In my life journey, the idea of ENM did not come to me from the “outside”, it was somehow self-generated in my consciousness at first. Back then ENM was not such a widespread lifestyle model that I could’ve found out about from somewhere, to study it, and to decide to try and implement it. Instead, I somehow invented this model in my mind and connected it with the notion of “open relationship” that I have heard superficially without really digging into it. To be honest, there was a period when I felt like I personally invented this model, and it applied only to me. I was unaware that ENM existed as a concept and that it conformed to certain ethical principles and has a significant number of followers. Gradually I began to collect and study materials on the topic and to see how an already existing ENM painting was revealed to me.
Those initial months of discovering ENM as a real-life philosophy brought me a powerful wave of enthusiasm and the feeling that I discovered the Holy Grail of intimate relationships. For a brief period, it seemed that ENM is a simple but genius and almost universal solution to a huge number of problems that could occur in a relationship.
The realization that ENM is not something that I invented and applies only to me, brought me “proof” that my reasoning is in the correct direction for me. Otherwise, there would not have been other people who reached the same conclusions prior to me and who have long lived in ENM. It seemed to me that there could hardly be a relationship that could not benefit from the introduction of ENM. I was a bit like a blind person who was able to see again – I couldn’t enjoy enough my new ability to “see”. Everything I looked at seemed beautiful, simply because it was the first time I was seeing anything at all. I have returned my “sight”, but I did not understand that I had to do something important about my new vision in the first place – to build some kind of sense of aesthetics. To learn what is truly beautiful and what is just hypnotic and eye-catching.
The problem was that I reached a valuable insight for me and I felt I should offer it to just about everybody around me. My inner dialogue almost constantly flowed in a similar direction. When I watched movies, I wondered why the plot doesn’t allow the characters to be polyamorous so that there would be a happy ending. I was thinking the same thing when I read fiction. When I read the news about crimes of passion, I wondered whether the story would have been different if the people involved were open to ENM. I saw plenty of aspects of life in a different way then.
But the biggest difference came from the fact how I saw monogamy – I started to treat it with a dismissive and arrogant manner. Nowadays I feel ashamed when I think about it, but I even had shameful cases where I almost went so far as to try to convince my friends that at least half of their relationship issues would disappear with the introduction of ENM. An extremely rude and profane attitude that I’m glad is, in the end, a thing of the past.
ENM is not a panacea. There have probably been, and there will be many problematic monogamous relationships that have benefited from the introduction of ENM. There are probably also relationships that ENM did not manage to save from decay. My view is that the introduction of ENM is good to happen as an attempt to enrich a fulfilling and healthy relationship, not as an attempt to “fix” unsatisfactory relationships. My theory is based on the huge level of complexity that ENM brings while opening a monogamous relationship. Trying to improve one relationship by opening it is like trying to fix it by making a baby. It may sound like an opportunity, but it’s in fact incredibly naïve and a near-certain recipe for disaster.
ENM is not a panacea. We as humans are set up in such a way that when something helps us to be happier and more fulfilled than we were before, we want to immediately share it with the people close to us and advise them to try it out themselves. We even insist that they try it out, because we are convinced that it will do the same good, as it did for us. This applies to all kinds of activities and services at all levels – to our new dentist, whom we discovered just lately (“go and visit him, you’ll see that he will do the job quickly and painlessly”), for our new face cream(“try it, it will do you good”), for our new coffee machine (“if you want, I’ll just give it as a present for your birthday”), to movies, books, music. The examples shared so far are slightly annoying but nevertheless harmless. However, we humans often apply the same attitude to non-harmful things like therapies, drugs, and diets. Most of the time we are sure that we are “just trying to help”, but the truth is that we feed our own ego. I could compare the advice “just become polyamorous and everything will work out” with some advice towards somebody to change their religion (and wait for everything to work out).
ENM is not a panacea. At no level should ENM aim to absorb monogamy, to stand out from it, or to be compared to monogamy. I understand how tempting it is to “enlighten the masses” with our newly acquired life horizons, but it is preferable to refrain from agitation. The topic is sensitive, conflictual, and controversial. People often take polar positions because the question affects fundamental beliefs that we are accustomed to and constitute a major part of our life philosophy. It is difficult to maintain a constructive dialogue when our life foundations are being questioned in an indelicate and simplistic way. I could compare the act of convincing mono people to switch to ENM, to trying to convince somebody that they should change their sexual orientation to the one that we’ve decided is appropriate for them. This is just another recipe for disaster and more specifically for a disastered friendship.
ENM is not a panacea. Nowadays I allow myself to “enlighten” mono people in ENM only if they ask for it. I use a way similar to how sex is explained to children. You explain when they ask about it. And because when they ask you, they are often too young to be able to grasp the whole picture – you explain only what they’ve asked you. After that they would ask a build-up question – you answer it exactly, refraining from over-complicating your answer too much. Once they stop asking you questions – you stop explaining further. Time passes, and they ask the question again – you remember what you said last time and build up your answer a bit. They ask a clarifying question – you answer that too. They stop asking – you stop explaining further. And so, until the next iteration, which is again initiated by them. You don’t pour all the information at once, you don’t overflow them with abstract and incomprehensible concepts, and you don’t make it sound more complicated than it actually is. And for God’s sake, you do not convince them how good it is and how they should try it ASAP.
ENM is not a panacea. ENM is neither a better nor a worse choice than monogamy. Both options are valid, and each has its place. Simply said, the necessary opposition between monogamy and ENM does nobody a favor. The direction in which this opposition works is mostly destructive and divisive. Yes, it happens quite often that mono people explain to me how my lifestyle “will never work out in the end” and how there will always be people who get hurt. I instinctively want to ask them for their examples of mono relationships where nobody gets hurt, but instead, I choose to not oppose our viewpoints. I try to understand why they think what they think, which part of ENM actually worries them the most, and why. Every time I manage to listen to their answers unbiasedly, I learn something new.
Surprisingly or not, the more tolerant and delicate approach without an urge to oppose ideas leads in the direction of less negative reactions, more respect for the point of view of others, and less pole amplitude. Try it! Or just consider if this is you speaking or it is the New Relationship Energy (NRE) between you and the Ethical Non-Monogamy.
The illustration is from the Facebook group “Poly memes and things”. Author – unknown.
Leave a Reply