This space is for highlighting the broader body of knowledge from which I link to specific relevant resources in the Resources for Customising Intentional Relationships. Note that, while recommended to aid others in the exploration of their own views, these resources do not always reflect my own views. Far from exhaustive, this list is intended to illustrate that existing resources are also available in a range of different formats. Also see, the Resources on Relationship Elements & Related Concepts and various influences. Curated Resource Lists List of Relationship Anarchy Articles, Links, Resources prepared as part of the RAD unconference. Resources on Precolonial Sexualities, Gender and Relationship Structures put together by the 'Decolonising Love' crew. A curated database of fiction centering queer platonic relationships by Claudie Arseneault A set of resources on relational practices curated by the Intentional Society, including circling practices, authentic relating practices, inquiry spiraling practices, edge case practices, and retropsectives. A list of attraction terms

In the context of discussing Relationship Elements, intimacy is taken to mean feelings of connection and understanding formed through knowledge and experience of the other. There are many different forms of intimacies but, in the context of intentional relationship elements, the following focuses on those forms of intimacy that emerge through openness, vulnerability, dialogue, transparency, and reciprocity. Clarifying which context-relevant forms of intimacy are present (and/or wanted) in a relationship can help with navigating how other forms of intimacies contribute to the structural dynamics of a relationship, and how these reflect/impact the broader context. There are a range of communication tools that can be useful for negotiating how these intimacies can be sustained in mutually beneficial ways. Aesthetic intimacies Feelings of connection that can emerge through sharing an appreciation of specific forms of artisanal craftmanship and/or beauty such as music, art, food, fashion, tools, environmental wonder, etc.,(compare with aesthetic attraction Access intimacies "Access intimacy is that elusive, hard to describe feeling when someone else “gets” your access needs... It could also be the way your body relaxes and opens up with someone when all your access needs are being met"Mia Mingus, 2011

In the context of discussing Relationship Elements the following examples are provided to highlight that there a wide range of different ways to experience initial interest (attraction) in someone and how this may lead to cultivating an ongoing relationship with someone. It is important to appreciate that experincing specific types of attraction/interest can be an independently variable aspect of individual experience. Likewise, while forms of attraction and various forms of connection are often related, there is rarely a one-to-one correspondence. Some contrasting examples to have been indicated for comparison. Aesthetic appeal Initial Iinterest in someone may be experienced as a compelling desire to 'look' at the person (finding their aesthetic compelling) - something that can be experienced independently of any other forms of attraction and without necessarily leading to a desire for a relationship of any kind. Compare with: aesthetic intimacy

Meta-communication tools offer one way to focus our attention on when, what, how, and why we are communicating within different relational configerations. For example, these tools can help clarify shared understandings about the content, form, and frequency of communication that each person can reasonably expect from another within a given context. As all relationships emerge within, and contribute to, broader relational networks there is a lot of pressures for us to unintentionally default to relating to each other through oppressive structures. One way to resist these pressures is by practising being more intentional about how we relate to each other. This includes how we relate within the one-to-one relationships we intentionally co-create; how we relate when participating in the co-creation of the communities we find ourselves in (as well as those we seek out); and how we relate to people we might not otherwise have chosen in our lives yet inevitably interact with within our broader contexts. For instance, there are a range of different approaches to navigating inevitable conflicts well within intimate relationships and as forms of community practice, many of which overlap in their philosophies. The first set of resources below focus on the subset of tools that can be useful when having meta-conversations (talking about how to talk about a topic before actually talking about the topic). As the examples illustrate, this can include a range of difference practices depending on the context. Following this is a collection of existing resources highlighting related tools for individual reflection and group practices. Meta-conversations about when and how to talk about what An important aspect of meta-communication is the practice of taking a moment to pause and reflect prior to (and during) conversations with others. The following questions may help when relfecting on if/when/why/how to intiate (or continue) a discussion:

The act of working together can include any coordinated purposeful activity that contributes to a specific output/goal, such as 'making something together'. However, the ways we relate with the people with whom we work are often positioned as distinct from the forms of relationships outside of our professional contexts. This may be because of the close association of work with the activities we undertake to financially support us. Despite this, even working practices are highly variably, including working agreements that are formed by people choosing to work directly together (e.g., within partnerships or cooperatives) and those that emerge in the context of the kinds of relationships cultivated by social change organisers. Given the many forms of relationships that might form when we work together, this space is intended as a starting point for exploring the possibility that some of the tools from intentional approaches to relationships in non-work contexts can also be useful to those seeking to co-create more intentional working relationships. For instance, taking an intentional approach to working together draws attention to our communication practices within our professional contexts. Paying attention to how we communicate can, in turn, unearth considerations of the specific relationship elements that we include (by choice or otherwise) in the relationships we form in work contexts. In either case some people prefer to avoid mixing the relationship elements associated with work-contexts with those relationship elements in non-work contexts, while other have found value in integrating their ways of relating across their personal and professional spheres.

Taking an intentional approach to relationships is easier said than done -- especially when trying to customise the relationship elements we share with each of the people in our lives. One reason for this difficulty is the dominance of default expectation about relationship configurations. These defaults function as pre-packaged expectations about which types of relationship elements we can share with which people in our lives. These defaults add to the challenge of articulating what we want in any relationship, let alone asking someone what they might want to share with us. These defults are relevant to both the opt-in relationships we form (such as friendships, parternships, collaborations, etc.,), as well as to those relationships formed within the context of external contratints that require us to interact with people we might not otherwise have chosen to relate to (team work, educational institutions, community groups, etc.,) Fortunately, a wide range resources are available for challenging default assumptions about relationships, communicating within specific kinds of relationships, and forming intentional communities. By collecting these resources into thematic sets, I aim to amplify a wide range of intentional approaches to relationships. In addition, I hope to demonstrate how these resources can help in exploring the pragmatic details of taking intentional approaches to relationships.

The default approach to relationships seems to idealise collecting a set of pre-packaged relationships within a given cultural context. For example, within the broader societal context I was raised within, the expected set of relationships included a hierarchy of several mutually exclusive categories: a primary partner, familial connections, some close friends, and a wider collection of professional colleagues and social acquaintances from work and community contexts. In most contexts, there is a hierarchy within the standard set of relationships that are presented as socially acceptable. For example, in the English-speaking media, the default narrative is to priories finding one other person with whom to build a Relationship that includes implicit expectations of specific elements, such as: a connection dynamic that includes exlcusive romantic and sexual intimacies (i.e. excluding such intimacies with others) a structure within which each prioritises the other over all other relationships a high degree of entanglement (living together, integration within extended families, joint-finances, parenting, etc.,) a shared future that include further 'progression' along an escalator of enmeshment milestones, and collective decision-making about that future. a visibility expectation for social and legal recognition as a couple

In the context of these Resources for Customising Intentional Relationships, a relationship can be understood as any connection between two or more people, in whatever form that takes. In contrast to default approaches to relationships, one way to cultivate intentional relationships is through the practice of customising how we relate to each of the people in our lives. This practice of intentionally customising relationships can be both an individual and a collaborative process. As an individual, intentionality includes reflecting on the different elements through which we relate to others in various contexts, and identifying which of these best support an ongoing connection with each of the people we choose to keep in our lives. Extending this intentionality to the deliberate co-creation of specific relationships requires collaboration. One possible approach to this collaborative processes is that of customising the collection of mutually-beneficial elements through which two or more people sustain their ongoing relationships. In addition, taking an intentional approach to relationships can highlight how the dynamics of connection we choose with specific people can contribute to the conditions of constraint & possibility that structure our broader communities.

Relationship elements refer to the wide range of basic building blocks from which two or more people might choose to relate to each other. In intentional relationships, these elements are often considered to be independently variable options that can be chosen from multiple options within the relevant contexts. This approach rejects those social norms that perpetuate implicit expectations that what counts as 'a Relationship' can be neatly distinguished from those relationships that are considered 'just' based on 'package-deal sets' of relationship elements. These assumptions can generate a lot of miscommunication. Rather than accept the assumptions built into 'package deals' (such as 'Friends', 'Co-workers', 'Spouse'), an intentional approach to relationships involves actively interrogating these assumptions. One example of taking an intentional approach is to develop a practice of co-desining the collection of elements included in any given relationship (a process sometimes described as agreeing on which 'smorgasbord' options are agreeable for those sharing a given plate of food). This approach to intentional relationships tends to involve explicitly discussing the unique collection of elements that foster ongoing connection in each relationship, and revisiting these as they change over time - both individually and collaboratively. Individually: identifying the forms of potential connection experienced with someone, and specific elements in how you want to maintain and/or change those going forward (if at all). Collaboratively: discussing specific relationship-elements with someone to identify which are present and/or possible in the relationships going forward.

In the context of these Resources for Customising Intentional Relationships, relationship philosophies articulate the approaches a person takes to one or more aspects of connecting with other people. There are a wide range of approaches to relationships. Even within contexts that reject the default approaches, this range is often reduced to questions of exclusivity in one of the many forms of intimacy that contributes to the expectation agreements that structure the dynamics of relationships (for example, monogamy vs. non-monogamy). This contributes to escalator narratives and amatonormativity and obscures the incredible variability in the ways in which people can and do form relationships. To illustrate this wider range of possibilities, the following is a small selection of specific terms that each function as descriptive tools for a shared understanding about particular aspects of forming relationships - some of which mutually-exclusive, while others overlap. Rather than providing an instruction manual, these relationship philosophies a listed as examples of the many more that exist. I don't subscribe to any specific relationship philosophy, I tend to view each as offering tools that can help articulate the shifting descriptions of how we each approach various aspects of the various relationship dynamics to which we contribute. That said, some relationship philosophies align with my approach to intentional relationships more than others and, for these, I have included additional detail of how I use these terms. My biases and editorialising are intended to be transparent, if not explicit, and I've tried to include links to alternative views where possible. The Default Approach to Relationships I use this term to describe an approach to relationships of choosing the default option of collecting the limited set of relationships options without questioning the carries entrenched expectations that some of these pre-packaged combinations of relationship elements are more valued within the broader society than others - see more

In the context of Resources for Customising Intentional Relationships, customised microscripts are an example of the meta-communication practice of re-purposing words as a short-hand for specific concepts. These microscripts can emerge when trying to articulate a concept that doesn’t have a readily available term by re-purposing existing words or phrases as a short-hand. Sometimes these emerge the space between specific people and may be kept for that context, others have broader relevance. One way that microscripts can be used is for quickly and discreetly conveying that all involved know the pattern of a given interaction and can acknowledge that patten without going through the details of the interactions. Another use for microscripts is to indicate that a conversation is veering into an area that may be upsetting, without needing to explain the reasons for being upset itself. Another is as a way to articulate a concept that doesn't have a readily available term. *This following are examples that I've adopted or developed - some of these microscripts are idiosyncratic to specific relationships others are used more broadly. Swith tracking Switch tracking is a concept that describes the act of unintentionally responding to an issue that has been raised by raising a different issue. By recognising when this is happening and having a way to name it, we can more easily find ways to communicate about both the original issue raised as well as the additional issue that was raised in connection to it. For examples of this concept and a discussion of stratergies to navigate when this pattern emerges within a relationship, see Communication Hacks: Remastered

In the context of Resources for Customising Intentional Relationships, personal interaction guides are meta-communication tools that provide relevant information to help reduce miscommunications in any type of relationship. These are often written in context-specific ways (see examples below) that outline boundaries and expectation for that context, prior to those times when there isn't time or capacity to HALT and have meta-conversations. Guides for interacting can be written for any context, but are particularly useful for when there are topics we're not used to talking about, situations that are emotionally fraught, and for communicating aspects of our ways of interacting that are unusual or complex. Examples Some examples context-specific user guides are linked to below to illustrate how intricately personalised such guidelines can get (and, therefore, hopefully demonstrating the value of creating personalised guidelines for interacting in almost any context). Guides for new acquaintances & professional contexts:Joel Zaslofky's Personal User Guide (2012) Sid Sijbrandij's Personal User Guide (2019) Steph Smith's Personal User Manual (2019)

In intentional relationships, identity markers function as terms of reference used to articulate specific experiences that can be difficult for people without the same experiences to understand. When used as labels these identifiers can help indicate boundaries, so that each person can flourish without default expectations limiting our different ways of being. If you’re not someone who values identity markers for your own sake - I recommend reading about why labels are valuable to many people with minority experiences, and considering which of your experiences function as the default category due to an aspect of your identity aligning with the overrepresented-majority or another form of privilage. Articulating our identity markers can help provide terms that function as a starting-point for conversations about an aspect of identity and/or as a short-hand way to articulate any related boundaries that we need others to respect. Likewise, taking the time to understand how someone is using their identity markers can help to understand how they think about themselves, the world, and their ways of relating to others. Note that many identity markers carry negative-associations as pejorative terms despite having been reclaimed for self-identification within the relevant communities. As there remains the possibility of causing harm if used out-of-context, care is needed. As such, terms used as identity-marker concepts by people within marginalised groups should only be used by those for whom the relevant concept helps to describe an aspect of self-identification and community-alignment. Types of identity markers There are many different types, the following are just an unsorted list crossing a range of types to highlight the scope of these tools for articulating experiences such as:

In the context of discussing Relationship Elements, an expectation agreement is a type of meta-communication tool that functions as an explicit description of if/when/how a relationship incorporates various relationship elements. Some examples are included to illustrate the range and context-specific value of expectation agreements. Availability expectations Some agreements function to clarify expectations about the how available each person is to the other in any given context. These contexts include when spending dedicated time together, when in social spaces, and when not in physical proximity. Some examples: establishing an understanding about the rhythm of a connection is needed to sustain the relationship in mutually valued ways (one way to described this is terms of the bandwidth & intensity capacity each person has for specific forms of contact and time spent together). establishing an asynchronous discussion within which there is an understanding that each person can message the other person at any time without expecting synchronicity of connection (a low-density for of contact that can be maintained with high frequency). establishing practices for asking for attention, such as starting a message with ‘Time-sensitive:’ if messaging something that requires the other person’s urgent attention (a high-density form of contact that might only be maintained at low frequency).

The dynamics that exist within (or are wanted for) specific relationships structure other aspects of broader life. Describing these structures can help to identify if/when those dynamics need attention. In addition, these conversations can help to identify how specific dynamics of connection can both reflect and contribute to the broader structures within our communities.In the context of discussing Relationship Elements, this page provides some examples of descriptive terms for articulating how a given relationship is (or might be) structured. Note that some relationships could be simultaneously described by multiple terms and none of these descriptions imply a specific collection of relationship elements. As the focus here is on those structures that emerge from custom-designing relationships, I’ve listed the following examples of descriptions of specifically articulated structures that I've come across. However, it is worth noting that some people choose to use expectation agreements to describe forward-looking expectations of a given structured for a relationship based on an existing or wanted collection of relationship elements. Acquaintanceships Relationships that emerge due to a shared context (e.g., work) or mediated-connection (e.g., mutual-friends) and not additional one-on-one interactions are being developed. Asymmetrical care-giver/receiver responsibilities Relationships that include an asymmetrical dynamic where one person provides substantial emotional and/or practical support for another (e.g., parent & child).

In the context of discussing Relationship Elements the following examples are provided to highlight the value of discussing what relationship elements provide the basic building blocks from which two or more people choose to connect with each other - whether ways where structural aspects of various lives are intertwined or during a discrete moment of shared time. Forms of Intimacy Forms of intimacy can be understood as those relationship elements experienced as mutual vulnerability, openness, and sharing - see more Forms of Reciprocity Forms of reciprocity can be understood as those Relationship Elements where each person bears a responsibility for the welfare of the other and, thus, what expectations each might reasonably expect of the other - see more Forms of Mutual Support Mutual support can be understood as the supportive practice that emerge in the one-to-one dynamics of any given relationship, inlcuding emotional support, intellectual support, emergancy support, - see more

In the context of discussing Relationship Elements, forms of mutual support can be understood as the supportive practice that emerge in the one-to-one dynamics of any given relationship. Identifying these relationship elements can help clarify any Expectation Agreements establishing the types of mutual support that each person can reasonably expect from the other within a given Structural Dynamic. In addition, articulating mutual support dynamics can help in clarifying what, if any, support each person would like to contribute to the other person’s extended community. This might be a matter of providing support through contributing to informal and/or formal systems of mutual aid that extend the support people can provide for each other beyond the immediate one-to-one connections of any given relationship. Emotional support Support for processing experiences, such as active listening, that can be included as an agreed upon form of mutual aid. This requires openness and a non-judgmental practice such that the one who gives support and the one who receives it are open to having their own perspectives transformed in relation to the issue. May require emotional intimacy Intellectual support

In the context of discussing Relationship Elements, forms of reciprocity can be understood as those Relationship Elements where each might reasonably expect of the other in terms of each person accepting responsibility for the welfare of the other. Affinity responsibilities Relationships commitments where each person accepts responsibility for the contributing to the other person's capacity to navigate the impacts of one or more of the contexts that contributes to their affinity intimacies. Availability responsibilities The degree that each person takes responsibility for being available to another in terms of both the frequency and intensity of interaction. This type of description can be used to clarify differing expectations about how and when another person will be available to you in specific ways and negotiating how to balance these differences in ways that sustains the relationship in mutually valued ways. Sometimes the bandwidth of availability each person can expect from another for specific elements of the relationship emerge in practice without explicit negotiation. Other times, specific communication protocols are used to clarify these expectations. Also see Expectation Agreements.

Context Overview of Resources for Customising Intentional Relationships What are Default Relationships? Friendships as Relationships Customising Intentional Approaches to All Relationships Relationship Philosophies Meta-communication Tools Relationship Elements Introduction to Relationship Elements

I was prompted to curate these Resources for Customising Intentional Relationships by the appreciation shown for the Salon on Intentional Friendships I helped to facilitate at the Embassy Network's Berlin Konsulat in 2018. Prior to this, and since, my approaches to relationships have been influenced by the various intentional communities I have been welcomed into. In addition, I've had the pleasure of co-creating relationships with multiple individuals each of whom contributed to my capacity for meta-communication practices such as identifying and discussing relationship elements and related concepts. I hope these influences are recognisable and that those responsible will help me appropriately acknowledge their contributions as this resource develops further. There is also more than a decades-worth of resources I've learned from, so if you recognise your influence & I've not attributed your work appropriately within this project, please let me know. The following are examples of influences (in addition to those ways that are referenced throughout each resource set): Simon(e) van Sarloos who writes about the situated politics of personal relationships Autumn Elizabeth, Zarinah Agnew, and Alanna Irving who have each shared many fantastic resources and reflections from their experiences within intentional relationships and communities. Aggie Sez (Amy Gahran), who runs the SoloPoly blog, supports various online communities, and wrote the phrase-coining book Stepping Off the Relationship Escalator. Tikva Wolf, who is responsible for the wonderful Kimchi Cuddles Comics, the Polycule Orbit Game, and many other resources on diverse approaches to relationships.