Challenging the Premise(s) of the Relationship Escalator (Patreon)

Hi cutie,

Today, I'm sharing a piece that I basically just rewrote from scratch, based on an archive post from 3 years ago. I want my Patreon archive to stay fresh, so I'll often go through and update points on which I've evolved. But when I saw my old Relationship Escalator post, I knew it just needed a total rewrite. Let's jump in.

We often talk about divesting from the Relationship Escalator, and moving away from mononormativity. But what does that literally mean? I'm a person who needs practical examples in order to understand how theory translates into real world application.

First, a refresher of terms. I loosely define the "Relationship Escalator" as the expected sequential stages of romantic love in mononormative societies. These stages vary by culture, but whatever shape they take, they're usually that culture's only relationship model presented as valid.

One common western RE model is Knapp's Staircase (below). This graph is lower resolution than I would like, but it's the most accurate I've seen in representing Knapp's definition.

To be clear, I don't demonize people who follow an escalator like this. I just take issue with it being sold as the one true path. These norms tangibly harm anyone who wants or needs something different.

Challenging the premise

My main frustration with this model is how confidently Knapp asserts clear separations between experiences. I don't see "coming together" and "coming apart" as two linear sequences without overlap. What if I initiate a relationship with someone, experiment with them, don't see them for a while, bond again, avoid them, bond again, etc? What if I stop living with a partner, and that actually brings us a lot closer? There's so much fluidity in how we can love and be loved.

Also, the idea that "relational maintenance" only applies to people who are integrated in your daily life, it's a baffling claim to me. Some of my longest relationships are comets who I only speak with every so often, but then we deeply bond when we do.

I also take issue with the notion of "stagnating" and putting that in the "coming apart" stage. Stasis can be lovely. Not all dynamics need to be in motion toward or away from integration. Monogamous people can understand this based on their friendships; some people you just want to hang out with, and you can do that for years without asking, "where is this going?" Mutually desired stasis can include romance, sex and emotional bonding, too. It doesn't need to be characterized as an ominous sign that the relationship is about to end.

-

Case studies that challenge RE as the norm

For length reasons, I'll just discuss the "coming together" part of Knapp's model today. If you want more examples to challenge the "coming apart" portion, let me know. But again, I don't see these as wholly separate parts, and there will be examples featuring a mix of both (another reason why a staircase / escalator feels like a flawed shape to me).

What does it literally look like to divest from the relationship escalator? Well for me, it starts by exploring alternative options that already exist, or imagining new options that could exist. This applies to seasoned polyam people too, because we often still have unchecked mononormative ideas lurking about.

But even if your own love life follows the RE and you enjoy that, you can still unsubscribe from the compulsory set of expectations. You can know you're choosing this path, that it's not chosen for you.

I'll use Knapp's own language here to show how the RE is demonstrably not the only valid path, even in monogamy. Maybe these will be helpful if you feel a gap between theory and practice. I don't claim to be writing a comprehensive or academic paper here. These are just some musings that hopefully can be of service, and of course your input is welcome.

1. Initiating

Some dynamics never have a mutual introduction. Parasocial relationships exist. Plenty of people feel intense love for a social media personality or an artistic performer whom they've never met. I often receive DMs from people who've watched me for years, integrating my voice into their daily routine. But the actual introduction to me as a person came way later, if ever.

2. Experimenting

I'm just now wondering if the RE is one reason why so many long-term couples don't date each other or sexually experiment anymore. If people view dating as just a courtship ritual, just a means to an end on the pathway to marriage, maybe it gets dismissed as unnecessary once they put a ring on it?

I'm not immune to that, either. After moving in with one of my partners, I struggled a lot with complacency and a sexual rut. I felt so silly when someone suggested we go on dates, because I had viewed dating as just a way to get to know someone, not a way to keep knowing someone. So, when we did go on adventures again, talk about new subjects, try new things in bed, I've fallen in love with him again and again. We're very interdependent and feel NRE. None of the human experience is so linear or compartmentalized as the RE suggests.

3. Intensifying

This is framed as a prelude to traditional commitment, e.g. when you want to increase time and energy with a person before proposing to them. That's all well and good, but why does intensity need to have a destination?

I share a lot of intensity with a long distance partner, but there's zero agenda to build beyond that. We enjoy the stasis. We don't talk very often during the week, but then have hours long video dates. When they visit or vice versa, it's a week of 24/7 time together. Each time that intensity ends, it's not a sign the relationship is ending. It's actually a key part of what makes our relationship work.

4. Integrating

When it comes to joint material commitments (e.g. signing a marriage contract, mixing finances, sharing a home, raising a child together, etc.), conflating integration with a stronger relationship is just not everyone's experience.

Most of you know that I got married for a visa. It didn't really change anything, apart from going to the immigration office and filing taxes together. I've also mixed finances with a business partner and shared a home with roommates, all without the linear progression of the RE. 

Consider how many people are not romantically or sexually entangled, but still raise a child together. A friend of mine accidentally got a fling pregnant, and she decided to keep the baby. A few years later, she came back to him, asking if they could try to get her pregnant again because she wanted their son to have a sibling. They've co-parented 11 years now, with two children, but were only in a romantic dynamic for a few months at the beginning. Their relationship has almost entirely been about just raising these boys from separate homes. 

There are so many living and breathing examples that prove that integration into each others' lives is not a monolith.

5. Bonding

Bonding is something we need in all of our connections, so I don't take issue with it. I guess I just want to challenge its' position as a destination after we've done all the other steps. Bonding can happen pretty quickly and casually. I've bonded with someone after 5 minutes of talking to them at a party, and then our friendship ebbed and flowed over the years, with some periods feeling more bonded than others. It's not a fixed position reserved for interdependent dynamics.

Within monogamous norms, romantic and sexual bonding usually comes with pressure to be this person's Everything. Bonding in that way gets treated as superior to other kinds of bonding, a sentiment with which I take issue. It's why terms like "emotional cheating" exist, because a strong connection to someone else often gets considered a betrayal in that system. (It's also why pejorative nicknames like "ball and chain" exist, because so many people resent having to suppress extramarital desires to bond). 

A lot of people are monogamous, and that's valid. Even in non-monogamy, some of us just don't have energy to give a certain type of bonding to more than one person. We follow what feels organic and suits the people involved. That's different than trying to enforce or uphold an external ideal, even when it feels like it goes against the grain. 

And in general, to hold romantic or sexual bonding up as a top tier way of relating feels completely unnecessary to me. Asexual and aromantic people exist. A lot of people have casual bonds, fluctuating bonds, or just sustained intimacy without integration or escalation. Why does close interpersonal connection need to be gate kept or treated as an exclusive club?

-

Anyway, that's what comes to mind today. I've struggled with some mononormative ideas lately, thinking that some drops in intensity were harbingers of doom, or that someone's lack of desire to live with me means they don't feel strong love. RE expectations are so insidious, no matter how long we've been challenging it. So, if such norms are adding unnecessary stress to your life too, you're definitely not alone. This takes a lot of time to unlearn, but we can do it together.

With love,
Morgan