Amelia Lichtenberg 5/18/24 Amelia Lichtenberg 5/18/24

Healing Trauma Through Growth-Fostering Relationships

A/N: I found this piece waiting in my drafts from April 2023. I touched it up a bit, but the events which inspired this original piece are now over 1 year old (though I left the recent-past tense in the piece). I may revisit this concept with a reflection piece, as I still see how these general thoughts I had are still so true and relevant to how I experience my current relational landscape, which is much different than the one illustrated below.

Enjoy the read!

Today I realized something important. No matter what partner, my anxieties around deception and abandonment show up at some point. I know these reactions are informed by my trauma history, and while I’ve come a long way in processing these feelings and experiences, there are moments where they still affect me very strongly. I can’t tell if this will ever fully dissipate, but something I noticed is that there are some relationships where this part of myself becomes a source of stress and disconnection, and others where it’s a non-issue and is worked through as quickly as it arises.

I began to wonder, why is this such a big issue with some partners and not with others? I concluded it came down to the dynamic within each individual relationship, and how all parties interact with each other in that space. In writing this article, I came to understand that it is more complicated than simply ‘chemistry.’ Communication compatibility, the structures placed within a relationship, the trauma histories, and how all parties respond to the each other all inform how the trauma-brain parts of myself interface in relationships and what happens when activation occurs.

To understand my experiences better, I decided to examine this recent series of moments from the relational-cultural counseling theory.

Relational-cultural Theory

Relational-cultural theory (RCT) believes that our experiences and identities are shaped by our relationships. Healing occurs when healthy, secure relationships are built, and trauma accumulates when we isolate ourselves from authentic connections. Authenticity is cultivated through affirming experiences in relationships. When we are not accepted in our relationships, we hide our authentic selves.

I recently made the choice to dissolve a cohabiting, core partnership in favor of developing a new structure with this beloved. In rewriting our relationship intentions and readjusting our landscapes to incorporate new partners, I felt my trauma surface in the face of changing dynamics and priorities. When I’ve shared my insecurities in the past, it led to communication breakdown, stress, and distance. Over time, this caused me to feel like there was something wrong with me, and I began to hide parts of my authentic self to maintain peace in our dynamic.

There is a concept in RCT called the central relational paradox which states that chronic disconnection can lead to condemned isolation, or a sense that one isn’t worthy of human connection (Duffey & Somody, 2011). Although people desire authentic connection, trauma causes folks to develop protective habits that further ensure isolation. I did this in my cohabiting relationship by hiding my authentic feelings and withdrawing.

This part of my recent relational history is why I have struggled so much in the last year to write these articles. Finding authentic words felt impossible because I wasn’t embodying them. It is also why I felt a deep sense of dread when my trauma responses began to emerge in a new dynamic.

Response Art: Being Held by My Team (2024)

RCT is a perspective which takes the focus off the individual and puts experiences and behaviors into a broader social context. Reflecting on my recent experiences from this lens, I see why when I shared my feelings with this newer partner, they responded in a way where I felt accepted. I didn’t feel like I was ‘wrong,’ or that my feelings were shameful, and they dissipated as instantly as they arose. Nuances in communication styles and trauma histories made all the difference when engaging in the same conversation with two different partners.

Healing occurs through growth-fostering relationships. Some characteristics of a growth-fostering relationship are:

· Mutuality

· Prioritizing each other’s growth and the relationship

· Authentic communication

· Radical acceptance

· Expansion of thought, feeling, and understanding

Along with complicated trauma histories, there were power differentials in my previous relationship which impeded our ability to achieve mutuality. In my experience, without this sense of mutuality it is impossible to step into a space of expansion, radical acceptance, and authentic communication. This served as a detriment in the vulnerable moments. The effect of these power differentials became apparent after we re-configured our relationship structure and were able to establish mutuality.

Using Relationship Anarchy & ENM to Heal Relational Trauma

We heal through being engaged in authentic relationships. We can build structures to foster these kinds of dynamics by fostering relational resilience, which includes the following shifts:

· Individual ‘control over’ —> supported vulnerability

· One-directional needs for support —> mutual empathetic involvement

· Separate self-esteem —> relational confidence

· ‘Power over’ dynamics —> empowerment through encouragement of mutual growth & constructive conflict

· Finding meaning in self-centered/self-consciousness —> creating meaning in expansive relational awareness (Duffey & Somody, 2011)

I began my journey into ENM and RA with intentions to heal relational trauma from my upbringing and early adult life. By cultivating a lifestyle where my relationship structures are based on intentional, mutual agreements which are subject to change, I have developed a foundation of relational healing to lean on in hard times. The struggles I faced over the last year in my cohabiting relationship stemmed from being unable to fully embody these values in that relationship. When we deconstructed and reconstructed our relationship, we were able to move toward relational resilience practices with each other and maintain a deep closeness in our new relationship.

The relationship with my new beloved has the benefit of the wisdom and experience I gained from my last experience. By weaving in agreements to mitigate the same power differentials that occurred, we are setting a structure that very intentionally fosters mutuality. From this mutuality, we work toward healing each other through compersion and inviting authentic communication. Having similar neurodivergence and communication styles make building and maintaining these structures easier.

I notice this growth-fostering relationship creates a feedback loop in my other relationships. With increased relational confidence built from experiences of security and acceptance, I can interface with other beloveds in a way that embodies radical transparency, radical acceptance, and from a community-based mindset.

My trauma responses still show up in both dynamics from time-to-time, and I imagine they will continue to do so as I heal, but the level to which they are enflamed or diminished, and the impact they have on myself and my connections vary based on the connection and structures in place. There is only so much that ‘compatibility’ can do for a dynamic, and we are all accountable to ourselves to meet others in our lives in a space to co-create growth-fostering relationships.

—Emily Lichtenberg

resources

Duffey, T., & Somody, C. (2011). The role of relational-cultural theory in mental health counseling. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 33(3), 223-242.

Relational-Cultural Theory: Fostering Healthy Coexistence Through a Relational Lens

APA: Relational Cultural Therapy Sample

A Relational-Cultural Framework: Emphasizing Relational Dynamics and Multicultural Skill Development (NBCC)

Amelia Lichtenberg 8/9/21 Amelia Lichtenberg 8/9/21

The Difference Between Boundaries and Rules

Something that comes up in so many discussions I have about Relationship Anarchy is boundaries, rules, and expectations. Honestly, it’s so important that it comes up in any conversation about relationships, regardless of philosophy or style! I find this is especially prevalent in non-monogamous dynamics as there tend to be more navigational requirements around these topics than for monogamous folx.

This week I wanted to dial in and focus on the difference between boundaries and rules. I want to share my definitions of these terms, how I differentiate them from each other, and some areas where I’ve seen these come up in my own relationships and the relationships of those around me.

Please be aware that this is just a reflection of my own experiences, and these definitions and perspectives may not be helpful for everyone. This isn’t a one-size-fits-all kind of thing!

What is a boundary?

The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of a boundary is:

Noun:

Something that indicates or fixes a limit or extent.

So, what does this look like in relationships?

I like to think of boundaries as structures that help a person stay on the right path. If I am a forest and my beloved wants to explore the forest, then they would likely use a pathway. My boundaries would be the areas where the path and the forest floor meet, indicating where is and isn’t appropriate to walk.

It is also up to me to maintain clear pathways within my forest, so that others know where is and isn’t okay to walk.

De-stigmatizing the concept of boundaries

I hear people focusing on the “limit” aspect of a boundary often. I know I have at some point in my journey with boundaries. In this perspective boundaries are viewed more as walls that stop a direction dead in its tracks. In my experiences, this perspective can create a lot of anxiety toward the mere concept of boundaries, let alone expressing them. Often it is through this perspective where boundaries can be mistaken for rules, as it has a more aggressive tone to it. That aggression can cause unnecessary conflict within a conversation or connection.

Instead of perceiving boundaries as a wall which denies access to something or a part of someone, I see boundaries as the barriers which help us find the best path to take. Rather than focusing on the limiting aspect of the boundary, I choose to see boundaries as helpful guardrails guiding me along the path to deeper, more wholesome connections. This perspective shift helps me to de-stigmatize boundaries and unravel the notion that they are synonymous with rules.

How do I know if this a boundary instead of a rule?

A lot of information I’ve seen on the net talks about boundaries as if they are synonymous with rules. I think this is a harmful way to approach boundaries because it can create controlling dynamics in relationship negotiating. This is especially true for non-monogamous relationships, where there is more communication and navigation of peoples’ needs, wants, limits, and edges required.

Something I emphasize heavily in my own relationships is that Radical Transparency around wants, needs, boundaries and expectations is extremely important. This is so that I can make the most informed decision about how best to engage with the other person, and I want to give them the opportunity to do the same. I also emphasize expressing these truths in a way that preserves the other person’s autonomy.

I make my needs clear, but I do not force the other person to help me meet those needs. Instead, I welcome them to support me meeting my needs in whatever ways they authentically can or want to.

So, how we differentiate between boundaries and rules? Here is a list of a few key traits that identify a boundary:

· The boundary/need expressed serves a self-care/self-maintenance function.

· The person who expresses the boundary takes accountability for fulfilling this need.

· The person expressing the boundary does so in a way that invites autonomy support for the recipient but does not force it.

The emphasis is always on one’s own experiences and actions when discussing a boundary. Boundaries typically express something a person needs to navigate a situation or conversation safely and healthily, and clearly identifying and expressing the boundary is a self-care practice on its own.

Rules, on the other hand, place explicit emphasis on what the other must do to resolve the unmet want or need.

Rules in relationships

The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of rule is:

Noun:

1. One of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.

2. Control of or dominion over an area or people.

Verb:

1. Exercise ultimate power or authority over (an area and its people)

2. Pronounce authoritatively and legally to be the case

That’s a mouthful, I know.

Something that sticks out to me about this definition is the emphasis on authoritarian interaction styles. The essence of a rule is that one party is asserting a semblance of control over another. Sometimes this is consensual (agreed-upon rules), and sometimes this is not.

Identifying traits of a rule are:

· An abundance of “you statements.” (Ex: “you must check in with me once every hour when you’re on a date”).

· A threat of punishment for the person who does not adhere to the rule.

· The rule places the responsibility of meeting a want or need on the other person, and not on the person with the want/need.

The key trait that I sit with is that rules force the other party to take accountability for the wellness of the person setting the rule. Unlike boundaries, which serve a purpose of self-maintenance, rules can be set for any number of reasons – both healthy and unhealthy ones.

There are certain times when rules do make sense, though. As I mentioned above, there are times when boundaries can lead to the creation of rules in relationships. I see this often in non-monogamous relationships where children, co-habiting, or shared finances are present. Just as with boundaries, I think that the inherently contractual and authoritarian aspect of rules makes them seem more destructive.

When in a relationship where shared assets or children are involved, rules may need to be set to protect both parties and/or the children from potentially serious consequences of not following said rules. These could be things ranging from spending money in a shared bank account to new beloveds meeting children.

As with anything, the rule itself is not inherently a bad thing. It is how rules are discussed and why they are being implemented.

In my own relationships

I try to keep rules to a minimum in my more intimate relationships. I admit this is easier for me than some others because I am not legally married, co-habiting, or co-parenting with any of my beloveds.

Instead of implementing rules in my relationships, I have standards for Radical Transparency and practices I ask my beloveds to participate in for the sake of navigating mental, emotional, and physical health and wellness. For me, supporting my beloveds’ autonomy is one of the most important parts of relating, and I feel that implementing rules is counterproductive.

When I have created rules in past relationships, it has always boiled down to an attempt to curb an insecurity within myself. As I continue discovering new things about my relating self, I find that I tend to focus more on finding the “edge” of my comfort zone where the rule wants to come from and seeing if I can identify unmet wants or needs to communicate instead. Recognizing that my feelings, wants, and needs are my own responsibility encourages me to communicate these things to beloveds in a nonviolent way.

I use Nonviolent Communication (NVC) as a nice framework for inner dialogue about my edges and how those translate into boundaries in relationships. You can use my Finding Your Edges guided meditation as a framework for this reflective process.

— written by Amelia Lichtenberg

Extra Resources:

Multiamory: The Basics of Boundaries (podcast)

Center for Nonviolent Communication

Positive Psychology: How to Set Boundaries: 10 Examples + PDF Worksheets (article)

Polyamory Today: Boundaries vs. Rules: What’s the Difference? (article)

Amelia Lichtenberg 7/12/21 Amelia Lichtenberg 7/12/21

Compersion as a Practice

Compersion is a huge topic amidst Ethically Non-Monogamous (ENM) and polyamorous communities. I often see this referred to as “the opposite of jealousy,” and I notice that many people I talk to in ENM relationship structures aspire to cultivate this response to a potentially activating situation such as a beloved announcing a new potential love interest. In some of these conversations I notice that people believe one is either oriented toward compersion, or oriented toward jealousy. This can create a breeding ground for a lot of self and/or partner shaming, and the difficulties one can face in the process of learning to practice compersion can turn some people away from ENM altogether.

All resources and studies referred to in this piece are located at the bottom of the page!

Due to my deep desire to enjoy my personal emotional landscape, to understand why I struggle in the areas I do, and to attempt to uncover the mysteries of my own struggles with jealousy and compersion, I began diving into my own research and self-exploration of this topic. I studied the Evolutionary Psychology (EP) definition of jealousy, and I researched the proposed functions of jealousy based on EP studies conducted over the last several decades. I explored how Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Complex-Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (C-PTSD) intersect the EP perspectives I read. I recognized that compersion was not necessarily difficult for me, but that the initial mixture of fear, anxiety, and “preparation for loss,” that I labeled as “jealousy,” was actually related to my post-trauma responses and was a symptom and expression of my own C-PTSD.

This revelation allowed me to view compersion with a wider lens. I do not believe that compersion is an “either/or” orientation with jealousy on the other side, but rather that compersion is an ongoing practice which can both assist in navigating alternative relationship structures and perspectives and help a person navigate their own inner/trauma healing journey.

So, how does one get from jealousy-flaring, deep trauma response patterns to joyfully compersionate? Well, there is not one set path, nor is there a “finish line,” to inner-growth and -healing, but there is a formula I found to be helpful along the way. First, it starts with understanding jealousy and a specific trauma response called Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria (RSD), and how they interact. Only after we can understand or identify what we want to heal can we begin the mending process. That is where coming to view compersion as a practice instead of an emotional orientation becomes imperative.

The Evolutionary Functions of Jealousy:

During my reading I learned that jealousy serves as a survival emotion to maintain security within our important relationships. There is a distinct difference between jealousy and envy: envy tends to motivate a person toward acquiring what they are envious of for themselves. An example of this in a non-monogamous relationship could be:

Your beloved tells you about the amazing time they had with their new love interest. You are envious that they are enjoying their new relationship because you also want a fun, new romance. The emotional response to this conversation inspires you to refine your dating app profiles and spend more time looking for a new lover for yourself.

The focus here is on that which is perceived to be lacking. With jealousy, however, the focus tends to be on the perception of access to a person, object, or idea (such as a relationship dynamic), and the response tends toward taking what is desired away from something or someone else. An example of this in a non-monogamous relationship could be:

Your beloved tells you about the amazing time they had with their new love interest. You are jealous because you believe they are more interested in the new relationship than in yours. The emotional response to this conversation inspires you to change your behavior, change the relationship “rules,” or act in a way which pushes or manipulates your beloved to re-emphasizing your relationship.

See the difference?

I believe that what separates those who seem to be naturally inclined toward compersion from those of us who suffer from the visceral pangs of jealousy comes from a mindset difference, meaning that those who are naturally inclined toward compersion naturally have a different way of integrating the physiological trigger into how they respond.

Using Jealousy Triggers in a Healthy Way

While jealousy can be an undesired feeling, there is a healthy way to use and navigate through jealousy! I find it helpful to remember that our emotions can be used as tools to gain deeper insight into what is going on within us and within our existing relationships. Monitoring one’s jealousy triggers and reactions can be used to gauge unmet needs in oneself and one’s relationship dynamics. When these unmet needs are recognized they can be transparently communicated to a beloved.

In my experience, jealousy tends toward hardship when these unmet needs go unrecognized and uncommunicated. As with the example above, it seems the jealous party in this dynamic has an unmet need for connection or a specific type of affection. They choose to operate out of the survival instinct to “grab on” in a way which they believe will allow their need to become fulfilled. This choice can create resentment and lead to more distance in the relationship, whereas transparently communicating something along the lines of: “I feel like I am missing [unmet need], and I would like to know if we can talk about this,” allows the other person room into the conversation so that both parties can work together to meet each others’ needs in an authentic way.

A great communication structure that can help facilitate these kinds of hard conversations is Nonviolent Communication (NVC).

While Radical Transparency is a simple practice, that does not mean it is inherently easy for everyone. In a world where more people are removed from in-person social interactions, people struggle to learn and cultivate healthy communication practices. This becomes more salient when amplified feelings and survival responses are activated.

Detangling Jealousy from a Trauma-Informed Lens

Consider your own psychosomatic experiences of jealousy. For me, my chest tightens, my heartbeat elevates, my breathing becomes labored. These are all symptoms of my fight/flight/freeze response as well. My physical responses to shifts in social dynamics with beloveds can actually induce a panic attack-like state in me.

Due to my own history of social-based C-PTSD and through my own inner work both as a psychology student and in my personal therapy practice, I learned that I suffer from a condition called Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria (RSD) and that this distorts how I view certain moments in my relationships with others. Essentially, this means that I am hyper-sensitive to potential rejection triggers from people around me, and I often times misperceive shifts in my relationship landscapes as rejection.

In my experience, RSD presents itself as a survival strategy which emerges specifically in response due to trauma inflicted by others. I believe that often times emotional responses which are perceived as jealousy are actually moments of RSD activation. I genuinely want my beloveds to feel supported in their explorations of other connections, but I also want to make sure that I will not be abandoned in the process.

This fear and anticipation of abandonment is where my own C-PTSD and RSD intersect.

Using Compersion as a Framework for Self-Regulation

For me, RSD is prevalent in my non-monogamous relationships because of the continued potential rejection triggers that my beloved’s other beloveds can present for me. I notice this tends to be an especially sensitive area within non-hierarchical philosophies like Relationship Anarchy (RA) because of the emphasis on personal freedom, flexible arrangements, and the acknowledgement that change is inevitable.

For me the anxiety and fear of rejection and abandonment stems from a difficulty to navigate these types of changes rather than because of a desire for “exclusivity” or hierarchy with another. I firmly believe in and live by the principles of RA, however, I also recognize that the abuse and maltreatment I have experienced in the past shapes my present-day filters.

A large reason why I practice RA, and why I believe it to be beneficial for people with RSD and other psychosocial trauma filters, is that I am regularly confronted with these fears and triggers. Each time I am faced with a shift in my relationships is an opportunity for me to see where I am in my own healing process, where I need to focus my attention, and also I am able to see how my beloveds continue to show up for me in my process (this informs my own choices in moving forward with various connections).

While straightforward “exposure therapy” does not work for every person, I find that confronting my deepest fears head on helps me see the reality of their size in contrast to how big and scary they seem in my anxiety-ridden fantasies.

Experiencing RSD activation in the face of changing relationship dynamics or introductions of new metamours does not mean a person is inherently oriented toward jealousy, that they are “bad at compersion,” or that they lack the ability to be compersionate. It means that the activated person may have experienced social-based trauma and need trauma-informed navigation for these kinds of adjustments. A little extra practice in Radical Transparency can go a long way in these moments!

When I face these fears and triggers I use these as opportunities to refine my own compersion practice. This does not mean I force myself to feel or react a certain way. Rather than perceiving a trigger as something to avoid, I choose to view these moments as opportunities for deeper self-exploration. I use the idea of compersion as my framework for how I want to guide my self-growth within a moment of activation. I want to be excited for my beloved, I want to celebrate and support shared freedom and autonomy. When I feel out of alignment with my compersion framework, I take the opportunity to lean in with curiosity. It is through these instances that I am able to continuously gauge and assess where I am at in my self-regulation, how I am really doing in my trauma healing process, and discover areas within myself that still need attention and care.

For me, compersion is akin to an aspect of the Buddha-nature: all-loving, and all-accepting. Similarly to the Buddha-nature, compersion is not something I can maintain all the time. Rather than give up or claim that I am “just not wired that way,” I work to remember what being in compersion feels like, and bring myself back to that space with as much patience, grace, and self-compassion as I can.

It is the combination of my intrinsic choice to engage in a growth mindset around my personal healing and the cultivation of safe, trusting, and respectful relationships with beloveds and friends who freely choose to support my process that allows me to participate in RA in this way, and use various moments of change to explore, detangle. and integrate the sources of my own activated responses.

Check out my Guided Meditation for Contacting the Wounded Inner Child to help build healthy inner curiosity & dialogue.

I deeply wish to give those I care for the same liberation which I ask them for, and sometimes my own struggles with RSD present challenges to this genuine desire. I believe many people who suffer from RSD struggle with this same cognitive dissonance, which can become increasingly more difficult if a person is also faced with detangling societal expectations— such as mono-normative relationship structures. There can be so much shame around struggling with non-monogamous relationship structures for many reasons, and especially for people with trauma this sense of shame around intricate navigation can be very tender.

If you, the reader, are someone who struggles with RSD:

A helpful practice can be to name this to your beloved. Often times naming a feeling or experience diffuses its intensity. This can open a doorway to deeper intimacy and trust-building with your beloved, which can result in more compassionate connection and fortifying the healing aspects of your relationship container. Remember that you did not ask to experience RSD, and that your trauma and trauma responses are not your fault. They are, however, your responsibility to work through.

Remember that your beloveds are freely choosing to connect with you because they love and care for you, and they likely want to participate in supporting you along your healing journey however best they can. Radically transparent communication is imperative in times like these, from both ends. You can practice NVC as a structure to use when expressing wants and needs amidst an activated state.

If you, the reader, are someone whose beloved struggles with RSD:

I encourage you to read more about RSD (resources are at the bottom of this article) and become trauma-informed in your speech. Do not pathologize your beloved; educate yourself so that you can deepen your own compassionate communication with them. Trauma survivors struggle to remain balanced when activated, and the non-judgmental help of our beloveds can ease these moments of re-triggering.

Often the most important thing a beloved can do is be patient and accepting of whatever is coming up for the activated individual, not take the response personally, and not make assumptions about the individual’s ideologies or psycho-emotional capacities based on the moment of response. NVC is a great communication tool to use when attempting to communicate authentically with someone who is trauma-activated or when they have come back to a balanced state.

For me, compersion is akin to the proverbial “light at the end of the tunnel.” It’s the ideal which I strive for, and it’s the conclusion I wish all my interactions to end with. Having this goal in mind helps me take steps towards cultivating a deeper practice and greater capacity for its presence, even when I find myself struggling to engage with compersion in a particular moment.

- written by Emily Lichtenberg

Resource List:

The Center for Nonviolent Communication (NVC)

Brain Pickings: Fixed vs. Growth Mindset

Psychology Today: What is Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria?

Psychology Today: How RSD Derails Relationships

WebMD: What is Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria?

Love is the Action: A Guide to Trauma-Informed Language

Tara Brach: The Power of Radical Acceptance: Healing Trauma Through the Integration of Buddhist Meditation and Psychotherapy

Psychology Today: Cultivating Compersion: The Magic of Feeling Joy for Others

Curious Fox: Compersion is a Choice

Jose C. Yong, Norman P. Li: The Adaptive Functions of Jealousy (from “The Function of Emotions”)

Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, Baland Jalal: The Evolutionary Psychology of Envy and Jealousy

Amelia Lichtenberg 6/16/21 Amelia Lichtenberg 6/16/21

A Beginner's Guide to Non-Monogamy Abbreviations and Terms

Here is a guide to the many abbreviations and terms that are often found in non-monogamous and polyamorous communities. Many terms in other articles will be hyperlinked here!

Please note that many of these terms are subjective to each person and that these are only my versions of these definitions. You are free (and encouraged) to make your own conclusions on what these terms mean for you, however this list will help you navigate my content!

Here is a guide to the many abbreviations and terms that are often found in non-monogamous and polyamorous communities. Many terms in other articles will be hyperlinked here!

Ambiamorous: A person who enjoys both monogamous and polyamorous relationship structures.

A person who identifies as ambiamorous may flow between monogamous and non-monogamous relationship structures. This can happen within the same relationship, if both parties are consenting, or may change depending on relationship dyanmics that evolve over time. Generally, a person who is ambiamorous has little to no preference between relationship structures, and they may express feelings for only one partner or many partners at the same time.

Anchor Partner (AP): A common term used to describe a “dominant” relationship in a non-hierarchical way.

For some, a “dominant” partner does not indicate “primary.” The reason for preference or level of closeness to this person can vary. Instead of utilizing hierarchical terminology like “Primary Partner” (see below), this term indicates imagery of a grounding anchor. The person or relationship is a stable and grounding force for the individual, but does not have greater value than other relationships because of this.

Consensual Non-Monogamy (CNM): A relationship style which is characterized by the explicit focus on making sure all participating parties are informed and consenting.

Compersion: The experiencing of feeling joy for and supporting the joy of a loved one regardless of our direct involvement in that joy.

In non-monogamous communities this is often discussed as the ideal reaction to a partner’s new partner or potential new partner. Many people practice compersion in their close platonic friendships, though. If you, the reader, take a moment here to reflect on how you react when a close friend shares exciting news that is unrelated to you or your relationship with them. Are you gravitated toward feeling joy for them? If so, then you’re practicing compersion.

Core Partner: (Also see “Anchor Partner”). A non-hierarchical term for a nesting (cohabiting) or life partner.

Some individuals choose to retain a non-hierarchical perspective of their relationships, even when there is enmeshment such as cohabitation or sharing finances. This term can be used for those who adopt the “Relationship Landscape” (see below) perspective of relating. We are our own core, and all our other relationships spiral outward from that core. Sometimes there is someone(s) who are so close to us in our landscape, that their core overlaps with ours. They still have their own spiral(s), but the likelihood of intersection is much greater. This term is similar to Anchor Partner, but provides option for different imagery.

Couple’s Privilege: refers to the advantages that an established couple has within relationsihp dynamics, especially when a new person is introduced to the relationship.

Often discussed and experienced when a new person is introduced to a relationship, whether they are dating one or both members of the existing coupledom. Couple’s privilege tends to be implicit - meaning it is often subconscious and automatic, and it is often normalized. This behavior is often discussed in unicorn hunting or hierarchical relationship dynamics.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT): a practice where partners agree not to ask each other about other partners or share details about their other relationships

Often a feature in parallel poly and more “restrictive” types of non-monogamy (monogamish, swinging, etc.), partners agree not to ask about or share details regarding their other relationships with each other. Details for the DADT agreement are typically discussed at or near the beginning of a relationship.

Ethical Non-Monogamy (ENM): See Consensual Non-Monogamy (above)

Some people prefer to identify with CNM while others prefer ENM. The differences between the two are relatively slim, however not everyone sees them as completely interchangeable. The main difference is the emphasis on the word “consent,” which may differ from “ethical” to a person.

Kitchen Table Poly (KTP): a style of polyamory where ideally everyone and everyone’s partners can peacefully and pleasantly gather around a kitchen table for a cup of tea together

KTP can be considered a more “communal” style of polyamory/non-monogamy, where all involved are part of a community, or at least are welcomed to spend time with one another. Friendships and personal relationships among metas are encouraged by their shared beloved(s). KTP is often thought to be the opposite of “parallel poly.”

Metamour: My beloved’s other partner/beloved(s)

Also referred to as “meta(s).”

Mono-normative/Mono-typical: The “traditional” (cishet) monogamous relationship structure and narrative, including the “Relationship Escalator” (below) and the concept of “sexual ownership.”

Mono-normative is a term used to describe the traditional monogamous relationship structure. Often in ENM there comes the topic of “unlearning.” This usually refers to a person’s process of unlearning the ideals and expectations taught in mono-normative relationship culture as they begin to explore ENM or polyamory. A large part of the unlearning process tends to be focused around the concept of “sexual ownership,” which indicates: “if I am in a sexual relationship with someone, then I have priority and claim over that person in this and other areas of their life.”

Note: This is characteristic of mono-normative beliefs, and not all-encompassing for monogamous people.

NRE (New Relationship Energy): a phenomenon common at the beginning of a new relationship marked by deep infatuation and borderline obsession with a person.

NRE is a term used in the ENM/CNM community to describe the near obsession-like infatuation that can be characteristic of a new relationship. Some people seek NRE in their connections while others avoid it. Often this is discussed in non-monogamous dynamics when there is a long-term dyad and one person makes a new connection outside of the relationship. NRE can affect the person to spend less time with their existing partners or create an idealized fantasy about the new person, and is often a time when a person unafflicted by NRE can practice compersion for their beloved.

Nesting Partner (NP): A live-in partner

This is not always inherently synonymous with primary partner, but often can be. This term solely refers to a beloved with whom a person cohabitates.

Parallel Poly(amory): a style of polyamory where one person’s partners do not meet or interact with each other. The “metas” are considered to run parallel tracks to each other.

Often thought of as the opposite of “KTP,” parallel polyamory tends to discourage metas cultivating or maintaining relationships with each other. People who are partial to parallel poly may prefer to also practice “don’t ask, don’t tell (DADT)” with their partner(s).

Polyamory: A facet of ENM/CNM which consists of an individual or group consistently and actively participating in multiple relationships at one time.

This particular definition is widely subjective and will be different for everyone. My distinction between polyamory and ENM/CNM is that the former focuses on actively pursuing multiple relationships consistently, while ENM/CNM is the umbrella-term for all ethical and consenting non-monogamous relationship structures. An example of this difference is that a person who identifies as ENM may be actively seeing one beloved for an extended period of time with no desire or need to “search” for other connections but is still non-monogamous; a person identifying as polyamorous may have one consistent beloved (a primary or an NP, for example), but tends to actively seek other connections in addition to the existing one.

Polycule: A term used for a group of 3 or more people who are in relationship with each other.

Polyfidelity: a type of relationship where 3 or more people agree to date exclusively within the specific relationship container.

Polyfidelity can be considered the “closed” version of a non-monogamous relationship. A polycule of 3 or more people are agreeing to only engage in romantic or sexual intimacy with others in the polycule. Dating outside of the agreed group is considered a breech of this agreement.

Primary (Partner): the relationship with highest “priority” or longevity in a hierarchical polyamorous dynamic.

Primary partners are typically a person’s longest-lasting dyad relationship within a polyamorous dynamic and is the person who takes “primary” priority in a polyamorous hierarchy. This “rank” could be for a number of different practice, emotional, spiritual or cultural purposes. Often times a primary is someone whose live is deeply intertwined with a person (perhaps they live together, share finances, or co-parent) and thus requires more relational navigation than other relationships. This does not mean a person loves their non-primary partners any more or less.

Solo Polyamory (Solo Poly/SoPo): a branch of polyamory where a person has a lack of desire to intertwine/merge with a beloved and typically have no “primary” partner .

“I am my own primary partner” is another way to phrase the SoPo perspective. Often people who identify as Solo Poly do not wish to live with or share finances with a beloved and are perceived as fiercely independent.

Radical Transparency: the practice of being totally and fully honest with the people in one’s life.

What makes transparency radial? A conviction toward always living in a space of total and complete honesty with oneself and one’s beloveds. Rather than picking-and-choosing information to share, Radical Transparency invites a person to share their full authentic self. Sounds daunting? Try being fully present with a friend, and share openly whatever you’re experiencing in that particular moment. That’s Radical Transparency! (Now, try it in your partnerships!)

Relationship Anarchy (RA): A relating philosophy which focuses on building relationships through shared agreements and authentic co-willing.

See my “What is RA?” page for more!

Relationship Escalator: The concept of building a relationship “upwards” toward certain goals such as co-habitation, marriage, procreation.

Often tied with mono-normative (above) ideals, the Relationship Escalator refers to the process of building a relationship upwards with different “steps.” In traditional, mono-normative culture this may look like: dating first, then dating “exclusively,” then co-habitation and/or joint investment (house, RV, etc.), then engagement & marriage, then procreation. Following the Relationship Escalator is not mutually-exclusive with monogamy (and many ENM or poly people practice/desire a Relationship Escalator partnership), and it is not inherently a good or bad process but rather is a personal choice to each individual.

Relationship Landscape: The concept of all relationships contributing to a person’s vast “landscape.” Thought to be the opposite of the “Relationship Escalator.”

In the Relationship Landscape there is no higher and lower and there are no goal-oriented “steps” to take. This perspective offers a more flexible approach to relationship exploration and the directions of a relationship or series of relationships can vary.

Unicorn Hunting: when a male/female couple seeks a third for their relationship.

Often, the “unicorn” is a femme person. Unicorn hunting is often seen as unethical by many in the non-monogamous community because of the use of couple’s privilege and often exploits the bi- or pansexuality of the third.

Unlearning: A process in transitioning to a non-monogamous lifestyle where a person detangles implicit mono-typical/mono-normative ideas and beliefs around relationships.

There is a phase when adjusting to a non-monogamous lifestyle where a person will likely have to re-examine their implicit biases and beliefs about relationships and relationship structures. This phrase is used to depict the destruction of ownership-based ideologies, the Relationship Escalator, and other mono-typical beliefs as new ideals are integrated into a person’s relational lifestyle changes.

Veto Power: used by couples in primary partnerships. This is when a partner is allowed to forbid or block the other person from a particular connection.

The ethics of veto power are debatable. This falls into the couple’s privilege category because a partner is able to determine the fate of the other’s relationsihp with outside connections. This dynamic is typically only used in primary relationships in a hierarchical polyamorous setting.

This guide is actively updated with new terms and refined definitions. If you do not find a term on here, please send me an email and I will add it to the list!!