Polyamory & Relationship Anarchy

Non-monogamous, on my own terms

This is the page for anyone curious about the "poly" side of me: what that means for me, why I lean toward relationship anarchy instead of the more common hierarchical version of polyamory, and a few honest, non-judgmental resources if any of this is new to you or you're figuring out your own version of it.

My take, in short

I'm ethically non-monogamous, and if I had to pick the label that fits best, it's relationship anarchist more than plain "polyamorous." I don't rank the people I love into a primary/secondary tier system, and I don't treat any one relationship as automatically more important than another by default. I also don't think love is a scarce resource where caring about more than one person means caring about each of them less. I think of myself as a bit of a free bird about it, though not in a "no rules, no responsibility" way. It's more that I'd rather build each relationship around what fits the two (or more) people in it than force it into a template someone else designed.

That doesn't mean I don't take commitment seriously. I think commitment should look like whatever the people involved agree it looks like, instead of automatically inheriting whatever "next step" society expects a relationship to hit next. More on that below.

The vocabulary, actually explained

A lot of confusion about non-monogamy comes from people using these words to mean different things. So here's how I use them.

Polyamory
Having, or being open to having, more than one romantic and/or sexual relationship at a time, with everyone involved knowing and consenting. The "ethical" part is doing it openly instead of cheating with extra steps.
Ethical non-monogamy (ENM)
The umbrella term for any consensual relationship structure that isn't monogamous: polyamory, open relationships, swinging, and more, all under one label.
Relationship anarchy (RA)
More of a philosophy than just a relationship style. There are no default rules about what a relationship "should" include just because of its label (romantic vs. platonic, primary vs. secondary). Every relationship gets negotiated on its own terms instead of inheriting a template.
Hierarchical vs. non-hierarchical
Hierarchical poly ranks relationships (a "primary" partner whose say usually outweighs others'). Non-hierarchical poly, which is where I sit, doesn't rank by default; each relationship's importance is whatever it organically is, not a fixed rule.
The "relationship escalator"
The default script society hands relationships: dating → exclusive → moving in → engaged → married → forever, in that order, automatically. Relationship anarchy explicitly opts out of assuming any relationship has to move along that track.
Solo poly
Being polyamorous while intentionally not building your life around a "primary" partner or shared household. You stay your own independent unit even while having multiple relationships.

Why relationship anarchy specifically

Most polyamory content out there's built around hierarchy: a primary partner, secondary partners, veto power, and rules one partner sets that govern the others. That model works great for plenty of people. It's just never been the right fit for me. I don't like the idea that a relationship's importance gets decided in advance by a label instead of by what it's day to day, and I don't like giving any one person built-in authority over relationships that aren't theirs.

Relationship anarchy replaces that with a simpler idea, and it's the one I run on. Every relationship, whether romantic, sexual, platonic, or some combination of all three, gets to be exactly what the people in it build, negotiated honestly between them, instead of automatically copying whatever a "normal" relationship is supposed to look like. The monogamy script is a default config, and a default is just somebody else's opinion shipped as a setting. Plenty of defaults are good ones. I'd still like to read the file before I run it. A close friendship and a romantic partnership aren't ranked against each other by default just because one has a different label. Some of my relationships look more traditionally "coupled." Some don't, and were never trying to. Neither kind is a lesser version of the other.

"Non-hierarchical doesn't mean directionless. It means nobody's love gets pre-ranked before it's even had a chance to be itself."

What actually holds this together

None of this works without the basics, and they're the same basics any healthy relationship needs. Non-monogamy doesn't replace them. It just means I can't get away with skipping them, because there are more people to hurt when I do.

Real communication

Not hinting and not assuming, but actually saying what you need, what you're feeling, and what's changed, even when it's uncomfortable.

Consent, continuously

Everyone involved knows what's going on and has actually agreed to it. Not once at the start, but as an ongoing thing that can be renegotiated whenever it needs to be.

Honesty over comfort

Telling someone something they might not want to hear, instead of managing their feelings for them by staying quiet.

Autonomy

Nobody owns anybody. Every person involved gets to make their own choices about their own life and other relationships.

Jealousy still shows up sometimes. I'm not going to pretend otherwise, and anyone who tells you ethical non-monogamy means never feeling jealous again is selling something. The difference is what you do with it. I treat jealousy as information worth examining and talking through, not as a veto button over someone else's relationship. Usually when I sit with it, the jealousy turns out to be pointing at something else entirely, like needing more time or more reassurance, and that's a solvable problem.

Misconceptions, answered honestly

Isn't this just cheating with extra steps?
No. The entire thing hinges on everyone involved knowing and consenting, and cheating is specifically the absence of that. Take away the consent and honesty and it isn't ethical non-monogamy anymore, it's just cheating.
Don't you get jealous?
Sometimes, yes, as I said above. It happens, it gets talked about, and it doesn't get to dictate other people's relationships.
How do you even have time for multiple relationships?
The same way anyone has time for the relationships they prioritize. Plenty of poly people have less total relationship-time than some monogamous people spend on one. It's about intention, not headcount.
Is this just about sex?
Not for me, and not for relationship anarchy as a philosophy. It's about how relationships of every kind get structured, sexual or not.
Can non-hierarchical poly still have a partner who feels closer than the others?
Sure, that can happen organically. The difference from hierarchical poly is that it isn't a rule decided in advance; it's just however things are, and it can shift.
Do you need everyone's permission for a new relationship?
Not in the veto-power sense, because that's a hierarchical-poly rule I specifically don't practice. Honesty and communication, yes. A built-in veto over someone else's relationship, no.
Is this the same as an open relationship?
Related, but not identical. "Open relationship" usually centres one primary couple who allow outside connections, whereas relationship anarchy doesn't start from a primary couple at all.

If any of this is new to you

I'm not a relationship therapist, and nothing here's a substitute for talking things through with the people in your life. Treat this as a starting point if any of it's new territory for you, whether you're questioning your own relationship style or trying to understand someone else's.

Multiamory
A long-running podcast (and site) on non-monogamy communication skills. Practical, not preachy, and a really good starting point.
Poly.Land · "Polyamory 101"
Page Turner's blog has a dedicated starter guide that's honest about the messy parts, not just the highlight reel.
r/polyamory
A large, active community for questions, advice, and just seeing how differently this looks for different people.
"The Ethical Slut" · a book, not a link
Dossie Easton and Janet Hardy's book is the closest thing this space has to a classic, and it's still a solid, non-judgmental starting point decades on. It's the one I'd hand someone in person, so it sits here instead of in the links above. Any library or bookshop will have it.

One more thing

However you relate to people, whether monogamously, non-monogamously, or somewhere you haven't fully named yet, the point of all of this isn't the label. It's building something honest with the people you care about, instead of defaulting to a script nobody in the relationship actually chose. That's the whole philosophy, really: figure out what's true for you and the people you love, say it out loud, and build from there.

← Personal Dynamics hub Back to About →