What has substantial weakened your argument is the fact that you fail to address what is ethical…
Louelle Denor
1

I can agree that I didn’t explicitly what ethical non-monogamy is.

An ethical relationship (be it monogamous or non-monogamous) is one in which the participants know their own needs, their own desires, they know what they can offer, they know what they do not want to offer, they know their own boundaries and their rights, they reflect on all of those things, they know how they want to be treated, they know how to treat the other(s) by means of open and direct communication, negotiation, honesty, fairness, consent, not reducing the other(s)’s agency and autonomy, by not limiting their ability to express their needs, desires and offers, by guaranteeing the respect of their human rights and by respecting them as humans at all times.

In other words: 1. treating others in a way one would want to be treated and one would want everybody treated everybody else, and 2. not valuing the relationship itself as something to be retained at all cost so that people involved in the relationship are depraved of their rights.

Those things lack in the examples of non-ethical non-monogamy that I have stated in my reply (FLDS-polygyny, hierarchical polyfidelous structures and traditional polyandrynous marriages in Tibet).


I agree with you that if it’s ethical non-monogamy, it’s ethical by design, that it is ethical because participants decided to do it, to design it in an ethical way— the people doing the non-monogamy are doing it ethically, and it is feminist if the participants do it feminist.

Your original post does not reflect that:

Non-monogamy, on the other hand, makes no promises on behalf of anyone. It not only leaves the negotiation to the people involved, it requires that they engage in negotiation. This is a vital difference. Non-monogamy reduces one’s ability to make assumptions about their partners, and this is a true asset. Furthermore, it creates more engaged partnerships, for it nurtures the autonomy of partners.

“Non-monogamy makes no promises”, “it leaves the negotiation to the people involved”, “it requires that they engage in negotiation”, “non-monogamy reduces one’s ability to make assumptions about their partners”, “it creates more engaged partnerships, for it nurtures the autonomy of partners”.

Saying that it is the non-monogamous relationship model that makes, does, requires, reduces, nurtures and creates certain vital aspects of the interhuman dynamic is a badly chosen figure of speech, because it implies that “living non-monogamously will elicit ethical behaviour from its participants because non-monogamy is inherently ethical (otherwise it wouldn’t elicit that behaviour).”

Like what you read? Give Delia Oek a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.