my favorite college experience is when i had a 7am class and the kid next to me literally poured a monster energy drink into his coffee said “i’m going to die” and drank the whole thing
trying to search about that new abc show
I feel like this lip colour could get me places.
So last night my mum wouldn’t let me have any sweets because she said they were all for the trick or treaters so i put this mask on and went out the back door and went around to the front and said trick or treat and she didn’t recognize me and she said “since i don’t think we’ll be getting any more tonight you can the rest of this bag my daughter will have them otherwise” and then i went back ini love myself
my mum walked in as i was taking this so i told her it was a metaphor
I HAVE NEVER LAUGHED THIS HARD IN MY ENTIRE LIFE
The scar is on the wrong side.
This is the best post i have ever seen.
this is the best omegle conversation i’ve had so far
things that make me laugh harder than they should:
gifs made with terrible stationary parts
Wow yeah okay Quinta B is the greatest.
THIS IS MY FAVOURITE VIDEO IN THE WORLD AS OF TODAY PLEASE WATCH IT
Well…to be honest…it makes me really uncomfortable.
As a personal lifestyle, or as an individual person’s philosophy, I have no problem with relationship anarchy. If it works for you, then that’s awesome, and you have my full support. But I don’t think that relationship anarchy is a good lifestyle or philosophy for everyone. I also do not think it should be treated as a competitive ideology, in the same way that anarchism and other political movements are.
Please do not let my opinion stop you from implementing relationship anarchy in your personal life, if that is the lifestyle that makes you happy. For some people, it is a great choice. You should do what works best for you. But in case you’re curious, my reasons for why I’m not a fan of it are under the cut.
Interesting. I hate to be the one trying to defend/conceptualize relationship anarchy again, since I don’t strongly identify with the term (preferring a more vague “polyamorous”) and I think it’s still really vague how it is any different from polyamory, but here goes a couple of thoughts:
1. I tend not to see relationship anarchy as a political statement, at least no more than any other relationship structure. The reason I see it as using the term “anarchy” isn’t for the political connotations, but because its a direct reaction to polyamorous relationships that rely on a primary/secondary distinction, or any kind of rank system. It’s using anarchy to mean lack of rules, because we don’t have a term for “I structure my relationships in a way that avoids hierarchies”. To insist that since they use the word “anarchy” it must be political would be like me insisting queer platonic must be a philosophy about metaphysics because it uses the word platonic.
2. I also don’t think it’s about every relationship being equally important- because saying the relationships are equal is ranking them! I think it is more about saying that relationships can not be ranked in a coherent way. Some may be better than others, but it is really comparing apples and oranges.
3. If it’s not political, and is meant as a personal choice, then I don’t think it would erase other people’s choices. After all, it would be wrong to say I must have a romantic orientation in order to respect other people having one.
4. If relationship anarchy is about relationships being incomparable, that would prevent someone from unconsciously ranking them- unless you believe that person is unconsciously ignoring that their relationships are really comparable. But that is basically telling people how they feel, and gets into dangerous territory- and is reminiscent of the guys who have told me if I’m not dominating a girlfriend, she must be dominating me, so I better go be a misogynistic ass because I’m “unconsciously” being submissive. Furthermore, most people have had at least some incomparable relationships- for example, can most parents rank their children? If a parent say no, do we say they are unconsciously ranking them so we should still be concerned about who is the favorite?
5. Relationship anarchy as I understand it isn’t about building relationships separate from cultural norms, it’s about not seeing relationships are comparable. There are cultural norms telling us every relationship can be ranked (and we must try to be on top, always), but I’m not sure that’s relevant. Obviously there will always be issues with deprogramming, but once again I don’t see how that would translate into “don’t even try”.
7. All of this being said, I don’t know if I know anyone who identifies with relationship anarchy. All I see are people who don’t identify with the term projecting what seem like extreme and straw man positions on to relationship anarchists, and it makes me really uncomfortable because it seems like an incredibly uncharitable interpretation. So for much of this, I’m trying to explain relationship anarchy in a way in which I could identify with it- but it’s possible there is some community out there that completely disagrees with me. I do think anyone that sees relationship anarchy as being “more” polyamorous than any other relationship structure is wrong, but that doesn’t discredit the whole concept (after all, The Thinking Asexual being an elitist about asexuality doesn’t discredit the whole concept of asexuality either).
So anyways, I’m basically trying to argue on behalf of relationship anarchists here for the sake of trying to cast it in a charitable light- but like I said, I don’t strongly identify with the term so I feel like I’m in a bad position to defend it.
eee ty captain that is most heartening, this post kinda bugged me but i couldn’t put my finger on why.
i love the idea of relationship anarchy and i think its concept and name open up room for a lot of fruitful discussion. my interpretation of it has been, “let relationships happen and don’t try to constrain them or rank them” — which yes, polyamory/non-monogamy soooo often centers around primary/secondary distinctions and hierarchies and making sure everybody knows exactly where they stand
i’ve personally found that, welp, i’m actually pretty reliant on hierarchies for sense-making and prioritizing relationships. and that’s ok and just different? but yeah, i conceive of relationship anarchy as just another model of non-monogamy that works for some and not others
I haven’t looked at relationship anarchy stuff except for some things people linked on AVEN like….4 years ago so maybe things have changed, but my understanding of relationship anarchy at the time was that it was basically about considering relationships with individuals on a case-by-case basis, rejecting pre-existing relationship categories like “friend”, “date”, or “wife” that come with pre-existing constraints, and determining things like what you commit to, what kinds of things are on or off the table, how much time to spend on each relationship on an independent basis.
So like, instead of saying “This person is my wife, so I will make them my priority, share finances and childcare with them, and not have sex with anyone else” or “I am having sex with this person exclusively, so that makes them my girlfriend, and that means I have to spend more time with them than with other friends”, you would just start from scratch and be like “I want to raise children with A, but spend most of my time with B, and have sex with C but nonexclusively, because that’s what I’ve negotiated with each of them”.
(Basically, instead of saying “I have X, Y, and Z types of relationships”, and grouping people into those categories, each person has their own personalized “category” just for them, with customized attributes)
I’ve never heard of not ranking individual relationships though - just not ranking “types of relationships” and determining how you rank an individual based on that.
Personally, I’ve always seen it as the relationship version of “I don’t like using labels for my sexuality” - Like, it’s an interesting concept, but it’s also somewhat impractical when you live in a world where those categories of “family” and “friend” and “date” and “spouse” etc. are still considered important and meaningful and also useful for communicating shared concepts and social understandings. I personally tend to think that there’s a more workable compromise in between: not throwing out relationship categories entirely, but still understanding them to flexible, and more like “boilerplate social contracts” - templates that you can customize as needed, but that provide a helpful common starting point.
Abuse is often viewed in terms of sexual jealousy, but let’s not forget that poly relationships can be guilty of this too.
My abusive ex would manipulate how I chose partners, for his benefit, so that he had a better chance of threesomes. Despite not having any agreements about the gender of partners, if I was interested in a girl he would encourage me and move at a pace that was faster than I was comfortable with, and if I was interested in a guy he would subtly tear them down in my eyes. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn’t.
Don’t let that shit fly, kids. You can do better.
girl scouts are letting in trans girls and letting girls replace God with whatever they want in the pledge, also they use cookie income to support abortion and LGBT agendas
boy scouts are just now allowing gay scouts in, officially in january, but gay leaders are still banned and they’re talking about segregation on camping trips, with gay scouts and straight scouts in different tents. also they still ban atheists,
girl scouts: 10000 boy scouts: 0