Opinion: Melbourne is rife with unethical non-monogamy

“Tastes are fleeting in Melbourne, whether they be roads, restaurants or relationships.”

Melbourne-based writer, Daniel Mizzi, is a satirist. Often confused with a sadist, one who derives pleasure from humiliating others, a satirist derives pleasure from humiliating others in writing. His sardonic social commentary is wickedly witty; irreverent at best, sincere at worst. 

Melbourne urbanites are in constant pursuit of the newest, hottest thing. When the patrons of Chapel Street moved to Smith Street, Fitzroy dwellers moved to Brunswick Street. And when the Southsiders decided Brunswick Street was the new Smith Street, High Street had already taken precedence to those in the know. 

This cycle will undoubtedly continue until the glitterati deem some rural dirt track the newest, hottest thing. So evidently, tastes are fleeting in Melbourne, whether they be roads, restaurants or relationships. In the realm of dating, gone are the days of committed partners. Now, Melbourne’s most fashionable ascribe to ethical non-monogamy.

Looking for more thought-provoking reads? Try our Life section.

Melburnians’ definition of ethical non-monogamy shares but one consistency: no two ever align. The ‘ethical,’ doesn’t seem to refer to any established framework, such as that of Aristotle, Bentham or Mills. In fact, the interpretations of what makes a non-monogamous relationship ‘ethical’ are so subjective that, had these men debated this quandary, an agreed definition seems unlikely. 

Let’s use Aristotle to shed some light on this conundrum. After all, the ancient Greeks did possess a liberal attitude towards sex (take the toga for example, easy access). The whole is greater than the sum of its parts is a maxim attributed to the philosopher. In relation to ethical non-monogamy, we could take this to mean that sexual encounters are only one component of a wider mission for connection. Therefore, I suggest an amendment to the original phrasing: The hole is greater than the sum of its parts.

This is the definition a close friend’s ex ascribed to. In theory, that is. As he would explain at parties, his ethical non-monogamy was in an effort to form connections, even if he couldn’t remember everyone he’d slept with. See, if the population is divided equally between male and female, half of Melbourne had been in his bed. Actually, that’s not fair to say, as there were probably some women as well.

But I concede, in life, one must pursue their talents. Some people are good at transplanting hearts or sending rockets into space, while others build houses for the underprivileged. This man was apparently good at sex and, understandably, this was probably why he had so much of it. Bentham’s utilitarian rendering would suggest this was a positive, as he brought great happiness to the greatest number of people.

Indeed, Bentham’s Felicific Calculus only affirms my friend’s ex’s ethical justification. Typically used to assess the morality of actions, say building houses for the underprivileged, it measures factors such as intensity, duration, certainty and extent. As for proving his positive contributions? I heard the sex was undeniably intense, he could last an unnaturally long time, a climax was practically guaranteed and hundreds reaped the benefits (by his own admission, I might add). 

Yet, despite his contemporary approach to relationships, he didn’t like my friend (his ex) flirting with others. Instead, he preferred my friend (his ex) sleep with them instead. Somehow, this was better. Perhaps it was because sex maintained a level of detachment whereas flirting felt too intimate – modern ethics!

Sometimes, people operate under the misconception that the word ‘ethical’ denotes altruism. Unfortunately, centuries of philosophical debate would, shockingly, disprove this notion. See, just because a phrase contains the word ‘ethical,’ doesn’t render it so: Ethical child labour – we keep them off the streets! Ethical kidnapping – we chain them to the bed instead of the radiator! Ethical taxidermy – we shoot the stray dogs! 

Ideals, in their purest form, are incorruptible. That is to say there’s nothing inherently wrong with non-monogamy or by extension, polyamory. When practised earnestly, this approach can strengthen the bond between partners. However, Melbourne’s transient interests mean we’ve adopted ideologies that are not understood nor adhered to with any consistency. 

It would appear the patron saints of ethical non-monogamy have ascended to a higher state of enlightenment, or at least that’s what they’ll espouse. With their comprehensive understanding and noble application of ethics, it’s no wonder their intellectual prowess has surpassed the likes of Aristotle and Bentham. Yes, my friend’s ex is but one of our modern philosophers. Who would suspect the greatest minds of the new millennium are found here, on High Street, Thornbury? Until, of course, they move to Sydney Road.

For more on ethical non-monogamy, head here.