Relationship Anarchy: Build for the lovely unexpected

Episode 5 of our Relationship Anarchy series: build for the lovely unexpected. We dig into what it takes to create spontaneity and psychological safety in relationships, why "shoulds" kill intimacy, and how to turn expectations into real agreements. Then we answer your questions, including how to build for the unexpected when you're neurodivergent.

Work with Ro: I work with people who want to explore the patterns, relationships, and internal narratives that shape their lives - whether they’re looking for a focused piece of work or a longer process of change. My practice blends Transactional Analysis psychotherapy with integrative coaching, leaving room for both emotional depth and practical clarity. Get in touch via www.romoed.com.

Work with E: Already trained in working with queer and non-monogamous folks? LMBA helps coaches and healers grow a private practice that feels authentic and aligned. Blending inner work on your own nervous system and values with the practical business skills to build your client base. If you're ready to help more people who need exactly what you offer, enroll now at lovemasterycert.com. Next cohort starts September 2nd, 202

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

Elizabeth: I think what comes up for me in, build for the lovely unexpected is this beautiful knowing that life is going to just twist and turn, and that that's okay.

That's not a bad thing. And also, that it can twist and turn for the good. I think we try to control things because we want things to go well, and we think that if we're not in control that they won't go well. But I think this assumes and allows us to make the assumption that things could go well outside of our control, and to embrace that.

And I just think that that's so beautiful and cool.

Welcome to All the Love, the podcast where we deep dive into all things queer and non-monogamous relationships.

Ro: We're E and Ro, longtime practitioners in coaching, therapy, and education with a focus on supporting humans in said relationships.

Elizabeth: Every quarter, we pick a theme and host a series of live podcast recordings.

Ro: And here's one we made earlier.

Elizabeth: Hope that it speaks to you.

All the love.

Ro: All the love.

Elizabeth: From E, that's me.

Ro: And Ro, that's me. Okay, cute.

Elizabeth: So the topic that we are talking about today is the fifth principle inside of Andie Nordgren's Relationship Anarchy Manifesto, which is 'Build for the lovely unexpected'.

And now we're gonna introduce ourselves. Ro, would you like to go first? 

Ro: Sure. My name's Ro Moëd, and I am a writer, I am a relationship coach, and I am a transactional analysis psychotherapist in training, and also have my own private practice where I work as both a coach and a therapist. I work with individuals and couples.

I specialize in working with polyamorous clients, but that often has also meant working with relationship anarchists, with queer people, people of diverse gender identities, and very often neurodivergent people as well. So these are all areas of specialism and interest for me. I am solo poly. I'm a relationship anarchist myself.

I'm an absolute nerd for talking about all of this stuff, and my background is in adult education, and I was doing that for around 10 years. I was an educator and also a teacher trainer, so I have a, a strong interest in explaining things in a way that people can understand and make use of the knowledge to improve their lives and make their lives more autonomous and more fulfilling.

So I'm marrying my love of education, my love of talking about polyamory and relationship anarchy, my interest in human psychology and self-improvement, and all of those things have come together to make me the person I am right now. 

Elizabeth: Beautiful. You know what I love about your introduction, Ro, is that you start with writer and that's so inspiring for me.

And I was thinking about this yesterday, since this is the fifth time that we're introducing ourselves, and we are getting our own elevator pitches for who we are down. Also we adjusted ourselves at the same time. That was funny.

Ro: But I- For people just listening, they're not gonna know what adjusted ourselves means.

So just for, for the avoidance of any doubt, we both shifted in our seats. Nothing more lascivious than that. Just like- 

Elizabeth: Also, good, good word. Good word. But no, I was thinking about it yesterday because I was like, I- I'm actually also a published writer, and I've been starting to write articles again. And and so I was like, "Oh, I'm gonna add into mine," I'm like, "Okay, yeah, I'm also a writer, but I'm also a podcaster content creator, coach, educator."

And how, how I got here today is I have a degree in political science and a degree in women, gender, and sexuality, with an emphasis in religion, which means that I studied how power structures impact gender and sexuality, which is a lot, by the way, and not quite positively either.

And then I worked at a domestic violence center for several years in community education and outreach. So I taught people about what domestic violence is, how different people are impacted by domestic violence in different ways, especially based off of your identity. A lot of education inside of what abusive relationships are and how to get out of abusive relationships and why people are abusive in the first place as well.

So that was kind of my first introduction inside of, like, s- the psychology of why we do things. And then I decided that I wanted to change my trajectory to work inside of the preventative aspect of abusive relationships, which is helping people get into healthy relationships. And I chose the path of transformational life coaching because that is a modality that has been very helpful for me personally, really spoke to me, and I started to really nerd out about transformational life coaching and what that is and different modalities inside of it.

And then I opened my own private practice in 2017 part-time, and I started working with polyamorous clients because they started to seek me out based off of my background and also my own identity, because I identify as polyamorous. I also identify as queer. I am the L in the LGBTQIA alphabet mafia.

And I started creating content in 2019, mainly because people kept asking me the same questions over and over and over again, and I was like, "You know, if I just put this in a podcast, then I can just direct people to that." And that kind of started my content creation and online education journey, and then it's just expanded from there.

And now I actually created a, a certification, training program for people who want to become queer or polyamorous relationship coaches and want to start their own private practice. So now I train and certify and help people start their own practices as well. So that's a little bit about me.

I love talking about relationship anarchy. I very deeply resonate with relationship anarchist principles, and it marries the topics that I just nerd out about the most, which is political science and how we relate to one another, and what's possible in our own self-expression and how we love one another as well, and breaking down systems that are bullshit.

So there you go. Mm-hmm. That's me. 

Ro: Thank you for breaking the swear barrier, because I feel like it's always me that breaks the swear barrier, so being the first one to swear. ... Because I'm a bit of a, a sweary motherfucker, so, yeah, thank you. 

Elizabeth: We're, we're, we both are, though. We've been really good, though.

We've been really good in this podcast series. I feel like when we're not being recorded, we swear a lot more. 

Ro: Oh, yes. Oh, yes, we do. I noticed myself swearing a lot in yesterday's recording, so it might seem like, what got into Ro? But, you know. We'll see. We'll see. Yeah, I, I was also thinking- Maybe we're just more 

Elizabeth: comfortable.

Ro: Maybe, yeah. I think, I was thinking we should, we could do each other's introductions at some point, but it wouldn't be as complete. It would be more like, "This is Elizabeth. She's a really amazing coach, and super cool and pretty and lovely," and you know? 

Elizabeth: We could, though. I'd be down. I'd be down to sing your praises for, you know, a couple of minutes, and just watch you get, like, redder and redder and redder as I talk about how fucking fantastic you are.

Ro: Maybe we'll do it as a special treat for the last one. 

Elizabeth: There you go. 

Ro: Excuse me. Okay. So, shall I read the principle for today? The- 

Absolutely. 

Elizabeth: Let's go.

Ro: So, next principle on the Relationship Anarchy Manifesto, "Build for the lovely unexpected. Being free to be spontaneous, to express oneself without fear of punishments or a sense of burdened, in inverted commas, "shoulds", is what gives life to relationships based on relationship anarchy.

Organize based on a wish to meet and explore each other, not on duties and demands and disappointment when they are not met." Short and sweet- Yay ... this time Short and 

Elizabeth: sweet. Yeah 

Ro: But a lot in there. A lot to talk about. 

Elizabeth: I know. I love this bullet point. I love this principle. It's so great.

Ro: What does build for the lovely unexpected mean to you?

Elizabeth: Oh my gosh. Okay. What comes up for me with this is that there's nothing to get right here. I think a lot of the times when we talk about just anything in life that we want to go well, and we want our relationships to go well, right?

And so then, you know, we're trying to figure out, like, how, how to do it in the best way, or how to do it in the right way, or what's the way that's going to work, and, you know, like, and I think inside of that we get a little bit lost inside of, like, there is a right way.

Or there is a way that it's going to, like, one day it's just gonna all click and be in place together, and it's just gonna be like, easier or something like that. And I think what comes up for me in, build for the lovely unexpected is this beautiful knowing that life is going to just twist and turn, and that that's okay.

That's not a bad thing. And also, that it can twist and turn for the good. I think we try to control things because we want things to go well, and we think that if we're not in control that they won't go well. But I think this assumes and allows us to make the assumption that things could go well outside of our control, and to embrace that.

And I just think that that's so beautiful and cool. Those are, like, my first thoughts with that. But I'm curious what yours are. 

Ro: Absolutely agree with what you're saying about- Yeah, the, the unexpected can be good, and it doesn't have to be 100% within our control all the time. We don't have to have such a tight grip on stuff for things to go well.

I know I asked you about lovely unexpected and not the word build. It says build for the lovely unexpected. Mm-hmm. I think we'll get to that in a minute, but I think maybe those two things are kind of inseparable, that it's not just about embracing the ebbs and flows of life and the highs and lows, but also about creating a relationship in which there is enough safety for the unexpected to be navigated.

And lovely, for me, doesn't always mean necessarily good. In a way, the lovely unexpected could be anything that's surprising, whether it's, like, on the surface a good thing or a bad thing. It's just what is, you know? If we allow things to be what they are they're sometimes gonna be difficult, sometimes beautiful, and everything in between.

And all of those are lovely because they're authentic and real, and it, it's advocating, I think, for just less of a tight hold on things and letting them be what they need to be. 

Elizabeth: Mm-hmm. Yeah. And I think, too, including the word build, obviously, is the question of, like, how do you build things which kind of implies that you are in control in some way and also leave room for life and, and embracing that you don't know, right? And I think too, what both of us are kind of talking about right now is also the letting go of that things are always either good or bad or right or wrong too.

That there is a lot of middle ground in there. And I think part of building around or with or in tandem with the unexpected is in that holding things loosely. And what that can look like is making agreements for now, for example, right? Like, we agree that this is how we feel right now.

We agree that this is what works for us right now. And not when we're building our relationships, not making the assumption that it will always be that way, not planning for or expecting that everything that's happening right now and the way that we feel and how things work will always be that way. Not expecting that we will always feel this way, not expecting that it will always work this way.

And not to be burdened by that either, but rather taking that on as true, because it is. You know, you're not always gonna feel the way you feel right now. It's not always gonna work the way that it works right now. But yeah, instead of being scared about that, just understanding, like, okay, great, well this works the way that it works right now, and perhaps even trusting that you'll be able to grow and evolve and change and navigate things as they come.

So what are we putting in place or who are we even being as a person such that you can grow and evolve and change and roll with the punches, you know, so to speak. And yeah, I think a lot of that is, is around, like, trusting yourself and being curious and being open to the lovely unexpected.

Ro: Hmm. Yeah. Yeah, trusting yourself- But also trusting in the person that you're relating to. And just a reminder for anyone listening right now or in the future listening to the recording if you haven't listened to previous episodes or picked up on this point yet, that relationship anarchy is not just about our romantic relationships, it's about all kinds of relationships.

When I say the person you're relating to, it could be any type of relationship that you have in your life. I think there needs to be a certain degree of trust in the goodwill of the other person, that they're acting in good faith and that they are at least trying to be, you know, considerate and good to you.

So I don't think that this point is about being just incredibly laid back and so chill and like cool girl, pick me, and low-maintenance, and I don't need anything, and nothing bothers me. It's not about that, because you do need to have psychological safety with the people that you're relating to.

And that requires a bit of give and take. I think that what this point is making in the manifesto is that when we have that psychological safety, there is more room for spontaneity. There's more room for being playful and expressive and exploratory and creative when you trust that you're not going to be punished for the self that you're bringing to the interaction.

So it's not about being laid back, but it's about creating enough safety with the other person that you don't have to live in this defensive position of trying to anticipate what the other person wants, or trying to anticipate what society is gonna think is correct for your relationship or the shoulds of your relationship.

And yeah, I think a, a relationship where someone constantly has to manage the way that they are perceived or has to manage the fragility or insecurity or disappointment of another person will often lose the capacity to be surprising, and that's just a massive intimacy killer. I don't mean intimacy to mean sexuality, I just mean closeness and authentic connection.

So yeah, freedom and safety are not opposites for me whatsoever. I think real spontaneity actually depends on feeling safe. 

Elizabeth: Yeah, I completely agree with you. I also think that, you know, inside of freedom you also need a certain amount of structure in order to be free, and that includes like psychological safety, which I would akin to structure as well. You have that structure in place in your relationship or relationships, whatever the case may be that you can trust that who you are, yeah, is safe with the other person.

And I don't think that that is necessarily from being laid back. I mean, it it, that could be a part of it, right? But in- If 

Ro: it's authentic, but not if you're performing laid backness. 

Elizabeth: Right. Exact- yeah, exactly. If it's authentic. But I think, for myself and definitely for the clients that I have worked with, building relationships that have that type of psychological safety take a lot of time, effort, vulnerability, learning, growth.

And not just learning inside of the relationship, but learning yourself too. Like, learning what it is that you want. How many people... Like, what a privilege it is to know what you want in life authentically, and know what you want in relationships authentically, and know who you are authentically.

Like, what, what a absolute privilege to be able to, like, truly and fully answer those questions. And so there is a lot of, journeying to do inside of that. And so like the first sentence here says, "Being free to be spontaneous, to express oneself without fear of punishments or a sense of burdened shoulds, is what gives life to relationships based on relationship anarchy."

So just even taking the, this phrase of to express oneself without fear of punishment. And it's funny because I was just talking to a friend of mine yesterday about what has you feel self-expressed? Or something like that. Like, that was the question. And I'm a very self-expressed person. I, I'm an extremely self-expressed person, and I always have been.

And even in knowing myself as a very expressive person does not mean that, that I have been absolutely quieted held back, stuck when it comes to relationships for fear of punishment, of some kind, whether it be rejection, like they're not going to like me, or punishment like they're actually going to say, harsh things to me, or punishment as in it's going to change the nature of the relationship in a negative way where now I am less invited into their space.

There's less intimacy, there's less connection, something like that. Or punishment like social retribution, right? Like I'm not going to be accepted by my friends, by the people that I've been hanging out with, or the social groups that I've been a part of, or whatever the case may be. So even myself as, like, a very expressive person there's been a lot of work and unpacking that I have had to do just personally.

And that, and that's not over. I'm not like, " And it went so well, and now I'm done." Like there's, you know, there's layers to it, right? So, like, to express oneself without fear of punishment is such a journey in and of itself. And, as I was reading this earlier before we hopped on here, that was like the phrase that really stuck out to me with this.

Ro: Mm. Yeah, I do wanna come back to the word punishments in a moment, but just responding and to some of the stuff you said, some of the stuff it brought up for me as well, that it's, it's such a personal journey, as you were saying. I think it's both, and you probably agree with this, I think it's kind of what you were saying as well, that it's personal and interpersonal, that creating that safety to express without fear of punishments is something that sometimes is your own work, 'cause you might just enter any connection with a fear of punishment, kind of regardless of what the other person does.

Mm-hmm. And that might be your filter- ... on reality because of your experiences in your life. So that would be personal work to do if somebody, for example, in any romantic connection always feels like they have to think 10 times about what they wanna say before they say it. Maybe that's not about the other person.

Maybe it might be about the person who struggles to express themselves, and it can also be an interpersonal thing. So for example, I notice that when I feel most safe with people, I don't think about my texts before I send them. I just write them and send them. And it's always a sign for me that I'm fearing some kind of punishment when I'm like, "Ooh, is that gonna be misread?

Is it a bit long? Is it snappy? Do I need to put an emoji to make sure it's soft enough?" There's a sense of not being trusted by the other person and not trusting them. 

Elizabeth: Mm-hmm. 

Ro: Yeah, that's, that's partly my work, 'cause obviously it's coming from me, and there's something also interpersonal going on, 'cause it's not across the board.

I don't always feel that way. So that's what I mean by both personal and interpersonal. And yeah, coming back to the word punishments I think you gave loads of good examples, but I think it's important to be very explicit that punishment doesn't mean being locked in a cage or overt conflict, raising voices.

It can be something very broad. So it can be anger or blame, but it can also be withdrawal. It can be making an ultimatum or shaming or judging. It can be way more subtle. It can be sulking or being emotionally cold or conveying disappointment, passive aggression, score keeping making someone feel like a burden, like what I just did.

I just sighed as I was speaking, and I was thinking, oh, if someone sighed at me when they were speaking to me, that might make me feel like a burden. So it can be more subtle stuff as well, and I'm raising that with you, Elizabeth, 'cause I know that in the course that we created about having difficult conversations, I'm pretty sure we covered the way that punishment is not always really overt, and it can be way more subtle.

But it's always there is this undercurrent of trying to influence and manipulate the outcome of interactions through your giving or not giving something 

Elizabeth: Yeah. And I think also distinguishing between punishment as something that is malicious versus punishment that is maladaptive or or even using manipulative in a more neutral tone.

Like, I know a lot of the times when we use the word manipulative, especially inside of, like, interpersonal relationships, we mean that in a malicious way, a malicious context. But manipulative can also be more neutral, right? Where you are doing something or the other person is doing something in order to manipulate the outcome in some way, right?

So being passive-aggressive is not always done maliciously. Like I said, it can be more of a maladaptive behavior. But it is done because the person who's being passive-aggressive wants a different outcome than whatever is being presented currently, right? So kind of parsing that out a little bit.

Like, uncollapsing those things, too. Like, punishment does not always mean that the other person is harmful or even abusive. It might just be an, an unhealthy behavior or a learned behavior that has not been unlearned, right? 

Ro: Mm-hmm. 

Elizabeth: Yeah. 

Ro: Yeah, absolutely. It's not... There's no mm, heat behind that word when I use it, and I, I know you know that, so it's helpful to, to clarify- Yeah

for, for those listening. Yeah. But yeah, it... When you say maladaptive, I think also just to clarify that in case people hear that and think, "Well, that sounds really negative," it's an adaptation to being in the world that you learned because at one point it kept you safe or at one point it seemed like the right way to do things, but in the present it's not doing you any good.

It's not leading you to have the best outcomes or the healthiest or most intimate connections you can have. So it's more like it's doing you harm, rather... And it could be doing others harm in the process as well, but, like, when we do others harm, we do ourselves harm. So I, yeah, I think that's just important as well to say.

Elizabeth: I appreciate that too, 'cause I definitely use maladaptive in a very neutral way, and I'm like, "Oh yeah, that can be taken in a more, like, heated way." 

Ro: I think it's the risk of being in a helping profession and just, you know, we both feel very deeply that all people are worthy of love and- Mm-hmm

like, have good inside them, and maybe people don't know that we're carrying those beliefs when we say these things. Yeah. It's like it's always coming from a position of wanting people to have the best lives possible, as opposed to pointing the finger and telling them what they're doing wrong. It's not about that at all.

Elizabeth: Right. 

Ro: Yeah. So I mean, punishments and sense of burdened shoulds. So to express oneself without fear of punishments or a sense of burdened shoulds, maybe we could zoom in on burdened shoulds- Yes ... for now. I think it's a killer of intimacy. I think that's the point that this part of the manifesto is making for me is it's not saying that we never, ever have duties to one another, or that we don't have obligations to one another. There is structure within relationship anarchy. I think this is a very common misconception about relationship anarchy, that it means we don't define, we have no structures, we have no agreements or obligations or duties. That's not how I understand it.

Right. It just means that we decide what those obligations and duties are for ourselves, and they come from a genuine willingness to do something, as opposed to a compulsory service that we think we should do. Mm-hmm. So when you express yourself honestly with someone, when you feel like you can be authentic in your expression, and you know that they won't come back at you with shoulds about what other people say is normal, it creates the space for you to really say exactly what it is that's on your mind.

Elizabeth: Mm-hmm. 

Ro: Yeah, I said a few different things within that. I know that wasn't the most coherent, but yeah- ... I'll pause there 'cause I'm thinking, like, five different things at the same time, so it's probably not coming across the most clear. 

Elizabeth: No, that's okay. I think one thing that might be helpful is talking about where shoulds might show up in relationships.

And that's also kind of a difficult thing because shoulds show up everywhere. But I like to look at things through different lenses. So that we can uncover things a little bit easier, or else being like, like saying something like, "Well, there's so many shoulds.

Shoulds are everywhere," then it's hard to really, like, pinpoint. So from my background inside of, like, gender and sexuality and queer relationships this is where, like, the Venn diagram of relationship anarchy and queering of relationships really sticks out for me.

And so looking at things like gender roles in relationships. Like if you are a man in a relationship, then you should pay. You should take out the trash. You should be the protector, whatever that means. Like, you should be less emotional. When it comes to intimacy, you should initiate. I'm using a lot of, like, very stereotypical ones.

But sometimes starting with stereotypes is a good starting point, because they're more obvious. And when you start with the more obvious things, you start with the more low-hanging fruit, then as you go, there'll be more things that you see in the process. And so then, like, you can do that with being a woman, right?

And one of the reasons why this is the Venn diagram of, like, relationship anarchy and queering of relationships is because then when you have people who do not fall into the category of either man or woman, but in a stereotypical way or in a very real way, either way then you can really start to, like, see this and break it down.

So, like, for example, looking through the lens of gender is a way to unpack some shoulds in relationships, right? 

Ro: Mm-hmm. 

Elizabeth: Other way, other lens that you could look through is what makes you feel uncomfortable in relationships? Like, what doesn't make sense to you? What are things in relationships where you're just like, "But why?"

Like, "Why do we do that? Why do I do that? I don't, I don't actually like that, but I just kind of go along with it. Like, why do we do that?" You know, getting curious about the feelings that you have that come up in relationships, specifically, like uncomfortable feelings. Or frustrated, like things that make you really frustrated.

Like, "I don't understand this. This is so frustrating." Like, "Why do I have to be this way? Why do you have to be this way? Why do we have to do this? Why da da da da da?" Like, those things. Like, that's a way to uncover shoulds. Like, what are the things that we think that we need to be doing or that I think I need to be doing in order to have a quote unquote successful relationship with someone?

Why do I feel that way? Why do we feel that way? Why do we do that? 

Ro: Yeah, and I guess there are people who may feel I should, one of the shoulds that they hold is I should try to make my partner happy, and I should anticipate what their needs and desires are. And I don't think that the the manifesto is saying that that in and of itself is bad.

It's more like the, the shoulds, the systemic shoulds, like the ones you were talking about that I think it's warning us against. Like the heterosexism that you were just giving examples about- Right ... or the gender patriarchal nonsense that we inherit from our culture. But also as a solo polyamorous person, someone who doesn't place value on a relationship depending on how far up the escalator of relationships it has gone, like all these m- milestones for a relationship, like moving in together, marriage, having children, things like that.

Then the idea of, you should want to move in with this person, or you should prioritize this person because you're in a relationship that's romantic, that doesn't make sense to me. I don't... Well, as, also as a relationship anarchist, frankly, I don't place a hierarchy on different kinds of relationships.

So I'm not going to think to myself, "Oh, I should respond to my partner before I respond to Elizabeth, because my partner is a person I have sex with, and Elizabeth is a friend and collaborator, and we do not have sex," you know? So, like, that's, that's not how I categorize and prioritize relationships. But for a lot of people, they've inherited, for example, that should.

I shouldn't want what I want. It can also be negative shoulds. So I think that any kind of should, which is an external expectation that we internalize and then police ourselves with, creates distance from our true desires, our capacity for play, our curiosity, and our ability to access what's true for us and to express that.

And I don't think that the problem is that expectations exist at all. We have some shoulds. Like I said, the structure is there, so the should, for example, is we should not abuse each other. That's a fair expectation to have. But the problem is that shoulds can become heavy and moralized and completely detached from the actual people in the actual fucking relationship, you know?

Elizabeth: I agree with you, and I think that that's kind of coupling what we just said with what we mentioned earlier, which is allowing for the fluidity of relationships. Like, allowing for that this is how the relationship is right now. This is how we feel right now. This is what works for us right now.

Like, that's also a way that shoulds can play into it which is like, oh, well, you know, we agreed to this five years ago, or this worked for us five years ago, so we should do this now, or I should still feel the same way, or it should still work this way, right? So when we couple these things together and question or take out some of the shoulds, and then allow for the fluidity of ourselves, our relationships, life, then we can discover and uncover and learn and create in the manifesto they use the word build, but I like the word create. But then we can create structures that work for us along the way and have them be malleable, too. It's like, oh, this was a part of the structure that worked before, and these were the expectations that we had inside of that structure, but now it's not really working as well, you know?

And I think with expectations, one of the things you said was it's not to let go of expectations. I completely agree with you. I think it's completely reasonable to have expectations of ourselves, to have expectations of others and our relationships and how we treat each other. And I think it's important inside of those expectations that we, again, question those expectations.

Are they actually reasonable? I have been told by at least three therapists that I hold very high expectations of myself, and I need to cut it out. Because it 

Ro: is- Do you think they might have a point, or? 

Elizabeth: They might have a point. It might be unreasonable. I might be causing a detriment to my own mental health by holding myself to such high expectations.

Hmm. That, that, I mean, possibly. Who could, who could tell? But, like, being able to question those expectations that you have for yourself, that you have for others. Also, being able to voice those things. One of the things, do we talk about this in our program? Do we talk about expectations? I don't know if we have it in the actual, like, modules themselves.

No, we do. We do, we do, we do. We talk about, it, it's inside of agreements, isn't it? Like agreements and expectations. 

Ro: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, we've definitely talked- Yeah ... about it on this podcast so far. Yeah ... we talked about it in a previous episode, so maybe that's what I'm getting confused by. 

Elizabeth: Yeah.

Anyway, I just got really excited about that for a second. Mm-hmm. But, We did it. 

Ro: We talked about it.

Elizabeth: But like, when we can voice our expectations, then we can also be on the same page as everyone and then it can turn into agreements, right? Either we're testing it out in reality like, "Hey, is this a reasonable expectation?" And then you can give people the opportunity to say, "I will meet at that expectation," or, "I won't meet that expectation," or, "I'm not sure.

Like, I'm not sure actually if I can... I, I'd like to but I don't know if that's actually feasible for me," which could be a reasonable answer as well. But then it can turn into agreements. So expectations when voiced can then be tested in reality, and then either discarded, kept as expectations, or turned into agreements.

Mm-hmm. 

Ro: Right? Yeah, exactly. We can have expectations, we can communicate them, and then we can actually have them met in a way that's consensual and collaborative instead of just quietly- Right ... hoping that it happens and then feeling resentful and disappointed and maybe even having an urge to punish when they're not, which I think is what this part of the manifesto is also advocating for.

Elizabeth: Yeah. 

Ro: I think also what I wanted to say following on from that is that as we've already said, there is place for expectation, there is place for duty in relationships and structure, and I think what I'm skeptical of is- a relationship structure that is primarily or maybe even solely duty-based, and the reason why is not just because I resist being controlled by people and in a sort of resentful, rebellious, teenagery kind of way.

W- and not even in a fully embodied adult autonomous kind of way, although that is part of it. The reason why I'm skeptical of it is because I think when people do things mainly because they are expected to, and it's not really an authentic, meaningful choice that they've made, it leads to resentment. It leads to people feeling trapped.

Elizabeth: Mm-hmm. 

Ro: It leads to people feeling underappreciated as well. I did all this shit that I was told to do, and no one even cares. It can also lead people to feel morally superior in this kind of one up, one down way. I did all the right things, and you're not good enough. And how is that going to lead to anything but a stressful relationship in my view?

Elizabeth: Mm-hmm. 

Ro: Where the other person might feel managed by you rather than met as a human person. It can feel like you're trying to administer the relationship rather than live it, you know? 

Elizabeth: Mm-hmm. 

Ro: And I think what this point says, let me just scroll up to the right bit, is, so it's saying, "Being free to be spontaneous is what gives life to relationships based on relationship anarchy."

And I think that word life really stood out to me, that the relationship can feel so dead when it's burdened by expectations that aren't spoken, that aren't negotiated, that aren't authentic as well. 

Elizabeth: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Yeah. I... As, as so often as when, you know, we speak the other one is like, there's so many things that I wanna say about what you just said.

Ro: Yeah. Well, I mean, we say this every episode, but we're not gonna cover every single thing that there is to say about this, 'cause if we were gonna do that, we'd have to go word by word. It would take us seven hours to do an episode. 

Elizabeth: Right. 

Ro: So I think, you know, we're just kind of doing a high-level, let's glance at this and talk about what comes up, and we are really open to people submitting questions about things they want us to talk more about, and we may also come back to this.

So no pressure to get everything out there. 

Elizabeth: Yeah. I think, and, and just kind of having a meta conversation about this for a second, is where I'm coming from when we have these conversations, like how I've been thinking about it, is like, what are the things that I either hear or see the most that- I believe need to be addressed first in order for this to work, just based off of like what I know from, like, my profession and working with people.

I'm like, these are the things that if we don't address this first, then talking about the next thing won't make sense, right? Or that we'll run into too many pitfalls. And so, like, with what you said, coming back from my meta conversation, so with what you said, one of the things that I think is really important, I'm gonna, I'm gonna pick out the moral superior aspect of what you said.

What I want everyone to understand, not everyone like who's here right now, not everyone who's listening to this podcast, what I want every single person

to understand- 

Ro: Evil laugh. 

Elizabeth: Mwa-ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. 

Ro: Every single person in the whole world. Every single 

Elizabeth: person, mwa, ha, ha, ha, ha.

What, what I want every single person to understand is that we all embody all of these traits. The traits that we don't like, the traits that we do like, the t- traits that we wish that we had, the t- the traits that we wis- the wish that we didn't have. Wish that we didn't have.

Ro: The twaits? Yeah. 

Elizabeth: The twaits. The twaits that we wish that we didn't have. 

Ro: I'm sorry I've interrupted this point like three times. I'll, I will zip it. No. Thought about the twaits. No, I'm- Thought about the twaits ... 

Elizabeth: I'm getting tongue-tied. It's very hilarious.

I wish that I wasn't getting tongue-tied. All right. But I am. There you go. But being able to have self-acceptance that there are things about ourselves that... That's not how I wanna say that. Self-acceptance and the recognition that we have the capacity for all of the quote unquote negative and quote unquote positive things around shoulds.

We have exhibited moral superiority at some level- in our lives. We are probably doing it right now in some way. Like, in some area of our life right now, we think that how we feel, what we think, our opinion is better than and makes us better than, and makes people who think like us better than other people.

And I think that it's important to recognize that we have these traits, not only so that we can unpack them and lessen the traits that are more unhealthy, but also so that we can bring a level of non-judgment around this that I think is so needed in these conversations.

Like, so, so, so needed to let go of judging ourselves and to let go of judging others. So, like, when it comes to this last sentence here, so, "Organize based on a wish to meet and explore each other, not on duties and demands and disappointment when they are not met." And I think a very effective way to look at what we think are our duties or other people's duties or where we're demanding of people or where we're demanding of ourselves and therefore setting ourselves and other people up for disappointment, is the acceptance that we probably are doing that in some way.

And not being upset with ourselves or disgusted at ourselves or mad at ourselves because we're doing that, but rather accepting that we are human and that we're doing that, and that's okay. And when we accept that and recognize that, and bring that space of non-judgment to it, then we are able to lessen the charge of that, like unpack it in a healthy way, and also extend that non-judgment to other people, too 

Ro: Ah, so wise.

That sounded sarcastic, but I meant it. 

Elizabeth: Oh, thank you. 

Ro: I think that, yeah, that's so true. And on the specific example of moral superiority, I think I often worry that I'm coming across as, as if I think I'm morally superior- 

Elizabeth: Mm ... 

Ro: because, one, it matters to me not to be. And why does it matter to me not to be?

Probably because that exists within me as a potential, right? The very things that we're afraid of being, the things that we show disgust towards in other people are the things that we cannot accept or don't want to accept or struggle to accept or find painful within ourselves. So yeah, totally, all of these things exist within us.

Elizabeth: Mm. 

Ro: Any closing thoughts before we go to Q&A, sort of the last sort of parting words that you'd like to share on this bullet point before we answer questions? And as always, other things may come up in the questions, but- Of 

Elizabeth: course ... yeah. Yeah. Oh, man. This, it has surprised me. I have lived into this bullet point today in this conversation, because it has surprised me how this conversation has gone.

I did not think that it would go this way, to be honest. Oh. Yeah. And so I- 

Ro: In a delightful way or in a non-delightful way? 

Elizabeth: In, I, I think in a neutral way. I don't know, it, for me, this particular instance does not exist for me as good or bad. It exists for me as completely neutral, and I am very surprised.

And the last thing that I'll say is that this bullet point is so delightful for me. You- Mm ... I'll use that word. This bullet point is delightful. Like, this bullet point brings me so much joy. Build for the lovely unexpected. It brings such a happiness to my heart. I, I love it. That's my closing thought.

Mm-hmm. What about you, Ro? 

Ro: Oh, I'm, I wanna know, we can talk about it after, but I wanna know what you were expecting, but that's okay. I will hold, hold that in. My only parting thought before we go to Q&A is that what I like about this principle is how it presents joy and play and eroticism and tenderness and creativity and delight not as something frivolous and just a nice add-on to a relationship, but as something serious and relationally important that we have to nurture.

Mm. And I think that that's something we often forget when we get lost in the duties and shoulds of relationships. 

Elizabeth: Mm. Mm-hmm. 

Ro: What's the point of relating if we're not enjoying it? 

Elizabeth: Yeah, and that's hilarious that you say that because that is how I thought this conversation was going to go. That- Oh 

Ro: my God.

We're so on the same wavelength. It's crazy. 

Elizabeth: That is exactly how I thought this conversation was going to go, is I thought it was going to be more about that. I'm glad that it went the way that it went. I'm not upset in any way. Mm-hmm ... but I definitely expected it to go more towards that trajectory.

Ro: Do a whole episode on that, or maybe there'll be questions- Yeah ... that'll ask for more, more depth on it or, or anything else. So- 

Elizabeth: Mm-hmm ... 

Ro: Time for your questions and our attempts at answers. And as always, feel free to unmute yourselves and to speak out loud if you're willing to do that. It's an audio format, so it is nice to hear people's voices and to interact with you directly.

However, if you don't wanna do that and you want to write us a message, you're welcome to do that, and we'll read it out. And if you'd like it to be completely anonymous, you can send it to one of us directly so that we don't have to show it to other people in the room, like, that you're saying it, and we won't read your name.

Elizabeth: And we already have a question in the chat. So the first question is, could you speak a bit about the balance between spontaneity and meeting your partner's expectations? 

Ro: Hmm.

Let me just scan, 'cause I... We, we both make notes, so I'm just gonna scan my notes for the word spontaneity, 'cause I am sure that I have written some stuff about this, so. 

Elizabeth: Mm-hmm. Do-do-do. Here we go. My question, if you are willing to answer, not Ro, but the person who wrote this question if you're willing to expand a little bit, like, do you have something that you're dealing with right now, or an example?

I can definitely answer that in a general way, but if you have something more specific that you want to speak to, I'd be happy to speak to something more specific too.

Well- A general, a general way ... 

Ro: okay, a general way. 

Elizabeth: Nothing 

Ro: specific. So, okay. So I think something that I wrote down as a point to address, which feels relevant, is that spontaneity is not just doing whatever you feel like.

It's not just willy-nilly doing whatever feels good in the moment without consideration for the impact that you have on other people, without consideration for the expectations other people may have, for example. And I think it can sound very adolescent if we don't unpack what is meant by spontaneity.

So the way I'm understanding it is not so much about impulsiveness, and more about authenticity and responsiveness to what's happening. So rather than doing something because that's what people do, that's a should that I have in my mind, doing it because it feels in alignment with me and the person that I wanna be and my values, and it feels appropriate in this situation.

So it may be my authentic desire to meet someone's expectations, and it certainly would be in situations where we have negotiated those expectations in the way that Elizabeth was talking about before. If someone communicates an expectation to me and I say, "Yeah, sure, I can meet that expectation," my authentic responsive desire, spontaneous you could say, would be to meet that expectation.

So I don't know so much that you need to balance, because they're not in contradiction to each other. Meeting expectations and being spontaneous can be under the same thing, the same umbrella. You, it can be your spontaneous decision to meet an expectation, and sometimes it may not be. You know, your spontaneous decision may disappoint someone else.

And it's just about being a safe space for the other person to express that disappointment, I guess, in that scenario. I'm gonna pause there, leave some room for you to share your thoughts as well, Elizabeth.

Elizabeth: The thing that comes up for me is considering your own values and what feels in alignment with you, and then what are the other people's expectations, and are you self-abandoning to meet those expectations? Right? Like, if, if those expectations fall outside of what actually feels in alignment with you.

And that can be a conversation between the other person. The example that I'm thinking of in my head is time spent with partners. I think that that is an example that gets brought up a lot. Like, I want to have the ability to, if my friend texts me at 2:00 on a Thursday and they're like, "Hey, I'm doing this thing at 6:00 PM," I want to be, me personally I want to be able to say yes to that thing at 6:00 PM and go hang out with my friend.

If I am with a partner and maybe, like, we live together, and they have an expectation that if I'm going to go do things, they actually need more notice than that. That's not really a very workable scenario for me personally and how I want to live my life, right? So it's okay that they have that expectation. It's not, like, morally bad or wrong , you know, to have that expectation.

But it's also not workable for me and the person that I am and who I wanna be in the world, right? So maybe I don't live with someone like that. So inside of relationships, when we get really into, like, the nitty-gritty and, like, practical of things, there are some hard decisions that you might need to make inside of that such that you can be the expressed person that you are, and you can have workable relationships.

And that takes time and adjustment, too. Sometimes we don't know that those expectations exist until they are unmet, right? Yay, and they said that that was helpful. Thank you, that was what I was aiming for. Awesome. 

Ro: Oh, good. 

Elizabeth: Yay. All right. 

Ro: Glad we met your expectations. 

Elizabeth: Yay, look at that.

Ro: Spontaneously. So we have another question. Shall I read it out? 

Elizabeth: Absolutely. "

Ro: I don't know what my question is here beside can anyone relate, but I've struggled a lot with neurodivergency. My autistic need for routine consistency and the fact I haven't changed, I don't know how to prepare for and adjust to the lovely unexpected.

My ADHD partner really loves this part of relationship anarchy, of course." Ah, can relate, totally can relate. I was like, 

Elizabeth: I can also relate because I'm ADHD, I can relate to your partner. 

Ro: Yeah, and I'm more on the autistic end of the neurodivergent spectrum, so I can relate to the need for information and predictability.

Yeah, I mean, I have thoughts, but maybe you wanna go first. I don't wanna dominate the space. 

Elizabeth: No, I think, I think you should go first because you do relate to the person who asked, and then maybe I can add something from the ADHD perspective. We'll see. 

Ro: Well, one thought I had was that- I don't see this point in the manifesto saying that everyone should be comfortable with loads of uncertainty and sudden change as a first point.

So I think it's very understandable if, as an autistic person, you have a need for predictability and routine and clear structure, and it's not just a trivial preference. It's actually important for regulation, so I don't wanna discount that. What I think this point is saying is not that you should be comfortable with chaos, but that you will get authentic responses out of people when you create an environment that is safe enough for them to express in.

Sometimes their authentic responses will surprise you and be dysregulating, and I think that's what you're talking about. But I don't think that what this point is saying is you just have to be okay with whatever comes up and just deal with it. I hope that is making sense as a distinction. I think it's important because it is about spontaneity in the sense of being able to be honest about what you really feel, bring your true self to things.

It's not spontaneity in the sense of completely unpredictable behavior. So, you know, I have partners who, well, sorry, I, I'm laughing because I'm like, yeah, both my partners are autistic too. So- ... that, that does make things easier. But both of them are like, "What's the plan? When, when are we next meeting?

Let's get it in the calendar. When are we meet- where are we meeting, at what time, and for how long, and what are we gonna do?" And it's, you know, so that does make things easier. But what was my point? I don't remember. I forgot my point because I got distracted by my own ridiculousness, so- ... yeah, go on. Go ahead, Elizabeth.

As the person on the other end of the neurodivergent spectrum, what are your thoughts and feelings? 

Elizabeth: Yeah. For me, again, it's about, like, what is the structure that we can put in place that is really workable for both of us? Because as the person who's plans and feelings could change really at any point in time.

I have the tendency to date people who are not that and who are either are autistic or are more have those kind of like tendencies for like want and need for like structure and routine. So one thing that I have found that has made those relationships more workable is to schedule spontaneity, which sounds a little bit silly, so let me explain it.

What scheduling spontaneity has looked like in my relationships is that I have at least one day a week where my partner knows that they don't know. And, and they're not often involved in that specific day with me, because they need more structure and like, we're gonna do this at this time, you know, et cetera.

So like, that day of the week, I have no idea what I'm gonna do. Maybe I've planned something. So I get my need met for spontaneity, like having that one day a week. And then we have one day a week where it is the exact same every single week.

Maybe we don't do the exact same thing, but it's the same structure. We meet up at this time, we go do something outside, we eat dinner, we do a chill activity, and then we go to bed.

And it might be different activities each time but it is the same structure every single time. And so that is kind of how we have navigated that. And then there's sometimes where it's like I need more than one day a week, so maybe for like three days a month or like every other month or something like that, where it's just like, "Hey, these three days, I'm gonna be extremely unpredictable, so what you can predict is that I will be unpredictable."

Okay? And they can be as involved or not involved in that as they want to be, right? So finding ways where you can kind of overlap each other. 

Ro: Mm. Yeah, finding fair compromises that don't feel like personal sacrifice or like that you're doing yourself harm. Obviously we don't know a lot about you, question-asker, so we can't give like super tailored responses to your specific presentation of autistic traits.

But I think that's a really nice practical response from you, Elizabeth. And having some form of structure, I think, is what creates room for safe spontaneity as well. You know, I think most humans need some form of structure in their relationships and you know, we'll probably cover this on a future episode 'cause there's one coming up about trust.

Having a deep trust with our partners is also what allows us to face spontaneity and unexpected situations with them from a more regulated place when you know that that person has good intentions towards you and is doing their best. Mm-hmm. So I think remembering that is also important, and working on trust because it's something that you build together.

It's not just something that you have out of nowhere. And what Elizabeth was saying about compromise and having some structured time and some unstructured time and negotiating that, that is the sort of thing that I think builds trust with people.

I just wanna say that like, I don't want you to take away from this conversation that autistic people are failing at this principle because they're not able to embrace absolute spontaneity all the time.

'Cause I think that relationship anarchy is about creating individualized approaches to connections. So whatever is real for you and whatever your needs are, that is totally fair, and it's about finding a relational design that allows you to be safe enough to feel fully expressed, and allows your partners to feel safe enough to do that, too.

So that was just some, like, clarification I wanted to offer, 'cause I felt like I didn't fully express that. So I hope that helps. 

Elizabeth: Mm. Beautiful. Thank you. Well said.

Yeah. And the other thing that I'll say too is that when someone is unpredictable, that does make them very predictable.

Like, I can predict that you are unpredictable. 

Ro: Mm-hmm. That's true. 

Elizabeth: And there is a level of, like, nervous system regulation inside of that. 

Ro: That is so true, actually. I have a friend who I like her and I care about her, and I want to be her friend, but she almost always cancels plans very short notice.

So when we make plans, I expect them to be canceled. And then when they are, I'm not upset about it as I used to be, because I'm like, "I predicted that this is how you would be unpredictable." So that's a, yeah, just as an aside. 

Elizabeth: Yeah, absolutely. And, and then also, like, you are able to I love... That's a great comment.

Oh, yes. I now understand the predictability is being unpredictable. Yeah, absolutely. And, Oh, what was I gonna say? Oh, I don't know. That thought just left. 

Ro: Poof, it's gone. 

Elizabeth: Oh, no. I... Sorry. Oh. I, I do, I do remember, I do remember what it was. Yeah, in finding these compromises it's also, like, it's okay if it doesn't work.

I think sometimes given that we're talking about expectations of relationships and shoulds of relationships, that is also something to unpack with relationship anarchy, is, how am I thinking this relationship should look in order to be a workable relationship? Do I think that there should be a certain amount of time involved?

Do I think that there should be a certain depth of intimacy here? Those are all shoulds too. And I know we're going a little over time, but I'll just give a really, really brief example of, like, the emotional intimacy aspect of it, where I had a client who was very upset about...

And in their words, they were like, "This relationship is not going the way that I want it to go." And with further investigation, what we discovered is that they are someone who craves emotional depth, and this person, who happened to be their metamour is not someone who craves emotional depth.

That's not what makes a relationship important to them. So it was like, oh, that's a should. I think relationships should have a certain level of emotional depth in order to be real or good or workable, right? Where it's like, oh, no, if I'm interested in meeting this person where they're at, that's actually not what this relationship is gonna look like at all, right?

So that's also another should. 

Ro: Thank you for that. 

Elizabeth: Yeah.

Okay, wonderful, beautiful people who have been with us here today thank you so, so much for your time. Thank you for your energy. Absolutely wonderful having you here.

Ro: We hope you enjoyed this episode.

Elizabeth: If you want to get in touch with us, go to the podcast description. You can share your feedback, suggest themes for future series, and find ways to work with us.

Ro: If you liked this, leave us a five-star review with a comment. It really helps our sweet little baby of a podcast grow.

Elizabeth: And if you didn't like it, maybe don't leave a review. Just go complain to a friend.

Ro: Thanks so much for listening.

Elizabeth: All the love.