Do we have to?
How else will you know Iâve been naughty if I donât have rules to break?
The safe word is âmoreâ.
Rule one: oh god keep it together, donât cry donât cry donât cry
This article was good and this book sounds interesting - Iâm definitely considering picking it up and I have some friends who would probably like to read it as well.
But then in the last paragraph it says something about how we deserve to be happy. Come on with that, you know that no one deserves anything, let alone happiness. You know.
Depends on your orientation to the word. Many people believe they donât deserve happiness â that sadness is all that they are worth. Stating that, as Sarah does, âYou deserve to happy,â doesnât mean the universe, god, other people owe it to you. Itâs an affirmation that happiness is a state towards which we are allowed to aspire.
I guess I just donât buy that. To me âdeserveâ is an ugly word unless it is in reference to a specific action that has a specific result. I see how âYou deserve happinessâ is meant as a counter to âYou deserve unhappinessâ but the unhappiness isnât the hurtful part of deserving unhappiness, it is the deserving bit. If I deserve my salary because I went to work then thatâs something I did. If you can tell me that I deserve happiness without knowing any action Iâve taken to have or to not have happiness then I have no control over what I deserve and I could deserve something else tomorrow.
âIf happiness is something you want then you can work towards having it, and if you arenât working towards having it then you might want to think about what you are clinging to that is preventing you from seeking happiness because some people find that upon reflection such things arenât really worth clinging to.â is a statement that happiness is something which are are allowed to aspire to. I donât think any notion of deserve I have ever encountered fits in there.
I accept your critique completely, but I would twist the perspective slightly. Many people denigrate themselves to the extent that they believe they are âundeserving.â In that context, âYou deserve happinessâ is an attempt to negate the inner fear that one does not deserve it. Deserve here doesnât mean âentitled to as a result of,â but âworthy of.â
I do see that youâre approaching this from the standpoint of whether or not the world/people/etc. owe us something. That plays into the menâs right worldview that âI deserve a hot girlfriend/sex,â which is toxic and awful, and I wouldnât want to support anything in that direction.
But I think as a self-affirmation, because happiness is a concept rather than an object or another person, telling yourself you deserve to be happy isnât terrible. And in any case, itâs Sarahâs words I was quoting, so supporting, but not my phraseology. Perhaps a way to phrase it that weâd both agree on is, âEveryone is worthy of happiness.â How people achieve that varies, but recognizing that we arenât constrained by behavior that we donât actually believe, but simply engage in, could be part of it.
I recognized that it was a quote (didnât recognize you were the author of the piece, apparently, but Iâve never been terribly perceptive). But itâs actually the idea of worthiness that I have a problem with. Iâm sure there is some reasonable way to apply that concept that isnât a bad thing. Iâll give you, âWhen a person has the idea that they are undeserving of happiness that is the result of distorted thinking.â Anyway, yours goes better on a T-shirt (or maybe mine does - maybe I should get that T-shirt).
Really, who in their right minds doesnât make their own rules for sex? The ruleset that our society provides is unimaginative, overly restrictive, and deeply fucked up in too many ways to count.
I see the chapter headings, is there as detailed an investigation into long term monogamous relationships that work?
I have some skepticism that a well-rounded book on the subject can be made by couch surfing, skyping, and interviewing 100 people. Iâm sure itâs a survey of what skyping, Air BnB types would enjoy, I am not sure it would speak to me. And thatâs not a bad thing. Just what I see in it for me. Not much.
From what i read here, this sounds like the Hipsters Guide to Non-Traditional Intimacy - and thatâs fine, but it doesnât seem like it hits about 75% of the rest of the nation. Is there an investigation course - a choose your own adventure, if you will - to âoh, you should be in a traditional mono relationshipâ as there is to the other alternatives? Or much investigation into the long term results for all users of these non-traditional arragements?
Or an investigation into compromising, and determining the differences between what you want, and what you NEED, in a relationship. Iâve found Hipsters not talented at this point, generally. Maybe itâs just youth, but it does seem to be a particularly coastal urban affectation, the cluelessness that relationships arenât just about YOU.
And that is every bit as true outside of the bedroom.
Anyone who is constrained by behavior that they donât actually believe in is going to be miserable.
So those people need to stop lying and being so passive about their needs, and be willing to face the consequences⌠which usually they arenât willing to.
And thus begins the drama of people acting out what they will not talk out.
I donât know what would satisfy your skepticism.
Please refer to âthe rest of culture.â
Based on research, self-help books, and dominant culture: probably most people.
Then I would contend that they are not in their right minds.
(But then again, I would say that, wouldnât I?)
So thereâs a difference between a book review and a book. Reacting to the book review is one thing, and things stated in it; making assumptions about a book from a review is stretching it.
Thereâs zero hipsterism in this book. The notion of hipsters is bandied about as a way to label a category of people and ridicule them, so I prima facie believe it comes from a place in which people need to shame and bully. If you want to take it literally as a fact, that hipsters exist in your definition, then itâs people who do what they do by fashion rather than belief, and blow in the wind as things change.
Sarah, in the book, talks to people with relationships that last a few days and several decades. As I call out, one of the best standalone interviews is with an octogenarian. The notion of consensual non-monogamy, for one, pervades human history, and has been talked about and engaged in more and more openly since the 1970s.
The book is actually mostly about making intentional choices, and most of the relationships discussed in the book involve two people at a time (and sometimes only two people).
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
