Ethical Sluttery: Theory and Practice

So I've been reading this book. It may well be the awesomest thing I read in a very long time. And then I realized something: to me, most of the world had suddenly become a fairly dangerous place. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. First off, an introduction.

Many of you know that we have a trope called Ethical Slut, which is in fact named after the kind of behaviour outlined in this book, though the trope is to the real thing what the {{Übermensch}} trope is to the actual Nietzschean concept (whatever that was); an oversimplified, fictionalized archetype, often a ready-made, all-grown product rather than a work-in-progress.

Wikipedia offers a very concise, but accurate, summary:

However, this completely misses out on how mind-boggingly awesome and flat-out interesting the book is, and not in a porny, Lurid Tales of Doom kind of way. It keeps examining one assumption of heteronormative, monogamous-for-life, sex-negative society after another, and very gently and politely smashes them into the ground, simply by explaining how defying those rules is not only possible, but has been known to work out very nicely for the benefit of those involved.

Over all, you come out of it with the feeling that you've been living until now with some utterly useless burdens that you didn't even know were such, but thought were an inherent part of your body. Once rid of them, the feeling of sheer potential is quite exhilarating.

So, if you folks are interested, and the mods permitting, I'd like to get into the detail of what these challenged assumptions are, exactly, and discuss the particulars of how it all could and does work in practice.

We'll open this but if it turns prurient or, worse, misogynistic, it (or the tropers in question) will be shut down faster than you can possibly imagine.

Not sure how I feel about the concept.

I'm not saying there is anything ethically wrong with promiscuity, if someone wants to live that way, then all the more power to them. Personally though, I find it kind of distasteful. I've always been a monogamous one-at-a-time kind of guy myself. My standard for that applies to both men and women.

Some people are monogamous, some people aren't. I think we should stop judging people by relationship standards that don't apply to them.

"Distasteful" should have no meaning if we're talking about what people do in the privacy of their own homes, with all responsible forethought and consequences considered. I realize that you weren't saying it to mean that people shouldn't do it, but given the topic of this thread, I'm challenging your perceptions here.

I self-identify as an Ethical Slut. My personal creed is, if it feels good do it—but never stop being wary of obstacles and consequences.

The reasons people are typically wary of a hedonistic lifestyle tend to fall into one of more of these examples:

• Projecting personal mores onto others.
• Jealousy.
• Personal shame or bitter experience.
• Concern over unaddressed consequences.
• Pure bigotry, misogyny, or other forms of oppression.
• Disapproval of debauchery over productivity.

Those aren't really exclusive to those relationships though.

You can be jealous of more than one person, have bad experiences with multiple people etcetc.

But @OP, I think that it's not something I'd be interested in, but I think it should be an acceptable lifestyle in the eyes of the law and culture.

edited 20th Aug '13 7:46:30 PM by Ringsea

The book sounds like an interesting way to discuss the standard problems/solutions regarding promiscuity and similar lifestyles. My one concern regarding this kind of discussion is that I've seen it flip back around a couple of times and attempt to link the concept of monogamy to character flaws, which is the point where I start objecting. Doesn't seem like that's the intent of the book, but that is the picture I get when I hear about someone "smashing [ideas] into the ground".

Would you say the book is worth reading for someone who does not and has no intention of exploring a promiscuous lifestyle? The Wikipedia page and linked review make it sound more like a how-to guide or self-help book.

@Barkey: nothing wrong with wanting to be monogamous and one-at-a-time, long as us poly three-at-a-time people can have our fun.

@ the book is worth reading even if you've got no intentions of wandering outside the conventional lifestyle. At the least you'll get a better understanding of how other people live their lives.

Out of curiosity, does the book have a section on communicable disease? I think that that's a very important thing to consider if you're going nonmonogamous.

I believe it does have a section on practical considerations...and "being safe" both emotionally and physically is covered extensively.

And covering this extensively especially the health-related parts is IMPORTANT.

Heck, I've been thinking of coming out of closet about this, but I still need ready-guides when it comes to STD. There are some conflicting informations abound.

This might just be me being incredibly naive, but isn't "use a condom" all the information you'll ever really need on STD?

There are plenty of things that can go wrong even if you do use a condom. Easiest example is if it breaks or tears.

I don't think so. Condoms are extremely fallible, and not viable for all sexual activity. There's a ton of kinkier stuff that's off the table if condoms are your only defense.

For example, my first mistress didn't let anyone into her stable unless they passed a thorough physical exam by a physician she approved of. She told me about this when we became serious about exploring a sexual relationship, and said it was non-negotiable.

When I've tried doing the same thing with my own prospects, I've been surprised by how often it's a complete deal-breaker. There's a lot butthurt involved when you tell someone you need them to get tested before you have sex with them. There's this juvenile assumption that you're insulting them, specifically.

edited 21st Aug '13 5:34:36 AM by KingZeal

Even easier is that you don't use it properly in the first place.

And then you need information on testing for STD's, symptoms of them, their effects, getting treatment, high and low risk activities, that you should talk with your partner, etc..

I suppose that makes sense. I'm more of a serial monogamist, so that kind of thing usually doesn't come up in my relationships. Use a condom at first, and once you've "gone steady" move on to less intrusive forms of birth control.

I can definitely see why you'd need to be far more careful if you're not into the monogamy thing, though. If you're partner is cool with such a relationship, chances are they have multiple partners themselves, so diseases can spread really fast like that. Of course,it also means that if you and your partner are clean now, it's hardly a guarantee for the future.

It's a bit more risk than I'd be willing to out up with, frankly, but again, I'm a serial monogamist, so what do I know?

It depends on what type of relationship it is and how responsible everyone is. In theory, a poly relationship could safer than a monogamous one by necessity. As you said, diseases can spread extremely quickly in a polyamorous chain, but in my experience, they also tend to be more aware because of it. A lot of monogamous people I know are like, "Testing? What's that?!" once the relationship gets complacent.

Even worse is that if you suddenly bring it up to your committed partner without having established a need for it early, lots of people get offended because it implies that they cheated or that you'll leave them if they don't check out. That's worrying because it's not like communicable disease are only spread by intercourse (it's rare, but it does happen).

I told myself a long time ago that anyone I get with will have to be cool with the idea of regular testing, no matter how rare sexual activity is, although how regular will have to depend on the frequency.

I don't know . . .

I recently saw an episode of The Doctors (The people at work watch it) about HPV, and they said it completely bypasses condoms. That the root cause of it infects your partners no matter what you do. In most cases said cause is actually harmless, it's just when you get a particular strain that problems start arising. So the only safe way to handle nonmonogamy is regular testing of every last person who is in the group, or who is looking to be.

Granted, I had to go back to work when they were talking about the condom part, so everything I said after is just my spotty recollection of what I have heard about HPV.

According the Center for Disease Control (whose word I'm going to take over TV show doctors)...

I'll take a slightly lower risk over, "Oh, it's not magic? Then fuck it."

"They said," "I heard," that just won't do. We are on the Internet. Let us use its potential. Wikipedia, lend me your power!

The power of the internet's not necessarily better than those shows. Certainly no better than those shows SHOULD be.

And I never said fuck it let's not use condoms. A slightly lower risk is STILL a risk. I said the only safe way would be regular testing. I'm waiting for someone to prove me wrong.

Of course, the only truly safe way is abstinence, but if we're talking here we're already far beyond that point.

No, you specifically said "they said it completely bypasses condoms", which is hyperbolic and misleading. It gives the impression that you are saying, "fuck it, let's not use 'em".

"The only safe way is abstinence" is also misleading, because (A) even THAT isn't completely safe, since you can get it through non-sexual skin-to-skin contact, and (B) "only safe way" is, once again, giving the idea that there is only "safe" and "unsafe" and no degrees in-between.

edited 21st Aug '13 4:17:13 PM by KingZeal

It is actually outright wrong. HPV doesn't bypass condom at all, from what I understood. Condoms protect an specific area of the body. If the virus is in the area, the condom is perfectly effective. If that is not the case, then obviously condom won't work. They aren't supposed to protect you in these cases.

Anyway, I fail to see how the existence of STD means "ethical sluttery" is wrong. There are many desieces that can infect you if you talk to people. Does that means you should only have "talking relations" with one person at time? As long you make sure you are healthy, you should do what you want.

This discussion make me think there should be condom suits or something.

Like this?