Ethical Sluthood

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I have been cogitating upon the philosophy in Easton and Liszt's book and think I qualify for the term 'ethical slut'. How nice is that?

That's it. Nothing more to this thread.

There's absolutely nothing unethical about being a slut anyway. Why is it that a woman who sleeps with whoever she wants is berated as "slutty" while a man who does the same is lauded as a "great cocksman"?

Do you know what the difference is between a slut and a bitch? A slut will sleep with anyone, a bitch will sleep with anyone but YOU.

 

[Lancecastor]

Full contact Bocce.

Smacked in the petanques!

 

[Pookie]

Aww. Never. SLG. Sexy-girl.
I miss you ladies.

Ditto. Plus a few guys I wish would reappear.

RIP p_p_man.

 

[Lancecastor]

RIP p_p_man.

He was a total slut!

 

[Pookie]

He was a total slut!

A man whore, but our man whore.

 

[Queersetti]

He was a total slut!

Nutty as a case of PayDay bars, but the dude had integrity.

 

[MsMischka]

I also liked the rejection of the idea that one person can be your everything. I don't think that possible and even if it were, I doubt I have the energy to do that. The bond you create with another doesn't have to be all encompassing for it to be unique, wonderful, and special.

This is a nicely stated synopsis of an argument I've had with nearly every partner I've ever had. I just don't understand the need so many people seem to have to own their partner's genitals. Friction of skin on skin has never struck me as a threat to a relationship, unless you have that wierd possessiveness thing going on. I always thought that a strong friendship posed more of a threat than a casual sexual experience.

I believe relationships are built upon three connections: emotional, intellectual, and/or physical. The strongest relationships draw on all three elements. A long-term marriage requires all three, in roughly equal doses. But a single connection can still be valid, especially when taken in conjunction with other relationships that round out and fulfill a person's needs.

I have been ethically non-monogamous for about half of my marriage with Mr Mischka. We didn't start that way, but gradually it was something we discussed, and then have pursued. Such pursuits have ebbed and flowed. It seems that the greater emotional and intellectual fulfillment we get from our platonic relationships, the less we seek in physical connections with others. For several years now one of my closest friends is also in an ethically non-monogamous relationship; we have vacationed just the two of us together, and even slept in the same bed, but our friendship is built on only emotional and intellectual connections.

If anything, I think it easier for women to openly express their emotions and share this bond with other women. Men more often conflate physical and emotional bonds; one must come with the other. That is a weak point in forming and maintaining a variety of relationships.

In the last few years, I have witnessed countless non-monogamous relationships explode. Seemingly strong couples, with double digits of marriage under their belts, dissolving into acrimonious divorce. So, to an extent, I disagree with Perg above. I don't think it's about a partner "owning" their partner's genitals. That's the opposite perspective. I think it is about choosing who you want to share yourself with, and ultimately, why.

 

[rockcasbah]

Perg’s quote is classic reductio to justify his norm, imo.

My norm is one at a time, but i don’t feel a need to sell it.

To each his own, I say.