Relationship Anarchy: Change Through Communication

No one's in charge in relationship anarchy, which means everyone is. We break down why radical relationships live or die by communication, plus live Q&A on circular arguments and hard conversations.

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

Ro: I think radical relationships are not just built on having weird and unconventional desires and politics.

It's actually built through repeatedly communicating clearly enough and bravely enough and concretely enough to actually do something with the conversations that you're having.

Elizabeth: 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.

Hello, my name's Ro Moëd. I am a writer under the name of @unapolygetically on Instagram. I share thoughts about relationships, about polyamorous relationships specifically, and relationship anarchy, and I'm also professionally a relationship coach and a transactional analysis psychotherapist in training.

I have a private practice as both a therapist and a coach, and I work with individuals and couples in both of those practices. I am queer. I'm solo poly. I'm relationship anarchist. I'm a nerd. I'm neurodivergent. What else is there about me? I have a headache. What else? So I'm having a bit of a headache-y few days.

So if you see me massaging my head in, in this way, I don't have lice, just so you know. But it's all under control. I've taken as many pain meds as I'm allowed. So that's just something I thought I would let people know listening and watching today 'cause it might look a bit odd for me, me massaging my head like this.

Before I was a relationship coach and therapist, I was an educator in adult education for about 10 years, and I was a teacher trainer as well, so I have a strong interest in conveying information in a way that people can actually receive it and digest it and use it.

So marrying my previous work as an educator, my writing now, and my work in human psychology and relationship education together like this, basically that's what you see from me on @unapolygetically, and that's what you see from me today, I hope, as well. That's me, I think. I don't think I missed anything essential.

Elizabeth: And you're awesome. 

Ro: Thanks. 

Elizabeth: I do. I think that maybe for the last episode we'll do each other's intros, 'cause I think we can now. 

Ro: I'm gonna have to memorize the names of all your various degrees and stuff that you've done, but yeah. 

Elizabeth: Oh. Well, yeah, so my name is Elizabeth Cunningham. Hello to anybody who doesn't know me, and yeah, I've been working in the field, working, studying in the field of gender, sexuality and relationships since 2008. I got my degrees in political science and women, gender, and sexuality with an emphasis in religion which basically means that I studied how power structures impact gender and sexuality.

And the short answer to that is a lot and not in a good way. And then I started working with a domestic violence center, so I did community education and outreach for three years, and talked with people ages five to 85 About what is domestic violence? How does it impact people?

How can you get out of how can you help or help people get out of, or get out of yourself abusive relationships? And also why people abuse other And then I decided that I wanted to switch my focus to helping people get into healthy relationships in the first place so that hopefully maybe one day I can work my former colleagues out of a job.

That would be amazing. If we just all knew how to be in healthy relationships and also knew how to avoid abusive relationships from the jump, that'd be fantastic. And so yeah, so then I started doing that. I trained as a transformational life coach. I have a few different certifications inside of that as well.

And yeah, started my private practice in 2017, and now I also train. I train and certify new queer and non-monogamous relationship coaches, and I help them build their practices. So that's really cool. I love doing that. And yeah, I also identify as queer. I am the L in the LGBTQIA alphabet mafia. I identify as polyamorous.

I've been out since 2010 so I've been practicing polyamory for 15 years. I very much resonate with relationship anarchy, and it does marry my political science and also relationships so well together. So it's just my, sweet spot of nerddom.

So yeah I really love it a lot, and I've been loving doing this podcast series with Ro. And I just also love working with Ro because we work so well together, so it's great. 

Ro: Aw. Yeah. That's lovely. I think we should do each other's intros, but on the condition that you do it in a terrible British accent-

and I do mine in a terrible American accent. How about that? 

It has to be terrible, though. 

Elizabeth: I'll pr- I'll start practicing now. 

Ro: No, the point is you don't have to practice. I'm trying to take work off your plate. 

Elizabeth: I know 

but you would do an amazing American accent. 

Ro: Not consistently, no. 

Elizabeth: Yeah. 

Ro: Probably some words would sound all right, but I think it- Yeah

it's easier this way around 'cause we've been so influenced in the UK by American culture. There are channels with Friends on 24/7, so I think it's not the same. You don't have Fawlty Towers on, you probably haven't heard of Fawlty Towers it's- I haven't

Elizabeth: exactly. I am so sorry. I have not heard of that. 

Ro: Well, we can try it. Yeah. So today's topic is change through communication. It's the eighth point on the Relationship Anarchy Manifesto written by Andie Nordgren, and I think it's your turn to read it, if you don't mind.

Elizabeth: It is my turn to read it, yeah. Change through communication. For most human activities, there is some form of norm in place for how it is supposed to work. If you want to deviate from this pattern, you need to communicate, otherwise things tend to end up just following the norm as others behave according to it.

Communication and joint actions for change is the only way to break away. Radical relationships must have conversation and communication at the heart, not as a state of emergency only brought out to solve "problems," quote, unquote. Communication in a context of trust. We are so used to people never really saying what they think and feel that we have to read between the lines and extrapolate to find what they really mean.

But such interpretations can only build on previous experiences, usually based on the norms you want to escape. Ask each other about stuff and be explicit. 

Ro: Ah, fuck yeah. Yeah. I love this one. I think it relates really strongly to quite a lot of the stuff that we said on the course that we built together, how to have difficult conversations.

So as I was reading this and writing notes for this, I was thinking, "Ah, okay. We really were relationship anarchist in our approach to quite a lot of things," but also relationship anarchy just has quite a lot of good common sense stuff in it. I think for almost any type of relationship, whether you decide to be traditional monogamous or not, you could definitely apply this to your relationships and benefit from it.

So yeah that's my initial feeling as you read that out I'm like, "Fuck yes, this is so good." What are your initial feelings and thoughts? 

Elizabeth: My, yeah, my initial feelings and thoughts about it is yeah, this is the bulk of the work that I do. And definitely the bulk of the work that we do together since, yeah, we started collaborating in our course, How to Have Difficult Commun- or How to Have Difficult Communications, How to- people do that all on their own.

They don't need our help yeah. We don't need to teach anybody that, actually. But how to have difficult conversations, there you go. Oh man, communication, words. But yeah that- it's a lot of the work that, we do individually, and the work that we do together. So I feel like really excited to talk about it.

And also one of the first things that comes up for me inside of actually the first sentence is, "For most human activities, there is some form of norm in place for how it is supposed to work." And I love that sentence because it is so rich. It's so unassuming but also

there's a whole world in that sentence, right? "For most human activities, there is some form of norm in place for how it is supposed to work." And I mean, I think that's like the basis for any sort of non-normative activity, whether that be polyamory, relationship anarchy being queer what, what have you. We're challenging norms.

There is a basis for, like, how we're, quote unquote, "supposed to be," and we're like, "No. That doesn't work for me." And so being able to clock that, like being able to see and to look at whatever it is that you're doing and be like, "Am I doing this because I'm just supposed to?" This is just, quote unquote, "the way that it is."

Or, "Am I doing this because it's actually, it feels authentic for me?" Or it really serves who I am, or it's how I wanna connect with people, or, whatever. And in this case, with communication can I communicate that? Can I actually say? Because there's one aspect of feeling that way, and I feel like it starts the feeling of being off.

" That's never quite sat well with me," or, "I've never quite understood it. It's always been confusing to me," or, "I didn't really know why I had to do this or we had to do this, or people act this way." And maybe you've gone along with it for a really long time because, either the environment that you're in there hasn't been space for you to say it, or there's been a lot of really good reasons to not say it, right?

To not talk about it. So yeah. I'm speaking, I feel like I'm still speaking very vaguely, but that's what comes up for me. I'll pause there. 

Ro: Yeah, I agree with what you're saying.

I'm just thinking about that first line as well. There is some form of norm in place for how it's supposed to work in most human activities. Obviously I always look at everything through a transactional analysis lens. And there's a concept from TA that I think is really pertinent here that I thought I might drop in. The basic idea of transactional analysis that people listening may have heard, 'cause it's sort of the most famous concept from TA, is that structurally we all have inside us a part of us that we label Parent, another part Adult, and another part Child. Adult and Child are respectively the part of you that is thinking appropriately and acting appropriately and feeling appropriately in the here and now, that is not projecting, that is the real you, not acting compulsively.

Child is like all your old thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. And Parent, which I'm gonna focus on right now, is the part that was put into us from other people. The Cultural Parent, which was a theory from a writer called Pearl Drego in the 1980s is essentially the idea that we don't just have ideas put into us from our family and immediate people around us, but from the culture that we grow up in.

We have a social and cultural inheritance from that. And in the Cultural Parent, it's like the conscious and unconscious boundaries of what is acceptable or what's taboo. And I think she made the point that in order for social transformation to happen, we need to examine this cultural Parent and we need to bring it into the consciousness, otherwise we're just gonna be acting from it unconsciously, and we need to redistribute the energy that goes towards it towards other stuff. Sorry to be a twat, but I'm gonna quote myself. I have added onto this theory of the Cultural Parent and posited that there is a Mononormative Parent specifically. Mm-hmm. That we have not just a general cultural Parent, but that we have a mononormative imperative to behave a certain way, and you could extend that to heteronormative Parent, amatonormative Parent, all of these things that tell us what's normal, what's correct, what's mature, what's safe. So all of that out of the way, my point here is that I really think there is a strong norm in place, and what I hear in this point of the manifesto is that social and cultural norms are not just things that are out there outside of us; they are things that operate continuously unless we actively interrupt them.

So even if you think of yourself as a non-normative person, if you don't think actively and communicate deliberately, then you can still slide into these familiar dynamics and familiar scripts around how to do relationships. So yeah, this part of the manifesto I think is just telling people like, if you wanna do something differently, then you have to build it consciously.

You can't assume that it will just emerge by itself. So communicating about it is not just a nice additional thing that you might wanna do; it's actually really fundamental, because without it, you end up doing things that you didn't consciously choose to do, even if you want to on some level. The Parent is really powerful.

Elizabeth: Yeah. Well, and recognizing those things like, yeah, in this context, talking about relationship anarchy, recognizing what's mono-normative and yeah, and you always say it so well. But then I like, I get tongue t- tongue-tied. What's the ano- 

Ro: Amatonormativity? 

Elizabeth: Amato. Amato. I wanna say A-N instead of A-M.

I don't know why. My brain's my brain's "No, ano." It's like, "No, amato." 

Ro: Well- There we go. Amato ... you speak Spanish, right? Think like amor. 

Elizabeth: Amor. Yeah. Yeah. I was I literally, as soon as you said A-M, my brain was like, "Amor. Okay, got it." Oh, amatonormative. Which for those of you who don't know what that is, it's the assumption that you will have a romantic relationship, right?

You will have a romantic relationship. You should have a romantic relationship. It's the most normal thing to do, is to have a romantic relationship, and then mono-normative, that romantic relationship is with one person. But yeah, being able to, look at those things, challenge those things for yourself, but then inside of this bullet point of communication is that then communicating those things, because I think sometimes when we are unpacking these things and we...

there's a lot of emotion here. There's a lot of emotion in how we've been trained to believe versus what actually works for us. There's a lot of emotion in learning new things and it seems to me that when we're unpacking these things as a collective there's a lot of defenses that come up, right?

And so I think it's really important that as we're unpacking these things individually and as we're communicating them that it comes from a place of, non-defense, non-judgment, and also the assumption that maybe how you've been unpacking it is a little bit different than how other people have been unpacking it.

So not assuming that people feel the same way as you do but also not assuming that's wrong either. You unpacked it and you came to this conclusion, and I unpacked it and I came to this conclusion, You unpacked it and you came to the conclusion of hierarchical polyamory.

I unpacked it and I came to the conclusion of relationship anarchy. Or things that fall along those lines. And being able to communicate that and share what you are learning or unlearning in this case is extremely important, 'cause I do think... A- and this makes me think of what's the...

There's another sentence. Yeah, the last sentence, ask each other about stuff and be explicit. Like I'm even using terms right now that we could unpack, right? You could unpack the word unpack. What do you mean by unpack? And so when people are talking about what you're talking about, what you're discovering or how you're feeling or what makes sense to you or what doesn't make sense to you, coming at it from this, like curiosity or open-minded perspective, and non-judgmental of yourself but also non-judgmental of other people.

And I think that, ultimately makes communication a easier. Yeah, because if we look at the second sentence here, if you want to deviate from this pattern, you need to communicate. Otherwise, things tend to end up just following the norm as others behave according to it. Because we're all acting under norms continuously.

It's not that just because we're unpacking mononormativity that now all of a sudden we are enlightened beings of light who are not impacted by norms or who are not still operating under those norms. But rather that we are on a spectrum of unlearning.

So in talking about if you want to deviate from this pattern, you need to communicate. So as we're deviating from the pattern, continuing to share, being like, "Oh, this is something new that I've learned today," or, "This is something that I'm looking into." Or like when I first came across the term relationship anarchy, it's also one of the reasons why I don't use the word identify necessarily with relationship anarchist because it's like that's still something, even though I've been talking about it for a while and have a lot of knowledge in these, subjects, it's still not something that I'm like, "Do I actually identify with that?"

Because I don't know, I resonate with a lot of it but identify is so strong for me.

Ro: Yeah I'm curious about that, but I think it would take us off topic, but yeah, I think I do identify with it. I think maybe my attitude towards labels is less that they're fixed things, but I know that they can feel more permanent when you adopt them.

For me, it's like, that's what's right right now, like right now, solo poly. For sure don't set any store by the relationship escalator, but one day I might have some sort of semi living together situation with someone. That might be appropriate for me at some point in my life, so it's a kind of temporary thing.

But I do identify with it, and and resonate with it, and I also understand your hesitance. So just on the topic of communicating explicitly I had some notes about this too. The, I think that part of the principle, the way I hear it, is that if you are ambiguous, then you're not liberated.

It's not necessarily liberating to be ambiguous. And I think a lot of people misunderstand relationship anarchy, or they've encountered people who abuse the label and who say, "I don't have to give you any clarity 'cause relationship anarchy. I don't have to put a label on this or have any structures or any conversations because relationship anarchy."

And that is not for me what relationship anarchy is. It's not about being ambiguous, and this part of the manifesto is explicitly saying that. If you are ambiguous, you're just handing power back to norms. You're handing power back to assumption and to projection. 'Cause the less you tell someone explicitly what you mean and just assume that they get it or just leave it ambiguous, the more they might pr- project onto what you're saying.

Or they might misinterpret it, the, and either through what we were talking about before, these norms, these cultural norms, or through their own lived experience. "Ah, when someone's quiet, that means X, Y, Z." They might assume if you're not texting them back that means "you're angry with me."

Well, maybe it doesn't, so I think being explicit just stops that kind of projection from happening. And yeah there's a wider point here to be made also about the kind of cultural normalization of mind reading, and how- Mm-hmm ... that's considered to be good relationship practice.

And I'm not saying we should never have any sense of how people might interpret us, or we should never consider the impact of our words on other people, but I'm also not saying that we need to always guess what other people are saying. And the cultural norm, as I see it, there is a lot of hinting and implying and inferring and extrapolation and decoding and indirectness, and you see it in the way that people analyze texts from each other.

"What do you think that means? When they said that, what did they mean?" What if they meant what they said? Or what if you asked them, yeah. There's so much normalization of just guessing what people mean, and I love that this part of the manifesto says, if you leave room for people to just guess and you don't ask and you're not clear with each other, you are just handing over power to norms and to assumptions, and you're taking the power away from yourselves.

Elizabeth: Yeah, being explicit but also asking for explicitness, right? If someone is ambiguous or you're not entirely sure what someone meant, then normalizing asking that.

"What did you mean when you said XYZ?" Or "This phrase kind of caught me off guard. Can you, explain more? Tell me more about that." And going back to, being curious, being open, being non-judgmental. Sometimes we don't give people the benefit of the doubt, and we've talked about this in other episodes because the manifesto specifically names trust and giving people the benefit of the doubt.

And so I think that it's very appropriate that this is the next bullet point because if you are, operating from a place of trust and giving people the benefit of the doubt, it then does lend to making it easier to be more explicit, either you yourself being more explicit about things or asking for that explicitness.

Because if we're coming from a place of assuming trust, giving each other the benefit of the doubt, then it does make those conversations easier. And that's a practice. A lot of us have some sort of relationship trauma, whether that be in intimate relationships or other relationships where it is really hard to trust people.

I was just talking, was it yesterday? Two, two days ago? 'Cause I'm back in Washington and I'm staying with one of my partners, and l- li- life partners, not romantic sexual partners, just life partners. Very... I'm like, I don't identify with relationship anarchy, and yet here I am. Mm-hmm. But we were talking about how suspicious I am of people. I am. I am extremely suspicious of people. And so I bring that up because I want to really point out trust is hard. Giving people the benefit of the doubt is challenging. But it does lend to easier conversations.

Ro: I'm surprised to hear you say you're suspicious of people. Do you mean in your close relationships or just people in general?

Elizabeth: I'm not suspicious of people in my closer relationships, but I am suspicious of people in general. I, and- 

Ro: I think, yeah, I have a sort of healthy discernment I'd call it. Where does discernment trip over into distrust? 

Elizabeth: Well, that, and that's a great, that is a great conversation to have because I do feel like in the past I have been a very trusting person, and I like being trusting of people.

I actually really do like being trusting of people. But I also, yeah, you have to, you do have to have a healthy discernment. Mm-hmm. And I also think given the work that I do and having a DV background, I do pick up on DV red flags very quickly. Where it's just that's a flag. That's a flag. That's a flag." And I don't immediately jump to conclusions about that thing, but I do take those things very seriously. And so that's tricky in and of itself, too, where it's just yeah, I'm, I try to be discerning about things, and I do see things from that point of view based off of my training and my profession.

And I also try to give people the benefit of the doubt, so it's a game. 

Ro: Yeah, no, that makes sense. And you are trained to look for those signs, so I see why you'd have that. And my way of thinking about it is that all of these extremes that we can go to, whether it's perfectionism or scrutiny or being super strong and never letting emotions in, like, all of these things which can be adaptive and may not always be appropriate in every situation. They're not weaknesses. I think they're things that we developed for a reason, whether it's our training or our upbringing or whatever our experience. And it's not about eradicating that, but about calibrating it so that it works better in your life.

So I'd say hold onto that and you are already, aware of it and calibrating it. Yeah I just, I have weird memories of times where I've been trusting and I trusted this person I met on public transport and she was trying to recruit me for a pyramid scheme.

And then I was so awkward that I took the product she gave me when we next met, and then she was really angry with me, and she was like, "Give me back my fucking products if you're not gonna do it." And I was like, "Okay." And this was all when I was very young, so I think I learned through experience not to trust, that all people always have good intentions.

But anyway, beside the point, in your relationships with people that where you're building connections and you want to build connections with them, I think what the manifesto is saying is yes, exactly what you're saying. That in order to have communication that is clear and where there isn't projection, where you can ask questions and you feel safe to take the risk of being really direct, you need to have trust with somebody.

Yeah. And if anybody is interested in our thoughts on trust, go and listen to the last podcast episode.

Elizabeth: And the last thing that I'll say about that, 'cause, yeah, I don't wanna get too much into trust 'cause we did talk about it last episode. Mm-hmm. But the last thing that I'll say about that is one of the ways that calibrate is to let people surprise me. That's a kind of a mantra that I have.

Be willing to be surprised. 

Ro: Build for the lovely unexpected, you might say. 

Elizabeth: Build for the lovely unexpected. I know. Why do I s- all right. Oh my God. 

Ro: It's another principle in the manifesto if anyone's just listening to this episode and hasn't heard others, 

Elizabeth: yeah. But it is.

Be willing to be surprised. Give people at least enough benefit of the doubt to, to let people surprise you. 

Ro: Mm-hmm. Yeah. And creating the conditions where that feels safe to do is something that you do with someone else. It's not just that you need to throw yourself into it and put yourself in harm's way.

Which, yeah, I'm trying not to go down the rabbit hole of talking about trust, 'cause we did already do that. 

Elizabeth: Yeah. 

Ro: But yeah. But I think also just to add on to the point then, something different, I think what the manifesto is saying here also is not just that you need trust and courage, but you also need commitment to take action.

You need commitment to actually alter something, because otherwise conversations about stuff just become like this ritual. It becomes repetitive, loads of things are discussed, nothing ever changes, everyone feels frustrated. I think radical relationships are not just built on having weird and unconventional desires and politics.

It's actually built through repeatedly communicating clearly enough and bravely enough and concretely enough to actually do something with the conversations that you're having. 

Elizabeth: Well, I used to have this joke where I was like, "Oh, do you wanna know the first five rules of polyamory?"

Rule number one, communicate. Rule number two, communicate. Rule number three, communicate. 

Ro: Rule number four, can't wait. 

Elizabeth: Rule number four, always talk about polyamory. 

Ro: And number five? 

Elizabeth: Communicate. 

Ro: Okay.

I didn't know if you were gonna take it to another level, be like, "Fucking communica-TUH!" 

Elizabeth: Fucking communicate. 

But I was just gonna give example of being explicit about things. When recording a podcast episode as well several years ago we were talking about expectations and agreements and understandings.

And the podcast host was using the word understandings, and I had a different understanding of the word understanding. Because he was using understanding in the place of agreement, where my- thoughts, feelings on the word understanding is not that you agree. But you can say something that I don't agree with, and I can still understand what you mean by that.

So when I say, "I understand you," I don't mean I agree with you. I mean that I am comprehending the words that are coming out of your mouth. That's what I mean by that. And so when we were having this conversation, I was like, If we were intimate partners and not just, chatting on a podcast, that would be a really imperative thing for us to understand.

Or for us to communicate to each other, right? It's just oh, when you're saying the word understanding, you also mean agree. And when I say the word understanding, I do not mean that I am agreeing with you. Because that could be, problematic in an intimate relationship, right? Mm-hmm. If I say, "Oh, I understand you," and now you're going along thinking I agree with you, or that we've made an agreement of some kind.

Ro: Totally. 

Elizabeth: Yeah. 

Ro: And one I see a lot, particularly in working with couples, is when I say, "What are your shared relationship values?" And they'll often say, "Respect." And then I'm like, "What does respect mean? Does respect mean you do what the other person says?" 'Cause that's how some people understand respect.

Or does it mean that you understand each other, you're committed to understanding each other even if you don't agree or don't wanna do that? Or something else, so it's one of those words, among many, that-

Elizabeth: Mm-hmm ... 

Ro: could have a very different interpretation depending on where you're coming from.

So yeah, I think being explicit and defining the words that you're using, I don't wanna sound like you have to pause every five seconds in a conversation with a relationship anarchist and be like, "What do you mean?" Some of the words we can just assume we have the same understanding of it.

But yeah, for 

Elizabeth: the- Although for the record, if you are having a conversation with me and we are doing that, then that would just fulfill my nerdy heart. I wanna unpack every single word. We just have a whole conversation about it. It's so great. 

Ro: What do you mean by word? 

Elizabeth: What do you mean by word?

Ro: But what do you mean by is such a useful phrase to hold onto. And I think also to Get into the habit of having those kinds of conversations so it doesn't feel like when you're asking it that you're criticizing or that you're angry or whatever. I think maybe this is a very neurodivergent thing that I'm very used to being like, "What do you mean when you say this or that?"

Which for me is literally just asking for clarity because I can see that word you've used could be understood in 10 different ways, and I wanna make sure that I'm not assuming something because of my own frame of reference. But other people can interpret that as "Oh, are you criticizing me?

Are you saying I shouldn't use that word?" No, I'm literally just asking for you to explain what you mean so that I can feel closer to you. So just normalize having those kinds of conversations. I think it's useful. 

Elizabeth: Yeah. And I- I'll say things like, "Just so I understand you..." And I might repeat back.

Mm-hmm. Reflecting back can also be a way to do that, too. Yes ... like- To 

Ro: make sure I'm on the same page as you. When you say this- ... do you mean X, Y, Z? 

Elizabeth: Exactly. So it's "Just so I understand you, what I took from what you just said da-da-da-da-da." Giving the example of this guy who I was on the podcast with, I would say "Okay, so what I took from what you said was that, if you say understand, you mean that we're agreeing.

But just so you know, where I'm coming from is-" If I use the word understand, I don't mean that. And that's the language that I use so people know that I'm not criticizing them. I'm like, "Just so I understand you," or, "What I took from what you just said was..."

Or, something like that. And then I reflect it back. And I do ask questions like, "Tell me more about what you mean by that." Or I'll say something like, "I don't know if we have the same definition of that," "Tell me what you mean by that." Or just things like that.

But I do try to phrase it in a way that is more disarming just to make sure that people, yeah, don't think that I'm, like, trying to... I'm not trying to debate you. I just want clarification. 

Ro: Yeah. Well, and the tone is doing a lot of heavy lifting as well, isn't it? Yeah.

There's a very big difference between, "What do you mean by that?" and, "What do you mean by that?" I think, people hopefully can tell the difference between the intent behind those two questions if they know you well and if you are mindful of the way you're phrasing it and the tone you're using.

There's one point that we haven't touched on, I don't think, which I think is really important that communication is not just for crises. I think it should be part of the fabric of the relationship, and that's what this point in the manifesto is saying.

I think it's incredibly important. If you treat communication as something that you just wheel out only when there's a problem or a rupture in the relationship or a moment of confusion, then you can start to associate communication with stress. It starts to feel heavy and frightening and ominous and you don't wanna do it.

Whereas if it's just part of the fabric of everyday life with somebody and it's not just damage control, then you can start to associate it more with connection, with discovery, co-creation, good stuff. So I don't think people should only talk when things have gone wrong. I think they should be, talking all the time in order for their relationships to be conscious and chosen.

And I don't... Obviously, people are talking. I'm not saying... having searching conversations even in moments of excitement and positivity just to avoid making assumptions with people. 

Elizabeth: Yeah. Yeah, for sure. And this is also one of the sentences that makes me think of our course, the how to have difficult communicat- or how...

Oh my God, why do I keep saying that? How to have difficult conversations. Ah. 

Ro: You've been having some difficult communication lately or something. 

Elizabeth: How to have difficult conversations because like- You 

Ro: should make a follow-up, how to have difficult communication Like assume, project, contempt. If you wanna sabotage your relationships- Right see if you can do it as quickly as 

Elizabeth: possible. Yeah. The satirical course. I love it. Oh, man. But yeah, one of the things that we talk about foundationally is setting up your relationships for success in the way that you're communicating. And one of the things... I mean, one of the things that you can do is just having these conversations around what you mean by things.

Just kind of exploring oh we really want to be loving and compassionate with each other. What does that even look like? What does a loving and compassionate relationship look like to you? If we were being, in your wildest dreams, if we were being loving and compassionate, what would we be doing?

What would you see us doing? And then finding, the overlap of that between the two of you. Because even in the positive things as you pointed out earlier, Ro even in the positive things, we still have a mismatch of what it actually means to us. And so when we can have those conversations, and then also other ways that you can really embed this into the fabric of your relationship is talking about things that are annoying, and maybe in, in other circumstances or past circumstances you would've just kind of brushed it under the w- the rug or been like, "Oh, it doesn't...

it's not that big of a deal," or whatever. You just kind of throw it away because it's so little and you don't wanna make a big deal out of it. Actually taking the time to be like, "Hey, this is really minor and it's not a big deal, but I just wanted to bring up that you said this word the other day," or, "You phrased this in this way," or, "This happened, like, when we were at our friend's house and the way that it happened just didn't land well with me.

It just didn't work for me very well. Can we talk about that?" One of the things that I always bring up in these contexts is a thing that Li and I do which is share our brain thoughts, you're totally allowed to steal the term brain thoughts, 'cause it's just this very silly phrasing that we use.

And what we mean by it is, we'll say something like, "Can I share a brain thought with you?" And we both know that when we say that, it means that we're having a thought that we think might not be true. And it's usually an assumption about the other person. So for example like Lee was gonna go on a walk, and they were like, "Oh I'm leaving," and they did not invite me on this walk.

Mind you, they go on walks multiple times a day. They are a walking person. Every time they have a break in something, they go on a walk. And so they were, like, getting their shoes on. They were like, "I'm gonna go on a walk." And I was just like, "Well, I'm having a brain thought that you don't want me to come on a walk with you."

"You didn't invite me on your walk." And I'm saying it in kind of like a bratty voice, but that's also, again, that's kind of a part of our vernacular we're not gonna take that seriously with one another. And they're like of course you can come on a... What are you talking about?

Of course you can come on a walk with me. I just thought you were working on stuff, so I didn't invite you on my walk. Also, yeah, I go on... This is the fifth walk that I've gone on today." But just in that moment, I had a little insecure, just "Meh, you didn't invite me on your walk." And I said it out loud.

And then we laughed about it, and Lee was like... 'Cause I do this on a fairly regular basis. Every time that I see them, I probably do it at least once where it's like, "Oh, you didn't invite me on your walk." And then sometimes they're like, "Well, do you wanna go on a walk?" And I'm like, "No, I have to work."

Ro: Can't you see I'm busy? 

Elizabeth: But it's just in those little moments where it's just aw, I had this insecure feeling, and then I brought it up in a kind of a cute way, and it's just kind of like our banter or whatever. But even in those small moments, it does help build trust in relationships so that when there are harder things to talk about, it's like we're kind of used to bringing up awkward topics with each other because we do it all the time.

So looking at little ways that you can practice saying uncomfortable things, and then you will get better at having those awkward conversations. Because, four years ago when Lee and I would bring up little brain thoughts like that, it was a little bit more embarrassing.

I was way more embarrassed to bring those things up, and I was like, it was really vulnerable for me to say stuff like that. And now it's just silly and fun. So yeah. So it's a practice, but starting, start small. 

Ro: It's a great example. Thank you. We're gonna have to wrap up this part of the podcast soon.

Is there anything that you feel you haven't managed to get to from your notes or thoughts today? 

Elizabeth: Well, I feel like- This, I feel like this paragraph is kind of part of my life's work, so I feel like there's just a zillion more things that I could say about it. And have. 

Ro: And 

Elizabeth: will. And will, on the internet and other places.

Yeah, so it's just- I- I just, it's so important to learn how to express yourself. Any concluding thoughts for you, Ro? 

Ro: Nothing different than what we've said, but just to reiterate that this paragraph in the manifesto makes it clear that being in a radical relationship style doesn't mean that you are absolved of responsibility to communicate clearly and to have hard conversations with people.

I really want people to take that away from this, because what I hear the most often the biggest complaint against relationship anarchy is that people use it as an excuse to be irresponsible in relationships. And if your relationship is anarchic, meaning that no one is the supreme ruler of the relationship, but that you and everyone in your relationships is in charge, then being in charge comes with responsibility, comes with the onus to have conversations with people and to be willing to have complicated conversations.

And just wanna pick out one of the lines from this paragraph, "Radical relationships must have conversation and communication at the heart." 

Elizabeth: Yeah. 

Ro: That's everything. 

Elizabeth: Yeah. Yeah, 100%. It's just if no one is in charge, that means everyone is in charge, which means that you have to take responsibility for not only yourself, but for the relationship and the dynamic.

Ro: Yeah. If you wanna have a relationship where you have no conversations and it's all built on assumptions, then traditional monogamous relationships are there for you. Okay? You don't... If that's... This is not the place for you. And this is not to say that you can't be a relationship anarchist and monogamous.

I mean, heavy emphasis on the traditional word there, like the tradition of making assumptions, of doing things by default, of not thinking and not discussing. That is an option for you that many people take. You don't have to label yourself relationship anarchist if that's how you wanna approach your relationships.

It is not an excuse to just treat people with disrespect and contempt and distance. Was that a shocking thing to say? 

Elizabeth: That was a hot take. I loved it. I'm here for it. But I was like, oh, all right, let's go. 

Ro: But that really is no disrespect to people who wanna do that. Mm-hmm. It's just not relationship anarchy.

Yeah. That's all. 

Elizabeth: I got it. I got that. Okay, wonderful. We're gonna go into our Q&A section. And so how Q&A works is that you can participate in three different ways.

The first way is if you want to come off mute. You can also come on camera. You can use your voice, you can ask a question, you can share any insights that you had throughout the episode.

You can also go into the chat. You can use the chat for everyone, and you can put in your question, comment in the chat. If you want to remain very anonymous, then you can send one of us a DM, and then we will read it anonymously. And we'll answer it anonymously. Well, we won't answer it anonymously, clearly.

We are very not anonymous. But we will keep your anonynimi- anonymity

I'm just laughing at myself. I was like, what is my brain today? I don't know. 

Ro: Okay. We're both having difficult brain days, I think. Me with this three-day migraine. 

Elizabeth: Yeah.

All right. Does anybody have any questions or any insights or anything that you're dealing with that you want feedback on?

Yeah, Sasha please what do you got for us?

Audience: Hello. I was thinking I had a question kind of about so I think sometimes I've run into this issue where I am having like a long conversation with someone kind of trying to solve an issue or like an argument, but then running into this problem where it feels like both the people in the conversation are kind of like running in circles and it feels like the conversation isn't moving forward.

And I've thought a lot about kind of how to tell when is a good time to stop a conversation and maybe continue it at another time and what are signs to lo-look out for because I feel like a lot of the time I'll only realize it afterwards because it can be like very like heated or like we're both like really invested.

But then afterwards I'm like, "Oh, this is, was so obviously should've stopped earlier and then we could've both calmed down and had like a better conversation." 

Elizabeth: Sasha, as you were sharing, I was just kind of, digesting and like putting myself in your position, which I have been in, in that position as well on different times. And it, like...

One thing that I'm hearing in what you're sharing is the debrief aspect of a conversation. So you're having... There's the conversation where, it sounds like you're going in loops, right? And then there is whenever, that conversation ends, whether it ends because it's okay, I'm exhausted, or we're heated or we're walking away or whatever.

Whenever you come back to it, instead of going back to this loop, go into more of a debrief of it, where it's like, what worked in that conversation and what didn't work in the conversation? And then taking it a little bit more meta, I guess, what are we trying to accomplish in this conversation, and why can't we accomplish that?

So is that because we want two different things that we're trying to reconcile that actually don't match together? Is it because we're misunderstanding each other somewhere? Really kind of start digging at the conversation itself, and being like, "Why aren't we on the same page? What do you mean by this?

Why are we getting confused? Why are we missing each other? What do you actually mean? What are we actually even trying to accomplish here? Are we even trying to accomplish the same thing? Do we even want the same thing So getting really curious about that. So I'm gonna recap that. So what worked about the conversation, what didn't work about the conversation why are we getting stuck, and then the what is it that we're trying to accomplish?

And do we have to accomplish it in this way? Could we accomplish it a different way? Ro, what are your thoughts? 

Ro: Yeah, I second everything you said. I think debriefing afterwards is an important step that people may miss if they don't explicitly agree to do that with their conversation partner, whatever the relationship is.

And I also wanted to add some thoughts, I guess, about why conversations might feel like they're being circular. One possibility, although I- obviously, I don't know your specific situation and I don't wanna ask nosy questions on a podcast that's going out to loads of people so apologies if it's not completely pertinent to your situation, but it often is the case that if a conversation is circular and repetitive, that one or both people don't feel fully understood yet, so they keep bringing up the same thing because they don't feel that they've actually been heard properly.

And you might both feel that you understand the other person perfectly, but for some reason they're not feeling that understanding, and you're giving me a thumbs up, so I'm assuming that means I might be somewhere close to the mark here. Yeah. In those situations, what I would advise is to slow down the conversation and stop having a point, and then the other person makes their point, and then you make your point, and then they make their point.

That's a normal conversation, where you're just giving an answer to each other's points, and instead focus on all of the thoughts and feelings and experiences of one person, and make sure you're sticking with that. So what you might wanna do is contract for that between you informally. I mean, not writing a contract, agree.

Agree, "Okay, look, let's just focus on what you're trying to say. Tell me what it is that you don't- that you feel- you want me to understand." And they speak for as long as they need to, and then you reflect back to them what you heard, and you say, "Is that right? Is there anything else you wanna say?"

Whatever, you can change the wording. And then you keep repeating that process until they say, "No, that's it, you've got it, and I feel understood now." And then you can swap over and focus on what you feel and what you wanna express. That's just one way of dealing with it. It doesn't have to be quite so regimented, but it can be a nice way to structure the conversation so that you're not having to think in the moment about how to tackle the conversation.

If you have this exercise where you're following predetermined steps, then it makes it easier to really focus on not responding and just listening and understanding. And Yeah, it's definitely happened to me so I resonate and I sympathize with being in those kinds of conversations, and it's so frustrating to feel like, "I do understand what you're saying.

Why are you saying it again?" And it's so annoying to be also feeling like, "You don't understand me, and I have to say it again, and now you're annoyed with me 'cause I had to say it again, but you didn't get it." Yeah, it's really tough to be in that situation, and if you can remember in the moment to say, "Okay, we're in that situation again," and maybe if you've done what Elizabeth suggested, you'll both be aware that this is a possibility.

You say, "Why don't we do something different this time? Let's slow down and take turns." And also just to add onto what you said, Elizabeth the debrief is a chance to notice your own signs of overwhelm. " Okay, in hindsight, my face got really hot when you said I was defensive, 'cause that word to me means that I'm not being accountable, that word has a lot of meaning to me, and it's a real trigger for me, and my face got really hot, and my heart started beating, and from then on, I was not having a good conversation with you. So the next time I feel that sensation in my body, I'm gonna take that as a signal to pause," for example 

Elizabeth: Yeah.

And I, the and I sign off on everything that Ro just said, absolutely, 100%. And the last thing that I'll add to that, too, is I think this is one of those times when it's important to remember that understanding someone is not agreeing with them. Because I think sometimes that's where when we're not understanding people or when it's hard to say you understand someone is because you think that, it might mean that you're condoning something or agreeing with something that you don't condone or you don't agree with.

And so having that understanding with your conversation partner can be really important sometimes, too, where it's just "Yeah, no I do understand what you're saying." And then having that ability to or space to disagree after they've been understood. Because I think sometimes we try to do that at the same time.

It's like you try to agree, or excuse me, you try to understand and disagree at the same time. Where it, they kind of need to happen at different times.

Ro: A follow-up question from Sasha before we move on to another question I think would probably be best.

So they're asking- Yeah ... can you expand on how to reflect understanding without agreement? I feel like I struggle with that and it feeling genuine. Yeah, totally. Honestly, the first example that comes to my mind is I have MAGA family members and I am not that. And especially as a queer person, I feel very betrayed that they have voted or h- that they feel particular ways. And I understand their point of view. I don't agree with it. I vehemently disagree with it. But I under- I understand. If someone said I'll take a non-charged situation. If someone said, "I really wanna eat Oreos on Mars," I understand, I comprehend that they want to eat Oreos on Mars.

Elizabeth: That doesn't make any sense to me. I might not agree that we should use space exploration for their snacking habits. But I understand that they want to eat Oreos on Mars. So it's like I understand that I have in some, on my dad's side of the family, a very Irish Catholic family with very conservative viewpoints about things. I understand why they have those viewpoints. I understand the church system.

I understand conservative politics. I understand that I grew up in the Midwest in the Bible Belt, and that's a part of the environment. way that people think. I understand all of those things. I don't agree with it.

In a romantic relationship situation, it's like I understand that you went to the bar on Friday. I understand that you had too much to drink. I understand that you made choices that might not have made if you weren't intoxicated. I understand that you didn't text me. I understand.

I understand all of it. I don't agree with it. I don't agree with those choices. They have an impact on me, right? Does that make sense? Is that like- 

Ro: I think it does. 

Elizabeth: Yeah 

Ro: Hopefully we'll get some feedback from the question asker. I mean, going back to what I was saying earlier about Parent, Adult, and Child- i'd say I'd frame this in my TA brain as trying to get inside the Parent and Child of that person. So what are all their previous experiences that have made them the person that they are? What are all the influences on them from their lives that have created the frame of reference that they have?

'Cause their religion, their culture, their family, their role models, their upbringing, like all of it is gonna be so different from mine in some ways that it's not at all my experience of the world. But I can put myself in their shoes and be like, "What would it be like? How would I act if I had those experiences?"

For me, that's what understanding is, and then agreeing is condoning it. And you don't have to condone something to get it, which is what I'm taking from what you shared there. 

Elizabeth: Yeah. All right, do you wanna move on? Okay, so this person says "For me, I don't know if it's related to family insecurities or not, or something neurodivergent, but even if I trust my partner or any other person, we can spend the whole day together doing nothing, and it's difficult me to bring up a topic that I need to talk about, something that hurt me mainly, although also just talking about me, to which he jokes about giving me permission. Maybe a part of social anxiety as well." Okay, so if I'm understanding this correctly, then what you're saying is you can spend a long time with your partner and need to bring up a, subject that you'd like to bring up, and then you just, you just don't do that.

You have a difficult time doing that 

Ro: Mm-hmm. That's what I'm hearing too. 

Elizabeth: Yeah. Do you wanna... I said stuff first last time. You wanna say stuff first? Okay, yeah, that's it. You say stuff first now. 

Ro: We, 'cause we're both so anxious about making the other person feel like we're not giving them space, 'cause we know that both of us tend to speak at length, I think we're overly worried about taking turns in a very fair way.

But I think it's nice, it's kinda, it's nice. But I think we- Yeah ... we worry about it. 

Elizabeth: Well, I think we're adorable, 

Ro: agreed. I understand that you think we're adorable, and I agree. No, I mean, my, my thoughts on this are... What are my thoughts on this? What has helped me in the past, as someone who also has struggled to bring things up, I'm thinking particularly around breakup conversations.

That's been the hardest thing for me to bring up, even when I'm like, "It's absolutely the kindest thing to be honest about this." I know it is, but I still find it really hard to bring that up. I find it useful to have a kind of stock phrase that I use, that once I've used it means I cannot not say the thing.

Something like... I wouldn't advocate for a phrase like, "We need to talk," 'cause that strikes fear in people's hearts 'cause it's got so much meaning behind it. But something like, "There's something on my mind that I've been meaning to talk about," or, "There's something that I find difficult to talk about but I think is important."

Whatever phrase feels right for you. If you just have a phrase that you rehearse and you know that when you're in that moment and you're sort of panicking because you know you have to say something and it's stressful and how are they gonna react and blah, then just hold onto that phrase, and then say it.

And then once you've said that, they know you have something to say, and hopefully they're gonna ask you questions. And then you can also negotiate this with the person in advance. It sounds like you have a partner who is aware of the struggles that you have. So you can say, "When I say this phrase, I might then clam up and find it difficult to speak, or I might get stressed.

I need you to just stay with me and keep asking me questions, if that's okay for you." Something like that. So you can recruit people to help you with this. It doesn't have to be all on you to just say difficult things, even when you're terrified. And I think with practice it does get easier.

So what I was saying about, finding it very hard to have those difficult conversations I still don't find it easy, but it's easier. And with practice and with experience of it not going badly, I hope it will be easier for you too 

Elizabeth: Once again, we agree very much. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. And I have experienced this as well in my life.

And one of the things that I have, W- well, a f- a few of the things that I've done to help myself with this is saying in advance, like knowing... if I know that we're gonna be hanging out I'll say something like, "Hey, when we hang out on Friday I have some things that I wanna talk to you about."

And that puts me on the hook to actually do the thing. That is helpful for me. Also having, if you are in a relationship where you have normal check-ins, like whether that be weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, something like that that can be really helpful to say those things, because you have a s- a space and time dedicated in your relationship to bring things up.

So that's also been something that's been extremely helpful for me in the past. Because yeah I have had a tendency to put things off for a while And then sometimes it's like it just keeps, I, I just keep thinking about it in my mind, and this is a very normal human thing to do, where it's like you've been thinking about it so much that finally your brain is just over it.

You're just like, "I just have to talk about it 'cause I don't wanna keep thinking about it." And I say that not because it's the best strategy to use but it... I do want to normalize that sometimes that is how it goes too. And knowing that about myself, so here's where the strategy part comes in. Knowing that about myself, I was like, "I know I will hit a fuck it point." And then I'll ask myself, I was like, "Do I want to hold onto this? Do I wanna keep ruminating about this? Do I wanna keep thinking about this until I hit my fuck it point?"

And then I'm like, "No. No, I don't wanna do that." "No, I don't wanna do that. Whatever." Very sassy today. But that's the conversation that I have with myself. It's "No, I don't wanna do that. I don't wanna hit my fuck it point. I... i'm gonna reach out to them. I'm gonna text them right now.

I'm gonna tell them I wanna talk to them about something. I'm gonna do that." So you know the good thing about having hit that point so many times in the past is that now I can use it as a part of my strategy in the future. 

Ro: I could imagine people listening to that advice, and I think it is good advice, and s- saying "Oh I'm worried it's gonna make the other person really stressed if I say I have something I need to talk to them about," which I've definitely done that, and I think it's a good way to approach it, but I'm anticipating that response from people.

 and I think, yeah, there's a way of phrasing it or delivering that message that hopefully will alleviate fears. So if you're like, "I have something that's difficult to talk to you about, but it's not life or death," you can find your own language for it. "But, you know, it's not... nothing to be worried about, but I just think it's something we need to talk about, and I'm just holding myself accountable for raising that conversation with you." Something like that. And also to some extent you can't control how other people are gonna re- receive your words. And it's already, you know, you're carrying a lot of stress, with wanting to talk about something difficult.

It they can handle a little bit of anticipation until you meet. I think it's best to have these conversations face-to-face where things can't be misinterpreted, and sometimes a little bit of stress before that can't be avoided, and we need to just trust that people can handle themselves or ask for clarity, as we are talking about today, if they are worried about something.

Elizabeth: Yeah. Yeah, and to that point, too, yeah, sometimes we don't say things because we want to protect the other person. But I find it helpful to turn that back around to us. well, if this person had this thing to say to me, would I want them to try to protect me from that, or would I want them to just tell me?

Ro: Just tell me. Oh, my God. 

Elizabeth: Just tell me. Yeah. 

Ro: Don't keep secrets from me and be secretly mad at me. I want you to tell me what you feel. 

Elizabeth: Yeah. So that's also a helpful way to think about it. I find that it's very rarely useful to try and protect someone especially from difficult conversations, and especially adults.

But I mean, I don't think that we should necessarily protect kids all the time from difficult conversations either. I think that's why we don't know how to have difficult conversations as Adults. But yeah, just taking the case that we are all adults, and adults in plain terms but also Adults in the transactional analysis perspective as well. Treating people like adults that can handle difficult things, that can talk about difficult things, that can work with you on things.

And then if they prove to not be that type of person, then you might need to be an adult and make difficult decisions for yourself about that relationship and about what works for you, and that's kind of how adult relationships go. 

Ro: Indeed. I love it when you talk transactional analysis to me.

Yeah. Talk TA to me.

Elizabeth: Oh. This is how we keep things spicy as coaches and therapists. Mm-hmm. 

Ro: I think we're probably out of time for more questions. But we do have one more episode to record that's coming in a few days,

so hopefully we'll be able to see more of you there. Thanks for coming. It's been great. 

Elizabeth: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much for coming. Appreciate all of you being here. Appreciate your presence and your questions.

I hope you have a great rest of your Sunday, wherever you're at. Hope you have a great rest of your Sunday.

Thanks, y'all. Goodbye. Bye. Bye.

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. All the love.