Read and subscribe to my blog on Medium here! (Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash)
I fell down a little rabbit hole this weekend. There’s a wonderful conversation happening out there in the Polyverse about replacing the “ethical” in the phrase “Ethical Non-Monogamy” with the term “consensual”.
Turns out, I’m pretty solidly in the “ethical” camp, but I find the whole conversation interesting and valuable.
First of all, I love that we have gotten to a place where polyamory and Ethical Non-Monogamy have become so established (in some circles, at least) that we can have open conversations about semantics, rather than having to focus primarily on fighting for basic legitimacy.
Semantics and labels can be vital and useful. They are shorthand, a code that lets us simplify and communicate complex ideas. I think there is so much good to be found in debating the nuances. Of course, labels can also be limiting, and debates around semantics can be weaponized, but this is not that.
I love this particular discussion because it deep dives into how best to frame the conversations around the growing non-monogamous community.
The arguments for shifting from “Ethical Non-Monogamy” to “Consensual Non-Monogamy” are strong.
Marie Louise Travers, in her Medium article, “Why You Should Drop the ‘e’ in Ethical Non-Monogamy,” presents some compelling points:
She posits, “When we use the ‘ethical’ prefix, we concede in many ways that non-monogamy is inherently unethical.” In other words, specifying that non-monogamy is ethical becomes necessary only if there’s an assumption that its default state is unethical. Neither monogamy nor non-monogamy is inherently more or less ethical than the other. Why should we need to specify the ethics of non-monogamy when we don’t require the same for monogamy?
She also argues that, just as with monogamy, non-monogamy can indeed be deeply unethical. Referring to non-monogamy and polyamory as inherently ethical can lead people in the community to accept and embrace inherently poor behavior simply because it is labeled “ethical.”
Page Turner, in her article, “3 Reasons I Prefer to Call it Consensual Non-Monogamy,” points out that “ethics are subjective.” There are various ways to approach polyamory and ethics in general. The ENM community is diverse, and, as in every community, judgment and bias prevail. There are always people who want to define ethics based on their views of acceptability. She chooses to bypass these potentially narrow versions of “ethics” by focusing on “consent.” For Page, the focus isn’t rigidly set definitions of acceptability but rather whether the people involved openly and freely consent to the dynamic they’re in.
I love this discussion — in fact, it’s my favorite kind of discussion: one in which there are no losers. Whichever side of the debate you land on — you’re right. The fact that people within the poly and non-monogamy communities care so much about consent and ethics is a beautiful thing.
For me, this conversation deepens my attachment to the Ethical in Ethical non-monogamy.
Rather than viewing the term “ethical” as a defense against monogamous individuals who criticize non-monogamy, I see it as a matter of priorities. People can consent to or manipulate others into terrible, unethical relationship dynamics. Including the term “ethical” in Ethical Non-Monogamy signifies a prioritization of ethics, emphasizing that ethics are integral to this way of life, not something incidental.
I also believe that ethics are as important and necessary in any conversation around consent. In fact, consent obtained by unethical means can invalidate the consent completely.
So polyamorous people who have harassed and cajoled and shamed their monogamous partners into accepting polyamory may say that it is consensual because their partners technically consented. The reverse is true, too — monogamous people can guilt, shame, and denigrate their partners into accepting monogamy, and call that consensual, as well. To take the conversation further, a minor may consent to a relationship with an adult, but the dynamic remains reprehensible.
Consent is fundamentally necessary, but it does not diminish the need for strong ethical frameworks.
Including the term “Ethical” when discussing, well, Ethical Non-Monogamy may not guarantee that everyone using that umbrella term will be ethical, but it does emphasize an ideal. It conveys that people within this community, as a whole, actively embrace and value ethical behavior.
We need individuals of all persuasions to invest energy and intention into acting with integrity, in pursuing and valuing ethical behavior. This doesn’t mean people won’t make selfish decisions or grievous mistakes. There will always be those who will twist and abuse any beautiful thing they find.
What this conversation indicates is an intention, a value system, a prioritization.
In the end, whether we lean towards “Ethical” or “Consensual,” or decline to use either qualifier, the heart of the matter is that we’re striving to create healthy, sustainable, ethical, and consensual dynamics.
We may never find a universally embraced version of perfection, in word or deed, but we can strive to learn, evolve, and refine the ways we hold ourselves in the world.
These conversations are part of that process.