Polyamory: Why is it not immoral?

This stems from the falling out I've had with my brother over my decision to try poly. He's very much of the belief that my choice to do so is immoral and he seems to find it be a very unhealthy relationship structure devoid of proper commitment.

I will be responding to his comments with a letter, since that's how we've been communicating in a civil manner lately. In order to succinctly address his big morality question mark, I wanted to know your guys' beliefs for WHY polyamory is not immoral. What in your eyes makes it ethical and deserving of acceptance? How can it be a healthy expression of love for all parties involved? I have some of my own ideas already about this, but you guys are a bit more experienced than I am and may have some ideas I don't.
 
I would start by asking him why he thinks poly is immoral. Just to get him thinking beyond "just feel it is". And then tackle the points, i.e. say where you disagree and why.

To me, there is nothing immoral about it since everybody involved know what is going on and have agreed. I define immoral as something that is harmful to others. But other people may have other definitions to immoral. Often it is just "it feels wrong" and it is justified by something like religion or just cause it's so weird. As in, because people in general have monogamous agreements in their relationships (whether upheld or not) there must be something wrong with doing things in a weird way.
 
I woul first of all try to make clear to him, that he overuses the Golden Rule by judging your behaviour as wrong, just because he himself would feel treated unfairly, would feel uncomfortable and wouldn't want to be in such a situation as a poly relationship. ("One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.")

And stress that everyone involved agreed to this and that he can't dictate what others believe to be appropriate and acceptable based on his moral code. That his moral code may be backed up by the common one from society, but that that one is basically an agreement as well and that the agreement in your situation has been made, but on different terms.

Before he realizes that there are other points of view, different from his own, as valid as he believes his own to be, he won't be able to follow any of your arguments at all.
 
I don't want to get too technical with this, but it might help to borrow from moral psychology. One school has it that there are three broad "schemas" of moral judgment:

1. Pre-conventional, which is all about avoiding punishment. (An act is wrong if I will get in trouble for it.)

2. Conventional, which is all about upholding social norms for their own sake. (An act is wrong if it violates the explicit, agreed-upon rules or standards of society.)

3. Post-conventional, which is all about independent judgment based on higher ethical principles, which makes it possible to critique social norms . . . and to give reasons for it.

Now, there are several different frameworks for post-conventional moral thinking, which means multiple distinct lines of argument that can be made. The problem is that it can be very difficult to argue with someone whose moral thinking is dominated by the conventional schema.

So, from a conventional point of view, here in Western culture, lifelong, exclusive monogamous marriage is a social norm, surrounded by expectations and social sanctions. For someone whose thinking is dominated by the convention schema, monogamy is simply right, and any departure from it is wrong almost by definition.

There are several lines of argument that can be made in favor of non-monogamy or, at least, in favor of allowing people to choose. How well the arguments are received depends on how open the other person is to reconsidering social norms, seeing new possibilities. It depends how much moral imagination the other person has.

I sometimes think that's why so many people who consider themselves poly are also science fiction fans: at its best, sf can reveal an astonishing array of alternative ways of living in the world, so readers and viewers of sf may may be more likely than others to imagine other ways of living their own lives.

Anyway, one framework would focus on happiness and the avoidance of harm. If polyamory makes it possible for someone to live a full and happy life, and if it's practiced so as to avoid harming others as much as possible, then it may be morally justifiable.

Another framework would focus on character and the development of virtues. I think being poly has made me a better kind of person, in some respects. I am more honest with myself and others, living more deliberately in the world. I'm more mature than I was. This is not to say people practicing monogamy can't be honest and mature, but it's worth considering whether the demands of compulsory monogamy would tend to stunt that particular line of development.

For me, the most compelling framework would focus on consent and respect for the free choice others. As long as I am not using other people merely as means to my own ends, as long as I allow others to make their own decisions, without any attempt to coerse or deceive or otherwise control them, as long as my relationships are based on honesty, trust, respect, and mutual consent, then my way of relating to others is moral.

I've told the story in other contexts, but it's relevant here in that it simplifies all of this, boils it down to its essence.

Vix and I moved in together before we were married, which shocked and horrified my parents. It went against what my Dad still calls "the Program.". They are very much conventional thinkers, defining right and wrong entirely in terms of conformity to social norms and expectations. So, from their point of view, having sex outside of a committed, lifelong, heterosexual marriage is and always must be immoral.

When I told my parents the reason for my change of address, my mother cried. She demanded to know: "Where's the moral young man we've raised?"

I replied along these lines: "I'm right here! It's just have a different understanding of what it means to be moral. I have made my choice, consciously and thoughtfully, and I take responsibility for my choice and its consequences."

They were unconvinced, and probably unconvinceable.

But that's what I think it comes down to: making choices, thoughtfully and responsibly.
 
Last edited:
Well, it is hard to answer without knowing how he defines morality. Is it something religious for him, or otherwise following rules established by somebody else?

To me, morality means acting in such a way as to avoid harming others, and prevent harm that would be done to them. With that definition, staying in a monogamous relationship, if the partners are hurt by it, is what's immoral.

As for commitment, you can have commitment without exclusivity. You already commit to more than one person. You are committed to your friends, your job, your family. Commitment means that if someone needs you, you will be there. Yes, sometimes you have a big assignment on your job and a school play to attend, or a sick friend and an anniversary. You make decisions to honour your commitments based on urgency, importance, who else can replace you, who needs you the most, etc. It's the same for everyone, even with a single partner. Adding one partner doesn't make as huge a difference as many people would have you think. We already have obligations to more than one person in our lives.
 
Okay, philosophical argument is all about words and their meaning. Polyamory could be considered against "accepted principals of right and wrong behavior" (the definition of morals). Morality falls back on tradition and, often, the religious principals of the majority. Therefore, polyamory technically could be considered immoral in western society.

Morality is crap. I think what you really want to discuss is whether or not polyamory is ethical. Ethics is the philosophy of how people should act. It relies on logical arguments to determine the best course of action. I'd argue that polyamory is an ethical choice for me. My ethical argument would look like this:

1) Something is ethical if it creates the greatest good for the greatest amount of people (i.e. utilitarianism).
2) Polyamory creates the greatest happiness for some people without severally impinging on the happiness of others (first-hand experience).
3) Therefore, polyamory is an ethical choice for some people (i.e. me).

Incidentally, monogamy would make me unhappy in the long run. My unhappiness would most likely make the people around me more unhappy. Therefore, for me, monogamy is an unethical choice.

Just my 2 cents and a minor in philosophy.

-Wolf
 
He's very much of the belief that my choice to do so is immoral and he seems to find it be a very unhealthy relationship structure devoid of proper commitment.

If you want to give him the cliff notes? I'd be like...

So your definition of that is what? 2 people only? Ok. So I'm in an unhealthy relationship devoid of proper committment by your definition.

I do not agree, but alright then. Only time can "prove" the committed-ness. So I have to let that go. Only time can show the "unhealthy-ness" so I have to let that go. But time will pass, we will see what we see.

You aren't one of the people I romance, so... not really your biz who and how I romance. Can you let that go?

You have your belief, I have mine. I choose who I am with, you choose who you are with. Can you let that go?

So we can we call it truce then, agree to disagree?

He feels it is. You feel it is not. There. End of story. See that? Two people in disagreement on that one. Can we lay it aside then and carry on with the REST of our sibling rship in peace?

-------

If he's up for a little more?

It's like having a religion argument. And where hyperskeptic went with "the stages of moral psychology" I was like -- fine. Stage of faith development and what a person is ready to "take on board" when. Like James Fowler or Scotty McClennan.

If his development stage is just not ready to hear or not WILLING to hear? You are wasting breath. He's like a person in stage 3 on Fowler getting cranky on religion.

It's swell if both people are open enough to go "Alright. That's your path. I get this/do not get that. I do not share in some of these beliefs. But I can see you are happy in it. I prefer my path over here, this one is not my scene. But I still wish you well and can be glad for you. GL!"

But if you have a judeo-christian based trinitarian faith person? Who is closed minded forever? Or not closed forever... but just not ready yet to grow further and in stage 3? Just in earlier a stage of faith development where anything "other" than their own path rocks their boat?

They aren't even going to get along with the judeo-christian based unitarian faith "neighbor" much less the atheist or the buddhist that is totally radically different by greater degrees and several houses of worship over!

As for poly historicity -- there is NOTHING new under the sun in human sexuality. Sex in History, Sexualia -- many other books touch on this -- humans having sex across the ages in many ways.

He may feel weirded out because your are his SISTER. It makes it that much more weird and harder to take when eyes first open to the larger world of possibiliites on the sex buffet table -- bigger than you knew it.

If it's like "Oh, those ancients did that" it can feel weird but it is "safer" because it's arms distance, you know? It's a book. These people are not only far away they are dead!

Being the sibling, makes it that much closer. You are here. RIGHT HERE!

And even if logically your brother should have anything to do with your sex life in terms of who you have sex with?

As a bro who might want to share in your life? If you expect him to socialize and share in family time with your partner(s) should it get serious... like not jsut transitioning but around for DECADES?

Well, he's not in bed with them or with you but it be nice to sit around the thanksgiving table in peace and enjoy family! How does he do that? Maybe some of his weird fear is coming out from that anxiety pot. The awkward.

I'd point it out like that. "Poly is just one flavor in the sex spectrum" and "There is NOTHING new under the sun for human development. New to US maybe, as current people, but for HUMANKIND? Nothing new."

Even skype sex is not really new -- it's phone sex, sex by mail, sex at a distance. Think people who could send each other love notes or sex nasty notes weren't doing it in yesteryear? Same thing. The "Stationary" just changed.

And if he wants to learn more about human sexuality and all the flavors it could come in BESIDES his path, WTG brother!

If he's struggling to wrap his mind around it, yay for the struggle. He cares enough about you to BOTHER to try to struggle instead of just shutting you down or cutting you out. WTG, brother!

Go slow, tell him you'd like his "peaceful agree to disagree" if nothing else. He doesn't have to understand, support, be your gung ho poly cheerleader. You just want to be able to live your own life with all your loved ones and be able to have peace at Thanksgiving and not be having arguments with bro all the time.



GalaGirl
 
Last edited:
hyperskeptic,

Thank you for your post - I was trying to think my way through what I would answer the OP, and then read your post - you did it far better than I could have, and far more thoroughly.

Poly folks tend to be ones that are willing to question the societal judgements or terminology (like "cheating"), morality, and ethics. They don't accept things simply because "society says so", or is it written in some religious tome. If you brother is always going to refer to the societal norms, then you aren't going to get anywhere.

On the commitment aspect - a counselor friend of mine who became interested in polyamory from a professional standpoint, told me that if poly is done well by those that want commitment, there is a lot MORE commitment present than in most monogamous relationships. If your brother were to meet some poly relationships and could talk to them, he would see that.
 
Last edited:
People can be just as committed and devoted to many as they can to one. And, as many here have already said, morality and immorality are not things written in stone. They are concepts, based subjectively on cultural/societal standards. But what one culture, group, or person considers moral or immoral is not necessarily what another thinks is moral or immoral. Yes,as someone also said, use ethics to guide you.

However, why is it so important for your brother to "get" it? He may never understand, approve, or accept polyamory. You may have to disown him for a while if you want to live your own life. I don't believe in fighting a losing battle with pigheaded people who won't listen or be open to new ways of thinking. It doesn't matter to me if they are family or not. No respect given, no longer in my life. Remember, family members are just people; they don't need to hold a special place in our lives if they don't deserve it. And they don't get a special pass to run roughshod all over us. If he's just going to judge you and make your life hell, tell him he doesn't have that right and say buh-bye.
 
Last edited:
I sometimes worry not that what we're doing is immoral but about how other people, usually strangers, would react if they knew. Human beings do terrible things when they feel their worldview is threatened.

In the case of us three, would it have been more moral to cast aside a really good friend in the name of coupledom because that's the moral norm? Doesn't seem like it especially when that decision would have cast one or more of us into crippling depression, anxiety and near poverty. Do I still worry that this wasn't the best decision for E and that he might be happier in a more traditional relationship with only one other person? All the time, but he assures T and I that he's more than happy with our arrangement. T says the same about his feeling about our situation.

Can polyamory be immoral? Hell yes. If you're hiding being the banner of polyamory as a way to duck the responsibility of your primary relationship or act in ways that will knowingly harm your more steady relationships, that not exactly moral either.

I like Dan Savage's rule about coming out to loved ones - give them a year to go through all the emotions and adjust. If they are on board after a year, fantastic. If not, cut 'em loose.
 
He's very much of the belief that my choice to do so is immoral and he seems to find it be a very unhealthy relationship structure devoid of proper commitment.

I'd say the burden is on him to offer a reasoned argument as to why it would be immoral. And if he posits that monogamy is moral, offer a reasoned argument as to why it is.

Nobody--meaning you--has any obligation to humor his supposition that monogamy is moral and polyamory is immoral by beginning from that position and trying to refute it. He can do some real philosophical work and begin from neutral ground or play by himself; no need for you to enable his bad philosophy!
 
an illegal act

Immoral in the civil sense is an illegal act.

Could you sue someone for being non monogamous?

In a marriage where one partner cheats it is grounds for a civil divorce action that could affect the courts judgment regarding child custody and distribution of assets.

If it could be proved that both parties agreed to non-monogamy I don’t think a court would consider a legal argument that the party being sued committed an illegal act.

In spite of their best attempts the religious community does not write the laws. Unacceptable is a more appropriate term than immoral. There are many legal rights that the religious community considers unacceptable.

We all have the right to determine for ourselves what is and what isn’t acceptable unless the law prohibits us.

What we don’t have the right to do is adjudicate and impose our values on someone else. That is illegal and immoral.
 
Hmm, I haven't read everything yet, so sorry if I am repeating what someone else has said. This is how I feel about it however.

I'll start with how I have explained it to the friends that DO know about me. If any of you have more than one child, you can probably relate to how you felt during the second pregnancy (whether you were the mother, or fater). I wanted another child, but I felt I was betraying my first child. What if I didn't love our second child as much, or in the same way? Was that fair? I didn't think it was possible to love another little person the same way I loved my first child. I laid awake worrying about this.

The day she was born, however, it all changed. I loved her the moment she was in my arms. I would have cried, but there was too much going on to process. All I knew was that it felt right to have her in my arms, and I was excited to get her older sister in the room to meet her. At that moment I realized I was not dividing or subtracting love from anyone. My heart expanded exponentially. I do love them both, and I love very different things about them, but I love them equally.

The same applies to the adult people who I love. I love them in different ways, for different reasons. I love them for exactly what they are. When I fall in love, I am not dividing anything. Except now maybe time since I have a new love interest. :) Just as I spend time making sure each child knows they are loved equally (I have three now) I shall spend the same on each of my lovers.

As far as morality, I wrote off long ago that morality isn't what it used to be. It is an excuse, a weapon, to attack people of differing beliefs. True morality, will speak from your heart, not from you logical mind that can be trained and brainwashed by society.

As far as biblical defense, don't get me wrong. We own a Bible, we read it to our children, and Christianity is the core of our beliefs (which are ecclectic from many other religions). But we also realize that this book is written by man, who is numerous times stated to not be perfect. We use it as a guiding path, but don't take it word for word. It's been through many writings, translations and such. I always advise people to forge their OWN relationship with God, because he will speak to their heart and knows their desire.

When I listen to my heart, I feel very strongly that what I believe in is perfectly moral and just.

Something that occurred to me years ago when my husband was talking about his grandmother. Her first husband was killed at war. She was young, and remarried, and was widowed again at about 60 years of age. After that she formed a deep emotional bond with a man her age, who's wife was basically a vegetable.

Common belief is that you are rejoined with your loved ones in the afterlife. To whom will she be rejoined? What about the other men? Did she stop loving her first husband because he died? After all, in her eyes she will see him again.

I would advise your brother to set aside conventional morals. We live in a society controlled by media, and agressive religious figures who want to guilt you into their way of life. Break away and make your own decisions. This is your life, and it's limited. Don't spend it miserable conforming to someone elses social ideal, spend it pursiung what makes you happy. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is our constitutional right (ha, snuck that in there). No one but YOU gets to tell you what makes you happy.

I govern my life by this simple rule "And ye harm none, do as ye will." (yeah, did I mention ecclectic??)

*steps down from soapbox*
 
“Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

Which of course begs the question of what is "unnecessarily" - you "hurt" your children by punishing them because you believe it is, ultimately, in their best interest...of course you could be wrong.

Ultimately, as an agnostic, I have only myself to answer to - informed by the reactions/responses of people I care about and respect. Am I being the best person that I can be? Are my actions increasing the general level of happiness in the universe (including, but certainly not limited to, my own) or detracting from it? Is the short-term pain worth the long-term gain for everyone involved? Or is the short-term gain overshadowed by the long-term pain?

Three (or more) happier people working together to be open, honest, and caring vs. three (or more) people denying themselves to each other and making themselves miserable by suppressing themselves to fit some societal pseudo-moral ideal**? I know what seems the more moral option TO ME...

JaneQ

**I say pseudo-moral because I agree with Professor de La Paz in Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress":

"In terms of morals there is no such thing as 'state.' Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts."
 
I apologize for the delay in response...I am from the Colorado area where all those fires were and I was preoccupied with smoke inhalation and other concerns for a few days. I am very happy for all the responses and this is very helpful to me as I try to compose a letter to my brother stating why I stand by my decision and why I feel it can be moral.

The main thing my brother is saying is that my choice poses great harm to everyone involved. He said my choice already hurt him so much that he ended up in a mental hospital. He also said that it poses great harm to E's moral character, and that the circumstances have not provided for Y's full consent. Since Y hasn't emotionally given his full consent, anytime I am with E romantically my brother feels that I am cheating on Y.

I disagree with the first two statements, but unfortunately the circumstances have put Y and I in a poor foundation to start poly from. I have been wanting poly for a while, but based on various things my husband had said I felt he'd never would agree to it. However, I was so in love with E at some point I felt forced to have to leave Y because I didn't think he could accept a non-monogamous life. So I told my husband I didn't feel our marriage could work out because he's been unable to respond to my requests for more romance and other things. When Y told me vehemently he was confident that he could get better at meeting my needs, I felt unable to diffuse his willingness to work on things based on our marriage issues alone. So I brought up the fact that I felt I wanted to date more than one man at once. Y quickly figured out I was in love with E and I told him I didn't really want a divorce and that I wanted poly and I wanted all three of us to continue living together. We talked about opening the marriage. The way the conversation proceeded pretty much made it appear to Y that E was there to fill gaps of my marriage problems with Y instead of be his own contribution to my life. My husband blames his mistakes for contributing partly to me falling for E, and because of this has trouble wanting to go along with the poly thing. My husband would have felt better starting poly if our own relationship was steadier to begin with. I deeply regret the foundations that have been laid myself, but it is my sincere hope that my husband and I will rebuild the foundations and get it to a position where the poly isn't so threatening to our marriage. I have slowed things down with E so Y and I can get over the whole divorce conversation and get Y to meet my needs in his own way, so we can progress with the poly thing the right way. Y and I do agree that our marriage improvement seems to be going in the right direction now, though.

The other problem is that the divorce conversation made Y feel like he had no other choice but to accept poly if he wanted to keep me. My brother thinks this is very unfair and that there were better alternatives available. When I pretty much became petrified that I had fallen in love with E, I think the alternatives all became pretty harmful. I could continue to hold it in, which would harm me and do no one any favors, or I could leave Y for E, or remove myself from both of them altogether. All of these choices was going to cause harm, but my brother seems to think there were healthier alternatives available, such as continuing to give Y a monogamous chance. It's almost as if to him love is a choice, and to some extent I don't think it is. I felt at least with the poly it was a chance for all three of us to be mostly happy, so that's the choice I pushed for. I told Y I didn't feel I was cut out for marriage because I sincerely want to be able to pursue more than one man. My brother feels I am condemning Y as being unable to meet my needs by saying this, and that this was cruel and cold-hearted given Y's dedication and love for me. I just was going with the whole thing that marriage was supposed to be monogamous and since I can't be monogamous I can't be cut out for marriage. I do want marriage but in a poly light, but my brother feels that open marriages aren't really marriages at all... Unfortunately the way the whole conversation of poly came up with Y was less than ideal, and I understand that it trapped him initially. That was not my intent but I see that's what happened, so I'm trying to restructure things so we have a better foundation to go from.

Because of my choice and the fact that my brother feels it is the beginning of the end for my relationship with Y, he wants to limit his contact with me from now on. This is someone I have considered my best friend all my life, and now he wants to cut away from me to an extent because of this. I am so angry at his lack of faith in my intentions with all of this. He told my husband that I am using poly as an excuse to cheat on him with E, which is not how I see it at all. Also, I've told Y that if he felt he didn't have a choice before he does now. I don't want Y sticking with me out of some desperate hope that I'll be monogamous again if our marriage gets better. I don't think the poly is something I can negotiate on with my own happiness, but I certainly don't want it to cause the misery my brother is convinced it will. Still, that is OUR decision to make, not my brother's. I am trusting Y to be man enough to tell me when it's compromising his own happiness too much to be with me, if the poly truly becomes too much for him to handle. My brother just thinks we all agreed to some sort of trap that can only be escaped by moral integrity and that we're all too blind to see the consequences. I think my brother is too blind to see there are other outcomes possible besides the dire one he sees.

I do hope at some point Y and I progress from the "trying this out" stage to actually being committed to making it work stage. I want Y's full consent. I can't progress in my relationship with E with my conscience intact unless Y becomes emotionally more okay with it. I want Y to be happy with me despite these changes in our lives.

Hyperskeptic, thank you for your post on the different types of morality. I was thinking of something along these lines, but you phrased it far better than I could have.

I do agree with what some of you all have said about this frankly not being my brother's beeswax. I'm more than ok with him disagreeing with my choice, but holding an ultimatum over my head that he wants our contact limited should my choice stand hurts me. I still feel people can have a huge difference of opinion and still enjoy each other's friendship....but apparently he does not feel that way. For all I care I could have sex with five people a week and it really should not be any of his concern. It's my sex life, he shouldn't have a say in it.

For clarification, my brother is agnostic but leans heavily right on the political scale. He heavily believes adopting solid morals is a solution to the world's problems and more people should be adopting good morals. He's right in some regards but wrong in others. I believe in the innate morals: respect, responsibility, kindness, those kinds of things. Those things would help make our world a better place. However, what one does with their sex lives, as long as they are again keeping respect, responsibility, and kindness in mind.....I frankly don't think the world will care what someone did with their sex life a millennia later. However, an act of kindness may have a more lasting impact. That's how I feel, anyway.

And GalaGirl, the way things are looking, I don't think I can invite E and my brother to the same social thing like Thanksgiving. I'll constantly be on the lookout on what I can't invite E to or my brother to to keep the peace. It's really irksome, honestly. My brother's unwillingness to "tolerate" our "immorality" makes it so he gets to miss out on the better parts of my life like birthdays, essentially. Or I'll just have to have a separate celebration with him, I guess. Whatever.

Nycindie, I to some extent agree with you, but my brother is very close to me. We used to think a lot alike, and we've been experiencing some distancing the last three years. I didn't tell him how I felt about our distancing for various reasons and I felt this has made things somewhat worse now that it's led up to this blow up point. I now find myself so thoroughly frustrated with him on various levels I wonder if anything can be reconciled someday, and this saddens me. I'd like to think my brother's capable of opening himself more to my choice and at least thinking I'm not some immoral disappointment. He essentially is the one who raised me and gave me many of the values I hold dear now, so to see that the open-minded brother I once knew doesn't exist in the form I thought he did is saddening. I may have to accept that he will be a much smaller part of my life, but it seems like an awfully unnecessary result. Still, you are right; it is my life. The one who should have control over that is me and not him.

I guess time will tell. It is my goal to lead an ethical life and I have made some mistakes in helping polyamory take an ethical role in Y's, E's, and my life. Still, I hope to go that direction now and make our relationship as ethical as it can be given the circumstances.

I do have my brother's letter to me downloaded. If it helps for perspective to read it, I'm more than happy to e-mail it (or PM it, if the forum allows uploading like that). I just don't feel comfortable posting it as it does contain everyone's names. It's hard to summarize his four-page argument on a post like this, but I think I at least covered the bigger points.
 
I would suggest you make sure your brother would be fine with your sharing his letter at all before you do. He intended it for your eyes only, after all, and while letting other people who are actually involved in the situation read it (Y or E, for instance) seems reasonable to me, perfect strangers might be a bit too much.
 
The main thing my brother is saying is that my choice poses great harm to everyone involved. He said my choice already hurt him so much that he ended up in a mental hospital. He also said that it poses great harm to E's moral character, and that the circumstances have not provided for Y's full consent. Since Y hasn't emotionally given his full consent, anytime I am with E romantically my brother feels that I am cheating on Y.

Well, this is an odd tangle.

First, have you harmed your brother? In ethical terms, harm is usually connected with thwarting or denying some basic or vital interest of another person (or other being) . . . usually understood in any case to be a legitimate interest of that person (or being).

What legitimate interest of his are you thwarting or denying? Having you always agree with him? Never having his view of the world challenged? Never seeing or hearing of anything that offends him or shocks him?

Those are hardly the kinds of interests that create a moral claim on you! He is hurt, maybe. He is offended. But he has not really been harmed by the mere fact of your interest in or pursuit of polyamory.

I can't speak to the point about the mental hospital, but I would say that is a matter between him and his doctors. Your revelations may have been the occasion for mental illness or other psychological or neurological problem to express itself, but that's hardly your responsibility.

Or, at least, that does not in itself constitute an argument against polyamory.

Second, your brother should distinguish between the ethics of poly as such and the ethical qualities of your own, individual actions. I don't know enough about the situation to say, one way or the other, but it's entirely possible you have acted wrongly in relation to Y, with consent being the key issue.

The point is, it's always possible for you to divide the question. You might, in some circumstance, say: I acted wrongly in this instance, and I'll try to do better in the future . . . for example, with regard to respecting the autonomy of others in making sure consent is freely given, without undue pressure. You can say that, and still say that polyamory in general is still morally defensible.
 
There's an expression that goes "There's too much mother in that marriage."

Well...

"There's too much brother in that poly!"

If he chooses to cut himself away from you over your not allowing him to butt into your personal romantic relationships, that is his decision.
I may have to accept that he will be a much smaller part of my life, but it seems like an awfully unnecessary result. Still, you are right; it is my life. The one who should have control over that is me and not him.

Yep. Your life yours. His life his.

You will deal with the disappointment of it. But you cannot make him play, and you cannot make him grow. You can tell him this disappoints you, and the door is open should he ever want to try again on the SIBLING rship.

But he has no business in your ROMANCES, he's playing outside his box there.

My brother's unwillingness to "tolerate" our "immorality" makes it so he gets to miss out on the better parts of my life like birthdays, essentially.

Correct. This is his choice to miss out.

If you choose to accommodate his weird with a separate celebration, that is up to you.

But I would not do it because it keeps on feeding his idea/expectation that you DO accommodate to his song, you SHOULD accommodate to his song, deep down you DO think it is "wrong", ramp up the "convincing" of you etc. Basically you stay in this spinning your wheels place.

I'd suggest you take the "Thanks for your input. We have to agree to disagree there. Pass the bean dip." approach instead.

So he feels uncomfortable. And? He's uncomfortable. World keeps on spinning.

It's on him to deal. He is not in these romances. You are no less the person you were before the knowledge.

Live it like it's not a THING, like it's just ordinary life. Because it is. And the only people with a vote are you and your partners. Not anyone in the peanut gallery.

And bro sits in the peanut gallery. He is not your partner. He is your sibling. Thanks for sharing! Pass the bean dip.


*hug*

I know it is hard, but let it be what it is. He will either get over himself or not. And that outcome is not in your control and not up to you. Only time will tell, and in the meanwhile? BREATHE. Care for yourself.

GG
 
Last edited:
He essentially is the one who raised me and gave me many of the values I hold dear now, so to see that the open-minded brother I once knew doesn't exist in the form I thought he did is saddening.

I wonder, then, if we should be thinking about this as more of a "coming out to parents" rather than "coming out to sibling" situation. It doesn't change some of the bottom lines, like this being your life and your choice, but it may put his side into clearer perspective. I wonder if he's got some, "Where did I go wrong? Did I do something (or not do something) that led her to this?" going on, like other parents have had when their offspring come out to them. So he could see it as more his responsibility to fix than the average sibling. He's still incorrect that it's his business or his responsibility, but it could affect your response to him.

I'm surprised, though, that if he feels that protective of and responsible for you that he would want you to give Y ANOTHER chance when in another thread you've made it quite clear how many times Y has started to work on issues and then just gone back into old habits. If you have a chance to be happier this way (regardless of the end outcome of the various relationships) why would he want you to continue being unhappy? You'd think, even if he wasn't thrilled about the way you went about it, his biggest concern would be for you and whether or not you were going to get hurt, not Y.
 
Back
Top