Talk:The Ethical Slut
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] NPOV
I am as big a fan of The Ethical Slut as the next hedonist, but I don't think that the article as it originally stood reflected a NPOV, and with the mention of Stranger in a Strange Land was definitely not NPOV and of arguable accuracy (and Stranger doesn't have anything to do with tES anyway). While I was at it I clarified the issue of the book's authorship and added a couple external links.Kit 06:40:47, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
[edit] Poly/open relationships
The Ethical Slut is about consensual non-monogamy, which includes everything from swinging to polyamory. If anything, they talk more about open relationships than about polyamory but the article should reflect the fact that it is used by members of all communities within that spectrum as a valuable resource. Kit 22:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- I have no problem with that sentiment. What I did have a problem with is that when you click the link for "open relationship" it took you to the Poly page. Which, at least in my vernacular, "open relationship" is much more like "swinging" than poly. In fact, the first page of the poly article says, that the two are different things, however there is a redirect setup from open relationship to poly... which is totally wrong. I would say that we should use your term... "consensual non-monogamy" and perhaps add a line after saying "including swinging, open relationships, and polyamory"
--Hcatlin 17:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- To me, open relationships covers the entire spectrum of alternative, non-monogamous relationship styles and serves as either a generic or an umbrella term. However, I agree with your suggestion that we should emphasize 'consensual non-monogamy' along with a clarification, since it is the term I believe they use most in the Ethical Slut and avoids differing definition issues. I think we should probably have an open relationships article that is distinct from polyamory at some point though, discussing all the different types. Kit 18:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I think I have improved the article and given a better idea of the spectrum of relationships covered in the book. What do you think of the current version of this article?
Also I see you've already started discussion of the overall problem of open relationship in Talk:Polyamory so I have continued that conversation there. Kit 21:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Some criticism removed
I removed the following language from this article:
- Most of the book’s reviews have been positive. However, there are several criticisms that the book contains thinly veiled attempts to glorify lesbianism, condemn heterosexual females, and demonize males. They cite the fact that all the positive anecdotes contain only female characters, and that all the negative anecdotes contain a male antagonist.
First I'd like to see this cited if it is going to be added back. But more importantly, it is not at all true -- less than 5 minutes flipping through my copy of this book showed that on p.190 is an anecdote involving a heterosexual couple which is as positive as any in the book -- a couple decides to open their relationship, encounters some tension, and then works it out through their agreements. Therefore, all hetero/male-involved anecdotes in the book are not negative.
If there is citable criticism of this book, of course I would support it being added to the article. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 20:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "More"
What kind of subject heading is this? This section needs a more encyclopaedic heading. Branfish 02:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
