Ethical Sluts and Closet Polyamorsists: Dissident Eroticism, Abject Subjects and the Normative

Cycle in SelfHelp Books on Free Love

In this article, I study self-help literature on dissident eroticism, and specifically those texts that
teach how to engage in a polyamorous lifestyle. I approach these works as prescriptive texts for conduct,
characteristic of a liberal mentality of government that embeds regulation into the subjectivation of
individuals, through processes of normalisation in the social.
In the Foucaultian genealogical tradition, governance is not simply understood as a form of
external power that acts upon subjects, but also as a form of ethical, or in-folded practice. This mentality
of governance dates back to the Enlightenment. It is during these times in the West that the figure of the
citizen as a self-governing and actualizing subject emerges. This responsible approach to life has
gained importance throughout the 20th century and can be considered to be the foundational ethics for
modern citizenship today.
The emergence and establishment of this particular form of governance is facilitated by the
discursive productions of various authorities that, since the 1850s, have stipulated acceptable and licit
forms of subjectivation and human action. Of particular importance are those discursive utterances that
deal with the subject of sexuality. According to Foucault, discourses on sexuality which offer rules,
opinions and advice as to how to conduct oneself as one should, provide schemas to give meaning to
ones existence and should be approached as technologies of subjectivation: they produce experience,
they are not produced by experience (Foucault 1978: 34; Rose 1996: 305). Governance then comes to be
increasingly administered through norms and decreasingly regulated through the law. Normalization is
exercised by the discursive stipulation of what is licit and illicit, and in-folded in the everyday lives of
subjects as they strive to meet heterogeneous parameters of normality.
Yet, as Butler has so effectively argued, normalization can function in a peculiar manner. All
discursive utterances that initially seek to confine, limit or prohibit specific sets of sexual acts, eventually
open up to discourse their own definitions, and provide the occasion for resistance. In fact, any authority
that attempts to regulate conduct actually produces two kinds of subjective positions: subjects and abject
subjects (Butler 1993: 107). By trying to codify and make licit a specific form of experience, unwittingly the
conditions for the emergence of abject experiences are created as well this is normativitys paradoxical
opus. This mirroring effect eventually brings about the subversion of the definitions of normality and
correct behaviour that the same regulative discourses had tried to impose (Foucault 1978: 34).
If we follow the schema outlined above, we can interpret the erotic ethics of polyamory as
emerging out of the pesky reflexivity of normativity. It can be understood as a subversive reply to those
discourses that attempt to make monogamous conduct the only erotic economy available, and its poly
persona can be interpreted as the subject position it abjectively engenders. Once the dissident lifestyle
of polyamory perversely emerges as a mirror effect of normative monogamy, the abject subject of the
polyamorist claims agency through an ethic of erotic dissidence.
What is of particular interest in the advice literature on polyamory is that the personas of the
polyamorists have gone well beyond the claiming of agency. They have began to speak from their
abject subject position, as authorities of this new lifestyle and politically advertise their dissident ethics
as a way to achieve responsible self-actualization, in a language that has strong echoes of the liberal and
empowered free citizenship of the Enlightenment. As such, they seem to be an emblematic example of
the convoluted functioning of normalization: once the polyamorists begin to shape the parameters of
acceptable polyamory, they open up such definitions to discourse and the normative cycle starts once
more.
In this article, I analyze the authoritative discourses of the self-help literature on polyamory. I
specifically analyze three texts: The Ethical Slut, by Easton and Liszt, Polyamory. The New Love
without Limits, by Anapol and The Sex and Love Handbook by Heilein and Heinlein. I flesh out the
narratives of responsabilization that these texts share and that are common to all treaties on the conduct
of conduct of the period post Enlightenment. I study the discourse of sexual politicization that describes
the involvement in the polyamorous lifestyle as a process of ontological grounding, through which
individuals gain access to a truer and more authentic self. There are strong echoes here to the
processes of identity consolidation of other abject subject positions, such as gay/lesbian/bi/queer. The
polyamorous lifestyle then is described as an ethical engagement that gives access to ones intelligibility.
I explore the theme that relationships as work. As we shall see, this conceptualization allows the
authors to at once describe monogamy as unnatural, pathological and emotionally restrictive, and at the

same time elevate polyamory to the status of superlative relationship, because of its complexity and
spiritual depth. Any chance that polyamory be dismissed as a way out of the more serious and
restrictive monogamy, is erased. Poly lifestyles actually border the ascetic!
Another very important theme is the construction of the polyamorous subject as an autonomous
creature, psychologically self-contained and emotionally independent from any other being. I analyze the
insistence on full disclosure and honesty. The injunction to know thyself, so that the subject can grasp
the repressive socialization and overcome its starvation economies, is also studied.
Different areas of moral concern are discussed in the texts. I explore the issue of coming out, or
the injunction to disclose ones lifestyle, first to oneself, as a political practice for the sake of spiritual
authenticity, and also to others. I also study the concern over sexual activity, minors or children.
Predictably, great anxiety is expressed in the texts on this isse.
I dedicate my attention to the definitions of pleasure and fulfillment present in these texts, in order
to establish whether hedonistic practice is unconditionally seen as positive, and not once again
crystallized into the binary of Eros/Thanatos, so common to other prescriptive works on erotic conduct.
I give a detailed description of the ways in which the poly experts discursively set up schemas of
subjectivation for licit polyamorous subjectivity and conduct, and I investigate weather these parameters
are informed by fear of potential censorship.
Finally, because often these literatures emerge out of professional clashes that are attempting to
delineate the boundaries of who has the right to speak on a specific subject, I examine if they attempt to
lay claim to expertise on a specific kind of erotic conduct, as carving out of turf. I also address the issue
of authorial self-advertising.
Responsibilization:
Our culture desperately needs a new set of sexual ethics (P vii) calls Dr. Anapol, in the opening
passage of her book. The discourse of sexual politicization is common to all three texts; polyamory is
described interchangeably as the natural evolution of relationships in present day society (SL 11) or the
original economy of love, before patriarchal law deformed it .
The polyamorous lifestyle is described as on one hand providing the ontological schemas for
recognition into the ethical persona of the poly and, on the other, as providing the tools that allow the
individual to shape oneself into a more authentic subject.
On describing her monogamous past:
I had to pretend to be someone other than who I really was (P 2)
On encountering a poly kindred spirit: And I immediately got this strong sense of oh, people like me.
Two decades went by before I came out as a slut, and another decade before I came out as a bisexual,
but there was something about the whole idea that I simply understood and responded top deep in my
gut (ES 7).
There are strong echoes here to the processes of identity consolidation of other abject subject
positions, such as gay/lesbian/bi/queer. The polyamorous lifestyle then is described as an ethical
engagement that gives access to ones intelligibility. The understanding of the erotic economy of poly as a
marker for identity is an important issue. It is part of the processes described by Foucault in History of Sex
Vol. one. Towards the end of the 1800s and the beginning of the 1900s, sexual activity becomes fused
with identity. What one does erotically comes to mark ones character and identity. It was the emergence
of the science of sexology that there was a shift in the understanding of sexual deviance from a form of
behaviour to an ontological condition. The medicalization of sexuality at this specific time did not
necessarily entail a change in attitudes towards sex, but rather a re-problematization of deviance that
began to prioritize the moral essence of the individual, rather than maintain its focus on the singularity of
the behaviour or event. The conception of deviant sexuality as a sign of sickness was indicative of a
change in the hermeneutics of sexual disease from a form of behaviour, considered sinful, to a way of
being, considered not just immoral, but a manifestation of a morbid condition (Oosterhuis 2000: 6).
Sexual deviance then, became a matter of personal identity. Foucault has argued that modern
sexuality was specifically constituted by this ontological bracketing, or socially created out of disciplinary
power and discourses of knowledge. By grouping together behaviour, physical characteristics and the
emotional make up of individuals, sexology crated the identity of the deviant subject (i.e. the

homosexual). This discourse created a taxonomy of sexual personas, characterized by specific abhorrent
tendencies. Oosterhuis argues: By differentiating between the normal and the abnormal and by
stigmatizing sexual variance as sickly deviation, physicians, as exponents of an anonymous bio-power,
were controlling the free and easy pleasures of the body (2000: 7). It seems then that the Foucaultian
thesis is justified: the articulation of modern sexualities in medical works gives rise to various personas
of sexuality.
The gendered experience of ontological grounding through the acquisition and maintenance of a
relationship is discussed. It is recognized that women tend to have a merged sense of identity to that of
their partner (Chodorow REF). This is frowned upon by the authors of ES, who incite women to relinquish
this ontological dependency specifically through a poly lifestyle (ES 12;166).
Then conceptualization of relationships as work recurs in all texts. This, to a certain extent, is a
political casting: by insisting that polyamory is more complex and emotionally demanding than simple
monogamy, the authors elevate this erotic economy to the status of superlative relationship. Thus, no
one in their right mind would dare to claim that it is a practice for those who are afraid to committ, or are
too immature to embark on an emotionally mature relationship. Poly lifestyles actually border the ascetic!
Anapol describes the mandatory requirements for proper polyamory. Consensus decision
making, where all partners freely agree to all terms is mandatory. There must be honesty, commitment to
mutual caring and to the bond, integrity, respect of everyones boundaries (P 14-19). Easton and Listz
add to the already onerous list the ability to communicate, plan, the gift of limit setting, and the injunction
to ones feelings and be knowledgeable about oneself (ES 61-68). If one ever thought of approaching the
poly lifestyle to shed the responsabilities that a monogamous relationship entailed, they are in for a bad
surprise! Anapol, as if the parameter were not seriously high already, actually argues that that any
relationships should be approached with a lifelong intention of support with any means and in any way (P
17). Moreover, it must have a positive effect on all involved, the children produced by it, and the rest of
the world. It must also serve the basic functions of family life and it must be consistent with ones values
(P 22). Easton and Listz add that there are a number of external of physical factors that complicate the
lifestyle: time and places need to be shared, money and assets, and even the sexual prowess of your
partner (the tyranny of hydraulics) (ES 126 131) The poor beginner poly reading these texts is
exhausted before the orgy begins!
This attitude still has echoes of a distant protestant ethics, where one can gain Gods blessing
and favor only by committing to a life of labor, and win a glimps of Gods favor by a judicious
administration of hard earned goods (pleasures). Similarly, there are echoes of Liberal meritocratic logic:
only to the committed and the hardworking go the spoils of victory: but what a feeling of triumph when
you succeed! (ES 61).
3) Another very important theme is the construction of the polyamorous subject as an
autonomous creature, psychologically self-contained and emotionally independent from any other being
(peculiar, when the rest of the narrative claims that the polyamorist is emotionally engaged and
relationally tied).
The poly is first of all an autonomous creature, who has the moral imperative to know itself; a
thorough understanting of the wicked ways of the world is necessary, so one can deconstruct ones
socialization, and re-create oneself as a sex positive creature
4) The injunction to know thyself, so that the subject can grasp the repressive socialization and
overcome its starvation economies, recurrently appears in these texts.
The discourse of centering the self. The individual is made increasingly responsible for her/his
attitudes on sex, her/his expectations, and her/his economies. Own your emotions. Ones reactions to
anothers actions are made the sole responsibility of the self. This is still referring to feelings of jealousy
and ownership. Ones emotions are NOT the other lovers job. Easier said that done. Interesting quote:
Because I am responsible, every day, for my needs being met (or not), and for creating and maintaining
the relationship in my life, I can take nothing for granted. Every person I meet has the potential for
whatever it is thats right between me and that person, regardless of how my relationships are with
anybody else. And so this lifestyle gives me a very concrete feeling of individuality, that I recreate
everyday. (ES 124)
You cannot own the other (ES 117).
The emotions that are stirred up by the poly lifestyle are essentially made the personal baggage
of each member involved. This is a bit nave, as socialization cannot necessarily be undone at will.

The authors warn that a poly identity will never be achieved under the wrong circumstances.
These negative conditions always refer to external pressure or to will of others: it is wrong to get into it
because your partner wants to or because friends are doing it. The theme of authenticity resurfaces.
5) Most texts present a critique of sexually repressive patriarchal monogamous arrangements,
giving historical and even anthropological background on their establishment.
The injunction is: deconstruct, reprogram yourself, and then engage.
The authors dedicate a section of their book to the discussion of the normal and offer a very
concise (if superficial) analysis of patriarchal gendered dynamics on monogamy, from a feminist and
social constructionist perspective (ES 69-72). The message here is that all present arrangements are
constructed and as such can be undone. Thus, they enthusiastically take on the political mandate of
creating the cognitive space for the articulation of alternative life-scripts: We are paving new roads
across new territory. We have no culturally approved scripts for open sexual lifestyles; we pretty much
need to write our own. To write your own script requires a lot of effort, and a lot of honesty, and is the kind
of hard work that brings many rewards (ES 72). Later on I will compare the different formats as
suggested by each prescriptive texts, to first make evident the abject proliferation of subject position,
intrinsic to normalization, and second make visible the heterogeneous propositions that emerge out of
dissenting authorities of abjectivity.
The authors provide a superficial guide to the process of deconstruction, offering a feminist
critique of patriarchal terms and attitudes. At times they sketchily discuss a historical event or process that
specifically brought about poly-unfriendly attitudes. This is very superficial however. The reader is
assumed to already have the deconstructive arsenal needed to reject the old monogamous economy in
favor of the new poly ethic.
Areas of moral concern:
I individuate different areas of moral concern discussed in the texts that the polyamorous lifestyle
engenders, in order to establish if they differ from other more conservative erotic economies.
6) The engagement with other lover has to be characterized by full disclosure and honesty (ES
64; P 15).
They state that faithfulness to commitments and respect is paramount. They urge each
participant to establish within themselves their own limits and stick to them. Planning is paramount, so to
each relationship is given the proper amount of effort and care (they discuss a hierarchical distribution of
relationships and number them). Know thyself understand your socialization and the challenges it will
create yet they do not offer specific ways to eradicate it (ES 63-65).
7) The injunction to honesty towards others is an issue that is surprisingly approached in more
varied ways than expected; the issue of the outside world is a multi-layered one: anxiety is expressed
around the issue of disclosure to the outside world; disclosure with ones friends and family also appears
to be a morally complex issue, and is dealt with in different ways; An important one is the issue of coming
out, or the injunction to disclose ones lifestyle, first to oneself, as a political practice for the sake of
spiritual authenticity, and also to others, such as family members, friends, landlords, co-workers, etc.
Pressures from the outside world. Reputation (ES 206), incitement not to internalize negative
characterizations (slut etc. ). Includes a discussion of sanctions against sluts. Interestingly, there is a
giving up of the earlier political agenda that was stated at the beginning of the text. The understanding
here is that poly DO NOT have the same recognition publicly as bi/gay or lesbians, therefore they will
meet with more discrimination. The incitement to stay in the closet is surprising, in view of the previous
political engagement. They suggest to lie to landlords, and coworkers (ES 207).
7) Another relates to the issue of sexual activity and minors or children. First, the topic of
engaging in sexual activity in the proximity of ones children is discussed.
8) Second, the specific possibility of sexual activity with minors and children is discussed. All texts
make an extremely strong case against sexual involvement with minors and children).
There is great fear and caution on sexuality with children and the chapter is carefully worded and
condemns loudly and clearly any involvement between adults and children. The issue of consensual
relationships is stressed (ES 225-226). Here the fear of external censorship is felt strongest.
Definitions of pleasure

9) I dedicate my attention to the definitions of pleasure and fulfillment present in these texts, in
order to establish whether hedonistic practice is unconditionally seen as positive, and not once again
crystallized into the binary of Eros/Thanatos, so common to other prescriptive works on erotic conduct.
The courage to lead life according to the radical proposition that sex is nice and pleasure is good
for you (ES 4). Sexual love is perceived as an intrinsically positive force that has the potential of
strengthening bonds, giving spiritual insight and improving the life of those who embrace it. They state
that this is a potential, implying that it is not necessarily so at all times: they are not too nave.
10) The theme that sex is good and pleasure is good for you is analyzed. A more thorough
inspection of these themes reveals a lot of heterogeneity: some are more forgiving of pleasure for
pleasures sake than others. Other texts are much more prescriptive, and return to a narrative of pleasure
as inevitably coupled with love and commitment.
Each relationship seeks its own level (ES 73). The authors of ES are quite practical in this area.
In trying to map out the disparate types of poly relationships, they allow for some to more emotionally
superficial than others. One night stands and fuck-buddies are allowed, because the authors want their
public to distance itself from the obsession with love. Sexual intimacy without love is allowed, as long as
there is honesty and respect, and a mutual understanding that the relationship is finite. They proceed to
describe many formats a relationship can expand to (3somes, 4somes, group marriage etc).
11) Sexual activity is approached in a holistic manner and the patriarchal penetrative imperative
is somewhat demystified.
12) Finally, the tendency to link sex and spirituality keeps reappearing.
The Poly: what he/she is like and what he/she does
I describe the ways in which they discursively set up schemas of subjectivation for licit
polyamorous subjectivity and conduct, and investigate weather these parameters are informed by fear of
potential censorship.
I describe the ways in which they discursively set up schemas of subjectivation for licit
polyamorous subjectivity and conduct, and investigate weather these parameters are informed by fear of
potential censorship (the poly has to have very strong character and be extremely talented; this is due to
the fact that the relationships of the poly is more difficult yet rewarding than any other, and requires
dedication and effort beyond a monogamous relationship; no simple creature can possibly suceed!; all
negative sexual acts boil down to the dishonest or superficial variety; interestingly, and similarly to the
very early sexologists, it is the antisocial character of these sexual engagements that appears to be the
problem).
13) Descriptions of the good poly: lists of personal characteristics and amelioration activities
he/she needs to engage in to become an even better poly. Again, the fact that poly relationships are more
difficult yet rewarding than any other, and require dedication and effort beyond a monogamous
relationship, is stressed; the poly is a superhuman!!
The love is endless discourse (ES 126). If you fix yourself, everything will flow. Love is not finite,
the more you give it away and the more people you give it to, the better. You do not love one at the
expense of another. But you might: external constraints are to be kept in mind (ES 127). Time, sharing
places, things and resources all have to be cautiously administered, according to the relationship
boundaries and the rules set up, according to primary, secondary, tertiary relationships, plus occasional
drive-through lovers. Lots of work! Again, the protestant ethics!!! It seems that poly happiness can be
reached only through a wise and well administered expensing of abilities, efforts and spiritual growth.
The authors urge to improve personal communication skills, and expect improvement from others
later. They even incite to take a class (no specifics given, so at least it is opportunistic). They urge to be
emotionally honest, and to openly ask for support if it is needed, not expect ones partner to read minds.
The injunction to be honest to yourself and others is constantly reinscribed in these texts. Honesty is the
key factor to authenticity, of self and of ethics.
There are strong echoes to the clinical practices of M & J. A great favorite among the practical
pieces of advice is masturbation: masturbate you head off! The assumption is that the better you are at
pleasing yourself, the more likely youll be easy to please, and the more easily youll please others. Learn
to express your needs and wants: make fantasy lists, share them etc. There is a very good approach to
sexuality that is not male and penetration centered, it is more holistic (away from the tradition of Masters

and Johnsons). They discuss Sensate focus, another fav of M + J, a technique to better control the sexual
response cycle (a funny elliptic euphemism for premature ejaculation) (ES 111).
A long chapter dedicated to jealousy and possessiveness (MS 133-152). The basic message is
the same, each person is responsible for ones feelings and the other lover is instructed to empathize but
not let the other manipulate her/him into capitulation (which is not necessarily, but could be problematic).
Practical advice includes drawing pictures with pastels to survive the jealous episode (ES 144) (JOKE).
Practical advice on how to deal with conflict; schedule fights (ES 176), guides on how to fight
fairly, point by point (ES 177).
Health: they give good detailed advice (ES 213-220).
Child-rearing: they again espouse a celebration of the extended family, arguing that children are
very adaptable and thrive in loving environments (ES 221). They do not offer any arguments aside from
personal and circumstantial evidence (ES 222). They offer practical advice on what to tell kids, and again,
they suggest that for younger children it is better to keep things to a minimum (ES 223-224).
14) The bad poly: descriptions of bad conduct, including swinging; all negative sexual acts boil
down to the dishonest or superficial variety; interestingly, and similarly to the very early sexologists, it is
the antisocial character of these sexual engagements that appears to be the problem.
They also provide a detailed list on what not to do, and define clearly unethical slut behavior.
Sport fuckers and collectors: their biggest sin is superficiality (reasons for attraction and engagement are
tied to physical characteristics or the social status of the other) and lack of intimacy (no growth from the
sexual experience). Sexual predators, that are after the unwilling or unwitting or victimized beings, for the
sake of conquest. Then theres the thrill-seekers, that are pathologically driven by the high of cheating
and sneaking around, or getting away with betrayal. Last there are the consolation-price fuckers, who use
people to make someone else jealous, or after loosing a previous relationship, latch one to someone and
do to them what they have just experienced. The recurring aspect of all these kinds of unethical sluts is
the asociality of their actions: the assumption therefore remains the same sex without any kind of
emotional connection or intimacy is inherently wrong.
Turf wars and opportunistic advertizing:
15) Because often these literatures emerge out of professional clashes that are attempting to
delineate the boundaries of who has the right to speak on a specific subject, I examine if they attempt to
lay claim to expertise on a specific kind of erotic conduct, as carving out of turf; is there any form of selfadvertising or a denunciation of forms of therapy against the poly lifestyle? (in one of the text, where Dr.
Anapol exhorts us to follow her love without limits workshop 7 times; in one text specific kinds of
sexually repressive therapy is frowned upon)
One chapter is dedicated to finding other polys: they discuss gender scripts and behavior, setting
realistic expectations, how to approach various genders, and how to express what is expected out of the
encounter (ES 229-249).
The book concludes with a list of text on the poly topic, fiction and non, a list of web sites,
magazines, organized by sexual preference, includes listings of professionals (physicians, therapists and
attorneys that are open to poly).
Incitement to seek outside professional help: the issue of opportunism (ES 181).

Things that dont fit anywhere:

A family of lovers cannot fail (ES 163). The serial and finite nature of relationships is
described as inevitable: relationships tend to end due to their own internal stresses. (ES 165). This is
pretty much an alignment to the hegemonic discourse on monogamous relationships. They cant last
forever, so keep going. Serial relationships are normalized. As compared to monogamous relationships:
if mon relationships break up, it is normal but if poly relationships do, it is taken as a sign that this
arrangement is impossible. Ironic point (ES 168). Improving ones sex techique
They also call for the state to completely deregulate relational arrangements (ES 208-9). They
make very anti-feminist and simplistic statements on Mormons, to defend this point (ES 209). A the same
time, they incite to protect oneself legally (ES 210).

Works cited
Butler, J.
(1993) Bodies That Matter. University Park: State University UP.
Foucault, M.
(1978) The History of Sexuality. Vol. I: An Introduction. New York: Vintage Books
Hellas, P.; Lash, S. & P. Morris (Eds.)
(1996) Detraditionalization. Critical Reflections and Authority and Identity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rose, N.
(1996) Authority and the Genealogy of Subjectivity. In Hellas, P.; Lash, S. & P. Morris (Eds.)
Detraditionalization. Critical Reflections and Authority and Identity. Oxford: Blackwell.