![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
On rereading The Ethical Slut... again
Some of it is good for those of us negotiating open/multiple relationships. But some of the therapy-speak drives me up the wall.
For example, sharing sex. To me, "sharing" something has the connotation of something being doled out. So, I'll have a sex, and you can have a sex, and we'll just share all these seXX0rs. Saying that you're having sex with someone is much more immediate and descriptive of what you're doing. Like a good meal when you're hungry, you're diving in and consuming it together. Nom!
So, why the "sharing" of sex rather than the having of it? Possibly due to the association of "having someone" when referring to less-than-egalitarian sex? Do we avoid certain verbs because they can be used in a negative construction as well as the very positive ones? I'd really love to know how the "sharing sex" locution came about.
Moving onto a more serious topic, there is a discussion about the fact that no-one can make anyone feel anything. This is true. No-one can make me be angry or indifferent or happy. However, the behaviour that someone carries out can have the effect of eliciting a reaction. Depending on what buttons they're pushing (or not) with that behaviour, that reaction may be positive or negative, strong or mild.
Following on from the premise that no-one makes anyone feel anything, no-one is responsible for someone else's feelings. And again, this is true, when it comes down to the essentials. We all own our own feelings, not anyone else.
What they're aiming at here - I think - is the idea that if your partner is jealous, or experiencing some other negative emotion, the best thing you can do is "be there" and listen to them express their feelings, but you're not responsible for what those feelings are. I had one partner who, when she was drunk and when I merely talked to another woman, would fly into a jealous rage. I've had sex with another person in front of another partner, who thought it was great. So, yes, the stimulus most certainly does not necessarily predict the response.
I agree that we should not feel responsible for fixing someone's feelings, or, actually, for how they manifest themselves. But in the need to be groovy and not get into guilt-tripping, I don't think ignoring someone's agency in what feelings they elicit is that constructive either. Other people are going to piss you off, whether by ignorance, indifference or outright malice. With the latter two motivations, there really isn't much point in blame, other than yourself for putting yourself in their path.
But for problems that relate to ignorance or thoughtlessness, I think expressing your displeasure and clearly identifying where you think the problem lies - that behaviour of theirs - is something you should do. Wimpily sitting around and saying "I was upset and felt abandoned when you spent all night shagging girlfriend X" is going to achieve sweet F-A with those who are determined to be obtuse (although with the chronic and wilful obtuse types, DTMFA is the best solution). Saying "I was pissed off that you stayed out all night with X when you said you'd be back by 9. A phone call to let me know what was happening was the least you could do." seems to me to be a constructive approach. Problem, desired solution. And in response, I would not like this kind of thing: "Yes, I hear your anger. I bet you felt abandoned." I'd want to hear acknowledgement (of "responsibility" for the behaviour that upset me?) and a solution. Possibly a request for clarification if they didn't understand why I felt so strongly about something (because maybe my response was disproportionate to the stimulus... or there was a simple misunderstanding). I also think a response of "Get a grip, that curfew was last week due to the fact we were getting up early the next morning - this was my usual stay-over date night with X, and I didn't feel I had to renegotiate" is also perfectly valid!
I agree that blaming individuals tends to be pretty much a zero-sum game. Telling someone they're an irresponsible fucktard is only going to get their backs up without creating a solution (and why waste your energy on an actual irresponsible fucktard). But identifying problematic behaviour - at least what you find problematic, in the context of whatever kind of relationship you have - and expecting those who carry it out to acknowlege their agency seems to be not unreasonable either.
So maybe I simply haven't got to the point in the book where people have to own their fuckwittedness as well (and preferably do something about it), or maybe I'm missing the actual point. Maybe we need to evolve different language around things like "responsiblity" for emotional reactions - I do think we are responsible for the triggering (I loathe that term, but oh well) behaviour, even if we aren't directly reponsible for the resulting feelings.
I think that part of being responsible within a relationship is learning as well as one can what behaviours are likely to tweak one's partner... and being responsible for dealing with the consequences. Whether it's to vow to completely change a long-embedded behaviour (ok, I'll put my socks in the laundry basket from now on!), or to tell them to get over it, or all points in between. However, we can't be aware, responsive and responsible all the time, and we all get surprised by what others around us react to. Responsibility for our actions does not have to equal guilt or being accountable for fixing the problem... but I don't think we should dodge the times when we should be accountable for the effects our behaviour may cause. Or maybe we need to think of responsibility as a thing of degrees, not absolutes. Contributing factors? Hm.
For example, sharing sex. To me, "sharing" something has the connotation of something being doled out. So, I'll have a sex, and you can have a sex, and we'll just share all these seXX0rs. Saying that you're having sex with someone is much more immediate and descriptive of what you're doing. Like a good meal when you're hungry, you're diving in and consuming it together. Nom!
So, why the "sharing" of sex rather than the having of it? Possibly due to the association of "having someone" when referring to less-than-egalitarian sex? Do we avoid certain verbs because they can be used in a negative construction as well as the very positive ones? I'd really love to know how the "sharing sex" locution came about.
Moving onto a more serious topic, there is a discussion about the fact that no-one can make anyone feel anything. This is true. No-one can make me be angry or indifferent or happy. However, the behaviour that someone carries out can have the effect of eliciting a reaction. Depending on what buttons they're pushing (or not) with that behaviour, that reaction may be positive or negative, strong or mild.
Following on from the premise that no-one makes anyone feel anything, no-one is responsible for someone else's feelings. And again, this is true, when it comes down to the essentials. We all own our own feelings, not anyone else.
What they're aiming at here - I think - is the idea that if your partner is jealous, or experiencing some other negative emotion, the best thing you can do is "be there" and listen to them express their feelings, but you're not responsible for what those feelings are. I had one partner who, when she was drunk and when I merely talked to another woman, would fly into a jealous rage. I've had sex with another person in front of another partner, who thought it was great. So, yes, the stimulus most certainly does not necessarily predict the response.
I agree that we should not feel responsible for fixing someone's feelings, or, actually, for how they manifest themselves. But in the need to be groovy and not get into guilt-tripping, I don't think ignoring someone's agency in what feelings they elicit is that constructive either. Other people are going to piss you off, whether by ignorance, indifference or outright malice. With the latter two motivations, there really isn't much point in blame, other than yourself for putting yourself in their path.
But for problems that relate to ignorance or thoughtlessness, I think expressing your displeasure and clearly identifying where you think the problem lies - that behaviour of theirs - is something you should do. Wimpily sitting around and saying "I was upset and felt abandoned when you spent all night shagging girlfriend X" is going to achieve sweet F-A with those who are determined to be obtuse (although with the chronic and wilful obtuse types, DTMFA is the best solution). Saying "I was pissed off that you stayed out all night with X when you said you'd be back by 9. A phone call to let me know what was happening was the least you could do." seems to me to be a constructive approach. Problem, desired solution. And in response, I would not like this kind of thing: "Yes, I hear your anger. I bet you felt abandoned." I'd want to hear acknowledgement (of "responsibility" for the behaviour that upset me?) and a solution. Possibly a request for clarification if they didn't understand why I felt so strongly about something (because maybe my response was disproportionate to the stimulus... or there was a simple misunderstanding). I also think a response of "Get a grip, that curfew was last week due to the fact we were getting up early the next morning - this was my usual stay-over date night with X, and I didn't feel I had to renegotiate" is also perfectly valid!
I agree that blaming individuals tends to be pretty much a zero-sum game. Telling someone they're an irresponsible fucktard is only going to get their backs up without creating a solution (and why waste your energy on an actual irresponsible fucktard). But identifying problematic behaviour - at least what you find problematic, in the context of whatever kind of relationship you have - and expecting those who carry it out to acknowlege their agency seems to be not unreasonable either.
So maybe I simply haven't got to the point in the book where people have to own their fuckwittedness as well (and preferably do something about it), or maybe I'm missing the actual point. Maybe we need to evolve different language around things like "responsiblity" for emotional reactions - I do think we are responsible for the triggering (I loathe that term, but oh well) behaviour, even if we aren't directly reponsible for the resulting feelings.
I think that part of being responsible within a relationship is learning as well as one can what behaviours are likely to tweak one's partner... and being responsible for dealing with the consequences. Whether it's to vow to completely change a long-embedded behaviour (ok, I'll put my socks in the laundry basket from now on!), or to tell them to get over it, or all points in between. However, we can't be aware, responsive and responsible all the time, and we all get surprised by what others around us react to. Responsibility for our actions does not have to equal guilt or being accountable for fixing the problem... but I don't think we should dodge the times when we should be accountable for the effects our behaviour may cause. Or maybe we need to think of responsibility as a thing of degrees, not absolutes. Contributing factors? Hm.
no subject
It's one of the first major concepts I learned in therapy and it can be incredibly difficult to remember at times.
no subject
I haven't read the Ethical Slut, but I should (even though it sounds like I won't agree with all of it).
I think the "take no responsibility" thing is something men are socialised with a lot more than women, incidentally. The "make you endlessly guilty" thing that a lot of women are socialised with is also crap (no wonder so many hets need self-help books to communicate with their partners), so, working out happy mediums and being flexible for different situations and personalities is much better.
no subject
The Ethical Slut isn't too bad, actually. What I've mentioned are really the only negatives about it. Oh, and I get peeved with their seeming notion that people who are into group sex are somehow "freer" than everyone else, but that's a common attitude with those types.
That's a good observation about men being programmed to take no responsibility and the women in to being the moral guardians. I think happy mediums and what suits those concerned is a much better strategy.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Owning ones fuckwittedness is a very important step in growing up.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I would probably have lapped it all up when I was in my mid-late 20s and struggling with how to define myself (although I think I probably would have been put off by the emphasis on group sex), but I came to the book after I learned the basics the hard way.
no subject
no subject
So much about normal relationships seems to be about taking your partners for granted, one way or another, and I've been lucky enough not to have been exposed much to that kind of paradigm. I have nearly always been with people who demanded respect (as do I). I think if you get the respect thing sorted, it gives you that essential base to work from, no matter what your actual relationship setup ends up being.
no subject
Still, hopefully the non-history stuff is good and relevant.
no subject
Yeah, that was IMHO the biggest hole in that book. "Own your emotions" is a useful idea and just what some people need, but taken to extremes... well, why do you need relationships with other people at all? Why not just decide to give yourself the warm fuzzies without having to bother about coordinating timetables?
no subject
Again, it's that thing about happy mediums again. Yes, we do need to take responsibility for ourselves, but "no man is an island" and other assorted clichés. We do need other people to provide affirmation, support and fun.