TOTW: Polyamory

This topic comes up from time to time but usually buried in something else. I have found that polyamory (or other versions that boil down to having deep, romantic, non-exclusive relationships over time) is the most consistent way to keep anarchist community strong over time. Obviously this isn't everyone's goal. Some people want insurrectionary (sudden, bursting anarchy that can go away as fast as it comes on) relationships. Others want organizational relationships (manifestos, lots of meetings, and hard straight lines). Others want the one true path (monogamy, possible marriage, kids, mortgages) to long term stability. What combination of depth, length, and consistency do you prefer in your romantic life and how does it align with your political choices?

There are 118 Comments

Not really, the 2 bigamists trapped inside the camel spend all their energies powering the relationship represented by the camel. Certainly relationships can be based on function and survivability, and introducing mathematics it could be argued that the lowest common denominator for a species to survive is 2, one of each gender forming a breeding pair, whereas others herd into harems.
One person walking alone strikes me as the most free existence, but with its own self-restricting perceptions concerning lonliness, intimacy and empathy , but not as screwed up as the camel enclosed choice.

The relationships that would maintain a lawless and respectful amoral equilibrium within a group of ppl are those which can be juxtaposed spontaneously into any scenario.
The highly sexed woman should be available to all, just as the Casanova type guy should be free to be romantic to anyone, and jealousy would become the obsolete toxic emotion that it was from a past era.
No one owns anyone.

the woman should be "available to all", while the man should be "free to be romantic to anyone" ... ?

you might want to think about that a minute.

but the "no one owns anyone" is spot on.

Yes I see your point, a bad choice of wording, I should have worded it as " women should be free and not forced into binding relationships as if they were property" words to that effect.

Replying in good faith to excellent question critiquing my different description for women and men. Likewise I should also word the male section to satisfy the gender fascists obsessive hair-splitting regarding lexical semantics in the following identical manner, hereby erasing the creative poetic flair in the original sentences.
" men should be free and not forced into any binding relationships because they are not property, also, though their personalities and physiological functions and desires are nuanced, women should be free and not forced into any binding reĺationships because they are not property. Also, the homeless guy you took into your van to help with chores in exchange for shelter and food should be free and not forced into any binding relationshipbecause they are not property. Also, the homeless puppy you squeezed into the van should be free and not forçed into any biñding relationship because they are not property. But your lazy husband who bongs too much and is unemployed should be thrown out into the street and be replaced.

OR just switching over the gender in the original seems innocuous, thus revealing the feminist bias in the criticism---
"The highly sexed man should be available to all, just as the Delilah type woman should be free to be romantic to anyone, and jealousy would become the obsolete toxic emotion that it was from a past era.
No one owns anyone."
Its pretty obvious when read in this way! I can't help it if women are drawn þo me. Go on, delete this, cos of feminists and libido and stuff!

i want more bizarre image based topics where delirium is incited

Romulus and Remus with their mom should stir up some delirium concerning power, gender, and Empire!

leway from op:

you clearly misunderstand my point. group identity is my enemy, which means feminism is too. my question was not about how "men" or "women" should be treated or spoken of, but about how you perpetuate gender identity with that kind of distinction. if you are truly an "individualist", why be so invested in - and expressive of - the group identities that you claim to be against?

i'm not big on poetry, but have at it with your poetic self.

I loath machismo and submissiveness in either sexes, and I love individuality, but not the bland uniformity of the unisex identity. The diversity of gender should remain at its innate physiological level as the spice that it is in e eryday life.

I want my mom to be my mom,
And my dad to be my dad,
And my nephews and nieces to be the same.

And everything else thats in between.
Are the things that can be seen,
And to lose them I think would be a shame.

Hark, I feel a rhyme about to arrive,
And then the poetry will thrive,
Shall I compare thee to a flower (lady) or a rock.(man)


“I want my mom to be my mom,
And my dad to be my dad,
And my nephews and nieces to be the same”

uh, what does that have to do with anything, and how would anything discussed here change that?



I hate THAT idpol ;)

Gender isn't high up on my agenda regarding the cosmos, it just slides into the organic physiological diversity phenomenon which I accept as a necessary equilibrium which must be nurtured and treated sensitively and with respect.
I don't know what all the pushing is about puberty blockers, rather the environment should adapt to the speed of growth of any person.

These nuanced physiological tendencies include a predilection for a sedentary and domesticated existence, especially whilst bearing and rearing children.
How many girlfriends have I had who attempted to settle me down to a cosy static existence working 9 to 5 and spending all my money on comfort and excesses in clothing and appliances? Maybe with multiple partners the varietý at home may have tamed my nomadic spirit?
Now I don't want any feminoids to go off and jump to the conclusion that I am a misogynist, I equally load the male physiological tendencies which counter balance the female ones. This is an unbiased analysis of gender psycho/physiological chemical emotional inter-communication equations of which I have pondered upon for decades, nay, my whole life. I am in touch with the feminine side of my psycho-chemistry.'re replying to the LeWay resident troll, who's here 24/7 and doesn't deserve even a dishonest reply. He, just like his fart bong friend Sir Einzige, has a long track record as a misogynist on this site. You should have been warned before.

Thanks I'm too stupid to observe things and come to conclusions.

Hey... I just thought you might enjoy a shortcut instead of being fooled like the dozen other unsuspecting newcomers who wasted time with that fart bag.

lol, that was a different anon!

as moss, i’m a distinct entity from mold, but they’re nice people

From what I've observed over time there seems to be a nice LeWay and a nasty LeWay.
I'm not sure if they are the same person trolling, or a schizo person with some serious issues, or as the nice one claims, an impersonator.

i agree that both are mutually exclusive topics,

for it be a near certainty they are not in flux of amory plural

Uhmm, I'm officially registered now, so the fake impersonator problem has finally been settled nyuk nyuk nyuk!

8:59: not at all new here, and well aware of ziggy and leway. they can be obnoxious, trollish at times, and rather condescending, but i still share some definite affinity with *some* of the points they make. and i find the weak-minded anons that so easily pass them off as neo-fascist (or whatever the fuck is the insult of the day for @libs) to be far more annoying than them.

either you reject authority at every possible opportunity, or you don't. folks that can't deal with words they disagree with tend to fall in the latter category.

i treat every individual as... an individual. anything else is not worth my time.

yikes … who else will you share affinity with, I wonder?

affinity with me. Actually we live in syzygy around here like planets in orbit around the sun with moons and asteroids in the fray.

what we did was philandery which is undeclared and underhanded. All my relationships have been platonic for a long time now which is nice if you can manage it.

i share affinity with many individuals and ideas. the fact that i share some affinity with someone or something does not mean i am fully supportive of them, or that i agree with everything they say or think, other than that which i choose to take as my own. i do not fit into some tidy little box, sorry to say.

what are the specific dimensions of a box in which you would fit?

polyamory is a completely consistent and valid choice for anyone who wants freedom from imposed rules/morality, particularly for an anarchist. i do think there is a strong correlation between poly and anarchist ideas.

but like most things anarchic, in the "real" world it gets smudged by the very real baggage carried - individually and collectively - by human animals. which is not to say it cannot work, just that it is much more difficult than might be surmised from strong desires of liberatory life. aside from the typical green-eyed devil of jealousy, the deep-rooted authoritarianism that pervades modern human life shows itself in very devious and sometimes unexpected ways.

and then, there are the ideologues who claim anyone NOT subscribing to a poly relationship dynamic is not an anarchist. which is just as bad as those who claim humans are "naturally" monogamous.

polyamory can be hugely liberating, when it works for all involved. in my experience, it is much more common that it works for some involved, not all. but like anarchy, i'll keep trying...

I think the current psyche isn't generally ready for polyamory. The open relationship model with a singular love interest and tertiary situational loves and sub loves might be in order. Like the bridge to the ubermench.

imagine finding not one, but two people (or more!) who are mutually romantically inclined towards you

i usually don’t do such hardcore imagining without stretching first, so as not to injure myself

I love being single!!!!

wish i had more (platonic) friends tho
with things in common and projects and compatible schedules and life-paths

It would be nice to be like child with childish values and relationships, there would be no gods or mortgages.

i also think the way folks elevate "romantic" (sexual?) relations into such a different place than other (platonic? friends-only?) relations is hugely problematic. i guess more generally, why classify relationships so rigidly?

if we have a relationship, does it need to be so strictly qualified? sometimes it may be friends (hopefully all the time, or at least mostly), sometimes lovers, sometimes adversaries...

labeling relationships seems just as problematic as labeling groups. it reifies something that i think ought to be dynamic and fluid.

like first comment, also want an answer to, "How does poly "keep anarchist community strong over time"?"
the only thing i can thing of is: if the ONLY alternative is the monogamous nuclear family, then poly prevents retreat into that isolated type of life. but i don't find the nuclear family as the only alternative vs. poly, so i still don't get it.
for one, single people make fine and consistent anarchists between each other.

Not sure if polyamory keeps anarchist communities strong or not but I do recall most of my polyamorous friends being quite miserable in their relationships. Reminded me of my monogamous friends in that respect.

one-on-one, monogamous relationships are extremely difficult. adding more people into that mix does not make it easier.

again, not promoting monogamy (or polyamory), just acknowledging the difficulties that lie beyond initial infatuation.

unrequited love can be hard too. etc etc.

in every conceivable scenario, you're stuck with some kind of dilemma.

there's no way out of trouble!

i think that for some people, adding more into the mix does make it easier (it did for me).
for other peopel monogamous relationships are not extremely difficult. i know at least two couples married for decades who have never had any apparent significant blips in their relationship. that gets more rare as people's models for health and relationship change, which i think is what this totw is getting at (among other things?).

not in any way to prescribe anything for anyone, but i do find polyamory to be a closer model to the kind of anarchy i like, because part of my definition of poly is being open to whatever kinds of relationship seem good between people, ie fluidity (and being in the moment) is at least as valuable as stability to me... and i associate that with being open to chaos, which i associate with anarchy.
ugh. too much defnininining already...
just sayin'

i don't disagree with you. of course every situation and individual is unique.

though any long term relationship that never has had any serious problems, seems to me must be fairly shallow relationships. i too know several mono couples that have been happy together for decades, but they sure as hell have had serious issues over that time. it is precisely the issues - and how people deal with them - that makes relations ever stronger, imo.

Polyamory in my area is found at around the mid-20s among the liberal leftie/hipster crowds. They end up getting laid with always more problematic people 'til they realize they just buckled up the circle of their youth harsh "experience" with the lower classes... and back to the socialism of the petty bourgeoisie. Access to quality healthcare, lawyers, the bullshit planned tourist travels in exotic places, then the juicy pensions for their old age. Etc.

Of course there's no reason why it should be part of such a privilege yuppie subculture. In better days, like up to the late 20th century, it was a very lumpen practice (just like yoga used to not be about soulless yuppies, lol), while it was chastised out of the world of conservative Christian bourgeois families.

It just IS... an untold vital component within a culture of meddling-together for mutual capital accumulation. A kind of social contract, if you'd like, but based on some disgusting revived notion of natural selection. That's your polyamory, viewed from the outside. Doesn't mean you'll feel/see it like that from the inside, tho... where things are so quaint and saucy! ;-)

so is anyone like dating a confederation of polycules?

i imagine that would resemble like a Portuguese man o' war (Physalia physalis)

Why are the sexist comments by the fake Le Way being left here, while my comments are deleted? This is totally fucked up behavior from the moderators. If you're going to delete anything, delete the fake ones, not mine. I've been commenting as Le Way for years.

Look, I'm not going to play your peurile game, you fail, get a life, that's all to say.,.

I've always found this topic a bit bleak in this context, not that there's anything wrong with a healthy interest in sex and dynamic relationships etc …

BUT I start to think like a grumpy old bookchin when people talk as if their political/anarchist projects and motivations for relationships and forming or maintaining their communities are primarily just a way to try and get laid. Really?! Is that all we're actually doing here?! Would certainly explain why lack of conviction often seems to be an issue.

sot: wouldn't a lack of convictions be a good thing?

I've always wanted to be able to have a polyamorous relationship, but, have never found myself in a situation where it was viable. I also wonder if such a relationship wouldn't be resultant in some form of upended sexism. As someone who identifies as "he/they", I wonder if an other party, if said other party identifies as being female, wouldn't feel like they were being passed around, but, then again, I have spent too much time milling about in what are more or less swinger's clubs.

It had its moments, but, was more or less a total disaster. I was like the lonely boy out on the weekend. There's nothing else to do in the city that I live in other than to go out dancing. I don't really go to those places too much anymore for a myriad of reasons, but, they were kind of the only places to go. I just go out to films now.

Thanks. It is my favorite part of that album, but, I also just thought that it sounded nice.

adults often start to lose intimate friendships due to work and other people pairing off, just wanting to be left alone, and a desire to "be productive"...I'm completely pessimistic in my prospects for finding more intimate or sexual love. I've never been particularly attractive to women, trying to seek out sexual partners who have penises or have a transgender identity has proven to just be too awkward for both me and the people I seek out. I hope that I can figure out something a little less depressing by retirement age...

Three pieces on on working class Jewish anarchists in the US gets five comments -- on one article. Needy narcissist subculture geeks trying and failing to get laid once again get sixty seven comments.

You losers stink.

I could say that "narcissist" applies to several of the residents here, not only our two most despised asshat, but also the more "intelligent" ones... IF they're different people.

I ain't too impressed with polyamory as this sounds like some gimmick for more privileged socialites who get easily into romance due to having the proper social skills and entry into relations. Most of my sexual development was build on pornography and waking, which in my later years has turned into a major source of conflict with myself, suffering and depression.

So while polyamory has the obvious and clear potential for helping people like me into having a healthy love/sex life without the shitty hindrances of the couple and the family, most people including the posters in here are dodging the reality that the GROUP is also a form of deprivation similar to these other two, and equally if not more exclusive that the couple can be. At least in a couple there's a possibility to articulate desires for others and maybe come to arrangements, for those who are open about this. I couldn't say that groupings are as much mature when addressing their personal desires.

But meh... can't pretend to know these relationships all too well. It's all alien shit to me, as much as I'm an alien to them. I know right... alien-nation!

"At least in a couple there's a possibility to articulate desires for others and maybe come to arrangements, for those who are open about this."

there is no reason whatsoever that couldn't also be true for more than 2 individuals. it is all about the individuals themselves, and their desires and integrity.

Isn’t divorced and married again parents with shared custody very similar to polyamory?

And aren’t i a not clever at all smartass that’s not worth your time?

It's all up to who they're getting laid with, and sharing children custody with. I see that growing numbers of parents are doing that, due to splitting. Often it's just forced by the courts, so not exactly polyamory!

polyamory was the worst shit that happened to the movement here. destroyed and splitted groups and relationships way better than police repression :D

jealousy and rigid expectations and bad communication do tear apart friend circles and working projects.
but i agree 13:10 that the OP doesn't explain why it being around poly is any different worse than any other set of dogma and hurt feelings, which of course can come up from a plethora of causes, not just sexuality, by any means.

Was it the beserker STDs which rampaged through the lodge?

I've heard that the sexual politics of some of the communes in the 70s had effectively turned their meetings into hazing semiars. As the social relationship so radically differs, the experiment in polyamory is not without predicaments. I think that was probably resultant of an incapacity to cope with existing social relations and not necessarily due to the conept of polyamory itself, which I do think can be a good idea. The problem, I think, lies in reifying existing structures of domination concerning sexual politics whilst esposing alternatives to them, and, not necessarily with that polyamory is just to much of a clusterfuck to be effectively pleasant. In short, I think that it fails because people are insincere and not because it just simply isn't a good idea.

Of course, I've never actually been in a polyamorous relationship, and, so, this is just pure speculation.

From what I've seen with people that are playing at multiple sexual affairs secret or open, is that they seem to be drawn into a vortex of competing rivalry and favor, forever mediating and appeasing hurt feelings. A real mindfuck!
My conclusion is that one would have to be saintly, not in the religious sense, but in the emotionally detached from desire sense, like braindeath in a DO NOT THINK ABOUT SEX CELEBATE VOID and you will walk out of here ALIVE.

Oh wow, I used to think of Incels as bitter aggressive fascist thugs, but now I'm going to treat them like Gandhis or Mother Teresa, Thankyou you sooo much!

i am in a happy poly relationship, one of many years' length, and none of us (there are five involved currently), are saintly in any way. most of us like to spend plenty of time alone, we're mostly over 40.
sure it's rare, but i would argue that happy long term relationships are rare period.

From what I glean from the aforementioned swingers, the problem seems to be with that controlling men think that free spirited women are "easy". Idrk what anything is like. It does seem like it could lead to emotional disaster, but, I don't think that there's anything inherently ruinous about polyamorous relationships.

Left academics in my hood are under-the-rug sex maniacs. They got this pattern of everyone sleeping with (almost) everyone that at the bottom line is just like another, collective form of rape. Or gang bang?

Basically when you gotta sleep with some people (that so often conveniently turn out to be the same old machos of the milieu) in order to get deep into the in-crowd, you got a pattern of sexual abuse right there...

I am VERY good at masturbating, but i find that when i want to do it the most, it isn't a pleasant experience anymore. A lot of my fantasies are based on "love", and just really dirty sex that I'm not sure If I'll experience. Never have been good at flirting, BUT, yeah i can wank myself off to get some decent rest sometimes! My wanking is both poly amorous and strict monogamous, wanted to tell someone that in a hot candle lit room...

From reading these comments, it seems that there's a collective problem of forgetting how to have sex, but hey, it's there, it happens when no one is looking...and THAT is just as worrisome as the involuntary incel population. Using sex as a form of emotional control is something I've never wanted to look into, but the little tid bits i hear of it happening is pretty horror show...

all those fucking cheesy movies about true love i used to watch, i mean, do they still play those in theatres? They're also in the pornography mix. TEMPORARILY CONSIDERING MYSELF SEXLESS AND HAPPY!

Sadly, due to fairness -being the diametrical opposite to polyamory and equally a "solution" that many people go to- this deserves its TOTW!

I’ll insist that we should completely erode all traces of negative connotations to any notion of masturbation and circle-jerks! This erosion shall be carried out by the delicate, firm, and vigorous friction of skin!

Sorry for statement on causal correlation but this one holds... More accessible fuck parties means less causes for masturbation, thus much less masturbation and more satisfaction with real living partners (instead of fuck fantasy characters). Of course you can masturbate on your partner by in layman's terms (sex education time!) we call that "fucking".

Speaking of masturbation:
"To love oneself is the beginning of a lifelong romance."
-Oscar Wilde

"The MOST consistent way to keep anarchist communities STRONG over time"? Really? This is theoretical masturbation...By the way, where are the so-called "strong" anarchist communities located in the U.S.? Certainly not in the Bay Area....You really don't think there are more important factors involved in keeping communities "strong"? That's it? Polyamory is the panacea?

Systematizes polyamory more so than others, I've also heard it's a total fucking shithole

Remember who you are, not what your lover(s) wants you to be!


As a metaphor for how to be in relationship with others I was all about this totw. But it seems by the end of the paragraph the notion that romantic relationships are the only real relationships held sway. Sigh.

Bok, bok, bok..?

Can the individual who composed the current TOTW please unbundle the following sentence.

I have found that polyamory (or other versions that boil down to having deep, romantic, non-exclusive relationships over time) is the most consistent way to keep anarchist community strong over time. unintended policy is to avoid dating inside the anarchist scene. Anarchyworld has too many ongoing dramas and I have no desire to get involved in them. Afaic anarchism is a tower of babel. We all may talk about anarchism but rarely ever meaning the same thing. Perhaps not even remotely.
Over the years I dated a couple of politically conservative women. One was a political hack and the other was my medic. The hack was an interesting individual and we ended up being with each other for around 10 years.

u cray cray

Let's go down to the hot tub and have a beer!

i mean, i’m not one to judge. i wouldn’t even know where the dating scene is, much less the anarchist one

but i’m already insane, it’s not as if i’m safeguarding myself

but yeah, a conservative wingnut still sounds unappealing to me

over my whole life, dating has been incredibly informal and vague. A lot of people now adays meet through dating websites, i've never had the pleasure of trying that. I've made a few ok cupid profiles over the years and it didn't go anywhere interesting or fun.

I take your point but she was (and still is) shrewd, bright, talented, cultured and a good laugh. All of that means a lot to me and getting 10 years in a relationship is longer than most marriages.
The trick is accepting the fact that you will never get everything you want from any one person. As Bell Hooks once said in reply to the question:
Q: Can you have it all?
BH: Perhaps you can, but not all at the same time.
The conservative medic was a different case entirely.
I just want one part of my life that is free from anarchist dramas. Too draining.

that "hack", lol, are you the one that was dating anne coulter? Nice, bet you got up in that pussy my nigga! Or, that dick got up in you, just as nice.

ah chloe, if i could find the time to go back to that strip club, she was fuckin' licking my ears and shit, if i only had the balls to ask her for her phone number! Cutie pie early 20's redneck, but ya know, she was a ho, unlike this sexy hack you describe. I would have probably written a song about her. I know your heart still longs for her.

so many people, so beautiful, so insane, SO FUCKED UP DAWG!

If one really cuts through all the morality, economics and instinctual drives, and was really honest to ones inner self, polyamory is mutual voluntary rape, with the edgy stuff restrained.

fucking talking about. Reading his comments is like listening to the fuckin' insane asylum in my head. Stirnerian knights for the peaceful spastic exuberance of rainbows!!..,,..

yeah, sounds like a fun game anarcho-bushido. I just always thought of nihilism as a semi-buddhistic trend in human thinking, "not this, not that". But yeah if you wanna go on assuming that I'm splitting affection from love and sex, yeah go ahead. No one really needs to have children anyway! It will happen, but cannot be the hobgoblin of civilized minds.

You, with your assumptions, will greatly wield a sword much mightier than the cavalry of ghangis khan and hitler's zyklon-B

P.S.: i got the concept you mentioned earlier, they talked about it in the feminist "L.I.E.S." journal, how "all sex is basically rape" within the post-traditionalist misogynist context, OR, the capitalo-nihilist context.

Thanks for replying. Regarding misogynist intercourse I'm completely behind LIES journal and their concept, also any misuse of power at the expense of a living entity's sanity, sport shooting, horse racing, may as well throw the whole disgusting cultural practices in the same basket.
Otherwise, yes, let those indulge in agreeable sex, there is no morality here, and alot of foolishness, let them run in where samurai fear to tread.

i like the cultures where the murderers took greater precautions and killing had a special religious place in the god mind...better than pretending like it doesn't matter what you do. There is karma, even if we don't understand it. I don't the 1%ers at all, except maybe the calm, professional gambling types. In my experience they aren't as much like the gordon geckos as they are like the shy accountants...

why are pseudonymed trolls just the wackiest worst unsightly decomposing road-obstructing debris?

are ya’ll an obfuscation shield to cover up the fact that pleasant conversation and nice discussion takes place around here every once in a while?

is your role personally to make the other pseudonymed trolls look better and more realistic in comparison?

are you some neo-discordian parody account? are you just plain mad?

Snarky anon doesn't admit that most anarchists are misfits or sociopaths, not counting platformist anarchists like Wayne, who tàke it way too seriously.

No way, I don't accept the words rèbel, misfit or sociopathic, they describe psychological cultural constructs. I seriously, behind the shenanigans and joking parody, fit into everyday life as a super sane well-balanced individual. Do you want me to join a NASCAR forum instead and type out passionate comments about the brand of tire some redneck gashead uses roaring around Tennessee?

I'm more into the critique mirrored in LeGuinns --Those that walked away from Omelias,,,-every culture has blood on its hands, of course, you being a nihilist accept inevitable decay but fast forwarded, whereas I'm built for pleasure, not for speed, resting my nonchalance on the fact that every action has a psychological consequence. You ever seen a tycoon honestly belly-laugh over something from the soul of mirth?
Anarcho-Bushido belly-laugh at all frivolous pursuit of money.


Add new comment