Ethical Sluttery: Theory and Practice

TOPIC, people.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Heh.

Sorry.

edited 21st Aug '13 5:26:07 PM by Ekuran

It's always the same coversation:

"Sex is nice and pleasure is good for you."
"Yeah, but what about STD's, unwanted pregnancies, rape, the commodification of sexual desire, etc?"
"That's not the core of the problem. There is nothing so good it can't be abused, and nothing so safe it can't be dangerous, in the hands of the determined idiot or jackass. The core of the problem is here; let us, for a moment, imagine that there were no STDS, that people never got pregnant unless they wanted to, and that all sex was pleasurable and consensual. How do you feel about it now?"

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

So, in conclusion, sex is awesome.

...is that it? Are we done here? Did we actually answer one?

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

Not really, no; saying that Sex Is Good, in general, for everyone, is just plain counterfactual. Otherwise there would be no need for No Means No and Yes Means Yes.

And, regardless, something in your tone tells me that you don't quite believe it yourself, and are in a hurry to prematurely close the debate, perhaps because if there are arguments that would change your opinion, and you suspect there would be, you don't want to know them. Not an uncommon attitude to have if you ask me.

edited 22nd Aug '13 12:52:03 AM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Also, as a reminder, according to the OTC official guidelines we should respect everyone's opinions and not dismiss them out of hand. If someone has a different opinion from you take that opinion seriously and do some research or think about it before dismissing it.

As for the topic at hand: I think it is possible, but not my cup of tea as I get emotionally attached to a person too easily even without the sex, and I think that one of the key elements of ethical hedonism is to be emotionally mature enough to keep things in perspective, which I do not have yet. I don't care what people do in their spare time up to and including sex.

edited 22nd Aug '13 4:55:47 AM by IraTheSquire

Don't believe that poly people get any less attached to others. But there is a rejection of the notion that one cannot do without this or that lover, for affection, for validation, for identity even. One should know that one can tolerate being alone, to be with others. One should love oneself before loving others. The "twin soul", "you make me complete, and without you I would be lost", "I'm so happy and I feel I don't deserve this happiness and I could lose you at any time" kind of possessive/insecure mentality is just harmful for everyone, and this pervading fear stops people from loving each other as much as they otherwise could; it takes away from the relationship.

Of course, some people simply don't feel like getting romantic or sexual with more than one person at a time, or more than one particular person, and that is fine. The idea here is that everyone should be free to love however they want, and judging, pressuring, teasing, and pestering people for not espousing your radical lifestyle completely misses the point. This needs to be said.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

@The Handle: I don't agree, mostly because people who say what you just said underestimate the amount of discrimination practicing poly couples have to put up with. You simply cannot discuss your relationships in mixed company without A: someone asking impertinent, probing or leading questions regarding your sex life - something they wouldn't do to a monogamous person but have no problem doing to someone who is poly - or B: worse, accusing the poly person of "shoving their lifestyle in everyone's faces". Ask a gay person, or a transperson...they pretty much get treated the same.

Of course,this leaves aside the backbiting and subtle slut-shaming even ostensibly liberal people perform. Example; back when I was married it was all but impossible for my wife to find men she wanted to date. Reason...most of them - hell, almost all of them - assumed her to be an "easy lay" just because she was poly and open about it. Some of them got downright offensive about it, and simply refused to understand why she (and I) were irritated at them. As my wife put it, "Just because I want more than one guy in my life doesn't mean I'll fuck anyone who asks."

I'm all for people being accepting of polyamory. But people aren't nearly as accepting as they think they are. This also needs to be said.

edited 22nd Aug '13 2:09:28 AM by drunkscriblerian

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

Oh, then we are in agreement. You're saying "heteronirmatives are mean to the polyamourous", I'm saying "let the polyamourous not be mean back in the contexts where they are the majority". I'm in Berlin right now, there's a thriving, proud, poly and queer-feminist community, and sometimes people feel downright peer-pressured into doing stuff that they otherwise wouldn't want to do, because there is a notion that poly is the only radical way to love, and queer the only radical way to self-identify.

I just think that "freed slave who is pissed they can't have slaves of their own now" kinds of situations should be avoided whenever possible. Atheists bullying the religious, homosexuals bullying bisexuals, black people bullying white people... Sometimes minorities that are oppressed in general find themselves in particular contexts where they are in a position to oppress members of the majority, who in that context find themselves in a minority position. I believe it is unseemly to actually go and take advantage of it.

edited 22nd Aug '13 2:41:07 AM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

It's kind of hard to go against thousands of years of cultural indoctrination. Everything, from churches to Hollywood movies, taught us from the day that we were born that having more than one sexual partner is sick and wrong. I try to be rational about what consenting adults do in their relationships, but I can't help but feel weirded out. It's a rather alien concept to me that I just don't understand on any level other than shallow rationality.

Not saying that it isn't something I should try to work on, but I hope you understand there isn't some kind of conspiracy against those who aren't heterosexual monogamous. Humans instinctively fear that which they don't understand and understanding polyamorous relationship requires a significant shift in paradigm.

Did that make sense? I'm pretty sure that didn't make sense. I should really work on communicating more.

Makes sense to me. It's one thing to know what's right, but it's not that easy to counter something your brain's been conditioned to do automatically.

This "faculty lot" you speak of sounds like a place of great power...

Drunk, remember when you guys started the Poly thread and I didn't even know that existed, and went and asked and listened and learned and began to understand? You were nice, polite, and straightforward. If you had been more unpleasant or defensive about it, I might have missed out on amazing stuff.

It takes a lot of curiosity and openness to overcome fear and disgust. One must keep one's heart agape.

edited 22nd Aug '13 3:28:06 AM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

OK, since the Polyamory thread has been referenced, I feel that this needs to be said here as well. This thread, like that one, will remain open only so long as it remains civil, non-judgmental, and on-topic. I'll be baby-sitting this one, like I did that one. That thread is proof that with effort on the part of the posters taking part in the conversation, a mature, thoughtful conversation can be had even on topics that are emotionally loaded.

The topic here is "Ethical Sluttery: what is it and how does it really work?" The topic is not whether you think it's wrong or right, good or bad, hot or off-putting, or whether you like it or not.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

That's the kind of emotional maturity that I think is required for this kind of thing. It's not really being able to "tolerate being alone" but just not being clingy.

Ethical Sluttery is something I very much admire in theory, however, I am not sure if it is less... "burdensome"... than "conventional" sexual relationships in practice. At least, in monogamous cultures, going nontraditional route requires honest and open communication without mutual assumptions to smooth it over. In fact, these assumptions would have to be identified and talked over to reduce the risk of misunderstanding and heartbreak, and that is a lot of work in relationship. I am not sure if many people are actually capable of this sort of emotional maturity.

This is not intended as an argument against ethical sluttery. Only about the idea that it makes life easier.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

I think that's the wrong way to look at it. I'm not an Ethical Slut because it makes my life "easier"—in fact, as has been mentioned, it complicates your shit a thousandfold almost immediately—but because it's what I want, and I honestly think it makes me a better person.

It put me outside of the "comfort zone" of dating—you know, the things that people "just do" on the dating scene. For example, I don't even pretend to be perfect husband material to attract women, even though that's basically what conventional wisdom would have you do. I don't make false or illogical promises to be someone's one and only, or to never have eyes for another, or to insist that sex is not a key factor of our relationship. (Not that I'm saying monogamous relationships can't or don't do this, but again, conventional wisdom makes this taboo and unromantic to talk about.)

There's also the advantage that I don't get plagued by feelings of inadequacy, jealousy or complacency as much as I used to. I don't worry that I'm not good enough to find a wife. I don't get exceedingly jealous because someone else has the type of woman (or women) that I don't. And I don't get complacent about things like ST Ds, sexual health, and other matters.

The irony is that I find actual sexual intercourse the least fun and sometimes the most tedious part of being an ethical slut. But, the bonding it creates, the fantasies it fulfills, and the euphoric afterglow are all what make it worthwhile.

edited 22nd Aug '13 6:15:49 AM by KingZeal

I did not imply that people do it because they are hoping for easier life, and I definitely see how it can be fulfilling.

But you hit the nail on the head when you say that it puts you outside of the things people "just do" while dating. You list the negative things you don't have to do anymore, and it is all true (though the same could apply to monogamous relationships, but that's besides the point). However, what I've meant is that people are culturally conditioned to expect certain things in relationships, and those expectations are probably not exactly easy to get rid of - not to everyone, at least - even if all sides sincerely desire it.

For example, there are many sob stories about how two people agree to one-night stand, intending it to remain as such, but then one of them becomes disappointed and heartbroken as it did not lead to anything "more". The other, meanwhile, feels (justly) that their own expectations are betrayed and that their partner is being pushy and unfaithful to an explicit agreement. It's not that the first partner expected to act that way - still, that's how feelings worked.

Or people enthusiastically agree to a three-way relationship only to find out that one of them is still feeling jealous seeing their partner with another - not because they intend to, but because they underestimated just how much they actually internalised the more "traditional" assumptions about sex.

Again, misunderstandings like that happen in every type of relationship, and I definitely think that "ethical slut" approach is way better than "sex is bad" one. All I mean that one has to take extra care because there are fewer mutually shared assumptions involved, and because people can't always be rational about their emotions and predict in advance what said emotions will be.

edited 22nd Aug '13 6:59:30 AM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Yes, that is the absolute hardest thing to deal with. And believe you me, being polyamorous only makes the lows lower (try going from four partners to zero in a matter of weeks).

I'm still learning how to deal with it myself, but my mentor has been polyamorous her entire life. I think it's important that I keep in communication with her, because she makes all of the silly bits make more sense, even when it means telling me what I don't want to hear. I'm hoping her mentorship rubs off some day, and I can do the same for others. Small steps to make the problems more surmountable.

edited 22nd Aug '13 7:36:42 AM by KingZeal

@Beholderess:

This is, in general, false; couples where both parts were raised to have the same unspoken, unthought, assumptions and expectations, about sex, are the exception rather than the rule. People come from different cultural, ethnic, religious, economical, political backgrounds. Monogamy can be just as hard to manage.

I would even suggest that, with poly, all parts involved are aware that they are doing something new, that they were not trained for, in relatively uncharted territory, and are thus very much aware of the sheer necessity of talking things out and listening to their own and each other's feelings. With mono, since both parts believe they're doing the "normal" thing, the "we shouldn't have to argue" factor comes into play.

Or, as King Zeal so succintly summed it up, poly cannot rely on inherited, conventional wisdom, and so they have to think by themselves and come up with actual wisdom.

@King: good luck with that.

@Maddie: thank you for volunteering this effort. I hope that we will be able to make this babysitting as light and easy as possible.

edited 22nd Aug '13 9:49:48 AM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

I would dispute that somewhat. Yes, the details of their expectations will differ somewhat even between two people brought up in the same culture, but the fundamental expectations will be largely the same for most people. If the home culture is monogamous, couples where both partners expect monogamy will far outnumber couples that are poly or open. How strict the monogamy/sexual exclusivity is expected to be will vary (is flirting cheating? kissing? fondling? dry humping?) but the expected default is 'monogamy with some degree of sexual exclusivity'. But these are details and they can be sorted out as they arise.

When you are operating outside that default, it's not just the details that need to be sorted. The fundamental expectations of the people involved need to be talked out early and thoroughly because they are issues that arise at the very beginning of the relationship, and they may not match up at all.

edited 22nd Aug '13 11:36:49 AM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Yes, but here's a willingness to compromise, an acceptance that what they want is not a given, not something they're entitled to, that "normal" couples in any society do not have. Toilet Seat Divorce, anyone? "Normal" people can go utterly insane over the small details. "What do you mean, you expect me to make you breakfast and drive you to work? All men in your region do this? None of those in my town did!" "What do you mean dinner should be at six? Dinner has and always will be at ten!" And then there's cultures that have internal disagreements on polygyny: "What do you mean you're asking me whether I'd let you have a second wife because you want male heirs?! Maybe in your region that's normal, but do this in my region and, while technically you can do it, you will be seen by all as the scum of the earth, me included". And so on and so forth.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

I'm not saying that small details can't end up being deal-breakers. And that doesn't really address what I did say, either. I'm disputing your assertion that

. Those fundamental, base-level, unspoken, unthought assumptions do tend to be the same (or very similar) for people raised in the same culture. There is a default foundational assumption about what a sexual relationship is going to entail in most cultures. It's a very broad assumption, usually, (something like "monogamy including sexual exclusivity on both sides" or "Monogamy, with sexual exclusivity expected from the female and discreet non-exclusivity allowed for the male") but it's an assumption that's widely shared, to the point that not expecting it is seen as non-standard, deviant, or even perverted and/or evil, depending on how far from the default it falls.

And this

is a red flag that we may be running into a vocabulary collision. I'd say that it indicates that there are two different cultures being talked about there: one which accepts polygyny as 'normal' and one which technically allows it but does not actually accept it. Both groups may belong to the same ethnic group or live in the same country, but they have different cultures, at least on the subject of polygyny.

edited 22nd Aug '13 12:56:20 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Hm. I thought that was the standard in every country

• that rural areas have very different mores from cities,
• that regions have very different mores from each other,
• that even cities include very different subcultures,
• that people move from one region to another, one city to another, one community to another,
• that, and I don't have a citation for that, most marriages involve people from different backgrounds, and
• that these background discrepancies can cause extreme tensions, especially when people assume that their culture's way is the only right way, and that compromising on that is equivalent to "humouring a fool" and thus something temporary until the other party realizes their madness.

Heck, my sister and I share an apartment, and we're pretty much convinced each of us is insane: she wants everything to be scrupulously clean, never ever shares her stuff with anyone, and if there is cooking the house must not smell like cooking ever happened, while I am much more tolerant of dirt (though, unlike what she believes, not limitlessly so), absolutely love sharing stuff, and almost need the smell of food around the house to feel properly at home. It doesn't get much closer to "culturally identical" than brother and sister, modulo the influence of schoolmates, but we're Different as Night and Day.

Needless to say, we want to get as far away from each other as possible, as soon as we can.

edited 22nd Aug '13 1:30:40 PM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

I would've thought that most marriages involve people from similar backgrounds, in terms of religion, culture, and social status.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

So did I.

Handle, I am legitimately curious on where you got that from.

edited 22nd Aug '13 1:37:02 PM by SaintDeltora

"Please crush me with your heels Esdeath-sama!