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.
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.
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.
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. 🙂
An open relationship isn’t that weird of a concept to some. It’s about how much others mean to you, not how much of them you posess. People in these comments are fucking pathetic for not understanding this basic fact of healthy relationships: You do not own anyone else. To any degree. Period.
I think most people here agree with you, it’s just that the way you’re speaking to them comes off as judgemental and kinda mean, so they respond accordingly.
No ownership, but sharing time. I want to buy a house not a time-share. I want that deep emotional connection with someone. I don’t have the capacity to have more than one deep connection and would like someone similar. If my partner chooses they want something open, that’s fine, but we would transition to friends
Agreed, but know what they are. They aren’t lines to control someone with. They’re lines someone should agree with and should know may be signs of other controlling behavior. So many people are OK with being controlled and it’s frankly pathetic.
If you’re dealing with the boundaries healthily, then it’s not so much an insecurity and more of a limitation. If others are aware and OK with it, I’d call that healthily dealt with. Whether or not the limitation is a problem is merely a matter of preference, and luckily it sounds like yours line up.
I love how everyone assumes “indicative of” is a direct accusation… As if false red flags based on perception do not exist. People are so small minded.
Im someone for whom C is a necessity like the person you’re responding too and I think you’re 100% right.
It may not be a nessesarily pathological insecurity, but it absolutely is an insecurity.
If I felt more secure I’d probably be able to deal with it. I don’t think that means im a necessarily insecure person, or am someone for whom insecurity is a clinical problem, but at least comparatively that makes it an insecurity.
You can get depressed and not have depression, you can get insecure and not be an insecure person, heck you can even maintain a healthy amount of anxiety. These are essentially just human traits and there’s no shame in admitting that I have a trait that’s at least a little rooted in insecurity so long as it doesn’t negatively impact my life.
C and E sound indicative of some insecurities.
Ah yes, be 100% ok with sharing your partner, or you’re insecure.
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.
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.
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.
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. 🙂
I said, “indicative of”, not, “yea you’re insecure”. Amazing how you children cannot parse basic perception from accusation.
Braindead comments are indicative of massive cerebral trauma.
I mean, I wouldn’t want to deal with the mental gymnastics involved with my significant other getting down with other people
I think they were reacting to the “no one can appear even if it was an old video before we met” part.
I mean, there’s still mental gymnastics going on there. For me at least
An open relationship isn’t that weird of a concept to some. It’s about how much others mean to you, not how much of them you posess. People in these comments are fucking pathetic for not understanding this basic fact of healthy relationships: You do not own anyone else. To any degree. Period.
That’s a neat story you got there, but literally nobody here is saying they do own someone else.
Why yes you are correct: what I’m saying isn’t appliccable to 100% of people! Do you want a gold star for your basic observation?
It’s like you retards don’t understand that not everyone has or wants the same relationship.
You are in this comic.
I think most people here agree with you, it’s just that the way you’re speaking to them comes off as judgemental and kinda mean, so they respond accordingly.
I said nobody here. I.e. these comments, the people you said think that. Would you like a participation trophy for your reading comprehension?
I mean we’re just chatting, but for some reason it feels like you’re yelling
Not my problem Poe’s Law is real.
Haha yeah, only 75% of your comment was attempting to be insulting in some way! How could anybody think you’re being an ass? Poe’s law sure is crazy.
Right, I’m definitely not commenting about the previous part of the discussion. Or did you forget that happened?
Retard is apparently appropriate.
No ownership, but sharing time. I want to buy a house not a time-share. I want that deep emotional connection with someone. I don’t have the capacity to have more than one deep connection and would like someone similar. If my partner chooses they want something open, that’s fine, but we would transition to friends
Yes, but the vast majority of us do have some insecurities and you can at least be honest with yourself and your partner about them.
Agreed, but know what they are. They aren’t lines to control someone with. They’re lines someone should agree with and should know may be signs of other controlling behavior. So many people are OK with being controlled and it’s frankly pathetic.
Ha, C&E are actually relationship needs of mine, friend.
In fact, I think the others are more indicative of my insecurities, but hey, I’m not anxious-avoidant so I don’t know for sure.
If you’re dealing with the boundaries healthily, then it’s not so much an insecurity and more of a limitation. If others are aware and OK with it, I’d call that healthily dealt with. Whether or not the limitation is a problem is merely a matter of preference, and luckily it sounds like yours line up.
I love how everyone assumes “indicative of” is a direct accusation… As if false red flags based on perception do not exist. People are so small minded.
Im someone for whom C is a necessity like the person you’re responding too and I think you’re 100% right.
It may not be a nessesarily pathological insecurity, but it absolutely is an insecurity.
If I felt more secure I’d probably be able to deal with it. I don’t think that means im a necessarily insecure person, or am someone for whom insecurity is a clinical problem, but at least comparatively that makes it an insecurity.
You can get depressed and not have depression, you can get insecure and not be an insecure person, heck you can even maintain a healthy amount of anxiety. These are essentially just human traits and there’s no shame in admitting that I have a trait that’s at least a little rooted in insecurity so long as it doesn’t negatively impact my life.