In Defense of Relationship Libertarianism

Well, it's finally happened that relationship anarchy has gotten popular enough to start fracturing. This post from Kalasutra (update: now at Queertopia) has been getting passed around some online RA spaces (and apparently was prominent enough to be included on the RA Wikipedia page), and it is not complimentary to something called "relationship libertarianism"

This behavior is probably best described in blunt terms: (mostly) cis guys are fucking around with (mostly) femmes, and disconnecting from them the moment there’s any mention of romantic feelings, hopes for a more entangled future, expressions of obligations or deepening responsibilities. These people are, basically, having sex with people for as long as it takes for their partner to develop an attachment, and then leaving them with no guilt or consideration because they’re a self-proclaimed relationship anarchist, which means they’re “not responsible for anyone else’s feelings” and/or they “had already agreed on the level of connection that was going to happen” and/or they “don’t believe in relationships that restrict autonomy in any way.”

According to the writer, relationship libertarianism ("RL") is based on "an absurd conception of personal autonomy" and practiced by "selfish individualists." This is presented as Bad and Wrong:

If I ask for nothing but a loose connection and occasional sex from you, and you agree now but then later express an expectation that I regularly listen to you talk about challenging things in your life, you’ve failed to honor our deal. You’re asking for more than I agreed to give you.

Relationship libertarianism sounds an awful lot like my ideal relationship style, whereby people are free to have any kind of relationship they choose so long as all parties are in agreement. The author writes with disdain about people who are up-front with their boundaries and enforce them when other people try to cross them.

A steelman of the author's position would look something like this: relationship anarchy, as originally conceived by Andie Nordgren, is about having deep, loving, and mutually satisfying relationships, and is ultimately about revolutionizing intimate relationships into a cooperative, community-focused framework. Unfortunately, some people (mostly cis men) are coopting the language and philosophy of RA to have shallow relationships where they just use other people for sex and toss them out when they become the slightest bit inconvenient. This conception of RA focuses entirely on the individual autonomy parts of the philosophy and ignores the part about revolution and community. True relationship anarchy isn't just about the individual, it's about the community, and people behaving so selfishly aren't really practicing RA.

My first issue with this argument is that nobody really owns relationship anarchy. There's no agreed-upon definition or way to practice it, so it's up to each individual what it means to them. No True Scotsman arguments aren't applicable.

My true rejection, though, is that to me, relationship anarchy is about individual autonomy and consent. I often describe RA as what you get if you apply the ethics of sexual consent to every aspect of the relationship. Most people (at least in my social circles) tend to share the view that sexual consent, to be meaningful, must be freely given and can be revoked at any time. I simply apply the same reasoning to every part of a relationship, which means that a party should never be coerced into staying in a non-dependent relationship, even if it would hurt someone else to leave. As Nordgren put it:

Your feelings for a person or your history together does not make you entitled to command and control a partner to comply with what is considered normal to do in a relationship.

This seems to be exactly what the Kalasutra author is suggesting. I don't think it's anyone's place to tell a person that they "ought to" stay in a relationship that they don't want to be in. By criticizing the act of leaving a relationship, the Kalasutra author is suggesting that the right thing to do is to stay even if you don't want to. I can't agree with that.

I also support people's right to look for whatever relationship they want. For instance, I would never be happy in a dom/sub relationship. I find it completely unappealing and I think such relationships (as their practitioners will readily tell you) carry large risks of abuse. However, my personal feelings aren't relevant to whether people should have those relationships. If someone wants a d/s relationship and can find a partner who also wants that, I fully support their decision to pursue it so long as everyone knows what they're getting into and freely chooses it.

I give the same support to a person who wants a purely sexual or casual relationship with a person (even if they are a "cis guy"). If a person wants their relationships to entirely consist of "fucking around with (mostly) femmes," without any "romantic feelings, hopes for a more entangled future, expressions of obligations or deepening responsibilities," my only concern is that they are up-front with their desires and find partners who want the same thing. I don't think it's anyone's place to tell people what kind of relationship they should want or to look down on people for pursuing relationships that they wouldn't find fulfilling. The whole point of RA is that everyone gets to reject the cultural scripts of what we're "supposed to" do and customize our own relationships.

My other issue with the piece is that it seems to be suggesting that sexual relationships come with greater obligations than nonsexual ones. That attitude relies on a conception of relationships where sexuality makes a relationship more important. Most RA practitioners reject that outlook, maintaining that our nonsexual relationships can be just as important as our sexual ones.

Ultimately, anarchy means that nobody is in charge. Nobody gets to tell you what the "right" way to have a relationship is. The Kalasutra author would have you believe that their way is the One True Way™ and that seeking casual or purely sexual relationships is wrong. I reject that view. So long as all parties are open and honest about their desires and expectations, I think people should pursue whatever relationship(s) they choose. If that makes me a relationship libertarian, I suppose that's what I am.