I don't understand why you say that. It was filled with substance, data, and pervasive dynamics that could be improved if couples spent more time talking and co-creating rather than relying on ancient relationship parameters invented by someone else. I thought he made his case quite clearly.

I suspect that you have an idea of what ENM is in your head and I challenge you to put that aside and really learn from people like Thomas instead of resorting to existing biases. Everyone could benefit from greater communication, increased vulnerability and self-responsibility - as well as less reliance on "everyone knows this is what marriage is about" dynamics - which is the heart of ENM. This is the point of this piece. Try being curious instead of knee-jerk judgmental. If there are things that don't make sense to you, ask further questions.

He didn't say you need to try ENM, just that it would benefit you to understand it better, no matter what relationship style you wished to maintain.

"If you want to work on your relationship — be it polyamorous or monogamous — you need to have done the work to understand what it is you want and what elements will help you build a relationship that will lead to you moving towards these goals rather than holding you back. And if that involves remaining monogamous, then that’s great. Hopefully, it will be a better version of monogamy that works for you without all the insidious “traditions” that you never needed or wanted that have been causing problems you hadn’t even realised were problems."

What exactly is wrong with that or offensive in the slightest? It's extremely good advice for anyone. You've brought your baggage to the party. Don't try to make that the author's fault.