ETHICAL SLUT?

[buznog]

At the behest of a friend, I read, or attempted to read: “The Ethical Slut: A guide to infinite sexual possibilities”, by Dossie Easton and Catherine A. Liszt

Comments

Ethical Slut

[anonymous]

Judging from your comments about the book, it is quite clear that you did not in fact read the book. Or, at the very least, you didn't comprehend what you were reading. You make it sound as if the book focused on self gratification to the expense of one's partner, and that is *clearly* not the case. How about checking the book out again, and re-reading it; this time perhaps with the intent of actually trying to understand the author's points rather than viewing it through your preconceived notion of what being a slut is all about. There's absolutely nothing wrong with "self gratification," especially if your partner also achieves gratification in the process.

Re: Ethical Slut

[buznog]

How brave of you, to comment anonymously. I read enough to know that I didn't like it. My comprehension skills are perfectly reasonable. It's totally me-oriented. In any case, I just don't like the philosophy, based on my own personal beliefs, which I spelled out as a response. This was not a book review, but a response. Surely it is reasonable to respond from my own viewpoint!
Ian

Re: Ethical Slut

[summonillusion]

if you don't like people having the right to express their opinion anonymously, you shouldn't have the anonymous option available. what's the point of giving the option to people of raising their voices anonymously when you belittle them for doing so?

Re: Ethical Slut

[buznog]

Yes, you're right. I just thought the person was being unreasonable. I should think more before answering.
Ian

[summonillusion]

This post betrays your lack of understanding of non-monogamous relationship lifestyles. Throughout this whole post you're referring to non-monogamous sexual relationships and behaviors, yet at the end, you refer to this in this way: "But calling cheating or whatever, ethical behaviour, is a cover-up for a selfish, and to me, lonely lifestyle." On top of this, generalizing this into either "your two hands" or "Sluthood" is not only degrading but highly inaccurate.

understanding

[buznog]

I'm dealing with things as they impact on me, and my relationships, and the relationships I see happening, from my own ethical-religious position, a point I was careful to emphasize. I was not degrading anyone. I believe Im entitled to my position.
And I'm not saying monogamy is for everyone. I was responding in essence, to the person who asked me to read that book. He is in a monogamous relationship, but wants...I'm not sure WHAT he wants.
How about trying to understand my position, for a change? And sluthood is exactly what the book was about!
Love,
Ian

Re: understanding

[summonillusion]

I didn't see where it was emphasized, can you point this out to me? Furthermore, you said you were responding to the person who asked you to read that book, and in what relationship position he is in, but the only place in this entire writing you refer to this person is in the first sentence, and not that you are writing this to him, but that you received a book to him. Especially considering you didn't state it in your writing I don't see why it is necessary to consider your ethical-religious position and where you are in your life; I'm looking at your arguments and refuting them. Of course you're entitled to your position, precisely for the same reason I am entitled to mine. That doesn't mean I'm not willing to refute it when I see what you are saying is wrong, especially when you are inaccurately portraying beliefs you do not subscribe to or have an accurate understanding of

Re: understanding

[buznog]

You can't say that my personal views are 'wrong'. They are right for me. They may not work for you. You know me well-enough to know where I am coming from. I emphasized it in my response to 'anonymous'. You seem to feel that my opinions have no merit. Instead of criticizing me, I'd like a response emphasizing the positives about non-monogamous relationships.
Love,
Ian

[buznog]

Yes, I feel really insulted, Itai.
thannks for your cmments.
Ian

[summonillusion]

Now that I think of it, suffering or pain is a shift away from "self-sacrifice" which was the words Ian himself used in relation to monogamy. The definition blur roots from a word "dukka" I am familiar with which is often translated by either (because it refers to the pain and frustration from the non-fulfillment of desires - self-sacrifice is "sacrifice of one's interests, desires, etc., as for duty or the good of another.").