With the concept of marriage imploding is RA the way to go.

[noego]

It seems to me in this modern world that the concept of marriage is imploding in its pre-conceived way. I know in my case that the concept of marriage has long gone.
So as an alternative to the pre-conceived idea's on relationships, is RA (Relationship Anarchy) and CNM (Consensual Non Monogamy) a concept that can be adopted. I know that as I practice this type of lifestyle and have conversations about it with friends around this chosen lifestyle they become more interested in it as a concept. Just wondering as to how many MN'ers have view on it.
Please research RA before commenting.

[ExplodedCloud]

Is anyone else picturing the OP as Del Boy out of OFAH?

[Annesmyth123]

I've seen poly relationships with 2 friends. In both cases, they were an excuse (albeit thinly veiled) for an abusive cocklodger to get his rocks off with multiple women and dress it up in "cool hip and trendy poly innit"

And yet, it would have seemed "consensual non-monogamy", to an outsider. It also seriously fucked up 5 kids in total.

[Alyosha]

First of all, I don't think marriage is imploding for everyone in this country. It's become very much a sign of privilege - the most affluent in the UK are the ones who are most likely to marry.

So in my relatively affluent circle, 99% of my friends' parents are married and have all been married for 30+ years, a third of my friends are married or are engaged. I am getting married myself in 6 months' time (I'm 28).

Secondly there is some research to show that this is solidifying inequality. Married couples live longer, are more likely to stay together, are happier and have children who are more likely to achieve, compared to similarly educated & wealthy non married couples. This due to a few things, one being the effect of shared finances making the family more stable, the other something a bit more mysterious - the psychological effects of making a lifelong commitment in front of everyone, perhaps.

You talked about a high rate of marriage breakdown. In recent years the number of divorces is down. And for people who marry between the ages of 25-35 for the first time, it's very likely they will stay together (I think it's something like 70%...but I may be misremembering this).

So marriage is definitely worth doing and RA sounds destabilizing and a thoroughly unpleasant way to conduct a relationship, involving absolutely none of the compromise and personal development that is one of the most rewarding things about long term relationships.

[Semaphorically]

Relationship anarchy sounds awfully like what most people do before they have long-term shared responsibilities like a joint mortgage or children. Just with more conscious thought put in, which is fine but it won't suit everyone to apply that much analysis. And I think you start to get diminishing returns fairly quickly when emotional matters are subjected to intellectual analysis, they lose their heart.

Once you have shared responsibilities marriage is a legally recognised and socially well-understood construct that reflects joint commitment and seems to work perfectly well as a contract binding two people together while they have those commitments. If it ain't broke...

[jojo2916]

Marriage with the right person is amazing , but if it's not for you so what, as long as you are happy, it may have a new name but it's not a new concept not particularly shocking I have friends with similar mindset, in fact a loving monogamous relationship is probably rare in many circles and more casual relationships are more common, i think it's great we have the choice and a bit of a non issue as you ask me, RA does not make you anarchic special or different it's simply a choice which I respect as I do marriage.

[jessplussomeonenew]

I think one of the biggest causes of marriages failing is poor communication, lack of emotional maturity and willingness to compromise. There may be people for whom reduced freedom to have sexual partners may be a issue, but I think that's a much less frequent problem than these emotional issues. I think anyone struggling to make a monogamous relationship work is going to struggle in spades with RA, so I think it isn't really a solution.

[Twistmeandturnme]

Did you mean to be so rude
Did I say rude? I meant patronising.
Did I say patronizing? I meant obnoxious and goady.

'I would like to discuss this topic. Only people who have researched it on the same biased websites as me may reply otherwise I will dismiss your input.'

[noego]

theestablishment.co/relationship-anarchy-takes-the-judgment-out-of-love-96a9a7af9954#.rjc0ij4bo

[greenthings]

It wouldn't suit me. I need to spend lots of time by myself to remain sane. One relationship would be stressful enough. More than one would send me under I think. Perhaps it would have been ok when I was in my 20s, but not now. I can't think of anything worse than having several men demanding my time 😖

Bravo! Made me .

NoEgo is always posting on this subject, open-relationships and open non-relationships. It never occurred to me before that NoEgo is a man, but could be! I find the posts a bit meh to be honest, and the evangelical aspect a bit suspect - yeah man lets all get naked with our bodies and feel the freedom and be really sexy and open and honest yada yada . I think its just way too idealistic and also doesn't take into account feelings!!!!

That said, I do like the idea of a bit more anarchy in our relationships. There is an aspect of boxed-in "marriage" stuff does get on my nerves a bit, even though I see some of its strengths. I think we probably all need a little more openness of spirit with each other and wider relationships and perhaps RA alludes to that hope. But thats not the same as "sleeping around". It never brought liberation then, and it won't bring liberation now.

[Semaphorically]

It's a bit label-obsessed, isn't it?

"After Mel’s marriage ended, she became polyamorous. 'Even within that I found there was a lot of rhetoric around expectations and rules, and some of that didn’t quite sit right with me. A friend introduced me to the term RA"

Yes, because once you've labelled yourself as something it is forbidden to do anything outside of that set of "rules".

[ExplodedCloud]

Or maybe Russell Brand.

[WarwickDavisAsPlates]

I'm afraid I don't understand what is so... "radical" about this?

Communication is important- yes for ever relationship, that's hardly a newsflash.

Value your friendships as much as your romantic relationships.- again I think most people do that already, or know that they should.

Polygamy- not a new idea. I've had open relationships before and while it worked well at that time in my life I'm happily monogamous

After my DD was born I wanted to make sure that I was legally protected as I was going to be decreasing my earnings, don't know how that would work in an RA set up.

So what is so new and alternative about this? To me it sounds like just putting new labels on old ideas.

[PatriciaHolm]

Warwick has basically just said it for me ;-)

You aren't radically reinventing anything. It's how you want to live you life, people have done it before, but most people don't want to. Giving it a new name doesn't make it a new world changing concept.

[Kr1stina]

OP You are very bossy and won't listen to others point of view.

Would I be correct in assuming that you are a man ?

[Kr1stina]

If so, you might find this article helpful

jezebel.com/5943051/five-tips-for-the-mansplainers-in-your-life

[Kr1stina]

And this about privilege

blog.shrub.com/check-my-what/#comment-639

Please read and research before commenting, I only want serious intelligent conversation.

[noego]

If the views expressed are intelligent and thoughtful, whether they differ from mine or not then I am listening.
If the views are a personal attack then I am not listening.

[GnomeDePlume]

You claim to be listening but you dont seem to be discussing.

Here are some questions for you:

In a polyamorous arrangement who gets to set the rules? What happens if one person within this arrangement wants those rules to change? Do they have to leave the arrangement?

If that is the case is this in fact an anarchy at all?

[Annesmyth123]

Surely if you have to have rules at all it isn't anarchy.

[noego]

Polyamory n : is the non-possessive, honest, responsible and ethical
philosophy and practice of loving multiple people simultaneously. Polyamory
emphasizes consciously choosing how many partners one wishes to be involved
with rather than accepting social norms which dictate loving only one person
at a time. Polyamory is from the root words Poly (meaning “many”) and Amour
(meaning “love”); hence “many loves” or Polyamory.

Polyamorous Definition? The first thing to understand is that anyone who is Polyamorous is not just interested in having sex with lots of different people. This is generally a common mis-conception and generally misunderstood by the public.

To be polyamorous simply means that you are not monogamous in your relationships. However, poly people and their lovers will generally have many relationships and believe you can love and have meaningful relationships with more than just one person. Many believe that monogomy is not natural for them and could lead people to be unhappy and even cheat in the long term. That simply is how the polyamorous definition is properly explained. Polyamoruous people practice Polyamory (see dictionary meaning above) and are also known as Poly people.

[Annesmyth123]

Do you want a medal for cut and pasting or something? That's all balls when it comes to the practicalities of relationships in the real world (see my evidence above)

Or are you just going to keep cut and pasting walls of text?

[Semaphorically]

Oh come on, of course polyamory is about shagging lots of different people.

I love many people that I do not shag nor wish to shag, as we all know that love comes in many forms not only sexual. I am not polyamorous as a result. I struggle to think of why someone would describe themselves as polyamorous unless sex with more than one other person was involved.

Do not hide behind words.

[Annesmyth123]

See "how many partners one wishes to be involved with" is that not just a euphemism for as many folk as you want to shag?

Otherwise, what does the "partner" bit mean? Otherwise it's just being sociable and having lots of mates (which I do) not polyamory?

[Annesmyth123]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory Wikipedia. "Intimate relationships" which Wikipedia categorises as Including sexual activity en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimate_relationship

Want me to paste the walls of text or will the links suffice ?

[Bitchycocktailwaitress]

OP are you a man or a woman?

DH just told me he thinks this is all bullshit so men can shag around.