This essay aims to examine what subject positions are possible within the discourse of relationship anarchy. Through semi-structured interviews with four people who define themselves as relationship anarchists I've made a discourse analysis to determine how these relationship anarchists explain what, in the discourse they’re in, is described as an relationship anarchistic way of being, what isn’t and how they relate to this. Relationship anarchy is described as an ideology based on freedom. It is about the right to define their relationships as they like, as something constantly changing and that does not hold a specific value based on its label. But it is apparent that the freedom is relative when it occurs in a discourse where other standards are created. Based on these standards, both the hegemonic discourse, where being a couple is the relationship standard, and the counter-hegemonic relationship anarchist discourse, the respondents are positioning themselves as something different from that, and that their way of practicing relationships are based on responsibility and communication. Based on this I find that there are three possible subject positions within relationship anarchy: the idealogical, the player and the responsible.