I am sharing out there this post that I wrote because the ethics of ethically non-monogamous polyamory are pretty much the same basic guidelines that are useful to sustain healthy social connections in general.

The defining difference between closed relationships and open relationships is actually qualitatively, as in HOW we approach our interactions with our social connections, instead of quantitatively, as in NOT IN NUMBER of simultaneous connections, because no one stops being connected to a diverse network of simultaneous connections just for being in a totally closed committed intimate relationship, whether monoamorous or polyamorous.

The difference between consensual non-monogamy and ethical non-monogamy is exactly the same difference between the words "must" and "should", in the sense that all connections should always be ethical, but must always be consensual in order to avoid legal trouble.

Informed and genuine consensual non-monogamy is defined as the valid, reasonable, required and bare minimum limit for sustaining healthy connections that separates love from violations.

Gender variant, gay, polyamorous, aromantic, and asexual people can be united together as worthy of the constant free love fights for basic rights because they are socioculturally discriminated CONSENSUAL love minorities in ways more similar than what you may think.

Ethical non-monogamy is defined as a valuable ideal for sustaining healthy social connections of diverse types that is a goal worth pursuing.

Ethical non-monogamy is often further defined in explanations as HONEST non-monogamy, NEGOTIATED non-monogamy, FAIR non-monogamy, EQUITABLE non-monogamy, SUPPORTIVE non-monogamy, RESPECTFUL non-monogamy, ACCOUNTABLE non-monogamy, RESPONSIBLE non-monogamy, COMMITTED non-monogamy, and as CONSENSUAL non-monogamy.

Where and how are drawn the lines that delineate the definition of things are pretty blurry, because they are relative, as in socioculturally constructed, in another words, made up by humans, varying at different points of space and time, depending, at a smaller scale, on an individual to individual basis, and, at a larger scale, on a culture to culture basis.

That means that the definitions of things are not set in stone definitely defined by the universe, but does not necessarily mean that relativity is an insurmountable ethical obstacle without any way around that permanently stops any rather ecofeminist negotiation of reasonable sustainable agreements for collectively better healthy social lives.

What matters more is how each of all of us specifically define each word, because you could set up someone, including yourself, for a misunderstanding, disappointment and unfulfillment if someone can not read minds and you do not use words precisely to ask for what you need and want specifically with straightforward honest communication when negotiating informed consent to anything.

Feel free to contribute to the comments section below a list of "green flag" keywords to describe how is defined what ethical connections in general mean specifically to each of you once you figure that out in order to avoid misunderstandings, disappointment and unfulfillment, because you may find yourself surprised at the existence of as many different perspectives as different individuals exist.

I also highly recommend sitting down to further define what words, like "honesty", "negotiation", "fairness", "equity", "support", "respect", "accountability", "responsibility", "commitment", "consent", among others, mean specifically to each of you before giving to anything consent that really is informed.

TL;DR: We should contextualize and recontextualize specifically what each of all of us means by ethical and other words, including even words that have apparently obvious meanings, especially before giving to anything consent that really is informed, even if is permanently impossible to generalize ethical non-monogamy ethics into one general universal standard.

I really hope that sharing this helps at least someone out there.