Literally this I’m dying laughing at my own lack of observational skills 🤣🤣

“Anime to watch with my early teen daughter” probably doesn’t include Berserk. And Ghost in the Shell isn’t fanservice exactly, but definitely has sexual themes

I have strongly considered the Armor line. Which is what I’m assuming you’re talking about

It rather seems to me that you’re only responding to the generalized ideas I’m trying to present as they relate to your own specific experience, and using that as a way to discount or invalidate the concept entirely. I don’t see the point in going to bat so hard for this. I’m not telling you how to raise the humans you’ve chosen to be responsible for, I’m just saying that’s another kind of relationship. Relationship anarchy is very specifically not “free love”, which clearly wasn’t so free anyways. Love is free, sure, but these days so many people’s time is money; taking the time to choose what relationships you participate in, and what that participation looks like, can’t possibly be a bad idea, and that’s the idea with RA.

Ah yes, the old quarter-century crisis. We got another one here, Bob, send em the welcome package. (The welcome package is multi-vitamins and sore knees)

I don’t get it, were you a plate this whole time?

One… More… Square…

Well I hope that you amend your views before bringing a tiny new human into existence. I’m not saying that laws should be outright disregarded. I had limited time to make my response, so I didn’t go into much detail about RA’s approaches to co-parenting. I don’t intend to do so now.
Choosing to get law enforcement involved doesn’t break these rules. If a relationship is inequitable and people are in danger, and getting the police involved seems like the only option from one or more perspectives in the relationship, then that’s what should happen.
Another major factor within RA is the choice/ability to continue or discontinue relationships. And this element (like any other element of skillful RA) requires an ongoing commitment to communication. Checking in about the state of relationships. Choosing to deescalate a relationship for any number of reasons is a fully valid choice, whether due to time constraints, lack of commitment, over commitment, feeling unsafe, feeling codependent, literally anything; though, with the hope that people either won’t oversell an issue or understate it. Literally you’re “not feeling it” can be a valid reason to step back, but also that might be easier to work through than, say, “the way you handle conflict reminds me of ways my parent(s) used to invalidate my experiences of emotional distress before I was able to fully articulate my difficulty, and I can’t continue to relate with you so closely until we have boundaries and agreements in place regarding how you handle conflict.”
I’m guessing you don’t live in the US based on your last statement, and I would hazard a guess that things are indeed pretty different elsewhere, at least in regard to socio-political climate. That doesn’t necessarily invalidate RA as a system, but it likely (and probably greatly) changes the way one or more people may be supported or seen by the society they move through. The US is very patriarchal, but generally women are in less danger here than, for example, Yemen or Saudi Arabia.

Sometimes multiple times in a row.
Sometimes on the same post.

Reading this on the toilet, literally it’s toilet paper

Or, to bring Relational Anarchism to bear, a relationship is an ongoing interaction between people, sometimes even just with one’s own self. Then, having established that a relationship exists, the participants of this relationship may choose to define said relationship using whatever terms and conditions they feel are fitting. And here’s the clincher: nobody outside of the relationship gets to have any say in what ANY aspect of that relationship means. Friendship? That’s literally got “ship” in it, but parenthood? Also a relationship. Professional, personal, inter-personal, monogamous, non-monogamous, poly, aromantic, FWB… All valid terms to use, and not a single one of them can possibly define a relationship by itself.

Feel free to keep your soggy opinion to yourself

OK I’m actually a noob at formatting and i have no idea how i even did that giant text

This is crazy in the context of having just finished the Native Tongue trilogy by Suzette Haden Elgin. Great read or listen, describes the world this person imagines.

Trade =/= capitalism. Capitalism is maximum enrichment for a few at the cost of the many. “Capitalizing on an opportunity” doesn’t usually seem to get interpreted as “get what I need and hopefully what I want in an exchange that is equitable, just, fair, and negotiable to all parties”; instead, the common meaning seems to be “get all that I can as quick as I can in exchange for the least possible expense on my part”, which is not even a full step away from 'The Tragedy of the Commons, ’ or, “if there’s not enough for everyone to have as much as they want or need, then everyone who takes as much as they need is evil, and if someone is going to be evil AND ALSO have enough than that person is damn well going to be me.” THAT’S capitalism.

Such has been the present interpretation of the course of recorded history. Recorded most often by conquerors, looking favorably upon the the ends of their conquest to justify their means, and if you boil just about every single conquering ideology down for long enough, you will see two things, in this order: greed for what the conquered populace had, and fear of not having enough.

That’s not “human nature,” that’s a response to human nature. Most of us would probably generally prefer to go on living. For many people, that looks like “i just need my necessities covered and I’ll figure out the rest.” Historically this happened by banding together and looking out for one another, not by hoarding resources and making people do extra work just to fucking exist with a modicum of comfort in a society forever dangling a golden carrot to keep you distracted from the meat grinder. (Edit for formatting)

Thank you for bringing Rid Kock to my attention.

She’s probably not even married, among others, but is still playing into the prescribed gender role to troll the masc even harder. OR, she is married, but probably her relationship has some elements that are still considered “niche” or “deviant” by society at large. Or, maybe NONE of that is true, either, which is yet another layer relating to assumptions people make based on the behavior and self-expression of others

Damn this comic has L A Y E R S

It is me. I am that pokemon.