And I appreciate your reply, though I do disagree.
(and for what its worth, i didnt downvote you)
I follow your food allergy metaphor, but this makes sense analogously only if you essentially do not view sex as any more sacred, or complex and meaningful, than food… you view it only as basic human need that is not entwined with the very emotional structure of a relationship.
Say that you’re both ostensibly members of a religion that forbids eating pork, or you’re both fairly hardcore vegans, and you in particular are also allergic to pork.
If your partner goes out and eats pork, away from you, yes this is not literally directly harmful to you, but it betrays the values that you both ostensibly claim to believe in.
Furthering the analogy, the partner could just say they’re not a member of that religion, or they’re not a vegan, or they have different interpretations of the concepts of those… and then you could say:
‘well, the beliefs that I have are important to me, and I thought that you had those same beliefs, and that they were important to you to… so if you do not have those beliefs, we should probably not be a couple.’
So, you have clarified your line of thinking, your preference or worldview or what you want to call it, but you have not explained how the preference or worldview that I explained is unethical.
I don’t inherently think that ENM or poly or relationship anarchy are inherently impossible to do ethically… I think they are difficult to do ethically, without causing a ton of drama, a lot of emotional distress and complexity… but i do not think they are just de facto unethical in concept.
I do agree with you that monogamous relationships very often are problematic in that they come with baggage by way of people having unstated assumptions of what the roles and rules are.
But this can be solved with forthright communication and actually discussing with the partner what those roles and rules are or should be.
That goes the same for nonmonogamous relationships, they’re just inherently more complex as they involve more people.
Tons of people are, imo, not emotionally mature enough, not honest enough with themselves, do not have the communication skills required to be in any kind of a serious relationship, monogamous or otherwise.
open and honest communication is key in every relationship, from just friends and aquintances to romantic/sexual partners. Why do you think its hard to make those relationships ethical? you say it isn’t impossible but still consier them inherently difficult to do so ethically?
I think that its more difficult for a stable, persistent, nonmonogamous, romantic/sexual situation to persist mainly because there are more people involved.
Everything that would be a one to one discussion, is now A to B and A to C and B to C, and potentially A to BC and AB to C and AC to B… this gets more complex, geometrically, with more members.
With more people and no mandatory/imposed hierarchy, It complexifies, with more chances for miscommunication, with all the intensity of emotions that comes along with a serious relationship… which can often lead to drama.
I don’t think that this is conceptually difficult to do ethically, if everyone involved communicates very well.
But that almost never occurs in practice, in mono or nonmono setups.
I think it is difficult to do ethically in practice, moreso when there are more members, because people have emotions that cause them to do irrational things, they have limited amounts of time and energy, imperfect information, because people can change their minds about things, because sometimes people don’t really know why they do some things.
The more people you have in a persistent arrangement like this, the more complex and thus unstable the entire situation is.
Granted, that reasoning only applies to certain kinds of non monogamy, others are or can be less complex…
But basically my whole thrust here is that more people = more complicated = more chances for drama / intentionallly or unintentionally hurting other people.
There are just more potentially shifting sets of boundaries and rules, that may or may not apply equally to all others in the group, and those boundaries themselves may or may not be problems for other members of the group.
you already have multiple relationships. besides your romantic/sexual partner. you likely have many friendships relationships, many familial relationships, professional relationships… you are the one who defines which ones are more important and which ones you treasure. your desicion you make with one friend likely has no consequence on other relationships. All that complicated logic should in theory apply to all those relationships as well, but it does not.
if you live with 2 partners and need to sell the house, then that conversation would involve A, B and C, but if it’s about driving B to the airport, C doesn’t really need to be involved. same way if you order a pizza with your coworkers you don’t need to consult your brother, as it doesn’t involve them.
Instinctually you already do that.
Also, personally, I think hierarchical poly is a bit iffy. every relationship has its worth in itself and no one is above anyone else.
Yes, I still believe that monogamy is inherently unethical, as it involves one partner having the power to concent for their partner. Also it is the norm and state/religious enforced. Some norms are important, but they should at least be questioned rather than accepted uncritically.
You are free to disagree, but I am happy if at least you honestly questioned it. If you do so and still disagree, then that’s fine.
And I appreciate your reply, though I do disagree.
(and for what its worth, i didnt downvote you)
I follow your food allergy metaphor, but this makes sense analogously only if you essentially do not view sex as any more sacred, or complex and meaningful, than food… you view it only as basic human need that is not entwined with the very emotional structure of a relationship.
Say that you’re both ostensibly members of a religion that forbids eating pork, or you’re both fairly hardcore vegans, and you in particular are also allergic to pork.
If your partner goes out and eats pork, away from you, yes this is not literally directly harmful to you, but it betrays the values that you both ostensibly claim to believe in.
Furthering the analogy, the partner could just say they’re not a member of that religion, or they’re not a vegan, or they have different interpretations of the concepts of those… and then you could say:
‘well, the beliefs that I have are important to me, and I thought that you had those same beliefs, and that they were important to you to… so if you do not have those beliefs, we should probably not be a couple.’
So, you have clarified your line of thinking, your preference or worldview or what you want to call it, but you have not explained how the preference or worldview that I explained is unethical.
I don’t inherently think that ENM or poly or relationship anarchy are inherently impossible to do ethically… I think they are difficult to do ethically, without causing a ton of drama, a lot of emotional distress and complexity… but i do not think they are just de facto unethical in concept.
I do agree with you that monogamous relationships very often are problematic in that they come with baggage by way of people having unstated assumptions of what the roles and rules are.
But this can be solved with forthright communication and actually discussing with the partner what those roles and rules are or should be.
That goes the same for nonmonogamous relationships, they’re just inherently more complex as they involve more people.
Tons of people are, imo, not emotionally mature enough, not honest enough with themselves, do not have the communication skills required to be in any kind of a serious relationship, monogamous or otherwise.
open and honest communication is key in every relationship, from just friends and aquintances to romantic/sexual partners. Why do you think its hard to make those relationships ethical? you say it isn’t impossible but still consier them inherently difficult to do so ethically?
I think that its more difficult for a stable, persistent, nonmonogamous, romantic/sexual situation to persist mainly because there are more people involved.
Everything that would be a one to one discussion, is now A to B and A to C and B to C, and potentially A to BC and AB to C and AC to B… this gets more complex, geometrically, with more members.
With more people and no mandatory/imposed hierarchy, It complexifies, with more chances for miscommunication, with all the intensity of emotions that comes along with a serious relationship… which can often lead to drama.
I don’t think that this is conceptually difficult to do ethically, if everyone involved communicates very well.
But that almost never occurs in practice, in mono or nonmono setups.
I think it is difficult to do ethically in practice, moreso when there are more members, because people have emotions that cause them to do irrational things, they have limited amounts of time and energy, imperfect information, because people can change their minds about things, because sometimes people don’t really know why they do some things.
The more people you have in a persistent arrangement like this, the more complex and thus unstable the entire situation is.
Granted, that reasoning only applies to certain kinds of non monogamy, others are or can be less complex…
But basically my whole thrust here is that more people = more complicated = more chances for drama / intentionallly or unintentionally hurting other people.
There are just more potentially shifting sets of boundaries and rules, that may or may not apply equally to all others in the group, and those boundaries themselves may or may not be problems for other members of the group.
counter argument.
you already have multiple relationships. besides your romantic/sexual partner. you likely have many friendships relationships, many familial relationships, professional relationships… you are the one who defines which ones are more important and which ones you treasure. your desicion you make with one friend likely has no consequence on other relationships. All that complicated logic should in theory apply to all those relationships as well, but it does not.
if you live with 2 partners and need to sell the house, then that conversation would involve A, B and C, but if it’s about driving B to the airport, C doesn’t really need to be involved. same way if you order a pizza with your coworkers you don’t need to consult your brother, as it doesn’t involve them.
Instinctually you already do that.
Also, personally, I think hierarchical poly is a bit iffy. every relationship has its worth in itself and no one is above anyone else.
It does though.
Your friends could say they don’t like your partner.
Your partner could say they don’t like your friends.
Your partner could love or hate the idea of you fucking one of your friends, etc.
When you involve sex and/or deep commitment as a partner, like, a life partner… emotions and condiserations get more complex and of greater magnitude.
So… the more people you are partnered with, the more people there are with strong and complex emotional considerations going all ways.
But anyway, none of this addresses my original critique:
You have not demonstrated that broadly, monogamous relationships are unethical, de facto, 100% of the time.
I don’t think nonmonogamy nor monogamy are inherently, de facto, all the time unethical.
I just think that nonmonogamy is more difficult to do ethically.
You said monogamy is unethical.
Do you still hold this view?
If so, why, for what reasons?
Yes, I still believe that monogamy is inherently unethical, as it involves one partner having the power to concent for their partner. Also it is the norm and state/religious enforced. Some norms are important, but they should at least be questioned rather than accepted uncritically.
You are free to disagree, but I am happy if at least you honestly questioned it. If you do so and still disagree, then that’s fine.
no norm should be accepted uncritically.