Does 'ethical non-monogamy' really exist?

The buzz phrase is 'ethical non-monogamy'. It's becoming popular at discussion forums and even on some TV shows. But the question is ... does 'ethical non-monogamy' really exist? Ethical non-monogamy supposedly is when couples have sexual and romantic relationships with people outside of just the two of them, and since they both agree to it, it's called 'ethical'.

When things are agreed upon, people can do whatever they want. But I question the lipstick-on-a-pig approach of calling this behavior 'ethical'. Isn't this just a matter of people sexually screwing around a lot and not really having a solid and moral relationship with another person? How can you really be in a couple-relationship if you have invited tons of others into it to screw around with? The intimacy is gone. Or is it all hunky-dory and anything goes as long as people all are willing participants?

Ethical Non Monogamy Guide

Ethical non-monogamy (ENM), also known as consensual non-monogamy (CNM), is an approach to relationships wherein people can have more than one romantic or sexual partner at a time, and everybody involved is aware and enthusiastically consents to the dynamic. Polyamory, open relationships, and swinging are all forms of ethically non-monogamous relationships.

"When explaining ethical or consensual non-monogamy to my clients, my go-to is the three C's: communication, consideration, and of course, consent," psychotherapist Cheyenne Taylor, LMSW, explains to mbg. "Ethical non-monogamy is based on the concept of using socially acceptable guidelines and ethically motivated tools to cultivate a relationship built on the foundation of non-monogamy. At its core, though, ENM means not cheating or acting without the consent of your partner."

Definitions of 'ethical'

- of or relating to ethics
- involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval
- conforming to accepted standards of conduct - ethical behavior

Synonyms

- MORAL, ETHICAL, VIRTUOUS, RIGHTEOUS, NOBLE mean conforming to a standard of what is right and good.
- MORAL implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I think what consenting grown adults get up to is none of anyone else's business.
It may not suit everyone, but if that's what people want that's entirely up to them.

What about the ethics of people trying to impose their own moral standards on others?

As you said FF, as long as everyone involved are willing adults and no-one gets physically hurt then I fail to see where the problem is.

Not for me, but hey, each to their own.

a reply to: FlyersFan

It's ethical if everyone involved knows what is going on and accepts it.

Is ethical polygamy and parenthood compatible? I don't care about promiscuity between consenting adults until that promiscuity results in a revolving door of pseudo paternal/maternal influences damaging the kids who are taught that convenient and temporary relationships hold the same value as long term family commitments.

I'd say "Contract Marriages" have been around since the beginning of marriages.

I think it should all depend on what each person in a marriage gives to the marriage and benefits from.

We really put too much emphasis on sex -- like that's the foundation of marriage. It really isn't.

So, yes -- ethical would be by agreement of all involved.

Marriage is defined by those in it. Not anyone outside of it.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Is ethical polygamy and parenthood compatible? I don't care about promiscuity between consenting adults until that promiscuity results in a revolving door of pseudo paternal/maternal influences damaging the kids who are taught that convenient and temporary relationships hold the same value as long term family commitments.

I always say there is Lust and then there is Love.

Love is a responsibility.

originally posted by: Annee
I always say there is Lust and then there is Love.
Love is a responsibility.

Is there love in 'ethical non monogamy'?

a reply to: FlyersFan

Not that it's anyone's business, but every poly couple I've met (several) has been a promiscuous woman and a man who thinks he can pull it off too... but fails miserably. The relationships don't last long lol.

They used to just be called "swingers"

Not the lifestyle for me but whatever.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
Is there love in 'ethical non monogamy'?

Polygamy, swingers, etc... aren't a new thing. You just heard a new name for it.

It's not my thing, I don't like to share, but people can absolutely love each other while having recreational sex with others.

a reply to: FlyersFan


Shamefully I can't comment here. Because on top of everything
else I am. I refuse to be a hypocrite.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Annee
I always say there is Lust and then there is Love.
Love is a responsibility.

Is there love in 'ethical non monogamy'?

Why wouldn't there be?

originally posted by: Boogerpicker
a reply to: FlyersFan

Not that it's anyone's business, but every poly couple I've met (several) has been a promiscuous woman and a man who thinks he can pull it off too... but fails miserably. The relationships don't last long lol.

How do you meet a poly couple?

Several according to you?

a reply to: underpass61

I have read some stuff about that upsidedown pineapple crowd. Not for me but if they are into it. Then again, it can end badly.



That is the official music video for that song and not some fan made video.

The upsidedown pineapple is a symbol for swingers for those that don't know.

a reply to: FlyersFan

My current GF, myself and my ex's are all still friends and lovers. We really need someone to review our morality and ethics for us! However it sometimes gets complicated, but the LOVE remains.

Personally, I think the one man, one woman family in modern times has been a disaster.

Both parents have to work to make ends meet — who raises the kids?

Group/extended family & group marriage sounds far better and more realistic for today’s world.

I remember something I was watching about multiple wives. One wife was at her hut, the other out in the field working with her husband. The interviewer asked the one at home why she wasn’t also out working in the field. Her simple and profound response: “Who’d watch the house?”

It sounds like you are questioning the links between Love, Sex and Respect.

In a world with 8 billion people there certainly has to be a subset with the emotional ability to separate the actions of sex and the emotions of love. If two such people get together than they could be in love with each other and respect each other while having sex with third parties.

In practice however I would suspect that a lot of couples who are in such a relationship do not have the emotional ability to fully separate love and sex; and as a result they do not have a respectful relationship. Instead they have a power dynamic wherein one or even both of the people is in fact imposing the relationship style on the other and the other is grudgingly going along even if they proclaim to be accepting.

Now add the fact that peoples emotions aren't locked in, but change day to day, situation to situation, and it may become difficult for even two (or more) accepting members of the couple to not feel taken advantage of.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I come speaking from a position of experience. My SO expressed an interest in trying it. I'm a very detail oriented person, so I asked that she clearly define what it meant to her and what the boundaries would be. I'm fairly open minded, so I wasn't immediately going to say no without understanding the finer points. Basically she said it would be several mini relationships. Fully emotional and sexual. I flat out said no. I'm open minded enough and kinky enough to be willing to entertain the idea of maybe expanding our relationship in a sexual way, but I absolutely refuse to allow it from an emotional perspective. Period.
At that time she seemed to accept my position on it, but she obviously wasn't overly happy about it. She'd been reading a lot of information and watching a lot of videos about poly couples and she was only being fed the happy-go-lucky highlight reels. Fawning over "how good their communication is" and how she has so much love to give that she couldn't possibly only give it to one person. Yeah, I know, what a fuxxed thing to say. In her defense she was fighting brain tumors we didn't know about at that time.
Once she had gone to Minnesota for radiation treatment for said brain cancer and I was at home taking care of our kid she decided she was going to try pursuing it without telling me. She had developed a minor relationship with a guy she met and it had become physical and also emotional, but she didn't tell the guy that she was developing feelings for him. He didn't know that she wanted him as the third in the throuple. I found out what she was doing by way of her own stupidity and I lost my ever loving sh!t. I told her flat out that this was done. We were not doing this, and we will never be in a poly relationship. She flipped out, tried to tell me I had to move out of the house (despite the fact that I was taking care of our son), along with a whole bunch of other sh!t. It wasn't a good deal. Granted, she hadn't been acting right for probably 6 months at this point since she got her tumors removed. Her behavior didn't even start to normalize for another 5 or 6 months after that, after she had to be involuntarily committed for a little bit.
I try to give her the benefit of the doubt because of what she/we were going through with her cancer, but with all of that experience I have come to learn that the poly thing really doesn't work. It's pretty much always pursued by people with mental illnesses and it's more often than not initiated by the woman. I have yet to find an instance of a long lasting poly relationship, and I have yet to find one that didn't end in total chaos.

Just my two cents.

a reply to: Annee

I agree; I never fully understood why the left was pushing for the current form of "marriage equality" that was ruled on by the SCOTUS at the turn of the century.

While the desire to be accepted makes sense; it was an missed opportunity to reinvent the concept of marriage all together.

"Marriage" (or perhaps "civil union" to bypass the religious constitutions) should be seen as nothing more than a familial contract in the eyes of the law. A contract that any number of people can enter into for any number of personal reasons.

This family union would than be treated akin to a corporation. Wherein assets belong to the "family" and can be passed around with out the need for wills and such. Duties are clearly defined. And the "family" can be desloved according to predefined actions.