528 - The Art of Stepping Back: De-escalation
Relationships change
All relationships change at least a little bit over time, but some changes are bigger than others and sometimes we struggle with having the language to talk about it. A type of relationship change is a de-escalation, and while this can be synonymous with a breakup, it doesn’t have to be. As opposed to the term popularized by Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin’s conscious uncoupling, de-escalation describes a change that is intentional, communicative, a much better route than ghosting someone, and doesn’t require someone to be “bad” or “wrong.” It’s similar to conscious uncoupling, just with more options.
People might choose to de-escalate for a myriad of reasons:
Changing needs.
Shifting priorities.
They got entangled too fast and the NRE is fading.
Incompatibility.
Initially miscommunicated desires.
Challenges and pitfalls of de-escalation
Calling a breakup something different doesn’t make it easy; de-escalation can still be difficult and hurt can be involved. Even if it doesn’t apply to a breakup, change is difficult and there will be a period of adjustment. De-escalation can still be painful and messy, even when it’s the right choice.
A big challenge people might face is unclear expectations. They may be mismatched, or one partner might desire a reduction in intimacy but the other one anticipates a minor change, leading to hurt feelings and miscommunication.
Relationship churning may happen as well. This refers to the phenomenon of breaking up, getting back together, breaking up, etc., or of breaking up but continuing to sleep together. Both have been correlated with worse emotional outcomes.
The spectrum of relationship reconfiguration
All of these categories in the spectrum of relationship reconfiguration overlap, and our very own Jase designed the spectrum to help people determine what they want out of a de-escalation:
Dissolution
The formal ending of a specific type of relationship, while recognizing that other forms of connection may persist or independently evolve (but not necessarily).
For example, a breakup, ending a sexual relationship, stopping using the terms partner or boyfriend/girlfriend.
De-escalation
Intentionally reducing specific areas of entanglement (time, physical intimacy, financial interdependence, etc.) while maintaining the existing relational framework.
The fundamental nature of the relationship isn't necessarily being redefined; rather, specific aspects are being dialed back.
The emotional connection may change as a consequence of the de-escalation, but it’s not the primary goal.
Examples: Reducing frequency of dates or sleepovers in a romantic relationship, or moving from a sexual to a platonic relationship.
Re-calibration
Intentionally restructuring the core dynamics or definition of a relationship to better meet evolving needs and desires.
This involves a more fundamental shift in the nature of the connection itself, beyond simply adjusting levels of entanglement.
The emotional connection may also shift, but the focus is on creating a new, mutually agreed-upon relational structure.
Examples: Shifting from a monogamous marriage to a polyamorous one, or moving out but remaining married.
Escalation
Adding additional entanglement, frequency, commitment, or intensity to specific areas of the relationship.
Generally includes an increase in emotional connection.
Examples: Moving in together, spending more time together, using a new label like "partner,” getting married, having children, combining finances, having sex (or changing how you have sex).
Practical tools for changing relationships
Some tips for easing the transition of a de-escalation or shift in any type of relationship are:
Identify your goal. Which category in the spectrum of relationship reconfiguration do you want to move towards or describes your ideal outcome?
Communicate! Make sure you have multiple conversations and have time for reflection between them to ensure both people are being heard and understood.
Find mutual yeses. Someone’s no needs to be respected. Figure out where both of you want to say “yes” and keep in mind that full dissolution might be the outcome, even if that wasn’t the intent at first.
Escalate mindfully. Slower and more intentional escalation can prevent more painful de-escalation later. De-escalation is almost always painful in some way, but escalating slowly never hurt anyone.
Seek professional and community support if needed.
Transcript
This document may contain small transcription errors. If you find one please let us know at info@multiamory.com and we will fix it ASAP.
Jase: On this episode of the Multiamory Podcast, we're talking about stepping back from a relationship or de-escalating or uncoupling, or breaking up. There's a lot of different terms for this, and we're going to dive into some of the nuance that we've gained in recent years, as well as some nuance that maybe we're still missing that would help us to make more informed decisions if we want to more consciously change our relationships with other people in the healthiest possible way. Realizing that de-escalating or breaking up is never fun, but at least we can be conscious and try to do it in the best way that we can. To use a Buddhist phrase, in the wisest way that we can.
This episode is exploring a lot of the things that we wish that we had known before we had some breakups or de-escalations in the past, looking at some of the research, and then I'm really excited in the last section. We're going to look at a new, slightly more nuanced way of looking at changing the amount of entanglement or how escalated a relationship is to see if that might help us make more informed decisions moving forward.
If you're interested in learning more about our fundamental communication tools that we reference on this show, you can check out our book, Multiamory: Essential Tools for Modern Relationships, which covers some of our most used communication tools for all types of relationships. You can find links to buy it, as well as links to buy the new audiobook version narrated by our very own Emily at multiamory.com/book or wherever you find books or audiobooks are sold. Welcome, welcome to this land where we're going to talk about some things that can potentially be challenging, but hopefully, we can make them a little less challenging.
Let me set the stage for you. When it comes to terms like a breakup or de-escalation, we can sometimes end up putting meaning into those words or making it so we feel like we can only behave in a certain way because that's the label that we have. We wanted to share a few different examples of some ways that we didn't have quite the right labels, or we tried to use the wrong ones.
The first one is actually a story about myself and Emily when we were first moving from our original monogamous relationship to becoming non-monogamous, that first we went through a breakup and then got back together, opened up our relationship, and then years later when our relationship changed to no longer be romantic or sexual or any of that with each other, we didn't really have de-escalation as a term. It wasn't quite as commonly used, at least not in our circles back then, and so it was a breakup. Using that word, I think, for me, brought with it more feelings of hurt or betrayal or loss or something like that.
Even though we've talked many times in the past on this show about how we feel like our relationship that we've had since then has become so much deeper and more connected and in a lot of ways more intimate and more solid as, I guess more of a friendship type relationship, if you need to put a label on it, that if we'd had the term de-escalation at the time, that might have actually given us a different way of looking at how we were approaching that change in our relationship.
Emily: I think we were pretty intentional about it. Also, we had to work together. I think that we really, really wanted to stay in each other's lives in a pretty profound way. All of those things led to us getting the opportunity to de-escalate, but retain a level of intimacy, even if it didn't look like the intimacy that we used to have from more of a physical standpoint. It was intellectual, and, also from a friendship standpoint, I think, that's just continued to grow and evolve over time.
Dedeker: Jase, what you were saying, do you really think that if the two of you had the language of de-escalation, do you think that would've changed the way that you felt about it, or do you think that would've just changed the actions that you took?
Jase: I think a little bit of each. I think it would've painted a more nuanced color of what it was that we were doing, and just not having that term, I think-- I can only speak for myself here, but I feel like it did make it so it was more like, "Oh, we're doing this breakup, but we're trying to stay friends, and we're trying to do two opposing things, or it made it a little more challenging." Whereas I think at least the goal of the term de-escalation is often to say, what if there's a way where it doesn't have to be about the ending so much as changing or scaling back certain elements.
Of course, I'm guessing because I don't know how I would've felt at the time, but I just feel like there was a nuance that we just didn't have the word for back then.
Emily: Yes, that's interesting. On the flip side, I have used that word recently. The person that I dated directly after my very, very long nine-year relationship, I dated him for about six months, maybe seven or eight months. When I broke things off with him, I framed it as a de-escalation. I think, in my mind, what I was thinking about was that yes, this person would stay in my life, that in order to soften it, also, I was using the terminology de-escalation. I remember, Jase, when you and I were in the process of our de-escalation, you had said stuff like, "I'm not exactly sure how to relate to you from a physical standpoint," stuff like that.
Do you still retain some of that physicality, for instance, that you used to have with someone, maybe like--
Jase: Like hugging or cuddling or any of those types of things.
Emily: Yes, cuddling, I think putting--
Jase: Where do you draw the line?
Emily: Totally. It is that question. I found, unfortunately, with this person that I'm thinking of, that I was using the terminology de-escalating, that there was some retention of that physicality. It ended up feeling pretty uncomfortable for me. I felt like I needed that break to a degree-- that my body had a break, I guess, from that physical sensation of being around that person in a very intimate way, and instead, just let it go more to a friendship type where a little bit more platonic. Not to say that some friends don't cuddle and stuff because certainly that is something that some friends retain, but I felt like I needed more of a gap there, more of a break.
All of that to say, I think that I use the terminology in order to soften the blow for him and say, "Okay, this is just a transition of a relationship into something else," but in reality, I think what I actually needed, and I'm still in the process of that now, is a real, true break from that person. That I'm not seeing them. That I'm actually getting time to heal and be away from them, whereas you and I think did that transition pretty seamlessly. It took a little while, and it was challenging.
Jase: It took us a while, yes.
Emily: Yes, but we were able to not feel so awful about the situation that we really, really needed to completely stay away from one another for an extended period of time.
Dedeker: Emily, it sounds like with this more recent situation, that when you used the term de-escalation, that maybe that evoked more of an image of it being a slider that we're adjusting, as opposed to, "No, I need this to be a switch right now, that I need to switch to the off position."
Emily: Sure. Yes, that's a really interesting point. I don't think that I really realized that until me trying to de-escalate and make it into this friendship thing when that clearly wasn't working for a variety of reasons, and that I was like, "Okay, we need to actually just put the brakes on," that was the difference there. Sometimes, maybe you may not know that until you're in the midst of it, until you realize maybe one or both of you is still having feelings or being confused over that de-escalation. I think that that's the potential there that is a little bit scary, is the potential for confusion or hope, even that, okay, maybe this change in the relationship means that eventually it can ramp back up to more romantic feelings.
Dedeker: If we can slide the slider down, we could potentially slide it back up again.
Emily: Exactly, yes. I think that that was my mistake and fault that that's not what I wanted, and that is what he wanted, and I should have been more clear about that from the beginning.
Jase: You make a good point, though, that you also didn't quite know what you wanted at the beginning, because that's also hard to evaluate, because I don't know quite how I'm going to feel once these things change.
Emily: Yes. It's hard to let someone go, regardless.
Jase: That de-escalation term, I think, can sometimes imply too much of the slider when, actually, we need something bigger than that. That's an interesting point, too. I've been thinking about this. Something that came up for me was this idea that when we think about the traditional way of looking at it, of just breakups, you get into a relationship or you break up, and those are your two options.
One is that that's usually really attached to the whole relationship escalator thing. A relationship can only get more entwined and closer. You can only move from dating to being exclusive, to living together, to getting married, having kids, whatever, that you can't ever step back on that escalator. Then, similarly, if you do step back, that means that the whole thing's got to be a breakup. It's got to be this significant change, but when I was looking into this and realizing that it's interesting that we talk about de-escalation now, but we don't really talk about escalation quite as consciously, that we take for granted.
It got me thinking about how relationships really are just about this constant change that even on really small scale, we might be changing a little bit in the types of jokes that we make, or the type of sex that we have, or the types of things we do together, or--
Dedeker: The types of time that we spend together. How much time we spend together.
Jase: That's a great one, yes. Exactly. Thinking about it in this bigger picture of our needs changing, our lives changing, and that de-escalation is part of this bigger system rather than being its own standalone thing. I think this episode is an interesting one because we're mostly focusing on the de-escalating part of it, but I think toward the end, we'll get into a little bit of how the escalating, how getting more entwined, or committing to spending more time or more of a certain type of connection together is also part of the whole thing. It's like, without that, we couldn't have de-escalating if we didn't have escalating. You need the background to have the foreground. Maybe I'm getting too philosophical here.
Dedeker: I want to bring it back to how we got here because to me, in my brain, de-escalation feels like it's a very polyamory subculture term.
Emily: No.
Dedeker: I don't see a ton of people in the mainstream dating scene using the term de-escalation. I've seen it out there a couple of times, but it feels like a very insider term to me, and I'm curious about that.
Jase: Yes. I have a suspicion that we will see this term used a lot more by the Gen Z, Gen Alpha people. I just think that it started more in the non-monogamy world, but I feel like it just makes enough sense, and stuff like it has existed before. I actually tried looking into the history of this term. Did we have other options before this? The only thing I really found was conscious uncoupling.
Dedeker: Sure. Makes sense.
Jase: Did either of you ever hear that one before?
Emily: Oh, yes. Absolutely.
Dedeker: The lady who pointed the term conscious uncoupling has built an entire empire based on that. An entire empire. Katherine Woodward Thomas, I believe, was the one who coined the concept and the term, and Gwyneth Paltrow just happened to pick it up and drop it in a particularly well-seen interview. That's what made it go viral.
Jase: Exactly. That's when I remember first hearing about the term and thinking about it was Gwyneth Paltrow during her separation from Chris Martin of Coldplay, so two celebrities also that both had different followings, but it definitely made that message spread pretty far. I believe in their situation, it was that they were separating, but they did have kids together, and so it was a little bit of co-parenting, a little bit of trying to be amicable, and minimizing harm, avoiding blaming each other.
I remember people being pretty divided about it, where some people are like, "Oh, my gosh. That's so cool. That's so mature. That's so healthy. It's a more civil way of having a divorce. It doesn't have to be this traumatic event for the whole family and the kids, and everyone." Then other people were like, "Yes, cool. That sounds great, but you're oversimplifying how complicated these things are and then maybe making us feel bad if we did just have a normal breakup or a messy divorce."
Dedeker: Yes. This idea of maybe the whole de-escalation thing that we can adopt this particular word in order to make it feel less messy or to feel like we're more enlightened or--
Jase: Right, or if you're not doing this thing, you're doing a bad thing.
Dedeker: Sure.
Jase: I think there's some validity to that. Being more intentional about most things, I think, is generally a good thing, but we can get into that territory where we're trying to apply that label to something that's really not that, and we're just trying to put this coat of paint over something messy and uncomfortable.
Emily: One of our favorite adages on this show is that it's okay to break up, and the traditional breakup thought process I think that most people look at breakups and they say, "Okay, that means I'm going to cut this person out of my life pretty much and I'm not going to see them again." If that is the case for you, that is totally okay. You don't really need to stay friends with an ex. Sometimes, it can be a really awesome, beneficial thing in your life and lead to 520 episodes of a podcast.
Dedeker: We'll see. You'll never know.
Emily: Sometimes, you really should never see that person again. Both options are okay.
Jase: There might be some steps in between there, right?
Emily: Definitely. Those are two wild extremes, but here we are.
Jase: It was funny. It did make me think of in a subculture where de-escalation is really glorified or held up as that's the mature more evolved, better way to do a breakup, I feel like our thing of it's okay to break up can take on a different meaning. Not only is it okay for a relationship to end, but also, they don't all have to look that way. They don't all have to look like, "Oh, we're still really close. We're still in each other's lives. We still see each other a lot." I think that's an awesome option, clearly. Emily and I are an example of that being great, but it doesn't always have to be that.
I'm curious to hear from the two of you and have a little discussion about when we say de-escalation, what do we mean? How does that differentiate from conscious uncoupling in your mind?
Dedeker: When I hear the term conscious uncoupling, it requires that there was a couple, because you got to uncouple from being in a couple. Yes, of course, in the case of Gwyneth Paltrow, it's this idea of, "We have children together. We have property together. We have all these projects together. We've very much built this traditional couple unit, and we need to disentangle that in some way." A de-escalation could be that, but the way that I see it used is, I don't know, I've seen people who are maybe not necessarily people who identify as a couple.
Maybe they're not creating a super entwined unit together, but life circumstances have changed, or needs have changed, or expectations have changed, and we've realized that we need to make some kind of shift. I think that's how I see de-escalation is maybe being a little bit more broad, where it's not necessarily about we need to do this intricate unentwining together. It may just be we need to re-evaluate how we're going to show up.
Emily: I recall hoping to a degree that my long-term ex and I could kind of decouple, maybe not see each other for a while, but then come back together at some point and be friends and do a semi-break, semi-de-escalation hybrid thing. In reality, that did not happen. It just was a breakup, totally. I do think that in the episode that we did on closure and the two different types of closures, sometimes, we have moments where there is a person who was in the wrong and then we break up with that person and don't want to see them again, and then there are relationships where nobody is in the wrong, nobody is the bad guy, and I do think that sometimes de-escalation can maybe fall more along those lines.
If somebody's the bad guy, it makes more sense that you wouldn't ever want to see them again, but if that is not the case, then perhaps you would want them in your life in some way, even though hurt absolutely can still be a part of it.
Jase: Yes. I think what I really appreciate about the concept of de-escalating, and this is why I think that this will get used a lot more in Gen Z and Gen Alpha, who generally talk about relationships in a more nuanced way, there's more gray areas between being in relationships and not is that it's like the same thing, but for a breakup, where you uncouple to a lot of different things. Not just getting into lots of different types of relationships, but also moving out of those into other types of relationships. I do appreciate that nuance that it brings to it. That's part of what we'll explore in this episode.
I think, just to touch on it briefly before we move on, just that there are a lot of reasons why we might want to de-escalate. It could be like Emily said, somebody did something wrong, it was hurtful. Maybe that's not a de-escalation. Maybe that's just a breakup, but maybe it is just changing needs or shifting priorities in your life, or one we see a lot is getting entangled much too quickly, too early on in your relationship, and then needing to course-correct, to use a term that's used for the stock market. There's a slight correction.
Dedeker: The correction happening --
Emily: Correction is coming in the stock market everywhere.
Jase: That correction is coming. Yes, exactly.
Emily: Now, we want to get into navigating the challenges and the potential pitfalls of de-escalation, because even though perhaps it's this softer, transitional, we're not totally cutting this person out of our life, we're just moving into something different, even if that is the right choice and if that's the thing that is the most beneficial to both parties involved, it can still be really painful and challenging and messy. We do want to point out, like I talked about before, that de-escalation can just be a euphemism for a breakup. Maybe keep that in mind and think about that before you use that term like I did.
I just really didn't want to hurt this person, and I felt like I knew that it was going to really hurt them to break up with them. I also knew that I had a job coming up with them, where I was going to be with them in a very intimate way where I have to stand next to them and sing for hours and hours a day, and that the idea of de-escalation felt easier than just saying, "Now, I'm standing next to my broken-up ex, and that's it."
Dedeker: Sure.
Emily: I do think that perhaps, overall, it made that whole situation more difficult, which is really too bad.
Dedeker: What are the tells, then? How can somebody distinguish between "I want a genuine de-escalation of this relationship," versus "I just want a softened breakup?" Is there really a difference?
Jase: I definitely think there is a difference. I think sometimes, like Emily said, it's challenging to know exactly what you want going in, but I do think there are some ways you can explore that of-- In your case, Emily, I wonder if you'd imagined more. When I say de-escalation, what exactly do I mean? Thinking, does this mean we'll still put our arms around each other when we're standing near each other, or not? I feel like it's hard because you might just, in your body and your mind, assume that that's what this means as we're stepping back fairly far there, while he might assume something totally different.
It's hard if we're not clear on that, of like, "What do we really mean? What are the things we actually don't want to anymore, at least for a while?"
Emily: I do think it's important to look at the global landscape of not just the relationship and where it's at when it's ending or transitioning, but also the individual. What I mean by that is, I think if you are in a situation where there is the potential still for feelings involved, that just saying the word de-escalation is going to cause that other person to hold on to the potential of the two of you getting back together at some point, maybe take some time away from the relationship to let those feelings settle and to let that person move on.
If they're still in that situation and you are not, if they're still in that mindset and you are not, then it can just be like you're dangling a carrot on a stick in front of them, and that they are thinking that hopefully, eventually, you two are going to get back together. If that is not the case, if that's not what's going on here, it's not like you're on a break, or if you want to transition away from romance and into friendship, then maybe don't do that to a person. I feel bad that I feel like I did that a little bit to this person, and I should have set the record straight and sooner, because that led to a lot of heartache as well.
Dedeker: It's really got me chewing on how can we distinguish? I think that maybe an important question to ask yourself is, "Do I actually want to keep this person in my life and find a way to make that work for both of us, or am I just wanting to avoid change? Am I wanting to avoid hurting this person? Am I too scared of what might happen if this person isn't around, or if I'm not around for this person?" I think that's one level of distinction that you can look at.
Then another level is not just, "Do I actually want to keep this person around," but it's like, "Do I still want to keep this person around enough that I'm also willing to go through an uncomfortable process with them?" An uncomfortable transition-
Jase: That's a great point, yes.
Dedeker: -with them, because even if you're both on the same page about like, "Yes, you're right. Let's change things. Let's experiment. Let's try a different format of relationship on. Let's take some things off the relationship smorgasbord," or whatever, that's still going to be challenging and bring up feelings. Maybe that's another level of like, do you want this person in your life enough to keep going through something uncomfortable, potentially, even if it's not fighting for a romantic relationship anymore, things like that? Does that feel like that makes sense?
Emily: Yes.
Jase: Yes. There takes a certain amount of it's not just like this easy, "Oh, we're just going to back this off a little bit," but a willingness to engage in a difficult transition together.
Dedeker: If you're not, if you realize, "Actually, I don't know if I want this person in my life enough to really dig into the mud of this transition," that is also totally okay. Take de-escalation off of the pedestal. It is also totally okay.
Jase: This reminded me of a couple of different situations. One is where I had a relationship where I really did want to de-escalate. I still really liked this relationship, but specifically, I just wanted to see this person less often. It was just too much for me and my life and what was going on. That ended up not being okay for her. That ended up just being a breakup, but it was something where I don't feel like we did as good a job of getting to the heart of what we both wanted and were okay with, where instead, it ended up being a bit more messy of her feeling like I was more pulling away rather than an intentional de-escalation, even though I felt like I tried to be very clear.
It was an example where I feel like she heard it more in the way that she wanted to hear it, rather than getting clarity. Then it makes me think of another situation where I was on the opposite side. Where I was dating someone who was saying like, "I want to de-escalate in this part of our relationship," and that I was like, "Okay." I heard it as a tiny amount of de-escalation, like Emily described with her ex. It's like I heard it as a tiny amount and she actually meant a pretty large amount, but that in my interest of having the relationship, I was like, "Okay, I got that. Yes, we can do that. Cool. Let's move on."
Instead of, as the one receiving it, getting inquisitive and asking questions of, "What does that mean exactly? What are you okay with and not okay with?" I think there's also an aspect on the receiving end of this request for de-escalation, because usually, it comes from just one side or the other, of not just, "Let's fast-forward to try to get the answer I think I want," but like, "Let's actually try to understand what this means." That's hard, but I definitely think in both of those situations, that would've helped things a lot.
With that, let's take a quick research break. Hop aboard the magic school bus. I will transform us into an emotional phytoplankton to-- No, this doesn't connect at all.
Dedeker: Wow. Ms. Frizzle, you're going through something right now, huh?
Emily: Ms. Frizzle's going through a divorce.
Dedeker: I think she was never mentioned as single.
Jase: She's de-escalating.
Dedeker: Maybe she was always a single lady. Who knows?
Jase: She was always single, but she could have been de-escalating with someone and having a hard time with it.
Dedeker: Yes, that's true.
Jase: That's when she decided to take her kids on a trip through relationship churning. This is a term that I had not heard before. This comes from a study from 2013 called Relationship Churning in Emerging Adulthood: On/Off Relationships and Sex with an Ex. This is by Sarah Halpern-Meekin et al, published in the Journal of Adolescent Research in 2013. Essentially, this was talking about this phenomenon of the on-again, off-again relationship, which I think we've all either had that or known someone who's had that kind of relationship at some point.
Specifically, in their research, they saw that this especially happened with young adults. In their case, they're looking at people around 18, 19 years old.
Emily: That's some really young adults.
Jase: Yes, quite young. Their range was a little spread around that, but it was more focused on that quite young adults. However, I think as we talk about this, we'll see that this actually applies later in life as well. It might just be more common within this particular area. This is both the phenomenon of breaking up and getting back together, breaking up, getting back together over and over again. That's what they call relationship churning. Then the other one is breaking up, but then continuing to have sex with each other. In this, they did a study of 792 young adults with an average age of 20 to 21. I guess a little older than 19, but in that spread there.
What was interesting about it is they found that the respondents who report more relationship conflict and lower validation in the relationship, as well as more frequent intimate self-disclosure, more expressions of their feelings and things, and also less commitment, experienced the relationship churn more often.
Dedeker: Okay, hold on. Let me try to translate this in my brain. The idea, I'm a young adult, and I'm in a relationship that's really high in conflict. I don't feel validated by my partner. I'm prone to really telling it like it is and wearing my heart on my sleeve, and also, I'm not sure if I actually want to be in this relationship or not, that those are the ingredients that set me up, possibly, for this churn, for on-again, off-again, I love you, I hate you. We're never ever ever getting back together. Oh, no. We actually are getting back together. Let's have sex again. That's all that goes into that particular stew?
Jase: Yes. This really surprised me, which I guess maybe it shouldn't, but I guess I thought like I don't feel validated in this relationship, and there's more conflict, wouldn't I just want to be gone and done with it? It seems like, actually, that volatility leads to that incompleteness of like, "Oh, maybe if I just give it another try."
Dedeker: Exactly. I can see it being like a breadcrumb thing, right?
Emily: Yes.
Jase: Right.
Dedeker: That it's like you get a little bit of that validation, and then you're like, "Oh, I want to try to get more." It's maybe a little bit of that addictive slot machine dynamic of this person is very inconsistent in their validation, but when I do get it, then it feels really good, and I want to keep pulling on the slot machine.
Jase: I think that's definitely part of it. Then the other piece of this that I thought was interesting, and I think definitely applies to older people as well, is that they found that people who have sex with an ex, they stay broken up, but they'll still hook up sometimes, that that can constitute an extra health risk because people will tend to keep their same contraceptive practices that they had while they were in a relationship even after being broke up when they hook up again-
Dedeker: That totally makes sense.
Jase: -which also makes sense, because you're in the habit of like, "Oh, we can't move back on that. We can't start using condoms now or whatever," while at the same time, they are not monogamous with each other because they're broken up. They're both having sex with other people. It's like this double-sided extra risk that's going on. I would argue, because of this lack of intentionality about it, that there's almost this like, "Oh, it's all accidental." It all just happens rather than being a thing that the people decided.
Dedeker: I will say, sometimes deciding to just be friends with somebody, all it really does is make the sex a lot hotter.
Jase: Sure. That's true.
Emily: How many times does this happen to you, Dedeker?
Dedeker: To me, actually, I don't think it's happened that many times, but when it has, because now you've injected this weird taboo where you're broken up, you're not supposed to be having sex, but you do anyway because you long for each other so much that it makes sense you would be not intentional and not treating this person like they're a brand new person that you're having sex with and not having the same safe sex practices, perhaps.
Jase: In this research, they pointed out that in previous research, they had found that condom use tends to be high at the beginning of relationships and then drops over time, being replaced by oral contraceptives. Again, we're talking about heterosexual relationships here, where pregnancy is-- It switches from STI and pregnancy to just concern about pregnancy. It's the trend they've seen, but then after breaking up, they keep that trend of, "Oh, well, we've already established this, I guess, trust or safety or whatever, intimacy, whatever you want to call it, but we keep that even though we've actually completely changed the dynamic of our relationship."
Dedeker: What are you trying to tell us, Jase? Is the whole point here about just be careful with de-escalation, that it's not also just a cover for this churn behavior? Is it just about just be really intentional?
Jase: That's what I'm getting at is what I took away from this study was this when you're not intentional, and I think we tend to be the least intentional when we're younger, because we just don't know what we're doing yet. We haven't learned these lessons, and we all go through that. We all have to deal with that. I think I sometimes see people discovering polyamory or non-monogamy later in life, almost reverting to being a teenager again, and going through these things for the first time.
Again, understandably, I think we've all been there to a certain extent, because you're having to pave the way all over again for this new way of doing things that you don't quite know how it's supposed to feel yet, or what's normal, or what your values are because you're shaking it all up and reevaluating it. I think this is worth just acknowledging and being aware that a lack of intention can lead to these painful cycles that you can get into, as well as potentially some unsafe behavior.
Now, with that, I'm excited to get into the spectrum of relationship reconfiguration, which is essentially a way of painting with more colors. That's the metaphor that I've come up with, or maybe singing with all the voices of the mountain, something like that.
Dedeker: Yes, that one.
Jase: Using more notes in your chord, getting a little more nuance in here, to explore what are the different gradations between breakups and de-escalations and all of that. It is time for the spectrum of relationship reconfiguration. TM, TM, TM, original Multiamory work created by Jase.
Dedeker: You came up with this?
Jase: I came up with this.
Dedeker: That's so cool.
Emily: That's really cool.
Jase: I did. I don't think it has a very catchy name yet.
Dedeker: Yes, we've got to workshop that one.
Jase: We might have to work on that. I had originally called it the taxonomy of relationship evolution or something like that, which was even worse. It's better now, but maybe you two can have some thoughts on this.
Dedeker: People love the relationship smorgasbord, right?
Emily: Yes.
Jase: Yes.
Dedeker: This is almost like an opposite smorgasbord, maybe. I'm curious about before you even explain what it is, how do you imagine people using this-
Emily: Oh, that's good, yes.
Dedeker: -spectrum of relationship reconfiguration?
Jase: I would actually not see it as the opposite of the relationship smorgasbord, but actually a tool that can be used along with it.
Dedeker: It's like the utensils. It's like the salad bar. It's the de-escalation dessert bar-
Emily: Oh, I like that.
Dedeker: -but it's not just about de-escalation. We'll think about those.
Jase: What if this is like the different types of cafeteria trays with different sub sections to fit the different food into, or maybe a different size plates that you can put on your tray?
Dedeker: That's good. I think we're really improving the more we talk about this.
Emily: Absolutely, for sure.
Jase: Essentially, the idea with this is, like I mentioned at the beginning of this episode, is that, originally, you get into a relationship where you break up, and that's your only two options. Then we broadened things with, we can get into more different types of relationships, and then maybe we could de-escalate. Then we get into that issue we talked about, where it's like, how much de-escalating do you mean? What do you really mean by that? If you think about something like we live together and we decide we want to not live together anymore, but still be in just as close of a relationship, is that de-escalating or does it feel yucky to call it de-escalating when that's not how we feel about it?
The idea with this was to look it in a little more nuance at the ways relationships can change and to come up with some categories for those, some names for those, so that when you're thinking about what is it that I want, again, there's just more colors for you to look at, where you don't just have to choose between blue and red, but you have purple and pink-
Emily: Violet.
Jase: -and violet and lilac, all these in-between colors, just to help you get a clearer sense. Much like colors, these do blend into each other. This isn't like you're either in one or the other necessarily. They're more on a spectrum, like colors. You might realize, "Okay, this word mostly describes it, but not quite all the way." That image in your mind.
Dedeker: It's more of a reconfiguration palette.
Jase: Yes.
Emily: There you go.
Jase: Let's put on our smocks.
Dedeker: Let's put on our Bob Ross wigs.
Jase: That's what I was imagining was you're in your all white overalls, whatever it is. We're being artists now, and we're going to paint with beautiful colors.
Emily: Lovely.
Jase: Let's start. I'm curious to hear your thoughts as we go through this as well, is we're going to start from the most de-escalate-y, the most breakup-like, and then we're going to move to the other side of the spectrum. Starting off, the name for this one is dissolution. A traditional breakup would fall into this category. Dissolution is about the ending of a specific type of relationship, like moving from romantic to platonic or moving from sexual to not sexual or from cohabiting to not cohabiting, but that it also comes with a certain essence of stepping back. That we are removing something. That we're not replacing that with something else, but we are taking a bigger step back.
A breakup is a good example. Ending a sexual relationship. Stopping using a word like partner or boyfriend, or girlfriend, or something could be another version of this. I think the key aspect is that it's defined by the ending of something.
Emily: Yes. It seems like these are the aspects where, again, to cram yet another metaphor into this, we used at the top of the episode, these are the aspects where it's very clear, this is an on, off switch for me, that these things are off the table. This part of our relationship needs to be dissolved, or this broad category of our relationship is no more. It's dissolved.
Jase: Yes. It's defined by the off switch. I like that metaphor, actually. That we recognize that there might be other forms of connection that still persist or might evolve independently, but not necessarily, that's not really the focus of it. It's more. There was this thing, and I want to not have this thing, right? I think, to go to your example, Emily, it's kind of that. It's more what you wanted was, "I need some space. I need some breathing room. I need to not be so--"
Dedeker: I needed to say these things. Ending a sexual relationship, stopping using the word partner or boyfriend.
Jase: Right.
Dedeker: Yes.
Jase: It's more focused on the dissolution, the turning off of some things.
Dedeker: Yes.
Jase: That doesn't mean never see you again, right? You can get a little granular, or it's like, we're not going to use boyfriend, girlfriend, partner, whatever, but maybe we're still in the same social group and we do want to still be okay to be in the same room as each other, around our mutual friends. It could be that, or it could be, I never want to see you again, but all of that would fall into this dissolution. That's where it starts to blur on the other end into the next color, which is de-escalation.
That's the one that we've been using as the umbrella term for all of these in this episode. De-escalation here fits in the middle. This is where we're intentionally reducing specific areas of entanglement, like the amount of time we spend together, our physical intimacy, maybe how entwined our finances are, but while maintaining a similar relational framework. That we're intentionally saying, "I want to back off some areas of this," maybe even some areas completely, but where the focus is on keeping the fundamental essence of the relationship not totally changed.
Emily: The idea that we still consider each other to be partners, but maybe we're in a chapter where we need to reduce the frequency of our sleepovers together because-
Jase: That's a good way
Emily: this chapter like going to grad school, and I need to really focus on this, and so-- Yes.
Dedeker: That's a flavor of de-escalation. That's the question though, because that seems to me like de-escalating down, reducing the amount of time that you spend with a person and de-escalating from that standpoint versus another flavor would be de-escalating a sexual relationship, but retaining a relationship that also involves platonic hugging and kissing maybe, but that just doesn't involve penetrative sex or whatever.
Emily: Sure.
Jase: Yes. There could be a whole range here, right? It could be almost the opposite of what you said, Dedeker, it could be we're going to stop using boyfriend and girlfriend, or partner, or whatever for each other and stop publicly presenting that way, but we still want to maintain our intimate and sexual relationship. It's something, but where-- I actually think that's maybe slipping into the next category, now that I think about it.
The idea is that you're cutting out one aspect, but you're making a narrower cut, or it's like the slider Dedeker mentioned before. You're turning down the volume, or I guess, maybe, we should say turning down the saturation of the color, or something like that, but you don't want to fundamentally change it. Where dissolution is more like, I want to really fundamentally change the nature of this. In this taxonomy, de-escalation is this middle ground where I think right now we use the term de-escalation for all of these. I'm trying to narrow that one a little bit to focus on the de-escalation part, where there was an aspect that was added to the relationship that's now being removed, but not necessarily everything else.
Emily: Then, as we move along the spectrum, then what's next?
Jase: Okay, so next is what I've called recalibration. Essentially, recalibration is where we want to restructure some of what we have and don't have in this relationship or how we do things, but we fundamentally want to keep the relationship. This is hard to define because this varies for different people, but we want to keep the relationship dealing as close and as meaningful as it was before.
Where de-escalation implies, we're taking a little step back, not all the way back, but we're taking a little step back and removing some things, where this could be the recalibration of we still love each other a lot, but we've decided that because we want to be non monogamous and don't want to have a lot of hierarchy, we're going to get divorced, but we still want to live together and raise our kids together, or something like that. Maybe we wanted to stop living together but still be really intimate and still be married to each other, or whatever, right?
We're very intentionally saying, "This is not at all stepping back the relationship, but it is making a somewhat significant change in what dynamics are in it." I'd say maybe an example of this would be when the Daylovers were on the show and they talked about how their relationship hadn't been sexual for several years, but they still have their kid together and still have a business relationship, and a personal relationship, and all of that. That for them, that could fall into this recalibration category, where it's not like we're less together. We're still just as together. We just decided not to have that part of our relationship.
Emily: Right. That makes sense.
Jase: I do feel like the lines between de-escalation and its two neighbors, the dissolution and recalibration, are blurry. I think that's intentional. This isn't meant to be like, decide your category, but it's more, as you think about these, what one feels the most like what I'm going for, is it about the turning off of something, is it about moving those sliders down, or is it just about turning the hue knob or getting a different color in there or something like that, like a recalibration.
Dedeker: Right.
Jase: Then the fourth category is escalation. This is adding something new to the relationship. When I made this initially, I was just focusing on those first three, but then it kept feeling like it was weird to not have this other part of the spectrum of adding escalation to a relationship.
Dedeker: Sure. Yes.
Emily: I just wanted to name, to point out that often escalation is not done necessarily intentionally. It just happens to you.
Dedeker: Yes, for sure.
Jase: Yes, exactly.
Dedeker: Yes.
Jase: That was the thing that really hit me as I was putting this together, was it felt weird not to have escalation in it. Then it felt weird to put escalation in because it tends to be less of a big decision when we escalate. Certain escalations can feel like a big decision, right? Like, to decide to get married or decide to-
Dedeker: Move in together.
Jase: -have children or--
Emily: Move in together, yes.
Jase: Maybe move in together. Although I think a lot of us don't think about that one quite as intentionally as we should.
Emily: Sure.
Jase: I'm definitely guilty of that many times in the past.
Emily: Ditto. Never again.
Jase: Once I put it on here, I realized, "Yes, it makes so much sense." What if we put as much intentionality into figuring out how we escalate as we do into de-escalating, or recalibrating, or dissolving a relationship? That really was the thing that stood out to me.
Emily: I think that begs the question, though, because in my mind, when I think about the relationship anarchy smorgasbord, for some reason, in my mind, it lives in this category of like, "Oh, well, that's the escalation negotiation," right?
Jase: Interesting.
Emily: Even though that's not at all what it was intended for. That's not necessarily how people use it, but for some reason, to have that association.
Dedeker: I guess because it can change over time. Often, I think about doing that at the beginning of a relationship and saying, "Okay, these are my intentions for the relationship." I had my current partner, his brother asked me, like very close to the beginning of that relationship, "What are your intentions with my brother?" because I was dating someone else at the time, too, and that was the first time that had ever happened to his brother.
Yes, but I think that those intentions can change over time, and that is that question. The smorgasbord, I think, can be used as a tool to reevaluate what those intentions are and to put potentially more intentionality behind a thing like escalation and realize, like "Hey, I know that I said that I didn't want to commingle finances," but it just makes sense now for whatever reason that we do that, we share assets together in various ways. We probably should have a shared bank account, or I lost my job and my home, and I need to live with somebody and have that person take care of me for a period of time in my life. Therefore, we are going to change this idea that we were never going to live together, or whatever it is. It doesn't have to be that dire, but it can just be a change.
Jase: You make a great point, though, that it evolves over time, that I think some people can get so stuck in, like "I'm looking for someone to get married and have kids with."
Dedeker: 100%.
Jase: For example, I hear that one a lot of like, "I'm looking for that kind of relationship." They'll say no to anything that's not really clearly aimed in that direction. You might be in a relationship and realize, "Actually, I didn't think I would want those things, but I do," or you might be in a relationship and realize, "I like this a lot, and I don't want those things," like that, that can keep evolving over time. I think that's the idea of having it in here is that relationships are always evolving, and being more conscious about any type of evolution can only help improve that communication.
Emily: Yes. Having a lack of rigidity around that possibility.
Jase: To go back to the relationship anarchy smorgasbord, Dedeker. I was thinking that if you're coming to something like, "I'm feeling like this relationship is too much, and I want to back it off," I feel like de-escalation is the category that I'm feeling. I do want to take a step back from this, not just reconfigure, and I don't want to break things off entirely. That looking at the smorgasbord can actually be really helpful to see, like, "Well, what are the things I do still want?" Sometimes we can forget about those and just be like, "Oh, yes. Well, it's just that I don't want us to call each other partner anymore." Then you realize like, "Oh, actually, it's all the touching that I don't want." That the relationship anarchy smorgasbord can help you remember all the parts because I think that's its whole point.
Emily: Yes, that makes sense.
Jase: It's like when you're escalating, it's like, "What even are the ways people can escalate?" I think is really helpful for reminding you of all the things that you don't think about every day. I think the same with de-escalating of like, "Oh, no, I also want to de-escalate that part," or like, "Oh, no, I definitely want to keep this part. They might have thought I also don't want us to have sex." I'm like, "No, I definitely still want that. I just don't want us to do these other things." There's lots of different variations of it that you can bring to that discussion and also help get clarity for yourself.
Emily: All of that in mind, what do you think are the most important things for people to keep in mind practically when they want to recalibrate, de-escalate, or maybe they've evaluated, "Yes, there's actually parts of this I just want to completely dissolve." What should people keep in mind?
Dedeker: I wish I did this one, which is identify your goal here for this change. I know for a fact that not everybody is really intentional in their change in a relationship structure. Sometimes people just out of the blue are like, "Okay, I'm breaking up. We're done. I'm not doing this anymore." If you're using the word de-escalation, I think that that intentionality is really necessary because you don't want it to be a situation where it means something to someone else and not the same thing to you, and then there's a big mismatch of expectation there.
Try to identify your goal and look at what we just talked about, like which category of reconfiguration best describes this desired outcome that you have. Then have open communication about it. Ideally, have multiple conversations with a lot of time for reflection, a lot of time to ensure that both people understand what is being communicated, and don't just let it hang out there amorphously because hurt feelings will happen for sure.
Jase: Yes. Something that I've tried to find a better way of conveying this, but when two people are coming together on any given subject in terms of how these two people will relate, I feel like, generally speaking, a no always overpowers a yes. If one person wants to have some aspect in your relationship and the other person doesn't, then you don't have it. That's the core of consent. That's also, I just think how we relate with people. It's like if I want to be friends with you and you really don't want that, I can't unilaterally be friends with you. That's just not how that works.
I think with what you were saying, Emily, of getting clear on, what is it that I'm actually looking for as much as possible, realizing that that could still change, but getting as much clarity as you can but then in that open communication realizing that you saying no to one area, like if it is saying, "I don't want us to have a sexual relationship anymore but I want to keep everything else as it is." That's the type of de-escalation, or maybe for you, that even feels like a reconfiguration. It's not even a de-escalation. It's like, "I just want to not do that part, but still be just as close."
Realize the other person might say, "No, I'm not okay with still having these other type parts of our romantic entwined relationship if that's not part of it," and realizing that it's going to have to be this ongoing exploration and conversation to find, essentially, like where do the nos line up. That sounds so negative, and so I tried to think of this as like, where do our yeses line up, where can we both enthusiastically say yes? I feel like it's worth acknowledging part of that is realizing I might be coming in wanting to de-escalate or reconfigure, and actually, I end up receiving more nos than I wanted to receive than I actually wanted there to be, and realizing that.
I think that's why, like Emily said, the ongoing communication is so important, so you both have time to sit with that and process that and think about it and realizing that the result of all that might end up being a full dissolution. It might just be, ultimately, with the things that each of us doesn't want and how that all adds up, might just be like, "This isn't going to work at all. We've got to dissolve this." Again, we might still be cordial. We might still be able to be in polite society and not be awkward or talk shit about each other, but one way or another, it's like this won't work to just reconfigure. We've got to end this type of relationship, and realizing that might happen.
Dedeker: Similarly, if you are going to be escalating, be mindful about that. De-escalating definitely almost always is challenging to some degree, and intentional and slower escalation early on can prevent the need for drastic de-escalation later. I do think so many people out there just really jump into scenarios before thinking hard about them, and that can include moving in after less than a year, or even adding a year, or getting married really quickly, deciding to have kids pretty quickly.
Emily: Even more benign, I think jumping, just like spending all of your time with somebody.
Dedeker: Yes.
Jase: Yes.
Dedeker: Yes, letting the NRE run the show, for example.
Jase: That was my example of where I did want to de-escalate, and it ended up for her, not being okay, so she wanted to break up instead. Was that like part of my brain was like, "You're over committing your time and what you spend with this person because you've got stuff going on," but it's that, "Oh, but it got overpowered by the excitement and the NRE," and it ended up leading to something that it was painful and sucked and maybe didn't have to be that way. I don't know for sure, but maybe didn't have to be that way if I had been able to be slower in the escalation of it.
Dedeker: Yes. Similarly, with my relationship that I broke up with in the middle of last year, I found myself, like I said before, walking back into the same patterns that I once had had with my long-term ex and those patterns included escalating too quickly and doing it without intention and it led to this potential where he thought, "Oh, maybe we're going to move in together next year." That's just the next step, and even so much that his family members were like, "Oh, are you going to escalate this quickly because you two are of a certain age," which I loved hearing so much-
Jase: I so love that, yes.
Dedeker: -but besides that, it just was we were going through the motions that I intended to go through in all of my relationships, which was to just go really quickly and move in or spend all your time together or act like this is the most important thing in my life and I don't really have much else going on. The reality of that situation was I realized pretty quickly that's not what I want. Now that I have my time back and now that I have my freedom back out from under the thumb of my long-term relationship, I realized actually I want more intentional time for myself to do the things that I want to do, to live the life that I want to lead, and that doesn't necessarily include the patterns that I once held.
If you find yourself with the appropriate amount of time to think truly and honestly about what it is that you want, take it because I think it can really be beneficial to your relationships later on and put you on a path to actually doing the things that you want in your life as opposed to just all the prescribed things that were told we should be doing.
Jase: I love that. In closing, hopefully, this broader palette of colors can help you when you're approaching this. To recap quickly, that is, dissolution when you want to turn off the switch, de-escalation when you want to turn down the slider a little bit, recalibration where you just want to change up some things but try to primarily keep the same amount of emotional closeness, and then, escalation is something that we can be more mindful about how we're escalating and what choices we're making as we do that partly to prevent having to de-escalate as much later on.
I always like to tell people that escalating slower never really hurt anybody, but escalating too quickly very often does. It's like you'll still get there even if you got there a little bit slower, and if it was meant to be, you still get there, and it's great. Going too quickly is often where people end up hurting themselves and hurting other people, even if that was never their intention, and it could have ended up differently.