Am I Single? PART IV: I’m Doing Everything Backwards
I’m finally done having the “what are we?” conversation with myself (for now).
The fourth and final installment of “Am I Single?” is here! Catch up on parts I, II, and III. Also, a reminder that paid subscriptions (like the one you’ll need to read this essay in its entirety) are currently 30% off (and today is the last day of the sale!)
And it’s a shame because he seemed to be relatively open-minded/not a dick about non-monogamy, I texted Sisko re: the very drunk Bumble date with the dry-tongued, teeth-forward kiss.
Which is obviously hard to find in a straight man.
But unfortunately that’s just not going to be enough to carry the rest of his personality.
SISKO: That really is tough because I feel like unfortunately you will have a hard time being able to maintain a relationship with Adam and also try to date seriously.
Like it just narrows your field a lot more than is fair lol.
I told her that even my non-monogamous sensibilities and I are willing to admit that it actually narrows my field in a way that is probably pretty fair.
KAYLA: “So I’m in love with someone else and we’ve been dating for two years and yes it’s serious and I’ll always have loved him first and have been with him before you. But we can also date too maybe!”
That’s a lot for anyone I think lol.
For whatever complications my lack of a primary partner bring to my relationship with Adam, my current lack of desire to pursue one is actually rather convenient. If only because I suspect finding one would, under the circumstances, be rather difficult. Because I’m doing everything backwards. I’m even doing non-monogamy backwards.
The nature of hierarchical non-monogamy—the kind in which Adam and I are engaged—is one of consensual and therefore equitable inequality. The terms “primary partner” and “secondary partner” denote exactly what they suggest. To invoke the classic thought problem, if Adam’s partner and I are both tied to the tracks, I’m getting hit by the trolley. It’s not really a thought problem at all; the answer is quite obvious. This is the exact, as-advertised nature of the dynamic I have knowingly and willingly entered into, drawn however uncomfortably to its theoretical extreme.
This is why some polyamorists—Relationships Anarchists, in particular—reject hierarchies, with some even arguing they’re antithetical to the very nature of ethical non-monogamy. How can something that might result in someone you love getting hit by a trolley be “ethical?”
Interestingly, this is exactly why I’m for relationship hierarchies. I don’t know that it’s realistic—or even possible, I could be convinced to argue—to give each of your partnerships equal weight at all times. Having those measurements predetermined and clearly prescribed is cleaner. Manages expectations. Mitigates disappointment. It would suck to get hit by a trolley. But not being anyone’s obligation to save from that fate is—for me, anyway—its own recompense.