Ethical, Consensual, or Just Plain Old Non-Monogamy?
Do we really need to use qualifiers when talking about non-monogamy, and if so, why?
When you talk to people, how do you describe your relationship style? Do you say you are ethically non-monogamous, or do you say you are consensually non-monogamous? Or do you just say you are non-monogamous without the need for any fancy qualifiers?
When I started out on my polyamory journey, I used ethical non-monogamy because it was what everyone else I was reading or talking to was saying. I never questioned it. It was simply the way people described this lifestyle. But recently, I've seen more and more people choose differently. Some people dislike "ethical" and choose to use a different qualifier, while some people feel it's wrong to use any qualifier at all.
Have I been saying it wrong all this time? Or are people just being picky or oversensitive about how we describe our lifestyle?
So, let's take a moment to take a look at why we add qualifiers to non-monogamy, why a growing subset of the community is against it, and whether or not it actually matters.
When someone tells you they are monogamous, you tend not to have any follow-up questions.
Why would we? We've been taught that monogamy is the core of any happy relationship. Two people get together, and if they are right for each other, they will sooner or later fall in love, move in together, get married, have kids, etc., etc. Sure, there are always variations, but at the core of it all is the idea that once you find that one person to share it all with, you won't need or want (or be allowed to) anyone else.
But we also know this isn't always the case. There are bad relationships. Even abusive and coercive ones. But we never question monogamy's inherent morality. We just assume, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that it is ethical without any need for qualifiers.
So why don't we do the same for non-monogamy?
Why Do We Add Qualifiers to Non-Monogamy?
The reason people started adding qualifiers to the word non-monogamy is simple; Western society teaches us that any kind of relationship outside the monogamous norm is wrong. When you tell someone you are non-monogamous, their first thought will be that you are using a fancy word to excuse cheating. Or, at best, a way to justify sleeping around and having casual relationships because you either haven't found "The One" or are just afraid of commitment.
No, it's not fair. But it's what happens. And why? Well, like everything else, society conditions us to see relationships through the lens of Capitalism and Patriarchy. Whether we realise it or not, we see our partners as a form of property. Something we own that can be lost or stolen. Don't think so? Even today, traditional marriage ceremonies include the practice of the father "giving away" the bride to the groom. And while you might argue that this is just a nice tradition, we would be fooling ourselves if we argued that these kinds of traditions don't reflect our subconscious attitudes about relationships.
And so, people hear you practice a different kind of relationship model, they assume it must involve some unhealthy or unethical practice.
Which led to the early pioneers in our community introducing qualifiers.
Why “Ethical” Non-Monogamy?
By adding "ethical" to non-monogamy, we immediately communicate to our listeners that what we are doing is intended to be fair and equal. This clashes with their immediate negative reaction, forcing them to actively think about what we have said. Rather than just sitting in their unfair assumptions, they are made to wonder how what we are doing can be ethical. We've broken through that first dismissal or judgement (even if there are further layers that are much harder to break through).
But is "ethical" the correct qualifier to use? Despite its prevalence, not everyone agrees.
Why “Consensual” Non-Monogamy?
Many people don't like using the word "ethical" as the default description for non-monogamy and instead prefer "consensual".
The argument for this is that using the qualifier "ethical" implies that the default for non-monogamy is unethical. Why else would we need to qualify it in the first place? Consensual, on the other hand, indicates that everyone involved has consented. This tells people that we aren't involved in infidelity or any form of coercion, and leaving the ethical nature of non-monogamy unquestioned.
But some people don't believe we should need any qualifiers at all.
Why Not Just “Non-Monogamy”
Why should we need to qualify non-monogamy at all? Surely, when we tell someone we are non-monogamous, they should just assume the situation is ethical and consensual? That's how people treat monogamy, and there are all sorts of unhealthy, unethical, and non-consensual monogamous relationships out there.
I've seen this argument more and more recently, with people arguing that the focus shouldn't be apologising and explaining our lifestyles to others but for others to educate themselves on better and more varied relationships.
And this is an excellent argument. We shouldn't need to qualify ourselves. When someone says non-monogamy, it should have all the assumptions of being a valid relationship and monogamy.
Which leaves the question of why I disagree with it.
Why We (Still) Need Qualifiers for Non-Monogamy
Should we have to use qualifiers when describing a non-monogamous relationship?
No.
But do we live in a perfect world?
Also, no.
We live in a wonderful yet vastly imperfect world, where centuries of culture and societal beliefs ingrain us with the idea that relationships are about ownership of our partners and, therefore, straying from monogamy is a form of theft. This is paired with the Puritanical attitudes about sex that pervade our culture, even to those who consider themselves progressive.
And so, it's natural that a relationship model that steps away from monogamy and embraces sexual freedom is going to face prejudice. Ask any polyamory educator, and they will tell you stories of all the hate comments and trolling they will have received at some point for simply saying different kinds of relationships exist.
And so we need these qualifiers. We need words like "ethical" and "consensual" to break through these walls of misunderstanding and poor education. They'll never be enough on their own, but they are hopefully enough to get people thinking along lines they wouldn't have done otherwise.
Ultimately, does any of this matter?
Whether you say "ethical non-monogamy", "consensual non-monogamy", or just "non-monogamy" on its own, the important thing is that you have actively thought about what it means to you and what you are looking to find from it and that you are able to communicate this to your partners.
Labels are important, as they create ways to communicate shared understandings and beliefs, but we must never fall into the trap of thinking the label is more important than the practice. Yes, someone might call what you are doing something different, but that doesn't change anything for you.
So use whatever qualifiers you feel work for you. Or none at all, for that matter. All that matters is that you are being true to yourself and endeavouring to create healthy, happy relationships.
Would you like to learn more about polyamory, keep up to date with articles when they are posted, and also receive a FREE COPY of A Basic Guide To Ethical Non-Monogamy? Then sign up for my newsletter.