Rejecting fixed rules and hierarchies between relationship types, letting each connection define its own shape.
The word "anarchy" scares people off, so let's disarm it first. It doesn't mean chaos, no commitment, or "do whatever you want with no consequences." It borrows the political sense — no imposed ruler — and points it at your relationships: no external rulebook gets to decree that a partner automatically outranks a best friend, or that sex must come bundled with cohabitation, exclusivity and a shared calendar. You question the bundle. You build each connection from what the two of you actually want.
The common misconception is that relationship anarchy is just polyamory with extra vocabulary, or a clever rebrand for avoiding responsibility. It isn't. Its real target is hierarchy-by-default — what the manifesto pushes back on is entitlement, the idea that a title earns you control over someone. You can practise it and be monogamous. You can practise it with one deep friendship and no romance at all. The point isn't the number of people; it's refusing to let a category pre-decide how much a relationship is allowed to matter.
In practice it looks less edgy than the name suggests: a lot of explicit conversation, because when you drop the default script you have to actually name what you're building. Nordgren's own line for it is "customize your commitments" — commitments still exist, you just negotiate them per relationship instead of inheriting them. Done badly, "no rules" becomes a shield for people who don't want to be accountable. Done honestly, it's more demanding than the script it replaces.