"ethical polyamory"

I don't think the word "polyamory" suggests anything other than the two root words on which the word polyamory is based. Loving more than one doesn't mean it is done ethically any more than traditional marriage suggests ethical monogamy. Anyone assuming either relationship orientation would automatically be conducted in an ethical manner would likely end up with a bit of egg on his or her face. While there may be a statistical "ideal" polyamorous ethical standard if you were to know knock everyone's heads together, the reality is that there are probably as many individual ideals as there are people practicing this relationship style.

I think the definition of polyamory is a bit broader than the roots (Greek) poly - meaning several - and (Latin) amour - meaning love/s. The word, polyamory, has a deliberately constructed social and cultural meaning, and comes out of a kind of "movement" meant to validate, appreciate and celebrate a "loveway" ... and create a social and cultural "discourse" around "ethical non-monogamy," and I accept that historical origin as the basis of the word's usage -- not just the funky Greek-Latin word cells.

Without such historical grounding, polyamory would just mean "loving more than one person" -- but 99.5% of people using this word mean by it something a bit more: "Loving more than one person ... in an open and honest way ... with the knowledge and consent of all of the key persons involved in the relationship/s." ( ... see the Wikipeidia article on polyamory for a better definition).

I think there will always be a diverse and complex conversation (or "discourse") on polyamory, as well their should be. Not everyone will agree on every detail, but the overwhelming majority of folks using the term use it to mean something very like the definition provided in such places as the aforementioned Wikipedia article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory
 
I agree with what you are saying, there is an assumption of ethical conduct. I still think it is a poor assumption as I don't think there are any more people fighting for ethical polyamory then the are fighting for ethical monogamy. I think this site is a good example of people fighting for such ideals, and I'd say there are plenty of examples of people fighting for ethical monogamy, but this is a small subset of the population at large. Most people suck. Most people are only looking out for themselves. Anyone can call themselves polyamorous and fill that shoe regardless of their ethical standing. You can't say "You are not really polyamorous because your gf's BF doesn't know about you." It might not be your poly, but if this person loves gf and someone else then it fits the bill.
 
I define polyamory as something (romantic) that happens between consenting adults. But is consent required? You decide.
 
You can't say "You are not really polyamorous because your gf's BF doesn't know about you." It might not be your poly, but if this person loves gf and someone else then it fits the bill.

I vehemently disagree.

Anyone can call themselves an airplane pilot, a master gardener, a veteran of a foreign war, a bicycle racer, a surgeon, a professional singer or dancer..., but whether the statement is true or not depends not merely on their words but on their history, their capacities, their interests, their skills.... And it isn't just they and a group of their friends who get to decide whether their use of the words are valid. Just because someone says they have a masters degree in Spanish Literature doesn't mean they really do; words alone don't make it true.

And we can employ less skill-based analogies. Somebody can say they are a kind person, a good friend, a wonderful lover ... okay, maybe these are skills too. Hmm.

How about honest? A total freaking pathological liar could go around lying to everyone she or he meets, saying "I'm one of the most honest people who ever graced this earth with their honesty." But that would not be true if the same person once had a hundred different friends, each of whom have been burned and betrayed by this person's lies -- and no one who would vouch for his or her honesty.

Or how about "heterosexual"? Is a man who claims to be heterosexual actually heterosexual if 89% of his sexual fantasies and two third of his sexual encounters are with men? Does he get to decide what the word "heterosexual" refers to?

Finally, I found your use of the word "fighting" in your post to be ... well, just entirely irrelevant to the topic. Does one need to be "fighting" for polyamory as an ethical practice of loving rooted in honesty with one's partner/s in order for polyamory to be just that?
 
Last edited:
I define polyamory as something (romantic) that happens between consenting adults. But is consent required? You decide.

Yes, consent is required. Yes, honesty about what is happening sexually and romantically between any of the partners involved is required. Or it isn't polyamory -- not as the word is used in common usage. If one or more of these is not present it is not a polyamorous relationship. Instead, it is one or another kind of what most folks call "cheating". (Now, keep in mind that "honesty" here means no one is being kept in the dark, being either lied to by omission or otherwise (there is no deception, in other words) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQGtpo2IUxA

... Consent may be particular or general. In my relationship agreement, consent is general. I can see, date, pursue, explore ... with whomever I choose to. No special conditions or vetoes apply. And if I spend the night with a companion or friend, I don't ask permission. I let him know "gonna spend the night at A's place tonight. Love you! See you in the morning". That's happened less than a handful of times, but it happened just like that when it did. My long term partner KNOWS I'll be back around soon! He KNOWS I love him. And that's why he does not get jealous much, or worried. He KNOWS he's my super extra yummy cuddle buddy, lover and friend. No guessing is necessary. :p

(In my relationship with my partner, I'm free to love whomever I want in any which way I choose, and it's expected that I'll let him know about it ... but we've not worked out a specific time table or anything. I may wait weeks before mentioning that I'm "dating" someone ... just to see if it works out. But the odds are I'll tell all in a matter of two days ... or hours. I don't like to withhold information in such matters. I also don't like to overburden him with trivialities like the fact that I met someone for coffee and probably will never see her or him again.)​
 
Last edited:
On what basis? Why?

I have explained at length why. I quoted much of it in this thread and added a link to the thread where that discussion took place. I'm happy to discuss if you wish to read what I have already said. :)

However some people will prefer to be a secondary -- and some do! So why should they not be able to choose such a relationship?

I say this over and over. I consider those relationships to have a tendency toward being unethical (by my standards) toward the secondary partners and therefore I will not be part of them - especially not as a primary partner. The folk that want to choose those forms of relationship are free to do so - just not with me. :) Just as people who choose to seek a marriage partner are free to do so - just not with me.

---------------

While I am writing this. It struck me on reading your post that the recent discussion you have been having about your young friend and his impending move exemplify for me how difficult it is for partnered people to be ethical about relationships with others and how hard it is for them to see their own behaviour. (This is a big thing for me. We often cannot see our own behaviour nor trust our own judgements. So, I believe that to attempt to act ethically most of the time, it is necessary to set up structures around life that help to guide good behaviour. Hence my refusal to be non-monogamous while I have a committed life partner.)

You talked on this board about your sadness at the news your friend is planning to move soon. You wonder if there is something that you do that causes this to be a repeated partner. You talk of love and of caring for him. This is all bittersweet to read about and you write so well that I'm sure I am not alone in feeling sad along with you.

You also talked about e-mailing him, telling him your feelings, your sadness at him moving away, expressing love and saying that you initially felt you must protect yourself by withdrawing from him but were now open to discussing other possibilities.

This sharing of information with him is where I feel things stray a little from what I would consider ethical - I don't think you are alone in this or particularly doing something unusual - quite the opposite. I feel that it is a common thing for people already in committed relationships to do. To state that they cannot change their partnered, settled life, to express love and then to express sadness and withdrawal at the decision of their additional partner.

The thing is that if somebody were to do that to me, I would feel pressured to choose to do something other than what I had already chosen, slightly guilty at the hurt I was causing and a bit hurt at being withdrawn from. I'd guess that lots of people would feel similarly.

To feel sadness about somebody close leaving is normal and we all feel it. To me, if I want to treat my loved ones as much loved people in their own right, I must greet news that doesn't fit in with my life plans with support. Particularly if it comes from people who's lives are not entwined with mine. If a close friend talks to me about moving away, changing their life, doing something new - even if I will miss them desperately and will feel as if my life is worse for them leaving, I will talk to them about their plans, ask where they want to go, plan to visit them, tell them I'll miss them and how I plan on keeping in touch with them. This is treating them like people in their own right.

What I will not do is tell them that I must protect myself by withdrawing from them. Or that their decision to move is hurtful to me. To do that would be to treat them like an object in my life - in my opinion, not an ethical thing to do.

The only time I'd expect to be able ethically to express the sort of things you posted about to another person is if our lives were entwined and we could reasonably expect to be discussing life plans with each other.


IP
 
If a close friend talks to me about moving away, changing their life, doing something new - even if I will miss them desperately and will feel as if my life is worse for them leaving, I will talk to them about their plans, ask where they want to go, plan to visit them, tell them I'll miss them and how I plan on keeping in touch with them. This is treating them like people in their own right.

What I will not do is tell them that I must protect myself by withdrawing from them. Or that their decision to move is hurtful to me. To do that would be to treat them like an object in my life - in my opinion, not an ethical thing to do.
Hmm, great example. You just illuminated something in my own life for me. Recently, a co-worker was given the promotion for which I had asked to be considered. It hurt a lot because I had been acting in that position for almost a year until a decision was made. The first thing I did after my boss told me was to congratulate my colleague, tell her she will do great in the new position, and offer to help in any way I can. She responded by asking if I was happy, and then she told me that it is important to her that I am happy. At that moment, I wanted to scream at her, "Of course I'm not happy! Are you insane? I have been doing the job, need the salary increase, and just experienced a total rejection!"

Instead, I said, "Don't worry, I'm very happy for you." I wasn't lying - I think the position will be good for her in a lot of ways, even though I never thought she'd even want it. But at home, I've had a few good cries over the situation, and having been rejected. Anyway, I wasn't thinking about whether I was being ethical or not when I had that conversation with her, but I like seeing it this way.
 
I
The only time I'd expect to be able ethically to express the sort of things you posted about to another person is if our lives were entwined and we could reasonably expect to be discussing life plans with each other.

At what point are lives entwined? When are lives not entwined? Is there some discernable, clear line demarking the transition?

Was it ethically wrong or inappropriate to tell him that I loved him -- because that can be taken as some kind of pressure to do or be something with or for me?

There is something you don't know about our situation which you should know, which may influence your thinking about whether anything I said was "unethical". We agreed very early on to not withhold the truth from one another, to be open and honest and expressive with one another. It has done us a world of good to do so, I think. The benefit has not been one-sided. He's learned in experience to open up more and let himself be seen more -- and so have I. I did not seek to manipulate or hurt him in sharing my feelings. I sought to be close with him in doing so. I sought to be "vulnerable" with him, unguarded, authentic. I suppose I MAY have calculated before hand that he may feel "guilty" about his choice and kept my mouth shut about my feelings, but that would have compromised an agreement we had with one another at the beginning -- to be genuine and transparent with one another. How ethical would that have been?
 
Recently, a co-worker was given the promotion for which I had asked to be considered. It hurt a lot because I had been acting in that position for almost a year until a decision was made.

Sorry to hear about that, nycindie.
 
A Question for InfinitePossibility

A Question for InfinitePossibility

Here you explain your thoughts on ethics in relation to secondary polyamorous relationships.: http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showpost.php?p=313115&postcount=12

If I remember right, you are also generally opposed to polyamory or non-monogamy in romantic relationships -- which, if I understand you correctly, you think of as necessarily monogamous if ethical. Correct?

I've said that I don't do hierarchical relationships. Let me explain a little about what this means to me. If I were ever to have more than one life-partner of a "romantic" kind, I'd not give preferential treatment to my partner of twenty years with whom I am living -- even if the newer person in my life and I had only been seeing one another for twenty weeks (or any duration of time -- provided we agree that we are now together in a "romantic" relationship).

I could say that I won't do hierarchy for ethical reasons, and that's ultimately true. But mostly I won't do it for reasons having to do with how I understand what love is. And because I'd not want to be a "secondary" partner in a loving relationship. (I'm fine with it if others do; that's not really my business.)

Sure, there is ethics involved here. But there is also love, which necessitates empathy and grounds in empathy and compassion. If one of my partners really, really WANTED to be a "secondary," I'd be much more open to considering treating him or her as such than if he or she really, really wanted to be on an equal footing with my current long term partner. I know I'd not want to be "less than" or rank lower in a relationship with someone I love, so I'd just not be inclined at all to treat someone that way. It would not be loving. It would not FEEL loving -- or good. It would feel icky. -- to treat someone that way to be treated that way.

Some use the terms "primary, secondary, tertiary" to mean something other than distinctions of value hierarchy -- but merely to indicate that some folks share a home, finances, kids.... And that makes a certain amount of sense. But I would not use those terms. Instead, I'd just love the people in my life and seek to treat them equally -- and love them equally.

As for living together.... My ideal, if ever I have another love in my life, would be to sometimes sleep under the roof of the home I share with my current partner, and sometimes to sleep under the other roof, with the other. That is, if we're not all sharing a single home and roof. I/we have no kids. So that's not an issue. And finances are not an issue either, as far as I'm concerned.

So I see no reason to deem polyamory unethical -- especially in a non-hierarchical arrangement. And hierarchy of some kind can be okay in those cases where all involved agree to it and prefer it.
 
I agree with NYC that these days 'ethics' and 'morality' have become a matter of opinion.

However, as to the original question, I would say XBF and his wife were open and honest with each other...in so far as they each knew that they were not sexually monogamous.

However, I don't believe XBF was open and honest with me about many things. Her actions tell me that she didn't want me in her home...and either she wasn't honest with him about that, or he flat out lied to me. Either way, I was not being told the truth of what was going on between them, and I call that unethical poly.

Sorry, but 'honest with each other' [and only each other] isn't good enough when a couple is bringing other people into their lives. One or the other or both of them were not honest with me, and that is unethical.
 
Sorry to hear about the job, nycindie. That totally sucks and I also would have been really upset. Well done, though, on your fabulous level of compassion toward your co-worker. How wonderful that you were able to be so kind.

At what point are lives entwined? When are lives not entwined? Is there some discernable, clear line demarking the transition?

I don't think so. It depends too much on the people involved.

Was it ethically wrong or inappropriate to tell him that I loved him -- because that can be taken as some kind of pressure to do or be something with or for me?

This depends on a lot of factors for me. The sorts of things I'd consider are: do you know his feelings on somebody saying that they love him? Was it said before or after his saying that he was going to move on? Does he know your feelings on telling somebody that you love them?

For myself, I try to be cautious about telling people I love them just because it is a bit of a loaded phrase and can be felt as pressure by the recipient.

We agreed very early on to not withhold the truth from one another, to be open and honest and expressive with one another.

This is stuff I've struggled with myself. When I said that I thought it was not ethical in my view to share that stuff, I was thinking of all the times I have communicated in similar ways - and all the times I probably will in the future.

I think that agreements to be open and honest are common at the start of relationships. I think that sticking to them is tricky - for a couple of reasons.

First - this may just be me but I find that I don't tend to have just one response to changes. When a close friend of mine told me recently that she had achieved something amazing in the field that we both work in, I found myself having a number or reactions. I was jealous of her success. I also felt down on myself for not having a similar achievement to report. I was happy for her. I felt that she deserved the success. I was glad to share in her good news. I felt relief that she had something going well in her life as she has had so many problems recently.

I communicated honestly, telling her that I was happy for her, that I thought it was the start of a run of good luck for her, that I couldn't think of anybody better to have that success. I bought wine and nice food for her.

If I was struggling generally with feelings of jealousy and inadequacy then I would be discussing those with many friends including that one but not during a happy time for that friend.

In fact, jealousy is background noise to me. I grew up as the oldest child in a multi child family and being quiet and well behaved was pretty much ignored once my siblings came along. It's the sort of upbringing that breeds jealousy and I feel it regularly. So regularly that I tend to deal with it on my own and don't find it a problem - it is just a minor irritation to me after all these years of practise. Similarly with feelings of inadequacy. They plagued me when I was younger but not now. Those feelings come along sometimes and then I talk to myself and remind myself that they aren't true. It's like jealousy - background noise.

I think as well that it is important to think about how messages may be received and to try and give them in a way that is less likely to taken as disapproval or disappointment at a decision made or pressure to behave in a particular way.

So to me, open and honest communication isn't as simple as it maybe is for you.


A Question for InfinitePossibility
If I remember right, you are also generally opposed to polyamory or non-monogamy in romantic relationships -- which, if I understand you correctly, you think of as necessarily monogamous if ethical. Correct?

I wouldn't go as far as to say romantic relationships are necessarily monogamous if they are ethical. I think it is more that there is a tendency for romantic relationships - however they are structured to not be terribly ethical. There is much in our society that encourages manipulation of partners as well as thinking about romantic partners in terms of what can be got from them.

The difficulty that partnered poly folks face is that it is hard to have romantic relationships ethically when there is just two of you. With more people, I think it gets harder.

The primary/secondary/tertiary thing I just think is very often ethically dodgy for the people in the position of primary - mostly I think because it entails so much couple privilege

Even the folks who don't do hierarchical relationships, though, walk a fine line. It is easy for couple privilege to creep in without a coupled person being aware of it. Easy too for a long term partner to be treated less than well because of a desire to avoid hierarchy and couple privilege.

Plus easy for folks on the outside to feel and be treated like they are on the outside - even if that is unintentional. In fact, even if great moves are made to include them they are likely to receive regular messages from family and friends about getting a 'proper' relationship for themselves and to not allow themselves to be a bit player in somebody else's relationship.

I think these things are hard for anybody involved to see. Our brains tend to stop us from being able to see ourselves and our actions clearly.

This is how I see things from my view point and from my biases. There is no reason for anybody else to agree with me - especially here. I mostly write for myself anyway - to work out why it is that while I like the theory of poly relationships, I feel such resistance to being in one.

IP
 
Sorry to hear about the job, nycindie. That totally sucks and I also would have been really upset. Well done, though, on your fabulous level of compassion toward your co-worker. How wonderful that you were able to be so kind.



I don't think so. It depends too much on the people involved.



This depends on a lot of factors for me. The sorts of things I'd consider are: do you know his feelings on somebody saying that they love him? Was it said before or after his saying that he was going to move on? Does he know your feelings on telling somebody that you love them?

For myself, I try to be cautious about telling people I love them just because it is a bit of a loaded phrase and can be felt as pressure by the recipient.



This is stuff I've struggled with myself. When I said that I thought it was not ethical in my view to share that stuff, I was thinking of all the times I have communicated in similar ways - and all the times I probably will in the future.

I think that agreements to be open and honest are common at the start of relationships. I think that sticking to them is tricky - for a couple of reasons.

First - this may just be me but I find that I don't tend to have just one response to changes. When a close friend of mine told me recently that she had achieved something amazing in the field that we both work in, I found myself having a number or reactions. I was jealous of her success. I also felt down on myself for not having a similar achievement to report. I was happy for her. I felt that she deserved the success. I was glad to share in her good news. I felt relief that she had something going well in her life as she has had so many problems recently.

I communicated honestly, telling her that I was happy for her, that I thought it was the start of a run of good luck for her, that I couldn't think of anybody better to have that success. I bought wine and nice food for her.

If I was struggling generally with feelings of jealousy and inadequacy then I would be discussing those with many friends including that one but not during a happy time for that friend.

In fact, jealousy is background noise to me. I grew up as the oldest child in a multi child family and being quiet and well behaved was pretty much ignored once my siblings came along. It's the sort of upbringing that breeds jealousy and I feel it regularly. So regularly that I tend to deal with it on my own and don't find it a problem - it is just a minor irritation to me after all these years of practise. Similarly with feelings of inadequacy. They plagued me when I was younger but not now. Those feelings come along sometimes and then I talk to myself and remind myself that they aren't true. It's like jealousy - background noise.

I think as well that it is important to think about how messages may be received and to try and give them in a way that is less likely to taken as disapproval or disappointment at a decision made or pressure to behave in a particular way.

So to me, open and honest communication isn't as simple as it maybe is for you.




I wouldn't go as far as to say romantic relationships are necessarily monogamous if they are ethical. I think it is more that there is a tendency for romantic relationships - however they are structured to not be terribly ethical. There is much in our society that encourages manipulation of partners as well as thinking about romantic partners in terms of what can be got from them.

The difficulty that partnered poly folks face is that it is hard to have romantic relationships ethically when there is just two of you. With more people, I think it gets harder.

The primary/secondary/tertiary thing I just think is very often ethically dodgy for the people in the position of primary - mostly I think because it entails so much couple privilege

Even the folks who don't do hierarchical relationships, though, walk a fine line. It is easy for couple privilege to creep in without a coupled person being aware of it. Easy too for a long term partner to be treated less than well because of a desire to avoid hierarchy and couple privilege.

Plus easy for folks on the outside to feel and be treated like they are on the outside - even if that is unintentional. In fact, even if great moves are made to include them they are likely to receive regular messages from family and friends about getting a 'proper' relationship for themselves and to not allow themselves to be a bit player in somebody else's relationship.

I think these things are hard for anybody involved to see. Our brains tend to stop us from being able to see ourselves and our actions clearly.

This is how I see things from my view point and from my biases. There is no reason for anybody else to agree with me - especially here. I mostly write for myself anyway - to work out why it is that while I like the theory of poly relationships, I feel such resistance to being in one.

IP

To me, the issue with your perspective is that you speak about other people's relationships and completely discount their autonomy. You speak as if everyone wants a certain type of relationship, and not giving them that type of relationship is unethical. It cannot be unethical to have a secondary relationship with someone who does not want a primary relationship for reasons of their own. What you're saying doesn't actually make sense. It's unethical to have the type of relationship that suits everyone involved? It's unethical to increase people's happiness? It simply doesn't make any sense and sounds like a radical feminists statement "all heterosexual intercourse is rape". You don't argue that having a secondary relationship with someone who wants a primary relationship is unethical, it's literally all secondary relationships regardless of the desires of those involved. It seems like you think it is unethical to have boundaries about where a relationship can go but that is something a lot of people have. Single parents cannot often have relationships which would mean relocation or a live-in partner. Is it unethical for them to have relationships with anyone in case the person wants to move away or wants to move in?

Honestly, it sounds like the sort of reactionary excuse someone uses to dismiss polyamory because they don't want to be poly. If you don't want to be poly, don't be. There isn't any need to make up a silly excuse that doesn't make any real sense and quite frankly, shows you in a poor light as it appears you cannot respect the wishes and desires of other people.
 
I mostly write for myself anyway - to work out why it is that while I like the theory of poly relationships, I feel such resistance to being in one.
IP

Initially, IP, I had the feeling you were overly judgemental and critical -- and in all honesty you ("you", really, in quotes -- which is to say my initial perception of you) sort of put me off. Now I find myself liking you and appreciating you. I can't think of any significant objections to what you say in the post I quote from above. And I especially agree with you about the tendency of people to treat others as a kind of resource to be exploited instead as a person worthy of the utmost kindness and respect. I've become even more sensitized to this tendency lately (including any hints of it in myself) ... and am consciously endeavoring to bear witness to any such tendencies or behaviors on my part -- so as to choose otherwise consciously. I think a lot of what true love is is precisely this.

So I thank you ... and I appreciate you. Your commitment to being kind with others is an inspiration. :)
 
I just had a flash of insight about ethics in "romantic" relationships -- an insight which, I think, takes something otherwise monstrously complex (or, perhaps, complicated) and makes it vastly more simple to understand.

It's rather simple, really. There are two parts:

a) Always seek to be empathetic with everyone involved.

b) Always resist any tendency to treat anyone involved as a source of something which is to be extracted from them.

_________________

Both items (a) and (b) can benefit from fleshing out in greater detail of course. Both are facets of the same intention -- which I would call love.

A lot of problems arise simply because almost everyone in our culture (loosely used phrase - "our culture") have a contrary notion of what love is to the notion which places these commitments in the foreground. Culturally, our notions and stories of "love" involve a lot of getting. "Getting our needs met" ... "getting the love we want/need" ... "getting compassion, understanding, warmth, affection...". Our partners are then treated as a source of supply more than as the actual person they are -- which person gets lost in this transaction or extraction approach.

I've been exploring the application of (a) and (b) with my new friend, and I feel that a very powerful transformation has begun in my heart. Literally. I literally feel a shift in my chest-energy. I feel warmth and vibration in my chest which is pleasant whenever I apply (a) and (b) in my relating with him -- and we may simply be sitting together drinking coffee ... and I'm just feeling all warm and lovey. And he's not the source of it. So I don't need to try to "get" it from him. It's in MY chest (and mind) that it's happening. He's not the source of it. Nor am I the source of it -- if "I" is yet another thing apart, an object. I need to apply (a) and (b) to myself, too -- and when I do I also am no longer an object. Nor a think apart.

If we are not apart ... Are we all then together? I think we are. Separation is an illusion -- and a harmful / hurtful / painful one at that.

-----------

Edit:

I just realized how crucial it has been for me to apply (a) and (b) toward myself, and how doing so enables me to do this with others, and vice versa. It's like a pair of wings. We need both to fly. One wing won't do it.

Applying (b) to myself moslty seems to mean that I'm not trying to manipulate my experience, but simply enjoying and appreciating my experience as it is. We often try to "extract" something from ourselves, too! And when we give that up we gradually discover that what we wanted is with us and we can just relax and enjoy it.
 
Last edited:
MightyMax - I see that my words and my perspective cause you to feel threatened/upset/angry. Perhaps it would be easier on you if you blocked me so that you can't read what I write.

What you're saying doesn't actually make sense. It's unethical to have the type of relationship that suits everyone involved? It's unethical to increase people's happiness?

I know that you disagree with me. It is fine to disagree. I think I've been very clear often that everybody agreeing and consenting isn't enough to make something ethical. The world is just more complicated than that in my opinion. I've talked at length about that in the past and won't do it again here.

It seems like you think it is unethical to have boundaries about where a relationship can go but that is something a lot of people have.

I don't think that at all and I struggle to see where you get it from. I've written often about the boundaries I put around relationships I am in. No getting married. No children. Monogamy. Must be kind to dogs. If I thought boundaries were unethical I'd be working to rid myself of those.

If you don't want to be poly, don't be. There isn't any need to make up a silly excuse that doesn't make any real sense and quite frankly, shows you in a poor light as it appears you cannot respect the wishes and desires of other people.

I think that the last time somebody tried to shut me down by describing what I say as silly and telling me that I'm showing myself in a poor light it was a schoolteacher struggling to contain a large class of lively children and I was about 10 years old. :)

On a more serious note - when I find myself tempted to shut somebody else down by dismissing them as stupid, if I wait and give myself the time to reflect, I often find that my reaction was simply because what they said challenged my view too much or because I didn't understand them and felt threatened by my own lack of understanding. Otherwise I'd be able to engage with them about what they say and why I don't agree with it.
 
Initially, IP, I had the feeling you were overly judgemental and critical -- and in all honesty you ("you", really, in quotes -- which is to say my initial perception of you) sort of put me off. Now I find myself liking you and appreciating you.

Hi River. Apologies and thanks. I think I was writing quickly before going to work and probably didn't phrase things very well.

I just had a flash of insight about ethics in "romantic" relationships -- an insight which, I think, takes something otherwise monstrously complex (or, perhaps, complicated) and makes it vastly more simple to understand.

It's rather simple, really. There are two parts:

a) Always seek to be empathetic with everyone involved.

b) Always resist any tendency to treat anyone involved as a source of something which is to be extracted from them.

This is great. I really like those two parts. I would add a c (or maybe it is a subsection of b):

Always seek to be with people and part of groups that support these aims.

I'd add it because I think that people are not as autonomous as most of us would like to imagine we are. I like to read a lot and one thing that has struck me over the years is that this message comes from a range of fields of interest. I've read this in books on human psychology, biology, education and dog behaviour. I see the interlocking nature of systems at my work in IT and have come to understand that while we can change an individual program and treat it like it is an individual entity - to do so causes problems. None of them work like that and to understand how to change one well requires an understanding of how that one acts in the whole system.

The message that autonomy is limited is one that comes to me over and over.

Of course, our limited autonomy is compromised even further because we can't see ourselves well. Human minds come with the ability to see patterns and to create shortcuts which make day to day life easier for us. They also make it tricky for us to see things clearly. That's why scientific experiments must be set up so carefully. It is too easy for a scientist to change the results. There is loads of reading around on cognitive biases if you are interested - google turns up lots on it.

In day to day life it is very easy to maintain a narrative of ourselves as ethical, loving beings while behaving in ways that we wouldn't approve of if we could see what we were doing. Our minds are adept at hiding these things from us or at coming up with reasons that justify behaviour we otherwise wouldn't approve of.

I think that with these things in play, it can be a really good idea to support aims by surrounding ourselves with people whos thinking is in line with our own and is supportive of our aims. Particularly if the aims we have are at odds with the message coming from much of society - which the approach you have outlined very much is.

IP
 
MightyMax - I see that my words and my perspective cause you to feel threatened/upset/angry. Perhaps it would be easier on you if you blocked me so that you can't read what I write.



I know that you disagree with me. It is fine to disagree. I think I've been very clear often that everybody agreeing and consenting isn't enough to make something ethical. The world is just more complicated than that in my opinion. I've talked at length about that in the past and won't do it again here.



I don't think that at all and I struggle to see where you get it from. I've written often about the boundaries I put around relationships I am in. No getting married. No children. Monogamy. Must be kind to dogs. If I thought boundaries were unethical I'd be working to rid myself of those.



I think that the last time somebody tried to shut me down by describing what I say as silly and telling me that I'm showing myself in a poor light it was a schoolteacher struggling to contain a large class of lively children and I was about 10 years old. :)

On a more serious note - when I find myself tempted to shut somebody else down by dismissing them as stupid, if I wait and give myself the time to reflect, I often find that my reaction was simply because what they said challenged my view too much or because I didn't understand them and felt threatened by my own lack of understanding. Otherwise I'd be able to engage with them about what they say and why I don't agree with it.

You're right, my post was highly emotive. I do see "unethical" as... insulting, and that inspired my response. I apologize.

The part of your argument that upsets me is that it directly challenges consent itself. It actually removes autonomy from consent. You lay out your argument quite succinctly here. And, based on that, I have to say it is a sweeping generalization based on your own personal relationships and close second-hand experiences. Yes, those things do happen in poly relationships. There are specific problems that can arise as a result of being polyamorous, but they are in now way more "unethical" that those that can arise is monogamous relationships (If I had a dime for every time the mono divoce stats are quoted on a poly forum). So, if potential heartache for some of the people mean the who structure is "unethical", we shouldn;t be having relationships at all.
 
Back
Top