"ethical polyamory"

[InfinitePossibility]

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

No worries.

The part of your argument that upsets me is that it directly challenges consent itself. It actually removes autonomy from consent.

I'm not sure I do that so much as just don't see consent as relevant. To be clear - I think that consent is absolutely required when it comes to relationships and the person having enough autonomy to give consent is assumed too. I just don't see it as the only thing that is required. With consent assumed, I think it is interesting to dig deeper.

Autonomy too is an interesting concept - one I think that is more limited than we would like it to be. Have you read Phillip Zimbardo's book The Lucifer Effect ? It is one of the most frightening books I've read simply because it shows so clearly how easily and quickly a person's autonomy can disappear leaving kind, compassionate and emotionally healthy people behaving abusively or becoming depressed.

So when I write about this stuff, I'm writing about what I see if I assume consent and sufficient autonomy to give 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.

Of course it is. Just the same as the things you write and the things the others on the forum write are sweeping generalizations based on their own relationships and close second-hand experiences. Unless people have a vast amount of data that has been gathered in a fairly rigorous way to cite, then that's what everybody is doing.

I don't see it as a problem for people to share their views and experiences in that way. To me it is a useful way to learn and has provided me with some excellent insights over the years.

If you do see it as problematic in general, this forum must be a source of endless frustration for you.

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).

Again - no argument from me. You haven't linked to any of the places where I've talked about marriage in particular as being unethical but I have written about it several times here.

So, if potential heartache for some of the people mean the who structure is "unethical", we shouldn;t be having relationships at all.

Indeed. That is exactly the conclusion I reached about romantic relationships and pretty much for those reasons.

Obviously, I have softened my view somewhat and am in a romantic relationship - and very very happy to be that way. However, that is enough of a shift for me. I won't marry my partner and nor will I practise non-monogamy while I'm in this relationship - because I dislike the ethics that both of those courses of action entail. (I may change my mind on both things in the future if my own experiences or second hand ones convince me otherwise).

IP

 

[MightyMax]

No worries.



I'm not sure I do that so much as just don't see consent as relevant. To be clear - I think that consent is absolutely required when it comes to relationships and the person having enough autonomy to give consent is assumed too. I just don't see it as the only thing that is required. With consent assumed, I think it is interesting to dig deeper.

Autonomy too is an interesting concept - one I think that is more limited than we would like it to be. Have you read Phillip Zimbardo's book The Lucifer Effect ? It is one of the most frightening books I've read simply because it shows so clearly how easily and quickly a person's autonomy can disappear leaving kind, compassionate and emotionally healthy people behaving abusively or becoming depressed.

So when I write about this stuff, I'm writing about what I see if I assume consent and sufficient autonomy to give consent.



Of course it is. Just the same as the things you write and the things the others on the forum write are sweeping generalizations based on their own relationships and close second-hand experiences. Unless people have a vast amount of data that has been gathered in a fairly rigorous way to cite, then that's what everybody is doing.

I don't see it as a problem for people to share their views and experiences in that way. To me it is a useful way to learn and has provided me with some excellent insights over the years.

If you do see it as problematic in general, this forum must be a source of endless frustration for you.



Again - no argument from me. You haven't linked to any of the places where I've talked about marriage in particular as being unethical but I have written about it several times here.




Indeed. That is exactly the conclusion I reached about romantic relationships and pretty much for those reasons.

Obviously, I have softened my view somewhat and am in a romantic relationship - and very very happy to be that way. However, that is enough of a shift for me. I won't marry my partner and nor will I practise non-monogamy while I'm in this relationship - because I dislike the ethics that both of those courses of action entail. (I may change my mind on both things in the future if my own experiences or second hand ones convince me otherwise).

IP

Many, many, poly people do not get married because of the connotations of marriage. However, you "softening" and having any type of committed monogamous relationship, or any relationship at all by your standards, is indeed hypocritical. You say that poly relationships are unethical because of the potential reasons they could end. You agree that monogamous relationships also have pitfalls which mean people get really hurt, yet you are in one. That is hypocritical. Not just hypocritical, illogical. Monogamy is just informal marriage, really. It is you living by those traditional vows without fully committing to them. There isn't this big difference between the rules of a monogamous relationship and the rules of marriage. For example, a co-habiting couple who split after a few decades would still have a moral obligation to make sure the other person does not end homeless, just not a legal one in most cases.

Whilst you say there that your own experiences of polyamory (you, friends, perhaps family) have led you to those conclusions, you have plenty of people on this and other sites who are in successful "secondary" relationships. It could be that your particular circle aren't all that great at relationships generally. I know I've had periods where me and my friends were just horrible at relationships. Misery all around. In all the threads you post in about this issue, people (maybe you don't see us as people) come forward and say "I am/have been in a successful and mutually fulfilling secondary relationship where everyone was treated as they desired to be" (maybe you don't count relationships that have ended as successful?), yet your opinion never falters. It never changes to "well, maybe I need to see this more/maybe my experiences are in no way comprehensive". There is no acknowledgement that your experiences may not be sufficient to make a broad statement like you have without it being anything but offensive.

It still comes back down to "polyamory is unethical", because that's what you're saying. Most poly people have some loose variant of primary and secondary relationships. Some have strict hierarchy. But you are sayting that polyamory as a relationship model, the way most people practice it (because that's the only way it fits into their lives) is unethical. Unethical isn't like saying "not my cup of tea". "Unethical" means wrong and bad.

 

[InfinitePossibility]

MightyMax - thank you for the ongoing engagement in this discussion. I'm finding it incredibly useful in teasing out some of my thoughts about this.

Plus - there is also the gift of River's fantastic thoughts about treating others ethically. I find so much of value in that piece of writing.

So -

You say that poly relationships are unethical because of the potential reasons they could end. You agree that monogamous relationships also have pitfalls which mean people get really hurt, yet you are in one. That is hypocritical. Not just hypocritical, illogical.

Maybe? Only - I don't think I said that I had problems with committed partners having poly relationships or with marriages because of the reasons they could end. My concerns are much more about what happens when they are ongoing.

Monogamy is just informal marriage, really. It is you living by those traditional vows without fully committing to them. There isn't this big difference between the rules of a monogamous relationship and the rules of marriage. For example, a co-habiting couple who split after a few decades would still have a moral obligation to make sure the other person does not end homeless, just not a legal one in most cases.

That's an interesting take on it. Not one I share but interesting nonetheless.

My issue with marriage isn't the rules. In fact, I'm quite fascinated to know that there are rules to marriage and monogamy. I kind of thought there was just the not having sex with other people - you imply there are more.

Regardless - it isn't the rules - whatever they are - that bother me about marriage. It's really 3 things:

1. Promising to stay with the other person no matter what until one of you dies. People can't reasonably make promises like that. The volume of divorces speaks to the truth of it being an unwise promise to make. My problem with this is that whole Kantian thing about not making lying promises.

2. The common custom in my part of the world of the woman being given by a man (usually her father) to another man. I know it's just part of the tradition but I really want no part of a contract in which women are so often treated as property.

3. The equally common custom in my part of the world of the woman taking her husband's surname - just to underline who owns her.

I know that these are optional and lots of people don't do any of them. Nevertheless they are still a common enough feature of marriage where I live that I see marriage itself as unethical.

Committed monogamous relationships that don't involve marriage don't commonly feature these elements and that is why I don't have the same concerns about ethics when it comes to those.

Whilst you say there that your own experiences of polyamory (you, friends, perhaps family) have led you to those conclusions, you have plenty of people on this and other sites who are in successful "secondary" relationships.

I have very few friends and family members who have anything to do with polyamory. Much of my opinion on this has come mostly from several years of reading this site and other places.

In fact, when I started reading here, I thought that polyamory seemed like a great thing to do. It's only been after a long time of reading and thinking that I've come to feel that if I wanted to pursue a polyamorous lifestyle it would need to be as a solo person in order to not feel as if I was at risk of behaving in ethically unsound ways.

It could be that your particular circle aren't all that great at relationships generally. I know I've had periods where me and my friends were just horrible at relationships. Misery all around.

Not at all. In fact, I can't remember ever having a period in my life where everybody around me was terrible at relationships. I have been very blessed in my life and don't seem to see too much of relationship drama. Even when relationships end, myself and the people around me seem to cope without it being a major problem.

In all the threads you post in about this issue, people (maybe you don't see us as people) come forward and say "I am/have been in a successful and mutually fulfilling secondary relationship where everyone was treated as they desired to be" (maybe you don't count relationships that have ended as successful?), yet your opinion never falters.

Yes people do come forward and share their success stories. Those stories are wonderful to read about - truly inspiring. If those were all that I read, I'm sure it would be enough to change my opinion. Sadly they are not. I read other threads too. Many more of those underline the things I'm concerned about. That's where those concerns come from. I don't have enough experience with polyamory in my life to have come up with those things on my own. They come from here most of the time.

Unethical isn't like saying "not my cup of tea". "Unethical" means wrong and bad.

Ah - you and I have clearly learned about ethics in very different ways. To me saying something is unethical doesn't necessarily mean wrong and bad.

Yes - sometimes the study of ethics is about that sort of judgement. Sometimes it's about making laws. Often, though, it's about stating a personal set of boundaries that enables the individual in question to go about living what they feel is a good life.

It's the third thing that I feel I'm doing when I talk about ethics here. This is not a black and white judgement of right or wrong in the way you suggest. This is an ongoing examination of what it means to be a human being and what a good life means. It is an endlessly fascinating thing to look at and consider - in my opinion.

If I felt that marriage was wrong and bad I wouldn't have written e-mails and signed petitions and lent my support to the same sex marriage bill that passed through the Scottish parliament fairly recently. Nor would I have celebrated with an Irish friend of mine when their same sex marriage referendum result was in favour of same sex marriage.

Nor would I have attended many weddings over the years. Nor would I have given speeches at the weddings of friends or been been part of the wedding party of several friends.

Just because I won't get married because I have ethical concerns about it doesn't mean I think other people shouldn't. Quite the opposite - I have argued strongly that everybody should be able to get married if they want to.

Same with poly relationships. Just because I have ethical concerns about coupled people having poly relationships doesn't mean I don't think anybody should do it. Quite the opposite - I think folk should have the freedom to have relationships in any way they wish.

My ethical boundaries are my own and they are there to help me live my version of a good life.

IP

 

[MightyMax]

I have very few friends and family members who have anything to do with polyamory. Much of my opinion on this has come mostly from several years of reading this site and other places.

In fact, when I started reading here, I thought that polyamory seemed like a great thing to do. It's only been after a long time of reading and thinking that I've come to feel that if I wanted to pursue a polyamorous lifestyle it would need to be as a solo person in order to not feel as if I was at risk of behaving in ethically unsound ways.

Yes, but you are on a poly forum where people exploring polyamory come mainly to get an outsiders perspective when things are not going well. I came here when I had moved away from my entire poly network, to another country, where I didn't have time to build a new one and I was desperately homesick. When I was home and everything was brilliant, I didn't come here. My actively poly friends in two or more successful relationships do not use forums. It might be an age thing too, though. If you read monogamous relationship forums, you'll see people in situations where people and situations cross ethical boundaries. In our mono-normative society, we are exposed to it all the time.

I guess, it's a lot of how you phrase your opinions. I can certainly agree that some people are not structured to be able to manage more than one relationship effectively and ethically. Someone, or more than one person, always ends up getting hurt due to neglect or simply mismatched desires. Those people would probably be better suited to monogamous relationships. That doesn't mean poly relationships are inherently unethical, and that's what you seem to be arguing.

 

[IndieSolo]

IP isn't arguing (though it seems that you are). She is stating her views, and clarifying them for those who don't quite understand what she's expressing. Furthermore, she keeps reiterating that these are her opinions and she doesn't expect anyone to agree with her; nor is she trying to convince anyone to agree with her.

 

[KC43]

To me, "ethical" means meeting a specific standard of behavior. Sometimes that standard is widely defined (it's unethical for a doctor to share information about a patient without the patient's consent--it's also against the law). But sometimes it isn't widely defined. Ethics, morals, values--those can be extremely subjective things, and people live by their own codes. Even people who break the law are living by their own codes; it's just that their codes conflict with the widely defined ones and so they get punished for it.

IP believes that any type of agreement or behavior that objectifies another person is unethical. IP also indicates that because *she* sees something as objectifying doesn't necessarily mean it *is*; it means that's how she sees it, and therefore to her it's unethical. She's making that judgment for herself only, not telling everyone else that's how it is, because it's an *opinion*.

I sometimes question whether *my* situation is ethical, because it involves me leaving Hubby and my kids at home while I go out with, and occasionally spend the night with, other partners--even though Hubby and I have made agreements and arrangements to enable that to happen, and my kids have said they don't have a problem with it, so there's no negative impact on anyone. But if another woman told me she regularly leaves her husband and kids to spend a night with another partner, and that she and her husband have made agreements and arrangements to enable that to happen without a negative impact on anyone, I wouldn't consider that unethical. I don't expect other people to live by my code of morals and ethics, because they aren't me. I only set standards for myself, and to some extent for my kids though not as much now as when they were younger. I'm seeing IP's statements and thoughts on the subject the same way; she's setting standards for *herself*, not the world as a whole.

 

[MightyMax]

IP isn't arguing (though it seems that you are). She is stating her views, and clarifying them for those who don't quite understand what she's expressing. Furthermore, she keeps reiterating that these are her opinions and she doesn't expect anyone to agree with her; nor is she trying to convince anyone to agree with her.

I'm using argument as a synonym for "view".

I do think that it is unusual for a member of a poly forum to express that they feel that the way most of us on the forum live our lives is unethical.

IP believes that any type of agreement or behavior that objectifies another person is unethical. IP also indicates that because *she* sees something as objectifying doesn't necessarily mean it *is*; it means that's how she sees it, and therefore to her it's unethical. She's making that judgment for herself only, not telling everyone else that's how it is, because it's an *opinion*.

I understand this, however, the way she phrases it removes the concept of autonomy from these situations and makes a sweeping generalization about other people's consensual relationships.

she's setting standards for *herself*, not the world as a whole.

By saying polyamory is unethical, you are setting standards for the whole. As I said earlier, if IP said "the way polyamory would fit into my life would be unethical to the people involved", I'd see that as setting a standard for herself.

 

[IndieSolo]

I do think that it is unusual for a member of a poly forum to express that they feel that the way most of us on the forum live our lives is unethical.

She feels it is unethical *for her* to live polyamorously, but said she is in favor of everyone having the kinds of relationships they want. Like she pointed out, she also feels marriage is unethical, but celebrates, attends, and even gives speeches at the weddings of her friends. She is only saying it is unethical *for her* to marry.

. . . the way she phrases it . . . makes a sweeping generalization about other people's consensual relationships.

And so what if that is true? Does the opinion of one woman in Scotland really affect you or matter all that much to how you conduct your relationships? We have people here defending hierachical poly and others who consider that unethical.

 

[MightyMax]

She feels it is unethical *for her* to live polyamorously, but said she is in favor of everyone having the kinds of relationships they want. Like she pointed out, she also feels marriage is unethical, but celebrates, attends, and even gives speeches at the weddings of her friends. She is only saying it is unethical *for her* to marry.


And so what if that is true? Does the opinion of one woman in Scotland really affect you or matter all that much to how you conduct your relationships? We have people here defending hierachical poly and others who consider that unethical.

As I said, I think it's highly unusual for someone on a poly forum to be freely expressing the view that the way the majority of poly people construct their relationships is unethical. Particularly happy, consensual relationships where nobody involves feels that they are being objectified. I strongly disagree that other people get to say what is or what isn't the case in someone else's relationships. I do feel that this view is problematic on a poly site. I do find it insulting. Just like I would if someone was showing up in a safe space for people in same-sex relationships and saying that homosexuality is a sin. There are enough people on mono relationship forums who share IP's views on polyamory being unethical and the people involved only agreeing to it because they are either selfish or malleable. What purpose does it serve here?

 

[InfinitePossibility]

nycindie and KC43 - thank you for your kind words. You guys are great.

I came here when I had moved away from my entire poly network, to another country, where I didn't have time to build a new one and I was desperately homesick. When I was home and everything was brilliant, I didn't come here. My actively poly friends in two or more successful relationships do not use forums. It might be an age thing too, though.

This is something I ponder on loads too. I wonder if facebook plays a part as well?

Like you I was once in the position where I had changed my life so dramatically that my existing friends couldn't relate to what I was doing. Then things had gone badly wrong for me leaving me overwhelmed and unsure of what to do next. My friends couldn't help or even really understand what I was going through. My new life and community somewhat stands apart from what most people consider the norm which is why I had struggled initially with finding support.

So I joined a few internet forums that related to my new life in an attempt to find some form of connection and find ways to deal with the problems I faced. There were and are still people like me on those boards who were struggling and looking for answers. There were also tons of people who were having a wonderful time, who wrote often about how great their life was, shared little stories of joy from their days. There were many more talking about seminars and workshops they'd been to, discussing learning opportunities, ethics, how to become involved in helping others.

I made a number of fantastic friends, many of whom I've been friends with for over a decade.

All of the things that were discussed on those forums and still are are discussed here too. The population of each probably differs in its approach to romantic relationships. Other than that, both types of board seem to be mostly populated by folk similar to myself - reasonably educated, fairly middle class. The real difference I see is in the balance. Here there is so much struggle, stress, upset, people in real pain and confusion. The folk that this is working for are not so much in evidence - they are there but not in the same volumes as I experience on the forums I joined all those years ago. My experience is that people who like using the internet tend to join things just to talk about the parts of their lives that lots of people don't get - and that they do that even when they do have some real life friends to talk to as well.

I don't know why it is so different for poly folks?

I kind of have a theory that it is to do with romantic relationships just being hard for human beings to have. I think they remain hard work for us because they are not a good way for humans to express love. From that - it would follow that people in any romantic relationship forum will discuss difficulty more than pleasure. It would also make sense for people on poly forums who have more romance in their lives than others would will experience more difficulty? Possibly - it's just a vague theory that I roll around in my head sometimes.

I do think that it is unusual for a member of a poly forum to express that they feel that the way most of us on the forum live our lives is unethical.

I don't think that discussion about ethics is unusual at all. I also don't think it's unusual for people here to feel that some expressions of poly are unethical. I am far from the only person here who has concerns with couple privilege.

By saying polyamory is unethical, you are setting standards for the whole. As I said earlier, if IP said "the way polyamory would fit into my life would be unethical to the people involved", I'd see that as setting a standard for herself.

I understand that you don't like the way I write or the opinions I express. That's perfectly okay. You don't have to. However, I am okay with both of them and don't feel the need to change or be silenced. I may feel differently if I was being aggressive or argumentative or was angry but I'm being none of those things.

You can just disagree with me and ignore me and get on with your life.

 

[MightyMax]

nycindie and KC43 - thank you for your kind words. You guys are great.



This is something I ponder on loads too. I wonder if facebook plays a part as well?

Like you I was once in the position where I had changed my life so dramatically that my existing friends couldn't relate to what I was doing. Then things had gone badly wrong for me leaving me overwhelmed and unsure of what to do next. My friends couldn't help or even really understand what I was going through. My new life and community somewhat stands apart from what most people consider the norm which is why I had struggled initially with finding support.

So I joined a few internet forums that related to my new life in an attempt to find some form of connection and find ways to deal with the problems I faced. There were and are still people like me on those boards who were struggling and looking for answers. There were also tons of people who were having a wonderful time, who wrote often about how great their life was, shared little stories of joy from their days. There were many more talking about seminars and workshops they'd been to, discussing learning opportunities, ethics, how to become involved in helping others.

I made a number of fantastic friends, many of whom I've been friends with for over a decade.

All of the things that were discussed on those forums and still are are discussed here too. The population of each probably differs in its approach to romantic relationships. Other than that, both types of board seem to be mostly populated by folk similar to myself - reasonably educated, fairly middle class. The real difference I see is in the balance. Here there is so much struggle, stress, upset, people in real pain and confusion. The folk that this is working for are not so much in evidence - they are there but not in the same volumes as I experience on the forums I joined all those years ago. My experience is that people who like using the internet tend to join things just to talk about the parts of their lives that lots of people don't get - and that they do that even when they do have some real life friends to talk to as well.

I don't know why it is so different for poly folks?

I kind of have a theory that it is to do with romantic relationships just being hard for human beings to have. I think they remain hard work for us because they are not a good way for humans to express love. From that - it would follow that people in any romantic relationship forum will discuss difficulty more than pleasure. It would also make sense for people on poly forums who have more romance in their lives than others would will experience more difficulty? Possibly - it's just a vague theory that I roll around in my head sometimes.



I don't think that discussion about ethics is unusual at all. I also don't think it's unusual for people here to feel that some expressions of poly are unethical. I am far from the only person here who has concerns with couple privilege.



I understand that you don't like the way I write or the opinions I express. That's perfectly okay. You don't have to. However, I am okay with both of them and don't feel the need to change or be silenced. I may feel differently if I was being aggressive or argumentative or was angry but I'm being none of those things.

You can just disagree with me and ignore me and get on with your life.

You may not be aggressive or argumentative, but it is insulting. I think most of us here have problems with couple privilege. Nobody else goes from "couple privilege sucks" to "polyamory is unethical because couple privilege". If your view is based on how polyamory fits into your life, or rather, wouldn't fit into your life, why do you feel it necessary to make sweeping statements about how polyamory is for everyone else?

Why the insistence on tarring all of our relationships with your very broad brush despite the fact you admit that your experiences are based on internet interactions and that you also have given several examples of why your theory may be severely biased? Why would you still cling to it?

 

[InfinitePossibility]

I should and meant to earlier, say that the reason I stick around here is that I love the way most of the people here write about their loves. I feel inspired by the efforts so many make to improve their lives. It remains heartening to read about personal struggles and see progress made. KC43, nycindie and bluebird are members who very much come to mind as people making progress and working to live their versions of a good life.

MightyMax - I'm kind of at a loss for what more I can say to you. I think I've explained things clearly enough. I see nothing compelling in what you say that would result in me changing my mind. I see that it angers you but that is your thing to deal with not mine.

I feel fine to carry on as I am and I hope that you find some way to make peace with there being somebody here that you are insulted by.

 

[Ravenscroft]

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 feel you two are onto something strong here. Thinking about it makes my head hurt a little, which is a GOOD sign -- maybe after some pondering I'll be able to add something.
________________

And I am happy to see people revisiting related topics -- having not been around long, I'm clueless as to all the subtextual stuff.

For instance, objectifying. For many years, this was one of those Attack Words used when someone didn't like the direction of a particular parsing. So, for me it's a fnord (in the original Erisian sense). It's been quite pleasant to see it put to better use here.

In a poly context, it reminds me of an article I wrote about the perversion of the concept of gifts -- briefly, that Western culture has lost touch with the JOY to be derived from doing something nice for someone for no particular reason: not as repayment, or bribe, or quid pro quo. Again, I plead aging neurons, so I'll have to set that aside for later.
________________

A major problem seems to lie in usage of the root term "polyamory." It's BOTH a superset (containing various intimate lifestyles) & a subset (pointing to more specific concerns of communication & honesty & self-awareness & empathy). Maybe in that sense "ethical polyamory" does indeed have a place, pointing toward the latter usage.

 

[YouAreHere]

At risk of belaboring this any more (sorry, folks), I don't see IP's discussion of her own ethics to be judgmental. Since I love analogies (clearly at an unholy level), I think I'm going to use one here.

Instead of a Poly board, think of this as a foodie one. Omnivores of all types. Restaurant reviews, recipes, you name it. IP is a member of this board for years. Over that time, IP becomes a strict vegan. IP doesn't post recipes with meat or milk products, etc., but she does occasionally post recipes or restaurant reviews that would appeal to vegans. Some folks enjoy the different POV, and some great dialogue is had.

One day, someone posts an "ethics in modern farming" thread, and IN THERE, IP decides to be honest about why she went vegan and how she feels about the farming industry. Not to judge the others here (with whom she has no problem interacting), but to explain her point of view.

I don't see this as judgment, or a reason to get defensive. I see this as IP opening up a dialog from a very different point of view than many of us have. I think seeing, discussing, and trying to understand multiple points of view is extremely valuable. It's why this mono chick is here in the first place.

IP brought up *her* ethics in a thread *about* ethics. I don't see her spelunking through the other threads and saying everyone's doing things unethically. And I find her point of view an interesting one, even if I don't personally agree with it. I still eat meat. We can still have reasonable discussion about the "why" behind it. And then we can still respect each other at the end of the day.

 

[River]

Obviously, I have softened my view somewhat and am in a romantic relationship - and very very happy to be that way. However, that is enough of a shift for me. I won't marry my partner and nor will I practise non-monogamy while I'm in this relationship - because I dislike the ethics that both of those courses of action entail. (I may change my mind on both things in the future if my own experiences or second hand ones convince me otherwise).
IP

IP -

I think you're brilliant and a very feeling person, with tremendous empathy. It seems to me that your empathy has naturally lead to great compassion, as well -- for all life / beings. And having great compassion can be very difficult and often painful, for the world is so full of unnecessary suffering.

I've been listening to Martín Prechtel's YouTube talks on grief and praise --https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6h3JNOCTYc . He's speaking as an outsider to the dominant culture here in America where I live, and something very sweet and beautiful is coming through, crossing over to my ears from the other side, his cultural perspective as an indigenous person. (I like to think I have the heart and soul of an indigenous person, but my earliest roots are very white bread, stars and stripes American -- unfortunately.)

[The videos are in a series, and only those who listen to three or more in the series will get what I mean.]

He speaks of a world in which great loss is simply inevitable for a human being. And great pain. It's unavoidable, inevitable. And the best we can do, he seems to be saying, is to really dig in and grieve for our losses and for the losses of those in our community (of whatever scale). Only by being open to the fullness of wrenching grief, he seems to be saying, are we then open to the fullness of our "praise" (our praise for whatever we love).

This feels importantly true to me, as does Martín's words on how the dominant culture of America inculcates in its people a tremendous resistance to grief and grieving -- especially us men. So, having a kind of sad incapacity for and appreciation for grief, we have a necessary and sad incapacity for "praise" and love (which includes compassion and empathy). It's a sick culture that way.

...

Imagine living along a coast line in which there are hundreds of miles of steep cliffs which drop off almost at a right angle ... where people are at work and play. Should we build fences along the edge of the cliff, atop it, because people are forgetful or half blind? Or should we encourage them to take off their blindfolds and pay attention to the dangers -- and not forget?

Our grief, loss and pain can open us to tremendous "praise". That's the point. We cannot avoid it, not really. Not if we choose to be alive.

I want to live with the fullness of my praise, and so I must be open to the fullness of my grief -- and in this way I don't need or want to build that fence along the clifftops. I want to offer kind warnings to pay attention and to "praise" (and also to grieve) instead. What we need is not a set of controls on
how to have relationshps -- like written code. What we need is big, warm, kind, sensitive hearts instead.

In praise of love,

James

 

[River]

For instance, objectifying. For many years, this was one of those Attack Words used when someone didn't like the direction of a particular parsing. So, for me it's a fnord (in the original Erisian sense). It's been quite pleasant to see it put to better use here.

I have no fing idea what an fnord is, was or may become.

I did, however, find this.: http://www.fnord.org/occult/discordia/text/what.is.fnord

 

[River]

In a poly context, it reminds me of an article I wrote about the perversion of the concept of gifts -- briefly, that Western culture has lost touch with the JOY to be derived from doing something nice for someone for no particular reason: not as repayment, or bribe, or quid pro quo. Again, I plead aging neurons, so I'll have to set that aside for later.

I love the direction this wanders off into with its questions. I like to feed these questions on the essays and talks of Charles Eisenstein when he's going on about "sacred economics" and -- especially -- "the gift," "gift culture" and "gift economy". He also recognizes that "our culture" (broadly speaking) has gradually lost the presence of simple, pure giving -- and strongly suggests that this is what is at the heart of "community" (as he means the word), and why so few of us in the dominant culture feel that we can rest in our belonging to/with community. Many recognize that our lack of capacity to feel and rest in a sense of community is the deeper, most basic wound in our lives which, when it festers, creates a desire for what Francis Weller calls "secondary satisfactions" (a.k.a., "surrogate 'needs'") like status, material posessions (consumerism), etc. If you're curious you can google his name and primary / secondary satisfactions. http://www.francisweller.net/

... or scroll down here -- http://www.francisweller.net/writings.html -- to Three Movements (An Excerpt from my next book, A Trail on the Ground) 05/15/2013

 

[Leetah]

The strong feelings being evoked by IP's position seems to be to be based on the use of the word "unethical". In common usage "ethics" refers to the moral and behavioral standards of groups of people, as in "medical ethics", "legal ethics", "journalistic ethics", and members of those groups who transgress those standards are considered to have done something wrong and bad. Society in general has ethical standards around things like truth, compassion and responsibility which one cannot ignore without being considered a bad guy.

IP however says this:

Ah - you and I have clearly learned about ethics in very different ways. To me saying something is unethical doesn't necessarily mean wrong and bad.

Yes - sometimes the study of ethics is about that sort of judgement. Sometimes it's about making laws. Often, though, it's about stating a personal set of boundaries that enables the individual in question to go about living what they feel is a good life.

Which I take to be similar to one of our mono people saying that they cannot, for emotional and intellectual reasons, be polyamorous. A stance which is taken with good grace by people here.

I do not know what is to be done about people using different legitimate meanings of words. I would be inclined to say the person using the more uncommon definition might want to use a different, less laden, word, to avoid misunderstandings. In this case "personal philosophy" might be the same thing. However people can use words as they want as long as they explain their usage clearly and do not get upset if people assume the most common meaning and misunderstand them.
Leetah

 

[MightyMax]

The strong feelings being evoked by IP's position seems to be to be based on the use of the word "unethical". In common usage "ethics" refers to the moral and behavioral standards of groups of people, as in "medical ethics", "legal ethics", "journalistic ethics", and members of those groups who transgress those standards are considered to have done something wrong and bad. Society in general has ethical standards around things like truth, compassion and responsibility which one cannot ignore without being considered a bad guy.

IP however says this:


Which I take to be similar to one of our mono people saying that they cannot, for emotional and intellectual reasons, be polyamorous. A stance which is taken with good grace by people here.

I do not know what is to be done about people using different legitimate meanings of words. I would be inclined to say the person using the more uncommon definition might want to use a different, less laden, word, to avoid misunderstandings. If no other word or words, seems to fit then one cannot be upset by their use of it.

Leetah

I completely agree that "unethical" is the crux of my issue with IP's views. I also agree that most people use that word as synonym for "bad/wrong", and universally "bad/wrong" at that. I do think there are apt ways to express the idea that polyamory is not something one could ethically fit into their own life without making such generalized statements. Especially on a poly site which many would consider a safe space for polyamorous people. I do not think poly people face the same discrimination or hardship as LGBT people, yet I still acknowledge the need for a space free from the sort of judgement we are used to encountering in our mono-normative society.

Most LGBT spaces would not tolerate any member sharing views that implied that there is an inherently "unethical" aspect to homosexual relationships where both parties are enthusiastically consenting. They would not allow someone to question whether consent is enthusiastic if neither party in the relationship have raised those issues. They would not allow broad negative generalizations of certain types of homosexual relationships. That's because they are protecting a safe space for their members. I don't think that is unreasonable here. Other people obviously do.

 

[River]

I do not think poly people face the same discrimination or hardship as LGBT people, yet I still acknowledge the need for a space free from the sort of judgement we are used to encountering in our mono-normative society.

Firstly, I don't think we should try and cultivate a space where we see poly folk as "victims" and those in here who share their views as non-poly people as "victimizers". We should see the poly orientation / position as strong, rather than weak and victimized.

Second -- OMG! Really? As a bisexual and biamorous (and polyamorous) man who is one of the LGBT folks I find it odd to hear a perspective where LGBTQ folks are seen as perhaps more prone to being unfairly treated than poly folk are. Where I live, one can be out as apparently "gay," which is how most folks probably imagine me (since I have a male partner) ... without much discrimination or foul treatment. But I've experienced a LOT of maltreatment (and lack of acceptance) as an out poly guy. Polyamory, in my experience, is the less socially accepted way of being. In fact, my polyamory may have been a major factor in my recent ... well, never mind.

Most LGBT spaces would not tolerate any member sharing views that implied that there is an inherently "unethical" aspect to homosexual relationships where both parties are enthusiastically consenting. They would not allow someone to question whether consent is enthusiastic if neither party in the relationship have raised those issues. They would not allow broad negative generalizations of certain types of homosexual relationships. That's because they are protecting a safe space for their members. I don't think that is unreasonable here. Other people obviously do.

This gets into interesting nuances. Discrimination against LGBT people has historically been pretty intense AND highly "institutionalized" -- having resonances with institutionalized racism, for example. Or sexism, for example.

The institutionalization of monogamism (as it could be called) ... or polyphobia (as some may like to call it) is far less widely recognized or understood in our society today. And, for this and other reasons, we poly folk should remain open to hearing from people who "just don't get it" about polyamory. After all, it is we who are (and must) representing this as a valid alternative to monogamy -- which our culture (wrongly) imagines as essential to healthy "romantic" love relationships.

It used to be that heterosexuality was seen as essential to healthy "romantic" love relationships, and the non-hets had to make their case to those who thought otherwise. They succeeded in doing so -- because no case was necessary to begin with, nor any defense of this way of loving. And I think society will eventually realize that the same is true of the ethical non-monogamists. So it's not like I think any of these ways of loving needs defending. What is needed is for us not to be so defensive, and to be open and honest about our love.