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 4/29/22 Amelia Lichtenberg 4/29/22

Re-learning Trust as Someone With C-PTSD

Trigger Warning: Discussing C-PTSD & trauma triggers from a firsthand perspective.

Trust is such an important facet of any healthy relationship – especially in relationships that practice Ethical Non-Monogamy (ENM). As I further my own practice in cultivating long-term partnerships while simultaneously retaining Relationship Anarchy ideals, I regularly come back to the concept of trust and how it fits in to various aspects of authentic relating.

Trigger Warning: Discussing C-PTSD & trauma triggers from a firsthand perspective.

I find one of the hardest parts about building and maintaining healthy, lasting relationships is my hypervigilance around betrayal. Throughout my life I experienced “betrayal trauma,” which is specific trauma that is caused by another person, typically by someone we are close to. For me, it was a combination of growing up learning that trusting others was dangerous, and experiences in adulthood I had with deception and betrayal in close, intimate relationships.

These past traumas find their way into my system at various moments in my core partnership, sometimes triggered by an external circumstance, but often they show up unannounced, unwelcomed, and without context.

For me, this makes it hard to uphold the Relationship Anarchy Manifesto’s principle: “Trust is Better.”

What is Trust?

I decided to research how trauma affects one’s ability to trust, and provide strategies for navigating healing from relational trauma, learning to trust again, and re-building skills to branch trust outward.

I started by examining the definition of “trust,” and looked at some studies that focused on the relationship between one’s level of betrayal trauma and one’s ability to trust.

According to the American Psychological Association (APA), trust can be defined as:

“(n) reliance on or confidence in the dependability of someone or something.”

APA defines trust further in a relational context as:

“…the confidence that a person or group of people has in the reliability of another person or group; specifically, it is the degree to which each party feels they can depend on the other party to do what they say they will do...”

I find it important to acknowledge that by this definition, trust does not refer to a person’s inherent goodness, but refers to the consistency of a person’s behavior patterns. For me, taking ethics out of the equation and focusing on behavior helps me navigate my own patterns and issues with trusting without a lot of self-judgment.

When Trust is Damaged

In a 2013 study at the University of Oregon, Gobin & Freyd examined how betrayal trauma might impact a person’s ability to trust in a “Trust Game” environment. In the Trust Game, participants were asked to transfer money to another person, in exchange for getting the same amount of money back. The recipient was actually a computer system which was programmed to return $1 regardless of the amount received. The study used self-report survey measures to gauge the participants’ general and relational trust, and the Trust Game task measured differences in choices between those with and without betrayal trauma.

The study found that the more severe the betrayal trauma was, the less likely a person was to report high measures of general or relational trust. The researchers were surprised to find that participants with high betrayal trauma were no less likely to participate in the Trust Game than the participants with low betrayal trauma.

Another 2018 study examined the relationship between trust and participants with PTSD, using a similar “Trust Game” set up. In this study, Bell et al. noticed that the participants who suffered from PTSD made lower-risk choices than the control group, but still made effort to participate, nonetheless.

These studies reflect aspects of my own experience as a person living with C-PTSD. I struggle to trust deeply, but my desire to try and build trust is also strong.

PTSD and Interpersonal Trauma

Betrayal Trauma Theory (BTT), first coined by Jennifer Freyd in 1994, states that those who suffer from betrayal trauma are likely to dissociate from the trauma in order to preserve the relationship, usually for survival purposes. When betrayal trauma happens in childhood, usually with a caregiver, this dissociation is likely to affect adulthood relationship choices. Those with more severe childhood betrayal trauma are more likely to struggle with recognizing trustworthiness or -unworthiness in others. This causes the survivor to experience more trauma in adulthood.

As someone who lives with C-PTSD, trust is one of the hardest things for me to navigate. In earlier years, I struggled with trusting the right people. My sense of “safe” and “unsafe” were so skewed by years of adapting to dangerous environments that I continued choosing friends and partners who reflected this instability. This only led to more traumatic experiences.

When I finally decided to take my healing seriously, I allowed myself to recognize that I could not trust myself when it came to knowing who was healthy or not. I dedicated time to reflect on past friendships and relationships to find threads and signals I could have recognized earlier in getting to know them. I started paying attention to how my body reacted around certain cues and situations.

I came to the revelation that more times than not, my body knew the right choice about someone right away. It was my mind that stopped trusting my intuition. When I started intentionally listening to my gut reactions, I noticed that I started making better choices in friends and beloveds. Seeing this change in my community inspired me to feel safe enough to begin exploring deeper levels of trust with others again.

Rebuilding Trust

After “recalibrating my sensors,” I began developing loving, healthy relationships with trustworthy people. During this time, I discovered Relationship Anarchy and began internalizing it as a core part of my relating philosophy.

I started this practice with a Solo-Poly structure because I needed to focus on myself as “primary.” Even though I am now cohabiting with a partner, I still believe that I am my own first priority. Taking on this perspective, and living alone at the time, helped me learn how to trust and confide in myself, first.

This went well for a while, and I felt strong and secure in my ability to trust and love until I began cohabiting with my core partner. For me, cohabitation is a huge source of trauma triggers as my most traumatic events happened with people I lived with.

Although my core partner is an amazing and trustworthy person, my nervous system activated at the slightest things. This is one reason we have taken a “time out” on outer relationships, to stabilize and ground together without extra distraction or activation.

This experience is teaching me that trust has many layers. I can completely trust my partner to be transparent with me, to treat me with respect and love, however, I still struggle to fully trust that my home is stable and safe, now that I’m not in full control of that environment.

So, this is where my next area of trust focus is. Again, I am starting with myself – feeling safe in my space within the home, feeling safe within myself in our shared spaces, and feeling that this is *my* home, too. Only after fortifying myself, do I then lean into trust exercises about my partner.

Helpful Strategies to Re-learn Trust

Something I’m learning as I continue to deepen with my core partner is that rebuilding trust skills takes a lot of time and work. I must teach my nerves that I’m safe in my new home. Safety outside of aloneness is an unfamiliar sensation for me, so it takes constant reminding for myself, a lot of transparency, and co-regulation with my core partner.

Rebuilding trust after betrayal trauma requires community and safe space. Here is a list of things that help me during this process:

Guided Meditation – Tara Brach
Taking time to learn someone’s patterns (instead of decided to fully give or deny trust immediately)
Learning how to recognize and trust my intuition (for me, it’s a body feeling)
Learning how to reflect on where I have been right and wrong in trust-giving in the past WITHOUT JUDGMENT
Healthy co-regulation with my core partner and/or trusted friends/beloveds
Safe space to be transparent about feelings that are coming up for me in a moment
- Ex: my bedroom is a safe space
Seeing a therapist who specializes in PTSD/C-PTSD treatment
- For me, EMDR therapy specifically
“Quieting” the environment by taking away extra factors that cause triggering
- Listening to a 24/7 Meditation Music channel in the background can also help
Developing solo rituals that I enjoy to calm my nerves
- Ex: taking a bath, drinking tea & reading a good book, etc.
Allowing my process to take its time (not rushing things)

Healthy co-regulation with my core partner or trusted friends helps me learn skills to internalize into self-regulation during moments of activation. Sometimes I find it helpful to think of myself as a friend or client that I’m giving advice to.

Hopefully some of these strategies and insights are helpful for you, or someone you love. Sending wishes to you all!

— written by Amelia Lichtenberg

Helpful Resources:

Relationship Anarchy Manifesto - Andie Nordgren

Betrayal Trauma Overview (wikipedia)

When Trust is Lost: The Impact of Interpersonal Trauma on Social Interactions

The Impact of Betrayal Trauma on the Tendency to Trust

Guided Meditations by Tara Brach

What is EMDR?

7 Ways to Help Regulate Your Nervous System When You are Stressed

24/7 Relaxing Music for Sleep, Mediation, etc.

Amelia Lichtenberg 4/8/22 Amelia Lichtenberg 4/8/22

Coming Back to Oneness

CW: C-PTSD mentioned

I had to take time away from non-monogamy in my relationship because my nervous system exploded. It was painful and threw me way off balance, but what was and is even harder for me is the identity crisis that went along with it. I allowed my ego to get attached to the identity of “spokesperson for Ethical Non-Monogamy,” or, as my core partner teasingly calls me, the “Non-Monogamy Expert,” but here I was, triggers flying everywhere, expressing jealousy and insecurity to the point where my core partner asked for us to be monogamous for the time being. It is embarrassing, and it has been hard for me to get back to writing on here because of this cognitive dissonance.

A Reflection on the Importance of the Relationship with Oneself

CW: Mentions of C-PTSD

Related and referenced resources are listed at the bottom of this page!

The last time I wrote an article on here I was just meeting my core partner, and thus I was still operating from a vastly different relational framework than I am today. I thought that I was past a lot of my triggers around possession, codependence and jealousy. Before I began building my partnership this was true, but only as far as I could interface with them in the Solo-Polyamorous (SoPo) framework I was operating from. For me, the vulnerability that comes with cohabitation is a very sensitive area where a lot of my trauma and triggers reside. As I grew into a partnership dynamic with my beloved, and as we grew closer and took steps toward cohabiting I noticed a lot of unresolved trauma and fears began to resurface.

The combination of moving into my partner’s house and him starting to explore a new connection for the first time in our relationship triggered powerful C-PTSD flashbacks and intense trauma responses. Despite obvious signs that my nervous system was on overdrive, I tried to push through and be supportive of his exploration. I wanted to be supportive of his exploration. I also felt that I had to be better than my triggers for anything I say on my platforms to be authentic or meaningful. The self-imposed pressure from this fed into my patterns of shaming and cruel self-speak over whether I was actually “good at non-monogamy,” and I questioned my genuine capacity for compersion. I wondered if the rigid morals of my Catholic upbringing were just too strong to unravel, and if this meant I had to rethink how I presented myself to the world.

Instead of taking time and space to hold myself with compassion during these intense shifts, I ended up hurting myself and the dynamics in my relationships because of my pride. Even when things finally settled down and we mutually decided to take a break from our other connections to focus on settling in together, I disregarded the opportunity to pause and reflect with curiosity and compassion. I began obsessing about making sure I would be ready quickly to go back to our non-monogamous dynamics, so that the next time my partner and his lover were together I could show everyone that I really could be compersionate. I had something to prove, and I had to prove it as soon as possible. This only led to more tension betwith my core partner and less inclination to get back to relating in a non-monogamous framework.

Eventually I hit a breaking point which forced me to finally take a step back from obsessing about how others viewed my relationships and identity. I started to see how I was relating with myself, instead. When I spoke with another beloved about the shifts happening in my core relationship, he calmly told me “nothing would make me happier than to see you take some time for yourself, so that you can reflect on the ways you want to relate with yourself first and foremost.” This struck me.

I began to dive deep into finding ways to rebuild my own sense of a secure self. I recognized that regardless of how many acts and declarations of love, care, and devotion my partner gave me, it is nearly impossible for me to wholeheartedly receive them if I am insecure in my relationship to myself. Amidst the embarrassment and obsessive thoughts, I found it incredibly difficult to remain still and content. I noticed my mind trying to force myself into being ready to try again. Unfortunately, this pushing backfired because my nervous system wasn’t ready yet. I find myself feeling so uncomfortable at the idea of being monogamous after spending so much time discussing RA in a non-monogamous setting, but I ultimately must recognize where my own limitations are now. After all, I’m only human, and that’s okay.

I read on Marie Thouin’s blog that compersion is difficult to cultivate when a person feels deeply insecure in themself or their relationship dynamics, when their mind or body aren’t well taken care of, and during stressful times. Moving in with my partner ignited my C-PTSD triggers around abandonment and home security, and I recognize that I was in full-on flashback mode throughout those initial weeks of the transition. Alongside stress around upcoming my grad school interview, and issues with work, it’s no wonder why I struggled to feel compersion or security in the newly evolving dynamics.

When I began allowing myself to accept where I was at in my process and remind myself that there’s no shame in my trauma history, I noticed that out of everyone involved in the situation I was the only one holding onto it. I was the only one deeming myself incapable of cohabiting and non-monogamy. Changing my focus to how I’m showing up for myself opened me up to see how overstimulated I was. I started to slow down, take time to rest, and lean into the monogamous “settling-in” period my partner requested. I began to uncover roots of where the shame around my identity confusion arose, and I started diving deeper into my EMDR treatment for my C-PTSD, rather than spend my therapy sessions crisis managing each triggering moment in my relationship.

Slowing down helped me realize that unless I can take care of myself and treat myself with kindness and care, it’s impossible for me to show up in any of my relationships (regardless of structure) the way I want to. As I write this reflection, there is still a part of me that is antsy to get back to non-monogamous relating, but slowly it’s becoming about my genuine excitement and passion for connection again, rather than my perfectionist obsessions. There is also a larger part of me that is grateful for this “settling in” time with my core, because my nervous system is still fragile and healing. I am beginning to recognize when I’m more likely to be activated, take appropriate steps to navigate those moments, and I’m learning new strategies to cope with the somatic responses each time.

Right now, the goal for me is to focus on the quality of my relationships regardless of their structure and to let go of positive/negative associates with monogamy and non-monogamy, respectively. I believe that until I truly let go of my attachments to either identity, I will find myself in this same struggle at some point again. The most important thing I’ve come to realize during this time is that regardless of what relationship style I’m actively engaged in I can still share my message about conscious relating and loving openly, the “pillars” of Relationship Anarchy", recognizing that it all starts with our relationship within.

— Written by Amelia Lichtenberg

Helpful/Related Resources:

Amelia Lichtenberg 7/26/21 Amelia Lichtenberg 7/26/21

An Introduction to Radical Transparency

RT is a dedicated practice where we allow those in connection with us more insight into our present moment experience. This can mean a beloved, friend, or family member. This can also mean a business colleague or a stranger we have a momentary interaction with. Most importantly, this also means connection with oneself.

For me Radical Transparency (RT) is a core value. It’s so important that I have it as a key facet in my definition of Relationship Anarchy, and it is one of the first things I address with my clients.

When I talk about Radical Transparency I am typically faced with a few prominent questions, mainly:

· What is the difference between RT and just being transparent?

· Doesn’t RT lead to over-sharing? How do you maintain boundaries at the same time?

· What’s the point if no one else is being radically transparent with me, but I am with them?

· Being honest about something ended up with me being hurt in the end, why would I do that again?

All of these are important questions, and this week’s writing addresses all these points.

What is Radical Transparency?

Radical Transparency refers to the practice of openly sharing what is alive for us within any given moment. This practice allows us and our beloveds to know where our/their intentions are and helps foster deeper levels of understanding. - Emily’s definition

What makes this practice radical as opposed to just “being transparent” is that there is a constant engagement with the act of transparency. It’s not just about being honest but about being honest with intention.

For me, practicing RT is a conscious choice. While I tend to be a rather transparent person by nature, I still have moments where my instinct is to hide a facet of my present experience from whomever I am engaging with. This may be hiding a moment of depression from a beloved or being quiet about a personal struggle during a client’s session. Sometimes there is a valid reason for withholding sharing with another, however, I find that how I’m addressing the experience within myself is where the difference really lies.

I understand the idea of “being transparent” as typically referring to how one interacts with the external world, meaning that being transparent refers to how we interact with others. RT, however, emphasizes transparency in all connections in all moments – that means in moments within ourselves as well.

Radical Transparency is not the same as oversharing

RT doesn’t necessarily imply that we are encouraged to overshare our experiences with others, nor does it mean crossing ours or others boundaries within sharing for the sake of “being transparent.”

I will use the example above regarding times when I am struggling with a personal issue during a session with a client to showcase this. As one might anticipate, it would be a boundary violation of the consultant/client relationship for me to openly share my woes during the session. I have a duty to be present with and for my client during our time together.

When something in my personal life is so alive for me that I feel its presence in my sessions, I take note of it within myself. A few minutes before a session begins, I will sit with the aliveness and be radically transparent with myself about my current state of being. RT in this instance is honoring my current state of being, while also being mindful of what boundaries are in place for the coming interaction. I allow myself space in this reflection to assess and decide what I need to successfully transition into the session, and I go from there. Taking this time with myself allows me to show up for my client in the fullest capacity that I may.

Often my clients bring a similar concern or situation from their own life into session and act as a mirror to my own story. I am typically able to see or pick up on patterns and thoughts both in them (and myself) that I might not have caught otherwise. Without directly expressing to them that I have a resonating experience, I can lead the conversation with this in heart. This usually lends itself to a very productive session for both parties.

I consider this a form of RT because I am intentionally not hiding anything about my present experience from the client, but I am also not directly sharing what I am experiencing with words. I am using my experience to inform how I connect with them and stay present with their experience, which makes the moment our experience.

When a client asks me if I’ve experienced the conflict they are discussing, I answer with a more direct type of RT. I will say whether I have or haven’t experienced that conflict, and if they ask for insight into how I navigated it, I will share what insight I believe will be most helpful for them. I can share “yes, this was hard for me, too, and here is how I navigated that,” without oversharing the details of those long, painful nights in between Point A and Point B.

Please note that I am not a licensed therapist and my consulting practice does not adhere to the same boundaries as a licensed psychotherapist. My future therapeutic practice will, however, reflect those boundaries.

I make it a point to iterate to my clients that I believe inner work is a lifelong practice, and that my own journey is ongoing. This allows for interactions to become human-to-human, rather than just consultant-to-client. Boundaries are still in place, but the perceived power dynamic within the interaction is lessened.

Maintaining boundaries while practicing RT

It can be easy to perceive RT as a means for pushing boundaries (this includes oversharing). I want to iterate that truly embodying RT includes a wholehearted understanding and acceptance of our and others’ boundaries.

Part of being radically transparent with oneself includes knowing our boundaries. For me, I can overshare sometimes because of my deeply ingrained people-pleasing trauma responses. The wounded child within me feels the need to explain myself constantly. In being radically transparent with myself about the source of this behavior and with how much information I really want to share, I was able to discover where my sharing boundary is.

With my sharing boundary firmly in my mind and heart, I set out to learn new ways to share my experiences with others that feel authentic to my needs as well. Often I find that the best way to practice RT and maintain my boundary is to accurately name my experience and my intention for sharing. For me this looks like: “I’m experiencing/feeling _____, and I would rather not talk about it. I’m just letting you know, so that you can know where I’m at right now.”

RT does not mean we have to share all of the details of our inner world with another, but it does mean that we dedicate intention to naming our experiences in a moment to those around us to avoid potential miscommunication, and to foster deeper understanding.

Being radically transparent in a non-transparent world

Sometimes I find it disheartening how many people struggle with honesty and transparency in our society. Through my experiences with friends, lovers, and colleagues, I’ve come to the conclusion that these struggles come from a mixture of poor communication skills and a lack of RT practice within the self. This may not be true of everyone, but it helps me lean into deeper compassion in moments where my RT practice is not reciprocated.

I truly believe that the only way to foster more connection based in RT is to be the initiator. How can others discover the true freedom in Radical Transparency if they don’t experience it firsthand? A core part of my practice as a Relationship Anarchist is acknowledging that I have no control over the people in my life. That includes their abilities to meet me in radically transparent spaces.

I find that when being radically transparent with another it can be easy to see when it’s not being reciprocated. I combat this discord with more Radical Transparency. I kindly and compassionately name my experience, and I inquire with genuine curiosity about their perspective. In the event that this does not foster mutual RT, I kindly and transparently assert my boundary and shift in desire.

Sometimes people may come off as not being transparent when they believe they are. There are plenty of potential explanations for this, but the important thing to remember is that if something within a connection doesn’t feel right to you, then it is your duty to be transparent about that experience, rather than attempt to change the other to your liking.

When being radically transparent creates conflict

The final question I receive about RT often revolves around the fear of conflict. As a peacekeeper, I empathize greatly with conflict aversion, however, sometimes conflict is necessary.

I find that practicing RT evades more serious conflicts because you give opportunity to air grievances and discover conflicting desires before they have time to fester. For example, when exploring relationship dynamics with a new beloved, I much prefer to find out early if we are compatible than months down the road. By being radically transparent about feelings and desires right off the bat, it saves me time and energy addressing these things immediately.

In my experiences, having these conversations earlier on also tends to save meaningful relationships – if we can have a transparent dialogue early on and both parties feel seen, heard, and respected afterward, then we now have a stronger foundation for which to build whatever relationship we want. When I am not able to have these transparent dialogues or feel seen/heard after an attempt at RT with someone, I kindly and compassionately move on.

I would also like to say that just because RT makes a moment of conflict easier to navigate, does not mean that the conflict will not hurt. Hurt feelings are extremely valid, and it can be very disappointing to discover the end of a connection due to a transparent conversation. While the hurt can be present and valid, the “ripping of the Band-Aid” tends to be less painful (for less time) than a prolonged betrayal of oneself for the sake of conflict avoidance, and that is why I find practicing RT so valuable.

It’s important to remember that we are only in control of our actions and that the reactions of another person are not a reflection of us. People in our lives are not obligated to accept our truths as theirs, just as we are not obligated to accept others’ truths that don’t resonate with us. Conflict is a natural part of life, but I have found that navigating such spaces with Radical Transparency can ease these moments and foster deeper understanding and compassionate, human-to-human communication.

— written by Emily Lichtenberg

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 6/25/21 Amelia Lichtenberg 6/25/21

A Guide to Trauma-Informed Language & Resources

This is a guide to various terms I use in my trauma-informed pieces.

Please note that these are my definitions for these terms, and I encourage you to discover what terms and definitions work best for you. This guide is here to help you navigate my content more effectively, and you are also welcome to integrate any of these terms and definitions into your own language and practice if they resonate!

This is a guide to various terms I use in my trauma-informed pieces.

As of June 25, 2021 this guide is very incomplete and is regularly updated with new terms and refined definitions.

Activated/Activation: being in an intense physical/mental state of trauma response. Also referred to as being “triggered.” These states usually consist of constriction within the body, elevated heart rate and breathing, as well as amplified, tense emotional energy such as stress responses, fear, anger, anxiety and more.

Betrayal Trauma Theory (BTT): introduced by Jennifer Freyd in 1994. Betrayal trauma is defined as trauma inflicted upon a person by someone whom they are close with and reliant on for support and survival.

Often discussed in the context of childhood trauma. Survivors of betrayal trauma dissociate from the trauma in order to preserve the relationship with the abuser for survival purposes. This is likely to impact one’s ability to affect a person’s ability to trust or make healthy decisions about the trustworthiness of others as an adult.

For more information on BTT click here.

C-PTSD: Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

C-PTSD differs from standard PTSD in that there are multiple incidents of trauma which morph together to create complex responses. Often it is difficult to differentiate which trauma is activated by a particular trigger, and C-PTSD is harder to diagnose and treat than standard PTSD.

For more information on C-PTSD click here.

Fawning: a slightly different stress response than Fight/Flight/Freeze that also serves as a reaction to danger. Similar physiological symptoms occur, however, the response is to attempt appeasement.

I chose to put fawning in its own category because this response tends to be learned through socialization and/or traumatic life experiences moreso than Fight/Flight/Freeze (which are more autonomic by nature). While fawning does share similar physiological symptoms to the other three F’s, the development of this behavior is different, and it is the only response which specifically utilizes human’s social nature for its effects.

Fight/Flight/Freeze: a stress response that serves as the body’s natural reaction to danger. All of these share similar physiological symptoms and serve as an active defense response to threats.

Fight: the fight response is when the body’s immediate response to danger is to gear up to fight a threat.

Flight: the flight response is when the body’s immediate response is to run away from a threat

Freeze: the freeze response is when the body’s immediate response is to neither run, nor fight, but remain alertly still and ready to spring into action.

More information on the Fight/Flight/Freeze physiological symptoms and purposes.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD): a psychological disorder which can develop after a person experiences a shocking, terrifying, or dangerous event. This disorder is characterized by a person regularly re-experiencing the traumatic event, and this is indicated by an immediate fight/flight/freeze response to a person, place, object, or event which can serve as a “trigger.”

For more information about PTSD signs and symptoms, click here.

Radical Acceptance: The practice of surrendering a desire for control, and a practice of accepting that which we cannot change with a peaceful mind, open heart, and sense of deep compassion.

This term was coined by Tara Brach, and it is an integral part of her work and practice. I have adopted this term into my own personal and professional practice as it beautifully encapsulates what RA is about and the practice often needed to work through serious trauma-induced belief and thought patterns.

Please read Tara’s in-depth article about Radical Acceptance here.

Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria (RSD): A relatively new term to describe a condition in which an individual struggles with rejection, criticism, and the fear of rejection to a debilitating point.

Click here for a comprehensive read on RSD + symptoms.

Self-Regulation: The process of healthily navigating one’s biopsychosocial ups and downs (“swings”).

Self-regulation consists of various tools and methodologies one uses to handle their internal swings. This blanket term encompasses emotional regulation, psychological (thought pattern) regulation, and somatic regulation.

How to Develop and Practice Self-Regulation

Somatic Awareness: One’s awareness of how the body responds to mental and/or emotional experiences.

The body carries responses to our mental and emotional experiences, even when we are not aware of it. Somatic awareness is an important concept in trauma-informed practice and discussion as often times traumatized individuals have a disconnect from their body (this includes the nervous system). Re-connecting oneself with the body and developing an understanding of how it responds to mental/emotional strain can help facilitate de-escalation and help refine self-regulation strategies.

Trigger: A topic, behavior, subject or circumstance which acts as a prompt for trauma re-activation.

Triggers are different for every individual based on their experiences. It is important to be aware of our own triggers as well as retain a sense of mindfulness around the triggers our beloveds may have. Due to the stigma that can be associated with this word, I interchange this with “prompt.”

This guide is frequently updated with new terms and refined definitions! If there is a term you do not see on this guide and would like it to be added, or if you have any questions regarding these terms please contact me.

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!!