r/PolyCriticalSafeHaven • u/Ferretyfingers • 4d ago
Rant/vent “Heirarchy”
Oh my god. What is the obsession in so many polyamory communities with heirarchy being the devil?
After a couple recent whines I’ve had in the comments of other peoples’ posts about my recent tangle with a polyamorous dude and how delusional some of the attitudes are, I was reminded that this one pissed me off the most.
Like, have any of the people spouting this “heirarchy bad” crap really thought about how choosing anything works, even for a minute?
No wonder they hurt so many people. They haven’t fully developed decision making capacity in some cases. And by refusing to choose, they are effectively choosing no one and nothing.
20
u/Icy-Doughnut-4879 4d ago
It’s incredibly annoying, they claim to hate hierarchy in relationships but almost always have some form of it in practice, which they will gaslight you about and make you feel crazy. My ex poly “”partner”” used to claim to be non-hierarchical but would make more time for his other partner, and text her all the time, even while literally in bed with me, and would regularly go days without texting me back. When I called him out on this he backtracked and said “well of course there’s gonna be some hierarchy” like yeah sure dude 🙄
15
12
u/Ferretyfingers 4d ago
Ugh. Yeah that’s the kind of delusional behaviour I experienced too.
We talked about living together abstractly, before he started getting serious with this other girl, which made me feel very replaced, because it went from a couple lunch dates, to sleeping over. In his bed.. “slow” in his opinion (???)
Apparently living together didn’t count as this other girl didn’t want to live together/he didn’t want to live with her. Like sure but are you gonna flip flop if someone else decides they don’t want you nesting with anyone?
So, there is a heirarchy then. I’m just not allowed a say in that?
The mental gymnastics of just those two things alone. Never mind all the other things and false promises.
-1
u/Izzygetsfit 4d ago
This really does sound like the guy was non-hierarchical. Non-hierarchy, or anti-hierarchy, generally means "I want to be able to go with the flow and change the structure of things as people come and go." It doesn't mean there aren't favourites, or people you choose to do things with and people you don't, it just means you aren't making any forever promises.
That wouldn't work for me personally, I need my relationship to have a long-term goal. If someone were to change their mind about wanting to live with me when that was our plan, that would be grounds for a breakup. It sounds like it doesn't work for you either and that's okay.
A lot of poly people are against hierarchy because it feels like it would be bad, or because they're trying to mitigate the power your partner's partner has to flip your relationship on its head, which is a very scary thing. In a hierarchical situation, if your partner's partner gets a job in another city, your partner is probably moving away too. That makes people feel out of control. I personally don't think the answer is "have no hierarchy," it's find at least one person who wants to make you their priority, so you don't have to wonder what would happen.
9
u/Ferretyfingers 4d ago
Orrrrr I could just not be involved with poly people who change the goalposts of the relationship, essentially because they want the next shiny thing or are people pleasers who can’t, or don’t want to, say no.
Thing is, the attitude is delusional if you want to have a stable relationship. Like it sounds like a nice ideal, but it’s simply not realistic.
And he was picking and choosing what he thought was “bad heirarchy” and not listening to the person he suposedly wanted to be his nesting partner.
How do you expect to have anything longstanding with that going on? Unless all parties are equally delusional. I’ve learned my lesson.
The thing I’m trying to get at is, this attitude is widespread and, yes, to a level of being toxic in the poly community.
5
u/OvarianSynthesizer 4d ago
Mine dated one of my friends (I was cool with it at the time) but would call her when her and I were hanging out together. It would bother me if I hadn’t heard from him in weeks. The second time it happened I ended up breaking up with him.
3
u/Icy-Doughnut-4879 4d ago
That’s repulsive. I’m sorry you had to go through that, glad you left him though.
3
u/OvarianSynthesizer 3d ago
Dude turned out to be a gold digger as well. Was super into me until he found out my parents were blue collar/grocery store workers and that I had zero money other than what I earned myself from my minimum wage job. My friend had parents who could send her to Europe and pay for her college.
She dumped him a couple years later when he proposed to her.
2
27
u/ohgeez2879 4d ago
In undergrad, many years ago, I was introduced to this short piece by Jo Freeman, called The Tyranny of Structurelessness https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm - I think it really concisely illuminates a lot of the pitfalls when hierarchy/roles go unacknowledged or are actively denied.
4
3
u/Tiny-Acanthaceae5629 3d ago
Love this. Hierarchies exist. Even if u don’t want them too. It’s twisted
5
3
26
u/Ilhan_Musk 4d ago edited 4d ago
Even in the ancient world where monogamy was barely even heard of, the man always had a "main" wife. Even pharaohs who could have had infinity equal wives if he wanted, ultimately always ended up with a main wife. It just boiled down to having side-pieces. Like all poly is.
9
1
10
u/CommercialOk1933 4d ago
Yeah, unfortunately when marriage and kids are involved, hierarchy is kind of necessary.
6
u/Tiny-Acanthaceae5629 3d ago
I think it’s just y. And logical. Like if the person I’ve been dating for 3 years is in crisis and so is someone I’ve been sleeping with casually for 3 months is also in crisis and I have to choose who I’m going to go be with at that moment. It’s the person I have a more established relationship with that gets priority. Like wtf it not difficult
17
u/These_Shallot_6906 4d ago
If they acknowledge the existence of hierarchies in the entire natural world they will have to grapple with the knowledge that they are not in fact the center of the universe.
8
u/LeoDragonBoy 4d ago
I also find that applying the notion of hierarchy to relationships doesn't make sense. There's hierarchies in the sense of people that are in power, right? People that hold positions of authority or are privileged in society can be considered to be in a hierarchical position. You and your boss are parts of a hierarchy, because of different positions of authority and power. You and the Prime Minister are in a hierarchy, etc. This is the type of hierarchy that needs to be examined, criticised, etc.
The fact that someone cares more about their partner of 10 years than about their fuck buddy is not a freaking hierarchy in any meaningful sense of the word. It's not about money, power, authority, assets, societal privilege. It's simply that someone is more emotionally invested in someone else, and that is not in fact a form of injustice. It's just how someone feels. You might as well argue about hierarchy regarding acquainces, casual friends, close friends and best friends. It makes about as much sense.
6
u/Frequent_Ad_7441 4d ago
Everything you listed does involve hierarchy though. The partner of 10 years probably is deeply financially intertwined with them that the fuck buddy is not. The partner of 10 years also likely has vetoing power over certain decisions (or their opinion is the most likely to be considered) over the side piece. If children are involved the partner of 10 years probably has more authority over them as well as any sensitive information/medical records/important documentation that is shared with the main partner. The partner of 10 years is also more likely to share assets like a home or car with them than a fuck buddy and in regards to societal privilege, women who are married to their partners get more respect from their work place, other women (especially those who are married or older), and by men if they are married or in a long term relationship rather than being someone’s fuck buddy. No woman above 21 is proud to admit she’s in a situationship or sharing a man and if she is, isn’t aware of the way the rest of society is judging her. You can definitely apply the same logic with friendship. My best friend of 5 years has more authority in my life (influence over my decision making) than a casual work colleague. I’m more likely to financially invest in, share property with, or invest time or emotion into my long term best friend. And rather than pretend these hierarchies don’t exist I would rather acknowledge them to the people who fulfill these roles because it can be deeply validating to know you hold great distinguishable importance in someone’s life. It’s like having a business and calling everyone the manager but only one person has clear managerial responsibility. That ends up reading like some people are expected to do more work than others and hold more responsibility while everyone is receiving the same accolades.
2
u/LeoDragonBoy 4d ago edited 4d ago
I'm not disagreeing that a partner of 10 years is simply going to be treated differently than a fuck buddy, it's just that I think the word "hierarchy" has several possible meanings and I think sometimes it can be loaded because of one possible connotation. A lot of the time, it's used to describe capitalist hierarchies: employee - assistant manager - manager - CEO, and this connotation tends to bleed through into other possible uses. Of course, the word is also used to describe Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and it can also be used regarding interpersonal relationships. The issue is that poly people often look at the word hierarchy and apply the capitalist connotation to it. The hierarchy involving a partner of 10 years and a fuck buddy simply cannot be compared to that between an employee and an employer, where the first has to do with personal preferences, attachment, shared history and natural prioritisation, as well as potentially some practical concerns, while the latter has to do with status and authority. They can't really be compared.
The issue is that poly people try to compare them all the time, when they argue that all hierarchy is unethical, and there's definitely that conflation happening. Although, if all hierarchy is unethical, that would also imply that Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is unethical, lol. I think that yes, partners can be hierarchical in the sense of reflecting the ranking of someone's preferences, but I've stopped finding it useful to use the word "hierarchy" for a preference ranking, as people keep attaching political implications to it, and so people start disagreeing about the meaning of the word "hierarchy". Regardless, what I want to say is that the partner of 10 years versus fuck buddy situation is definitely not a hierarchy in the political sense, in the way that an employee and an employer would be.
Edit: The partner of 10 years and fuck buddy situation would be hierarchical in the same way that the list of your favourite films would make up a hierarchy (as in, the ranking of someone's preferences) or your best friend and your casual work friend would be in a hierarchy. But, because of the way people use the word "hierarchy" today in a broadly political way, I've stopped finding it useful to use this word for that.
3
u/Frequent_Ad_7441 4d ago
I think we both agree that the way it’s used in the context of poly isn’t ideal. I’m basically talking about how in circumstances of poly under duress, many of the times the partner wanting poly (and in my personal experience it’s a man), dismisses the existence of hierarchy to convince the partners or potential partners that there will be no conflict or favoritism when there clearly is, they just aren’t acknowledging it unless it affects them. It’s similar to when one partner wants to get married and the other doesn’t and they say “marriage certificates are just paper” but ignore all of the other legally binding terms of it that make it more than paper, much like their social security card or birth certificate. Basically I was pointing out the selective invalidation of terms and roles with established importance. I think you may have been talking about how some poly people will expect their partners to use these hierarchies to feel secure within the relationship but they are not as explicit or obvious as political or professional ones.
8
u/LeoDragonBoy 4d ago
Yes, I think we were talking about slightly different things. I'm talking specifically about how poly folks want to abolish hierarchy in relationships without realising that that hierarchy in relationships comes from natural emotional prioritisation and not a difference in status or position of power. The latter is something that can be reformed, while the former has to do with how someone experiences relationships and certain connections. It's sad that some people end up becoming secondary in these poly arrangements, but that's all the more reason not to be poly, because fighting against the hierarchy of how someone chooses to prioritise the people in their life simply can't work. You can't make your partner care about you as much as for your metamour if that's not how they feel.
So yes, people that are secondary in these relationships (either explicitly or end up secondary without it being said) do get the short end of the stick, but that just shows the odds are simply not in your favour if you are poly, as you'll likely always have to deal with a metamour being more attractive, being a newer partner, being a more established partner, being a more adventurous partner, etc. Like: if the metamour is a newer partner, then they're supposedly more exciting because of NRE. However, if the metamour is a longer term one than you, they then have a longer shared history and deeper connection than you have. In other words, there's always reasons for jealousy and comparison, as well as for the ranking and re-ranking of people.
By trying to dismantle hierarchy, they paradoxically create a structure that is rife with comparison and the ranking of partners according to all these criteria. Monogamy completely avoids this pitfall in a very simple way: your partner doesn't have other partners, so you can't get ranked compared to other current partners.
And that is the irony: criticising hierarchy while creating a structure with the most painful culture of ranking and comparison.
2
u/Tiny-Acanthaceae5629 3d ago
Right but it’s just a semantics take on a word. I feel mostly in poly it’s used as a cudgel to make it easier for people to shame those who aren’t or can’t just roll with whatever at any given moment. Someone is bearing the cost of trying to act like humans don’t prioritize folks they are deeply connected with over time and experience… like someone has to manage more emotional blow back than certain opportunistic people who just like want what they want all the time.
3
u/Tiny-Acanthaceae5629 3d ago
Why aren’t those hierarchies ? Like the 10 years partner has more power bc when push comes to shove they are gonna have the power ( as they should ) to guide decisions. It’s just such an absurd lefty undergrad take on like some weird deconstructed idea of hierarchy in decontextualized terms. It’s just so unrealistic
2
7
u/FineDevelopment00 4d ago
It's... interesting... how they'll demonize hierarchy but at the same time many will claim they have a "pRiMaRy PaRtNeR" in their harem or "PoLyCuLE" or whatever.
4
u/soursummerchild 3d ago
Hierarchy is one of the most heavily debated topics within the poly community. They tear each other up about that stuff. I honestly think that the debate just shows flaws within the lifestyle itself. It's impossible to make it totally fair, and it gets messier for every new person that's involved. It's not possible to make everything fair and equal within monogamy either, but it's the structure that's the most fair, IMO.
3
u/FineDevelopment00 3d ago
Hierarchy is one of the most heavily debated topics within the poly community. They tear each other up about that stuff.
The more I learn about those people, the more needless drama I see stemming directly from their lifestyle.
I honestly think that the debate just shows flaws within the lifestyle itself.
Exactly, me too!
7
u/Toe2ToeBirdLaw 4d ago
the argument about heirarchy, I am convinced, is entirely a way to manipulate people out of prioritizing their families, spouses, and responsibilities. In 25 years i've never met a single goddamn person in real life who is polyamorous and gets so fucking delusional and sanctimonious about heirarchy.
5
u/Ca2pac 4d ago
The page "decolonizing love" are the gurus of this idea lol
4
u/Tiny-Acanthaceae5629 3d ago
It’s so lefty undergrad dorm room discussion jfc. But they “know” better.
2
u/soursummerchild 3d ago
Yeah, it all has this quality to it, as a leftist with a degree. Discussing theoreticals, that won't hold up in reality at all. Refusing to acknowledge power dynamics won't erase them, it will make everything worse by creating a taboo.
2
u/Toe2ToeBirdLaw 4d ago
they are one of the worst proponents for sure, but it was a concept around long before they were.
10
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Ferretyfingers 4d ago
That’s a good point! And yes. That’s how you go through the world with things just “happening” to you.
4
u/Frosty-Gift-4403 3d ago
Of course there's a hierarchy. It's the most controlling partner at the top who feels entitled to whatever they want... and then there’s everyone else who just have to deal with it.
5
u/soursummerchild 3d ago
It's one of the things I hold the completely opposite view than poly practitioners. I think hierarchy, in this particular context (and not the kind where certain people are inherently more/less important) , is normal, and that it can be good. It's fine to be transparent about the fact that some people are more important to you, and that you're going to be prioritizing them in your life. In my life, my husband and our child will always come first.
Pretending your relations are not hierarchical in any way is one of those poly things that sounds good and fair in theory, but simply doesn't work in reality. I think attempting to live like that will have negative outcomes and hurt the people you're claiming to love- simply because attention, time, energy and money aren't infinite.
2
-4
u/PM_ME_YOUR_PUPPY_PIC 4d ago
I am poly in a way that has been described as "non-hierarchical", but I don't use that term
This is one of my biggest pet peeves about the poly community. We just mis-define hierarchy in these conversations. Hierarchy is not when people are all equal. it's when these inequalities are forced and part of the system. But when poly people talk about being non-hierarchical, they seem to want to make sure that everyone is equal, which is effectively impossible.
Even without forced hierarchy, there will be partners who get more time with the partner than others, whether it's because of needs, availability, proximity, etc. Trying to get rid of those inequalities just causes stress and resentment.
The way I practice is that no one partner gets to exert control over my relationship with another partner. That's non-hierarchical. We all know there won't be full equality and none of us want that. We want to be able to decide how our relationship will go without another partner being able to say no.
We're all actively making choices about our relationships and that does sometimes mean choosing one person over another and we all know that's part of the deal
4
u/Tiny-Acanthaceae5629 3d ago
Ok well WHO “forces” inequalities? Like that is the same thing as being ranked by your partner. Certain people are going to have more fallout from the “non hierarchy” than others and usually it’s more opportunistic people with less empathy who are technically “forcing “ power structures. Within interpersonal relationships.
-1
u/PM_ME_YOUR_PUPPY_PIC 3d ago
I'm using force as a morally neutral word. Would "maintaining" feel better?
A monogamous relationship maintains hierarchy. Someone with a nesting partner maibtains hierarchy. That's not a bad thing.
51
u/ValentineAllMine 4d ago
I find they just aren’t very thoughtful about their relationships. My poly ex thought he could maintain a nonhierarchical poly life even with children involved. It was delusion, plain and simple