend time with you are going to want to know if you are on the same page with them regarding how serious the relationship is. I think that's perfectly normal and valid.

Of course that's normal and valid. I don't think, though, that relationship anarchy is intended to forbid labels. It's just meant to keep people from artificially trying to force their relationship to fit a label when it doesn't, or thinking that they're doing a relationship wrong if it doesn't fit a label. It also allows you to manipulate the way you use labels so that it works for you, or even to make up labels. For example, I have a friend who's genderqueer but identifies predominantly as a dyke and is almost exclusively attracted to women. However, they're also in a serious relationship with a straight-identified cis man. My friend isn't comfortable with being called anyone's girlfriend, though, because they're not a girl, so they've ended up with him called them his boyfriend, because that's what's most comfortable for them both.

So it is basically an open relationship that everyone agrees with.

That's not all it means. That's polyamory, but relationship anarchy goes a little beyond that. You can be poly and still ascribe to other aspects of relationship templates. Relationship anarchy opens you up to any type of relationship that breaks the templates. It includes relationships that defy normative gender roles, relationships with non-normative sexual dynamics, and romantic feelings or interactions which don't subscribe to the standardized Petrarchian rom-com style accepted in our culture. It allows for heterosexuality or heteroromanticism which isn't heteronormative or cissexist. It allows for queer heterosexuality, girlfags, guydykes. It allows for romantic friendships and for sexual friendships.

Basically, it's the idea that, so long as all involved parties are happy and consenting and all that, there's no wrong way to do a relationship.

[faltered]

Didn't know there was a term for it, but I am in this type of relationship.

My wife is bipolyromantic and has a girl friend. This was a choice we made specifically because of my "sexual problems" at the time. Now, its not necessary but she keeps the relationships nearly completely separate. And we have ground rules.

1. I don't want to hear about any sexual, period.

2. She never has a relationship that I am not okay with. For the mean time that means a relationship with another man. I think its just the idea of another man fullfilling a need I simply can't. I'm getting over it, but understand this was all before I even knew asexuality was a real term.

3. Partner reserves the right to over ride any trips to see the other person as long as there is a good reason. Safety being the main one. Before she went to visit the first time we put in place protocols to make sure everything was on the up and up until she was sure she was safe.

4. Opposite partner does not pry into the other relationships, it only causes heart ache.

5. Don't get attached to words and phrases. I love you and pet names happen in a relationship. Do not expect the poly to not say it ever to their other partners.

6. Other relationship partners know about the other relationships and that they aren't the only ones.

I can have a relationship outside of our marriage if I want. But it always seems that sex would be a big part of it and I'm just not great with women to begin with so I just wing it alone lol. But the principles of relationship anarchy only work if both partners are okay with it, rather, if all parties involved are okay with it.

[MinusCelsius]

The really unrealistic aspect of this idea would be to expect it work on a larger scale. As with every anarchy, it might work in a small social circle, but is destined to stay an obscure subculture. People already have the choice to be poly or live in open relationships; that's not a new thing. Yet most people seem to like their "backwardly" binary system and seperate lovers from friends. Not because society forces them into it, because they like it that way.

As an example:

Some youth friends of mine inherited an old farm. They moved there with a group of 12 or 13 people, began renovating it, grow their own food and live in an anarchist commune like you know it from TV. Everyone adjusted his or her lifestyle to make it work. Some were vegetarians or vegans to begin with, the rest stopped eating meat when moving there. Everyone was happy, and from what I hear, they still are happy 15 years later. It works for them because it's a small group and everyone is on the same page, believes in the same things and is willing to compromise to make it work.

But if they would decide the entire village they live in should share this lifestyle - stop buying from supermarkets, stop eating meat - it would be totally unrealistic. Sure, there are other farmers in that village - many other farmers, in fact, who already have a similar lifestyle and conditions to start with. But not all of them share the details and most simply do their work to earn money and live a "normal" life.

And even if the unlikely should happen and the entire village would decide to live their anarchistic life - it would still be a tiny fraction of the state, the country, the world. No-one could do what other people can do - simply move elsewhere and live the same kind of life. They are all bound to this tiny place where their lifestyle is the norm. In any other place, with any other group of people, they'd have to compromise. Or convert everyone they ever meet to their ideals.

With this RA, it's the same. It can work on a very small scale, with a small group of people. But the rest of the world would be off limits - every monogamous person, everyone who lives with a binary system and seperates in friends and lovers in any way: off limits. And many, many people do live that way by choice. If they wanted to be "converted" to non-monogamy of any kind, they would probably have seeked out likeminded people already. Today, it's not that hard to find people with the same mindset. No-one has to sit around and wait for a relationship model messiah to set them free. The probability to convert a monogamous person is quite low and bears mostly potential to hurt feelings in the long run.

tl;dr: RA can work and people can be happy with it. In a small group, where everyone is happy with the status as "subculture". On a larger scale, this will not be the "relationship model of the future" or anything. It will remain the oddity that outsiders learn to accept, but still regard with an odd look - just like an anarcho farm with 12 hippie-punks growing their own food.

[Faelights]

tl;dr: RA can work and people can be happy with it. In a small group, where everyone is happy with the status as "subculture". On a larger scale, this will not be the "relationship model of the future" or anything. It will remain the oddity that outsiders learn to accept, but still regard with an odd look - just like an anarcho farm with 12 hippie-punks growing their own food.

Good thing RA is all about consent then. Wouldn't want to impose it on people who don't want to participate it in. XD

[faltered]

tl;dr: RA can work and people can be happy with it. In a small group, where everyone is happy with the status as "subculture". On a larger scale, this will not be the "relationship model of the future" or anything. It will remain the oddity that outsiders learn to accept, but still regard with an odd look - just like an anarcho farm with 12 hippie-punks growing their own food.

Good thing RA is all about consent then. Wouldn't want to impose it on people who don't want to participate it in. XD

It happens all the time without consent. Its called cheating. :D But seriously, if both partners aren't okay with it, it will most certainly end very badly.

[Faelights]

tl;dr: RA can work and people can be happy with it. In a small group, where everyone is happy with the status as "subculture". On a larger scale, this will not be the "relationship model of the future" or anything. It will remain the oddity that outsiders learn to accept, but still regard with an odd look - just like an anarcho farm with 12 hippie-punks growing their own food.

Good thing RA is all about consent then. Wouldn't want to impose it on people who don't want to participate it in. XD

It happens all the time without consent. Its called cheating. :D But seriously, if both partners aren't okay with it, it will most certainly end very badly.

And it would most certainly not be RA. =P

Well, that is, unless they manage to work through it and be okay with it. lol.

[FeckingFrigid]

With this RA, it's the same. It can work on a very small scale, with a small group of people. But the rest of the world would be off limits - every monogamous person, everyone who lives with a binary system and seperates in friends and lovers in any way: off limits. And many, many people do live that way by choice. If they wanted to be "converted" to non-monogamy of any kind, they would probably have seeked out likeminded people already. Today, it's not that hard to find people with the same mindset. No-one has to sit around and wait for a relationship model messiah to set them free.

The whole point of RA is not to convert anyone, and, in fact, most people do need a "relationship model messiah", as you say, not to convert them but to show them there are other options. When you say that people would have sought out like minded people already and that it isn't hard to find them, I think you're sincerely underestimating the power of social programming. Just as many asexuals spend a lot of time thinking that they're "damaged" and completely alone until someone or something comes along and lets them in on the fact that asexuality is a valid identity, many polyamorous people spend years thinking they're just "fickle" or "un-boy/girl-friendable" or something until they learn about polyamory from someone else.

RA encompasses all sorts of sexual and romantic variety which most people would otherwise never realize is an option. The heterocentric romanticosexual model is so normalized that some people never realize what else might be available to them, even in this day and age.

On a larger scale, this will not be the "relationship model of the future" or anything.

Of course not. RA is not a relationship model, it's freedom from having to conform to a model. Doesn't mean it's a requirement to not conform, just that there are other options. And I certainly hope that will be more accepted in the future, because I hate to imagine a world in which the current model (in which heterosexuality is normalized without question, in which romantic love and sexual activity are compulsory, and dubious consent and poor communication is incouraged) continues unchecked indefinitely.

[MinusCelsius]

Waiting for someone to come along and enlighten me is an alien concept to me. If I happen to be interested in something, or see my interests/feelings are very different from the norm, I try to find out more about it. Unless the results of this research clearly state it's an illness, I won't consider myself "damaged" or "weird". And even if that is the result, I'm reluctant to consider it something to worry about. If it is a psychological thing; my logic is: "Does this cause me any distress, problems in my everyday life, specific situations? If yes, how often am I in this kind of situation? Twice a year? Then who cares, I'll deal with it." (If I was wondering if it's normal to have dry skin during winter or something physical, it's obviously different and I won't dismiss a body lotion to fix that.)

I don't understand how people can automatically assume *they* are broken and do something wrong, by default. We live in the age of information. It's not a lifechanging effort to find information about anything. Before the internet was around, sure, it was very possible there's only one gay, asexual or poly person in a place and yes, it was difficult to impossible to connect with others or even find them. But today, there is Google; today, you find a community for really everything, no matter how obscure, online. Sexual and/or romantic orientations, fetishes, relationship models - they all have meeting places and even specific dating pages. So no, I do not understand in any way how people would have to wait for a relationship messiah to explain them what they really want.