Right. Some people handle this well, others are not open to it. Willingness to adhere to monogamy is a thing that varies from person to person and must be discussed in any relationship. Ethical nonmonogamy is a thing, but it's not for everyone, and it is a lot of communication and intimate work.

[–] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I find the notion of ENM peculiar. Just the name starting with ethical gives it an 'exception to the rule' feel, that the default is unethical.

It's like the terms open or swingers (which is a slightly separate thing I get, but in the same space) didn't exist before or are no longer acceptable.

[–] aphlamingphoenix@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think ethical nonmonogamy casts a wider net. I wouldn't call myself a swinger. I don't do parties or anything like that. But I'm still not monogamous and it's still not cheating since my partner and I have an existing arrangement and regular check-ins.

[–] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 3 points 10 months ago

I guess I'm more getting at the term itself than the concept. People for a while have sometimes said 'we have an open relationship' which to my mind is functionally the same thing. The other nearest option would be non-partnered in which case a title isn't needed anyhow.

The part that seems weird to me is by specifically labeling it as ethical, it implies that the standard non-monogomy is unethical which seems like a strange stance to tie a lifestyle to if usable terms exist.

Just the philosophical musings of a fairly vanilla middle age dude navigating the modern social world though. 🙂

load more comments (2 replies)