Firstly, I would have been great to see a discussion with a therapist who actually specialises in, or fully understand, ENM... not people guessing what it means. Secondly, the analogy of a group of guys assassinating someone and calling it "ethical" just because they all agreed that is was "ethical" is really superficial. Thirdly, proposing that non-monogamy is not ethical simply because it may cause harm is silly... people get hurt in monogamous relationships ALL THE TIME. Lastly... ethical non-monogamy has different sub-categories, and ENM relationships aren't by default OPEN marriages. Also, ENM it not cheating because both parties are informed (part of what makes it ethical), and people who enter into ENM relationships to save their marriage or prevent divorce are doomed to fail. It's the same as thinking having a baby will fix a broken relationship. No, it won't, it will only make things worse. Your relationship has to be ROCK SOLID when even considering ENM. It takes work. It takes therapy. It takes rules and boundaries.
A very important point got dissolved into biblical discussions - of being integrally just one person. The more partners ('love interests') there are, the more split one's personality becomes. This dynamic is then brought to yet another interaction. The personality is volatile; each other person reveals a facet of our personality. Unless it's stabilized in a (monogamous) relationship. Therefore, I strongly doubt polyamory helps creating secure (!) attachments. If the real bonding happens, all other relationships lose significance.
Do you think couples are somehow stable in the fact they get married? Most of my friends and family have been divorced at least once. Marriage provides by far no guarantee of stability, much less so than just ppl being hinest and open with each other
@@kenofken9458 You are full of RUBBISH attempting to justify having multiple partners/wives/husbands. We parents, husband and wife, love ALL of our children because they are part of us, AND because we love each other.
@@pm71241 The principles are applicable even if you are not a believer! Our laws and morals are going down the drain because different people want different things and/or outcomes and different groups of people want different things and/or outcomes. There is no level base for right and wrong. Many individuals in today's world can be hard saying, "I do what's right for ME", in essence making their own rules. If each person wants to follow their OWN rules, it can only result in chaos because those rules often don't match the laws of our land!
That's why our laws and morals are going down the drain. When different people want different things and/or outcomes and different groups of people want different things and/or outcomes, there is no level base for right and wrong. Many individuals in today's world can be hard saying, "I do what's right for ME", in essence making their own rules. If each person wants to follow their OWN rules, it can only result in chaos because those rules often don't match the laws of our land!
I don't mean this in an insulting way, but in the literal meaning of the word: This talk is based on ignorance. You simply don't know what you're talking about. First of all. You can't generalize. "Ethical non-monogamy" is an umbrella term and there's a huge difference between "open marriage", "polyamory" and "swinging". From personal experience, I only have experience with swinging and it is explicitly based on trust, open communication and affection for your partner and if those things are in place in advance, it can really strengthen a relationship.
Most of the critics who are down on non-monogamy and profess expertise on the matter are completely ignorant of how it actually works. It's just religious propaganda.
You hit the nail on the head. This is a conversation between two people on a topic they have clear religious objections against, so they are extremely biased. They could have called in expert on ENM relationships, but instead they fumble around in the dark.
I have to doubt that the reasonfir your position is because you're "about true love". It sounds more like it because you have religious prejudice about something you know nothing about.
No, YOU have prejudice because you just don't want to have morals and rules. Even WITHOUT religion or God as a level base for morals and rules, there must be something wholesome to base all these things on. Otherwise everyone is saying and doing, "what is right for me", and to heck with rules and LAWS. CHAOS
@@deborahrouse5644if you get morales from som book bc some guy at church says its good, you might be hopeless. Instead, use your best judgement and hold yourself to being the best version of you as you imagine yourself to be, at all times.
OK. I had direct experiences about ethical polyamory, not a little knowledge from researches and/or prejudices. Your talk is only on surface level knowledge of topic and (sorry) but full whit monogamous and neo-protestante prejudices. Firstly, ethical non-monogamy and ethical polyamory are umbrella words. Those mean not a simple and same ideology/signification. The word ethical is real ethical, because the partners know each other and accept each other. I some cases help to each other. The most disgusting thing, when monogamous people judging the ethical non-monogamy, but have secret affairs. Second: the ethical polyamory is not "legalized limerence lovership". OR: that might be that, or MIGHT BE NOT THAT. But not that is all cases. This is a typical monogamous prejudice against ethical polyamory. My secondary or third partner is not necessary my "public lover". So: you monogamous people have a hugh logical trick. Non-monogamous relationships follow not binary logic, but you judge them through binary logic. Yes/No, Real/Fals etc. People can love different people in same time. And that would be TRUE LOVE. Sorry. The main problem whit ethical polyamory/non-monogamy is not this. The question is equivalent whit the question of Communism. The Communism failed in Soviet Union. OK. But the Communism was wrong? Absolutely not. Communism and ethical non-monogamy have same roots. Please read the state of family from Friedrich Engels. Monogamy looks to a partner as a property. This man is mine, that woman is mine. This is a real HARM for mankind. Ethical polyamory and ethical non-monogamy is a priori wrong? It depends on. There are open questions.
Thank you for calling them out on their prejudices. Its crazy to think ones bias is a legitimate reason to misrepresent and dismiss the facts of ENM relationships. I always ask, "Do you love just one of your children, and the others are just for show/not real?"
Firstly, I would have been great to see a discussion with a therapist who actually specialises in, or fully understand, ENM... not people guessing what it means.
Secondly, the analogy of a group of guys assassinating someone and calling it "ethical" just because they all agreed that is was "ethical" is really superficial.
Thirdly, proposing that non-monogamy is not ethical simply because it may cause harm is silly... people get hurt in monogamous relationships ALL THE TIME.
Lastly... ethical non-monogamy has different sub-categories, and ENM relationships aren't by default OPEN marriages. Also, ENM it not cheating because both parties are informed (part of what makes it ethical), and people who enter into ENM relationships to save their marriage or prevent divorce are doomed to fail. It's the same as thinking having a baby will fix a broken relationship. No, it won't, it will only make things worse. Your relationship has to be ROCK SOLID when even considering ENM. It takes work. It takes therapy. It takes rules and boundaries.
With Valentine's Day coming up, can you please provide advice on how to "date" your spouse amid a marriage crisis? (Considering PUSH Behaviors...)
A very important point got dissolved into biblical discussions - of being integrally just one person. The more partners ('love interests') there are, the more split one's personality becomes. This dynamic is then brought to yet another interaction. The personality is volatile; each other person reveals a facet of our personality. Unless it's stabilized in a (monogamous) relationship. Therefore, I strongly doubt polyamory helps creating secure (!) attachments. If the real bonding happens, all other relationships lose significance.
So why doesn't having multiple kids dilute a parent's love for each of them into insignificance?
Do you think couples are somehow stable in the fact they get married? Most of my friends and family have been divorced at least once. Marriage provides by far no guarantee of stability, much less so than just ppl being hinest and open with each other
@@kenofken9458
You are full of RUBBISH attempting to justify having multiple partners/wives/husbands.
We parents, husband and wife, love ALL of our children because they are part of us, AND because we love each other.
I always like when you bring in the Bible. God's word is true in all areas of our lives.
That's when I tune out
@@pm71241
The principles are applicable even if you are not a believer!
Our laws and morals are going down the drain because different people want different things and/or outcomes and different groups of people want different things and/or outcomes. There is no level base for right and wrong. Many individuals in today's world can be hard saying, "I do what's right for ME", in essence making their own rules. If each person wants to follow their OWN rules, it can only result in chaos because those rules often don't match the laws of our land!
The most nihilistic and amoral people in this society are the ones who proclaim to be "believers".
@@pm71241 then unfortunately, you are missing out. There’s some deep truths about relationships to be found in the Bible.
Thank you!
That's why our laws and morals are going down the drain.
When different people want different things and/or outcomes and different groups of people want different things and/or outcomes, there is no level base for right and wrong. Many individuals in today's world can be hard saying, "I do what's right for ME", in essence making their own rules. If each person wants to follow their OWN rules, it can only result in chaos because those rules often don't match the laws of our land!
I don't mean this in an insulting way, but in the literal meaning of the word: This talk is based on ignorance.
You simply don't know what you're talking about.
First of all. You can't generalize. "Ethical non-monogamy" is an umbrella term and there's a huge difference between "open marriage", "polyamory" and "swinging".
From personal experience, I only have experience with swinging and it is explicitly based on trust, open communication and affection for your partner and if those things are in place in advance, it can really strengthen a relationship.
That's rubbish!
Most of the critics who are down on non-monogamy and profess expertise on the matter are completely ignorant of how it actually works. It's just religious propaganda.
You hit the nail on the head. This is a conversation between two people on a topic they have clear religious objections against, so they are extremely biased. They could have called in expert on ENM relationships, but instead they fumble around in the dark.
I have to doubt that the reasonfir your position is because you're "about true love".
It sounds more like it because you have religious prejudice about something you know nothing about.
No, YOU have prejudice because you just don't want to have morals and rules. Even WITHOUT religion or God as a level base for morals and rules, there must be something wholesome to base all these things on. Otherwise everyone is saying and doing, "what is right for me", and to heck with rules and LAWS.
CHAOS
Dr Beam has a literal PhD in this stuff and knows the peer reviewed scientific research on it like the back of his hand.
@@deborahrouse5644if you get morales from som book bc some guy at church says its good, you might be hopeless.
Instead, use your best judgement and hold yourself to being the best version of you as you imagine yourself to be, at all times.
Exactly what I was thinking. These two aren't qualified to guide others outside their own religious group
I couldn't agree with you more!
OK. I had direct experiences about ethical polyamory, not a little knowledge from researches and/or prejudices. Your talk is only on surface level knowledge of topic and (sorry) but full whit monogamous and neo-protestante prejudices. Firstly, ethical non-monogamy and ethical polyamory are umbrella words. Those mean not a simple and same ideology/signification. The word ethical is real ethical, because the partners know each other and accept each other. I some cases help to each other. The most disgusting thing, when monogamous people judging the ethical non-monogamy, but have secret affairs. Second: the ethical polyamory is not "legalized limerence lovership". OR: that might be that, or MIGHT BE NOT THAT. But not that is all cases. This is a typical monogamous prejudice against ethical polyamory. My secondary or third partner is not necessary my "public lover". So: you monogamous people have a hugh logical trick. Non-monogamous relationships follow not binary logic, but you judge them through binary logic. Yes/No, Real/Fals etc. People can love different people in same time. And that would be TRUE LOVE. Sorry. The main problem whit ethical polyamory/non-monogamy is not this. The question is equivalent whit the question of Communism. The Communism failed in Soviet Union. OK. But the Communism was wrong? Absolutely not. Communism and ethical non-monogamy have same roots. Please read the state of family from Friedrich Engels. Monogamy looks to a partner as a property. This man is mine, that woman is mine. This is a real HARM for mankind. Ethical polyamory and ethical non-monogamy is a priori wrong? It depends on. There are open questions.
More rubbish!
Huh?
Yeah I’m going to go with the guy who has a PhD on this topic lol
Thank you for calling them out on their prejudices. Its crazy to think ones bias is a legitimate reason to misrepresent and dismiss the facts of ENM relationships.
I always ask, "Do you love just one of your children, and the others are just for show/not real?"
@@hydratanksamari
Even More RUBBISH.