![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
because apparently that doesn't extend all the way up the ADF ladder.
i'm in the middle of reading 'Solitary Druidry.' I can thus far sum it up as...disappointing.
The most GLARING problem is the entire third chapter being devoted to providing excerpts from greek and roman writings about druid sex practices. I can sum it up thusly:
"druids were incestuous pedophiles who fucked anything that moved."
really?
there's no provision of historical context (as in, why would the folks that were being invaded by and then subsequently invading the celts put out negative information? surely propoganda was invented BEFORE 1945?) or any analysis at all as to why this would be written, why greeks and romans would focus on this, could there have been misunderstandings between the cultures. nothing.
of course, there's a handy list of websites referencing "polyamoury" at the end.
those of you who know me SHOULD know that i don't really care who is fucking whom. if everyone involved is consenting (including other partners that might not be involved in that particular instance) i don't really care; and in reality even if that ISN'T the case, it's none o' my business. i've got friends all along the consensual sexual spectrum, including true polyamoury and swinging. it doesn't even enter into the friendship equation. (the only reason i know about some of it is because people didn't want me to be uncomfy seeing them with a non-spouse).
however, an INTRODUCTORY book into druidry is really NOT the place to make a statement. I consider myself on the druidry path, but does that mean i should have sex with whomever and whatever i please, regardless of my own interpretation of right behavior? that's the impression one is left with at the end of the chapter.
If one felt STRONGLY about this (which the author certainly does, i'm guessing) it would have been more appropriate to have a chapter LATE in the book discussing morality, maybe include the historical references, with appropriate analysis (hell, ANY analysis) and a wide range of moral/ethical issues...not just 'WE FUCK ANYONE.'
so far the rest of the book is simplistic, which i suppose for an intro book it needs to be. citations from websites rather than actual texts irk me, but that may be just the college professor in me...
i wish i had borrowed it from someone before i bought it. i suppose i just assumed 'why not excellence' was something to be asked reflexively. (kinda like i figure how 'what would jesus do' should be asked, rather than just emblazoned on bracelets and license plate frames.)
i'm in the middle of reading 'Solitary Druidry.' I can thus far sum it up as...disappointing.
The most GLARING problem is the entire third chapter being devoted to providing excerpts from greek and roman writings about druid sex practices. I can sum it up thusly:
"druids were incestuous pedophiles who fucked anything that moved."
really?
there's no provision of historical context (as in, why would the folks that were being invaded by and then subsequently invading the celts put out negative information? surely propoganda was invented BEFORE 1945?) or any analysis at all as to why this would be written, why greeks and romans would focus on this, could there have been misunderstandings between the cultures. nothing.
of course, there's a handy list of websites referencing "polyamoury" at the end.
those of you who know me SHOULD know that i don't really care who is fucking whom. if everyone involved is consenting (including other partners that might not be involved in that particular instance) i don't really care; and in reality even if that ISN'T the case, it's none o' my business. i've got friends all along the consensual sexual spectrum, including true polyamoury and swinging. it doesn't even enter into the friendship equation. (the only reason i know about some of it is because people didn't want me to be uncomfy seeing them with a non-spouse).
however, an INTRODUCTORY book into druidry is really NOT the place to make a statement. I consider myself on the druidry path, but does that mean i should have sex with whomever and whatever i please, regardless of my own interpretation of right behavior? that's the impression one is left with at the end of the chapter.
If one felt STRONGLY about this (which the author certainly does, i'm guessing) it would have been more appropriate to have a chapter LATE in the book discussing morality, maybe include the historical references, with appropriate analysis (hell, ANY analysis) and a wide range of moral/ethical issues...not just 'WE FUCK ANYONE.'
so far the rest of the book is simplistic, which i suppose for an intro book it needs to be. citations from websites rather than actual texts irk me, but that may be just the college professor in me...
i wish i had borrowed it from someone before i bought it. i suppose i just assumed 'why not excellence' was something to be asked reflexively. (kinda like i figure how 'what would jesus do' should be asked, rather than just emblazoned on bracelets and license plate frames.)
