Hierarchy & Couple Privilege

Most people practicing polyamory have couple privilege. Maybe they opened an existing relationship. Maybe their first serious connection became the “main” one because society treated it that way. Either way, monogamous culture gives established couples more legitimacy, protection, and power than other relationships. That’s what couple privilege is. And every time this conversation comes up, I hear the same thing: “Hierarchy is natural.” “Egalitarian polyamory is unrealistic.” But that conflates structural privilege with personal choice. There’s a difference between having privilege within a system and choosing to enforce that privilege in your relationships. We already understand this in other social justice conversations. White people can work to dismantle white privilege. Men can reject patriarchal entitlement and practice healthier masculinity. But people rarely talk about how those with couple privilege can actively challenge the systems benefiting them too. And yes, dismantling couple privilege is hard. But saying it’s “impossible” often just means someone values their comfort more than equity. If you benefit from couple privilege in polyamory, it’s your responsibility to examine it, challenge it, and stop letting your other partners absorb the harm of it. In my latest Substack, I break down: — the difference between couple privilege and hierarchy — what “sneakyarchy” looks like — 14 ways to dismantle couple privilege — how to create security without control — what egalitarian polyamory actually looks like in practice — how to tell the difference between neglect and internalized mononormativity If you’ve ever felt secondary, guilty for wanting equity, or unsure whether your relationships align with your values, this piece will give you language and practical tools to navigate it. Link in comments and in our stories today.

Those who think polyamory is merely about collecting as many people as possible will ultimately fail at polyamory. Polyamory is not about acquisition. It is not about building a little empire of partners, lovers, situationships, admirers, and emotional supply. There is a reason patriarchal empire chose monogamy as its relational norm. If your goal is to treat people like objects you own, control, inherit, exchange, possess, or organize around your ego, then monogamy has historically served that project very well. But polyamory, at its best, is about consensual freedom. Consent requires informed decision-making. It requires communication. It requires honesty about what you can offer, what you cannot offer, what agreements exist, what risks are present, and how your choices affect other people. Polyamory is not the absence of responsibility. It is the multiplication of responsibility.

Couples opening up often haven’t disentangled from couple privilege and codependency. They rush into polyamory without doing the hard inner work first. Unfortunately for the bisexual women demographic, these sort of couples begin their foray into polyamory by unicorn hunting for a third. These couples treat bisexual women as experimental play things that don’t full agency, and are disposable for the primary couple who always have the security of each other. You shouldn’t be dating someone, unless you can be fully responsible for how your actions effect their emotional well-being. There is nothing wrong with triads or throuples if they organically form. But going to hunt for a unicorn or wizard (male version), is wrong. *Some people misconstrued the ending: KTP isn’t something that is forced. KTP is benign and valid. KTP just means metas/polycules comfortable being in each other’s company. There are however some people that try to force KTP. And that’s where things can get toxic with this polycule relating style. 💖 Use our Relationship Agreement Generator to set boundaries and agreements for your polycule!

There are many ways to be polyamorous. From solo poly, to triads, to large polycules, to being single, polyamory simply means you can love multiple people. How that looks in practice can vary a lot. Except hierarchy and unicorn hunting, because then the Office of Poly Affairs may deny your registration. Next Event 📆 The Art of Being a Hinge Workshop - April 24 5:00pm PST / 8:00pm EDT / April 25 5:30am IST / 9:00am JST / 10:00am AEST / 2:00pm NZST

People often assume that polyamory lacks commitment because they define commitment through the lens of monogamy—where being ‘loyal’ means restricting yourself from romantic or physical connection with anyone else. But commitment isn’t about restriction; it’s about choice, care, and follow-through. In monogamy, commitment is measured by what you don’t do. In polyamory, commitment is about what you actively choose to do—showing up authentically in each relationship and honoring the agreements you’ve made. That doesn’t mean polyamorous relationships lack boundaries. On the contrary, they involve clear agreements, just like any healthy relationship. It’s not a free-for-all; it’s structured, intentional, and requires deep communication. In fact, polyamorists often joke that they love commitment so much, they choose to have multiple commitments! And if you understand how someone can be loyal to multiple friends or family members, then you already understand how loyalty and commitment can be plural in romantic relationships too. Next Events: 📆 The Art of Being a Hinge Workshop - April 19 (SOLD OUT) 1:00pm PST / 2:00pm MDT / 4:00pm EDT / 5:00pm BRT / 8:00pm GMT / 10:00pm EET 📆 The Art of Being a Hinge Workshop - April 24 5:00pm PST / 8:00pm EDT / 5:30am (April 25) IST / 9:00am (April 25) JST / 10:00am (April 25) AEST / 2:00pm (April 25) NZST

Debating the ethics of hierarchy with us is no easy feat. Most people don’t realize the word “hierarchy” was a linguistic ghost before the 16th century. Its explosion into the modern psyche was a deliberate act of intellectual alchemy, largely via Louis Dumont, that reframed raw domination as natural order. What you defend as “common sense” is colonial ideology wearing its latest mask. I didn’t arrive here through a hot take. This framework is the result of years of rigorous, interdisciplinary labor traced through evolutionary anthropology, cognitive science, and the history of egalitarian societies that thrived long before empire. I have taught this across the world, made over 50 videos on it, and sat with every serious challenge to it. We have heard it all and dismantled it all. The receipts are in the highlights; do the homework before you step into the ring. Most people who want to challenge us have swallowed Dumont’s framing without ever knowing his name. It isn’t your fault, colonial cognitivity is engineered to make hierarchy feel like nature. You’ve been taught that scale demands it, that social dominance in animals makes it our human default too. Untrue. Humans evolved as profoundly cooperative, egalitarian beings. Institutional hierarchy is a capacity we developed only 10,000 years ago, not a default we were born into. I genuinely lead with kindness and good faith. But I will be honest: you are not going to out-argue us on this one. Not because debate is about winning, but because we have gone further and deeper into this material than most are willing to travel. The barrier isn’t intelligence, it’s often integrity. The closer you are to the privileges that hierarchies like whiteness, nationality and class afford you, the less likely you are to challenge the pyramid. I’m always ready for the conversation. The question is whether you’re ready to face the mirror.

Unpacking and understanding hierarchy is crucial because most of us currently live inside complex hierarchical systems. We live in societies where institutions like the police and military hold a monopoly on violence and can compel compliance through law. We live under forms of governance where people can dictate what we are allowed to do. We live in colonial cultures structured around domination and power. And we still live within racial and gender hierarchies where white, straight men are granted unequal authority. Hierarchical thinking doesn’t just shape institutions. It shapes our brains. This society trains people into domination-based thinking, competition, and scarcity mindsets. Egalitarianism is more complex, but it is well worth the effort. We are constantly told it cannot work at scale. It is true that large-scale hierarchies expanded historically alongside food surplus, population growth, and the emergence of leaders and militaries. But those systems also became deeply corrupt. Today we live with an Epstein-level billionaire class as a result. Egalitarian systems *can* function at scale. Zoroastrian communities, pirate societies, Teotihuacan, and the Zapatistas all demonstrate that alternative models are possible. And this isn’t only about states or governments. We can practice egalitarianism in our workplaces, in our communities, and in our intimate relationships by treating lovers with dignity rather than reproducing domination dynamics. Humans are one of the few species with the flexibility to organize ourselves either hierarchically or egalitarianly. For most of human history we organized in egaliatrian bands. Only as of 10 000 years ago did we begin to organize in complex hierarchies. But it a choice we can take back. Hierarchy does not serve us well. We can move closer to what fits our nature better: egalitarian ways of living together.

Nick and I are both anti-hierarchical, but we are not both relationship anarchists. Yet people constantly assume that being anti-hierarchical automatically means practicing relationship anarchism. Those aren’t the same thing. Someone can be anti-hierarchical and simply practice egalitarian polyamory. And conversely, someone can identify as a relationship anarchist while being monogamous. Not all relationship anarchists are polyamorous. Relationship anarchism is a relationship philosophy rooted in political anarchist principles. It comes out of anarchist thought about power, authority, and social organization. That’s why it’s strange when people claim relationship anarchy while holding conservative politics, or when they say they’re relationship anarchists but are comfortable with hierarchy. Both misunderstand the philosophy. If you’re going to invoke anarchism, it should actually mean something. Otherwise you're just coopting anarchism. I’ll be doing a workshop on this soon. Comment ANARCHISM and I’ll send you a DM with the link once registration opens.

We don’t think egalitarian polyamory is as difficult as some people make it out to be. Hierarchy often functions as an illusion of safety. It’s not natural or inevitable. When you begin to practice differently, you can retrain your thinking and bring your actions into alignment with your values. In this workshop we’ll walk through the many ways challenging situations show up in poly dynamics and how to respond to them in ways that support fairness and autonomy. Bring your questions on Sunday and be ready to stretch your emotional intelligence. This is a practical, hands-on session.

On Sunday, Decolonizing Love will be teaching something most of us were never taught in school: what hierarchy actually is and how deeply it shapes our thinking, our relationships, and our sense of what's "natural." We start at the root. The word hierarchy itself. It didn't begin as a neutral organizing term, and understanding where it came from changes everything about how we use it today. From there, we'll look at the anthropological record: humans actually evolved toward egalitarianism. Our flexibility allowed hierarchy to emerge under certain conditions, but that's not the same as destiny. Hierarchy is a capacity. And capacities can be cultivated or dismantled. We'll trace how colonialism exported specific European hierarchical frameworks across the globe. We'll look at how even polyamory, a practice that often positions itself as liberatory, inherited and reproduced that same hierarchical logic. We'll unpack: Why "natural hierarchy" is a linguistic sleight of hand, not an argument Why dismantling hierarchy isn't just ideological, it's cognitive retraining If you've ever been told "hierarchy is natural," or "differences imply ranking" we're going to sit with all of it. This is Session 1: theory. Next week we move into practice, how to dismantle hierarchy in polyamorous relationships. Hierarchy isn't just a structure. It's a mental habit. And you can't unlearn a habit you don’t understand. video by @keegantatum

I read The Dawn of Everything before visiting Mexico City. One of its most groundbreaking arguments, and arguably part of why it became a New York Times bestseller, was its case that Teotihuacan represented a functioning anarchist or deeply egalitarian city at genuine scale. No identifiable rulers, no grand royal tombs, housing remarkably uniform across social strata. By any standard, it's a genuine anomaly. What I found striking was visiting the National Museum of Anthropology and Teotihuacan itself and noticing how absent this framing was. The museum is extraordinary, and it's true you don't see royal tomb discoveries or dynastic iconography as you do at Maya or Mexica/Aztec sites. But the conclusions Graeber and Wengrow draw from that absence weren't part of the conversation at all. What you do hear is that something mysterious happened, a collapse, calamity, a burning of the ceremonial center, described as though it were an act of nature. What you rarely hear is the word revolution, even though the evidence points strongly toward the population having turned against its own emerging elite before any external force brought it down. My suspicion is that hierarchical nation-states everywhere have a complicated relationship with celebrating successful popular revolts against elites. Most nations are happy to commemorate revolutions that founded the current order. The idea that ordinary people once dismantled an exploitative ruling class and built something more equitable is a harder story to tell from within a state apparatus. It cuts a little too close. The Mexica/Aztec traditions that absorbed Teotihuacan had their own reasons for mythologizing it, and those myths have calcified over centuries. It would take institutional courage to stand in front of those pyramids and say: the evidence suggests the people here eventually rejected whoever was trying to rule them, and it worked.

We chose to film this anti hierarchy piece at the Monumento a los Niños Héroes in Mexico City because you cannot talk about hierarchy without talking about imperialism. Right now we are watching a renewed push of American power across the globe and places like Mexico have always been where the United States tried to expand its territory, control, and influence. This monument honors young people who died resisting that expansion. It is a reminder that empire is built on the belief that some lives, lands, and nations sit higher in a racial and political hierarchy than others. Hierarchy is not just a relationship dynamic. It is the logic of colonialism itself. And you cannot dismantle one without naming the other. We’ve spent the last few years having in-depth conversations about hierarchy with the polyamory community. We’ve taught about hierarchy in workshops around the world, and we’ve gotten to talk to a range of thought leaders on this topic, from writers who coined polyamory terms related to hierarchy that are used often, to anthropologists and evolutionary scientists. We’ve noticed there are a lot of fallacies around how people understand hierarchy, and then a real feeling of despair about how to unlearn it in actual relationship practice. So we wanted to make it easier for everyone by refusing the idea that it’s impossible to wrap our minds around what hierarchy is or come to a shared understanding of it. And we wanted to offer something grounded in practicality, from folks who are fiercely egalitarian in our polyamory practice. So if you have any questions around theory and practice on hierarchy, this is the definitive workshop series. If you are Indigenous, from any Indigenous community anywhere in the world, including Turtle Island, Amazonia, Indigenous African communities, Māori, Sámi, and others, we offer 2 free tickets 🪶🌍🖤 We also have 5 discounted tickets ($10) for folks in need 💛 Just DM us 📩 or email us ✉️

This is why ethics and power matter so much in polyamory. A lot of people use poly as cover for abuse. It's easy to take liberatory language and twist it into I can do whatever I want, or to treat breaking the script like a moral high ground instead of a responsibility. If someone's speaking from a pulpit instead of from care, that's already a red flag. In this conversation, it doesn't even sound like he was inviting questions or trying to understand her reality. It sounds like he was delivering a monologue about what the better state is. That's not consent-based relating. That's ideology used as pressure. And the kings and queens thing is especially telling. Even if some royals had multiple partners, that wasn't polyamory in any ethical sense. It was usually entitlement, patriarchy, and unequal power. Same with calling yourself a libertine in the classical French sense. That's not automatically polyamory either. Polyamory isn't an aesthetic or a philosophy flex. It's how you practice care, accountability, and consent with real people. And we know Epstein wasn't about consent.

Poor hinge skills create sneakyarchy more than almost anything else. I’ve seen people in far less complex polycule dynamics feel overwhelmed simply because the hinge lacked leadership and clear boundaries. When they didn’t know what to do, they defaulted to couple privilege, not necessarily out of malice, but out of avoidance. For context: I’ve been with Nick for 15 years, and he’s been with his other partner for a few months. Despite that imbalance in history, he is principled about sharing time equitably between us. He actively checks in about how much time each of us needs to have our core needs met, and he holds himself accountable to following through. He’s doing this while maintaining relationships across different countries. So from where I stand, if egalitarian polyamory is possible in long-distance relationships with massive built-in couple privilege, then it’s fair to ask: what’s really stopping people from dismantling hierarchy when their polycule lives in the same place? Choosing multiple attachment-based relationships means taking on the responsibility to attend to each partner’s core needs with ongoing effort. We’ll be unpacking hinging, egalitarian practice, and navigating long-distance relationships with entrenched couple privilege in our upcoming workshops. Unlearning Hierarchy: Theory + Real-Life Practice Part 1 (Theory): March 1, led by Millie Part 2 (Praxis): March 8, led by Nick

We’ve spent the last few years having in-depth conversations about hierarchy with the polyamory community. We’ve taught about hierarchy in workshops around the world, and we’ve gotten to talk to a range of thought leaders on this topic, from writers who coined polyamory terms related to hierarchy that are used often, to anthropologists and evolutionary scientists. We’ve noticed there are a lot of fallacies around how people understand hierarchy, and then a real feeling of despair about how to unlearn it in actual relationship practice. So we wanted to make it easier for everyone by refusing the idea that it’s impossible to wrap our minds around what hierarchy is or come to a shared understanding of it. And we wanted to offer something grounded in practicality, from folks who are fiercely egalitarian in our polyamory practice. So if you have any questions around theory and practice on hierarchy, this is the definitive workshop series. If you are Indigenous, from any Indigenous community anywhere in the world, including Turtle Island, Amazonia, Indigenous African communities, Māori, Sámi, and others, we offer 2 free tickets 🪶🌍🖤 We also have 5 discounted tickets ($10) for folks in need 💛 Just DM us 📩 or email us ✉️

We often hear the curious assertion that hierarchies in relationships are inescapable and that inevitably someone will rank higher. This perspective not only reflects a colonizer/colonized mindset but also often reveals a misunderstanding of what hierarchical polyamory truly involves. Hierarchical polyamory entails having decision-making power over a relationship you’re not directly involved in. However, it’s entirely possible to have egalitarian relationships, even if you’re married, have children, etc. Believing that all relationships must possess equal power and that different kinds of relationships cannot coexist harmoniously is a sign of deep colonization. Many societies thrive without inherent power dynamics and ranks. The idea that such a structure is inconceivable simply shows a lack of understanding of how to live in a truly equal and egalitarian society and work collectively. 📌In our upcoming workshop series, we’ll break down what hierarchy is (and what people often mistake it for), then we’ll move into practice: concrete ways to dismantle hierarchy in your polyamory so your relationships can become more equitable and genuinely consensual. Comment HIERARCHY when the event goes live in a few days, we’ll send you a DM with the link.

These threads are by my lovely friend @itsaravenewworld, and they got me wondering whether men/straight people in polyamory are more likely to lean toward hierarchical thinking. Honestly, I’ve seen all kinds of genders and orientations be just as likely to be hierarchical or egalitarian. Thoughts? Also in our upcoming workshop series, we’ll break down what hierarchy is (and what people often mistake it for), then we’ll move into practice: concrete ways to dismantle hierarchy in your polyamory so your relationships can become more equitable and genuinely consensual. Comment HIERARCHY When the event goes live in a few days, we’ll DM you the link.

Live Recap: Decolonizing Love's Millie & Nick in a discussion with Nexus, Quinn and Trinket, a hierarchical triad that was featured on the Love Don't Judge show. We're discussing their misrepresentation on the show and the intricacies of their hierarchical relationship vis-à-vis their D/s dynamic.

Drop your questions for a hierarchical triad with D/s dynamics in the comments 👀🔥 We’ll pick a few to answer live, and yes, the replay’s going on the feed after.

This was inspired by the LA wildfires in Jan 2025. A lot of polyamorous people discovered during evacuations that their partners were practicing sneakyarchy, pretending to be egalitarian but revealing their true hierarchical values when crisis hit. Many found themselves suddenly abandoned by a hinge who chose their more established partner to flee with, leaving other partners behind. We saw the same pattern during COVID lockdowns in places like Toronto that limited bubble sizes. Hinges defaulted to more established partners, and people realized where they actually stood. Sneakyarchy is a profound betrayal. It robs people of informed consent. You invest time, emotion, and trust based on promised equality of care, only to discover during an evacuation or lockdown that you were never actually considered equal. These were life-or-death moments with real safety consequences. All the relationship processing and talk of egalitarian values turned out to be performance, not principle. That’s the part I want people to sit with: all the processing, the language, the “we don’t do hierarchy here” talk can become performance if it isn’t matched by crisis planning and concrete commitments. Egalitarian values aren’t proven in theory. They’re proven when things get hard. Guest actress: Monika Fahim @monikathehuman