Contract of Marriage

A couple of my friends recently had the "M" word discussion. Let's just say there was resistance. They love each other and are committed, but when it came to "federally sanctioned marriage" as a permanent sort of contract there was an issue. Who wouldn't be frightened?

Here are a couple of things I have to say on the subject of contracts. Let's look historically at what marriage is. It is a financial arrangement. Once a man and woman married in exchange for offspring, status, care, regular sex, and possibly money, property and security. That really hasn't changed. The idea that we must somehow justify this by purporting to be "in love" seems a little like fishing for morally responsible reasons to have chocolate ice cream. It's a contract whose sole purpose is to place protections for each party. And the truth is, in the absence of arranged marriage, we are at a loss. We aren't taught how to negotiate a marriage contract so we can live it and stay married, we are led to believe that it's supposed to be spontaneous and organic.

I'm not against marriage. There are reasons for the state and federal governments to ask me to register my contract of marriage. They need to know who to point to when there is a problem. They also need to know who to give the spouses money too when he/she dies. Of course there are roughly, 1400 state and federal rights given to federally registered marriages, that protect women, children, and sometimes men from abuse and ruin. Admittedly, not all of them are financial but a huge chunk of them are. The others are to protect people in social ways.

The addition of romance to marriage is fairly recent and in a pragmatic relationship for the protection of family and meeting of needs it is a boon, sometimes, but not essential to its success. In fact, heaping the notion of romance onto the marriage contract was, in part, an exercise of social control over sex and childrearing. The selling of exclusive rights. That's what two people do when they love each other very much, they get married and have kids. Not really, two people with a blustering sexual attraction have sex, the rest is just to protect women and their subsequent children, from being used by unethical men.

There was also a time when religion wasn't actively involved in marriage. Those were contracts made by agreement between the families. Certainly, every religion, has a god ordained sanction. If it were entirely natural why would there be need for such mention. Religion also claims to define marriage for its adherents. One woman per man, more than one woman per man. etc. This is also about control and protection. If you make this contract a moral issue then somehow magically people will behave in more sensible and humane ways. Not true, but it is a theory.

What about the validity of other contracts? Civil unions don't give as many rights, a sort of marriage lite. Common Law Marriage is a default validation for living together long enough you probably own property or have children to protect. Hand-fasting, the temporary arrangement of two or more people who of want to "try out" married life with the understanding that it may not work out. And of course shacking up, which is kind of the buyer beware, 'as is' arrangement. But all of these including, the federal sanction, are contracts with varying degrees of protections.

As a responsible person, I have contracts for lots of things. My responsibility to itunes is a contract, my phone service has a contract, my home insurance, all contracts. My sex life has contracts too, so why is the marriage contract so jealously guarded? Why is it a thing to be feared?

Social convention. If you have a marriage that fails to evolve to accommodate the needs of the people involved, then somehow you are viewed and judged as a bad person. The truth is, some people might not benefit from marriage, some are not suitable for the majority of the market. Some people just don't want to be married. But socially, marriage is more than a mere contract. Marriage is a place of honor, a status symbol, an achievement. It places people in some elevated wonderland of social acceptability, until it fails. It is as if marriage validates the veracity of love, faith, and tradition rather than the other way around. They will tell you that it is to maintain the sanctity of family and protect children but does it really do that? If it doesn't it's time for a renegotiation.

Secondly, would you get a business loan based on a spontaneous chemical connection to some object or idea without a business plan? No, of course not, because the bank needs to know their risk is in the hands of people who have thought it through. Yet our only requirement for marriage seems to be love and religious sanction. If marriage were a known product that performed the same way for everyone, why would we need pre-nups? No wonder it's frightening.

Thirdly, marriage can be terrifying because of the baggage of role related expectation that often goes undiscussed. We get along and so often assume we are compatible in those subconscious beliefs about marriage. This, of course, isn't a problem if it's discussed but a lot of people just assume certain things and often they don't match.

Officially, the marriage license isn't even between the two partners, it's between the lovers and their government and interestingly it is silent on the essential expectations by law. These expectations aren't spelled out until divorce time. We agree to behave in a way that does not void the guarantee of protection from our lawmakers. Perhaps, in addition to the spiritual counseling often required by ministers, there should be a lawyer that informs you of your legal obligations, and how to make the most out of the contract.

As for my friends they have come to an arrangement and may eventually become federally registered as married but until then, they are doing what is right for them, which is really what marriage ought to be about anyway.

What being a dom taught me about being human.

Ok, I wasn't a dom for long, but there are some very useful things I learned while doing it that helped me build better relationships.

1. Dom's ideally serve their subs, so, it is in my best interest to find out what they want. I have tried it my way, as therapeutic retribution, and while I felt better it wasn't as good for "him" and that did not make for a successful play session. Even Lao Tzu says that to be a good master one must serve. If I am to master myself, service to others is useful, ask any 12 stepper. In regular relationships this works too, knowing what your partner wants and needs helps, for that matter knowing what you want and need is critical. How do you know? Ask. That is how it works in BDSM. Don't just ask what they need but if they need you to do that for them for some reason.

2. Knowing one's limits. I have limits to how much cruelty I can or want to inflict on another person. This was interesting to me because, initially, I felt so angry I was afraid of what I might do. I quickly found there is a limit to the suffering I can watch. Also, I noticed that conscious application of suffering meant normal suffering was not the random and inevitable event I had come to understand it was. If I had control over my actions enough to cause it intentionally with the consent of my partner I could control the behavior, I committed, that caused suffering. Rather than just saying, "It's just the way I am."

3. I'm actually a pacifist. I found that being in a consensually violent relationship, the more I got to know my subs, the less I wanted to be violent against them. I came to respect their feelings more because my focus was to serve some need of theirs. I saw them as human and in doing so could not willingly cause them pain, even though they wanted me too. This bleeds into my normal life because now I actively try to see others as human beings, especially those I don't agree with or like very much.

4. It helps with my forgiveness process. It taught me that I was capable of the same cruelty and abuse I had suffered at the hands of others non-consentually. That somehow that made us equal. It was then my job to find ways of managing my nature in more responsible ways. If I could forgive myself for "allowing" the abuse to happen or creating abuse, I could, theoretically, forgive them for the same. I do sometimes get angry about having to do so much damn work to be responsible when others could not or would not but that's a personal resentment I am having to work out.

5. Pain happens, my attitude makes it suffering. The truth of the matter is that life is pain. Events happen that hurt, disillusion, and demoralize us. I can be immobilized by it or not. My attitude about failure changed. For example, I realized that failure is just a dead end in the maze, not a commentary on the usefulness of my nature or my right to be here.  Sometimes, the very act of wanting things not to change, causes my suffering. Do I want pain? Not so much, but pain, like anger is an indication that something must move. Almost always that can be done by me for me.

Business of Love: what I leaned about my relationships in business school

1. Identify the need: How can you have a selling product if you don't know what need it fills? I had to know what I needed and what someone else needed, to know if we were a good fit.

2. Differentiation: If you are going to compete in a market, you need to offer something different. In my case it was consciousness, compassion and honesty. For some it's pretty packaging. I am kind of the Birkenstock of relationships not as gorgeous as a Kenneth Cole or as wild as Chinese Laundry but practical, comfortable, and I conform over time and wear. That had to be my selling point. I had to promote my strengths. I knew that I could be made up to be more visually appealing or workout or dress less comfortably but I also knew that I couldn't maintain that indefinitely. So I sell it like it is.

3. Customer Service: If you think you can maintain a huge bottom line and not take care of your customers you are crazy. When something goes wrong and it's you, own it, fix it and be a better person. When the exchange is deeper than money it is worth it. Not to say that the consumer is always right. If there is no way to offer what they want without it costing you more in sanity or self esteem, let them go elsewhere and thank them for their patronage.

4. Everyone doesn't need what you are selling: We find this in religion a lot. Not everyone responds to what you have on offer. Know your target audience. Don't be a creepy stalker.

5. Location, Location, Location: If you are going to successfully sell yourself wouldn't it make sense to be in the place where what you want is likely? You don't sell gaming books to fashion hounds. You don't sell pregnancy books to single men. If you have an interest go where other people want the same things. I am a geek. I don't dance. I don't dress up. I read, I game, I love science. I go where that's already happening.

6. Evaluate satisfaction regularly: Ask questions, of yourself and your partner(s) to see how things are going. Is this relationship working for you? Is it working for them. How can you work together to get more for each of you out of it?

I know that seems cold but when the failure rate of new relationships is so high why risk it by assuming it is going to be a spontaneous chemical reaction. Of course it happens and the chemical response is, for some, enjoyable. But when the feelings settle down a bit you have to live with it. Avoid buyers remorse choose wisely.

Something New: parenting revisited

My son is on his way here as I write this. He will be staying with us, until he gets on his feet. He is grown so it isn't like he's expecting me to be a parent but I am still nervous; nail biting, kitchen cleaning and sweets making nervous. This is something I have been trying to become a better person for.  I want to be present for my kids in the most loving and kind way possible as long as they will allow it. Last time I had regular contact with him in person, as a parent, he was seven. Now, he's an adult and trying to find his place in the world. I remember that time. He is venturing out about the same age I got divorced from his dad and I remember being freaked out then, because I just didn't have the skills or information I needed to find what I wanted out of life.

I have to remind myself this isn't about me. This is not about me encouraging him to do the things I would have done at his age. This is about giving him understanding and space to sort himself out.

There will, of course, be a family meeting. Every new or potential family member is part of a family meeting at some point. We will talk about his needs, his desires, and his expectations and what we need, want, and expect from him. I know once I fall into negotiation mode it will not be a problem, it's my element. But I still worry. Talking on the phone regularly and having a bunch of stuff in common isn't the same as really living together and knowing each others flaws and hang ups.

Some part of me fought the urge to repaint my office for a him. I know he will need his space but part of me wonders how comfortable I can make him and still support him to be motivated. Ok, I am overthinking. I am sure it will be fine and I don't have to deal with this alone. I have wonderful friends with grown kids who will help me and a couple of great men who will be good role models.

So what am I worried about? Screwing this up. But baby steps right? The plan so far is to allow two weeks vacation for him so he can become acclimated to his new environment and get to know the city. After living together for two weeks we may have a better idea of what we expect and need from each other. So I have a couple of weeks grace. Saturday, I will be back to my regular posting but I will update you on the situation after our family meeting.

Relationship Exit Interviews

Has a relationship ever ended and you wondered why? What did you do that made for failure? Or did you ever really want to rationally sit down and discuss your own feelings without feeling like you had to be angry to do it? I googled and there were tons of entries for exit interviews in relationships. Rachel Greenwald, a dating coach, was a sensible place to start.

Interestingly enough, Mad Science and I had a mutual interview at the beginning of our formal relationship but that is a different blog post. So here are my exit interview questions, and just to make it interesting I will post what my answers would have been in my first big relationship.

1. What is your primary reason for leaving? Our methods are so different when it comes to communication, how needs are met, and the power dynamic it is no longer comfortable for me and after having done everything I knew to do then with no resolution in sight, felt it better for you and the kids, if I removed myself as part of the problem.

2. Did anything trigger your decision to leave? Your decision to remain in a closed relationship though neither one of us was really getting our needs met.

3. What was most satisfying about our relationship? The part before we were married. I think as a friend, you were generous and considerate but as a husband not as much.

4. What was least satisfying about our relationship? The fact that once married I had no right to make any rational input into how things were going to be done and often felt like my needs weren't important.

5. What would you change about your role in relationship? I would have liked to have had a more equal part in things. I would have liked to have been the sort of person you felt you could trust to talk to once we were married, and I wish I had gotten medical help earlier in the relationship.

6. Where your expectations understood when and if you communicated them? Did my response to your needs turn out to be as you expected? I did not feel my expectations were met or even really considered in this relationship. As for responding to my needs you did what you thought was most useful based on emotional behaviors but it had the feeling of being a measure to simply make me less inconvenient to you rather than actually meeting the need with any level of understanding. In short rather than asking me what I needed you assumed what that was and did it with varying results.

7. Did you receive enough communication to exercise your role effectively? Not really. I often felt like I had let you down and as you slowly took away "my role" I felt lost and ineffective in the relationship. I often wondered if it would have improved if I had gotten a job and let you stay home and take care of the kids and house.
 

8. Did you receive adequate support to explore your part in the relationship? No, it seemed there was only one way, in which, you were prepared to deal with me which left no room for experimentation or exploration. When we met you had an established household, your cleaning and cooking standards where different than mine, you had little sympathy for the trauma of my recent past and gave me little support to change.

9. Did you receive sufficient feedback about your performance sexually, mentally, and emotionally? No. Criticism, yes but honest feedback with ways I could improve, not really.

10. Did this experience help you to pinpoint your relationship goals? Absolutely. Upon realizing I had so much work to do on myself, I discovered I needed someone I wasn't afraid to talk to, someone who would be flexible and conscious of their behavior enough for us to grow together.

11. What would you improve to make our relationship better? Our listening and communication skills. A loss of preconceived notions about roles in relationship and a willingness to work together instead of against each other.

12. Did any of my personal hangups, or methods (or any other obstacles) make the relationship more difficult? I felt you were so hung up in your secret self loathing that you couldn't see anyone or any needs but your own. I offered many options in an effort to make it better but when everything is my fault and there is only your way to fix it, no headway can be made. I freely admit much guilt in the relationship but it's never just one person who contributes to the fall.

13. Would you consider a relationship again or in another capacity such as friendship, friends with benefits or casual sex  in the future? No. Being civil to me when I visit the kids would be nice but I don't really want a relationship with you.

14. How do you generally feel about this relationship? I felt that, as a transitional experience, it was good for me in a number of ways. It showed me that I had a lot of work to do regarding healing and self awareness. It helped me determine what I really wanted in a relationship, as well as what I really didn't want.

15. What does your new relationship offer that this one didn't? Space, empathy, feedback without it being criticism of my nature. Conscious choice of traditional roles arrived at through discussion and choice rather than unspoken rules about how I should act or behave. My current relationship is egalitarian and flexible even though we operate within some traditional division of labor roles.

Thinking about these answers has actually been somewhat therapeutic because this relationship had very little in the way of informed closure. Incidentally, this is similar to the relationship review process we have implemented bi yearly. These are all good questions to stay on top of for retention. I don't anticipate a break up any time soon but I think I would be open to hearing the answers to these questions and answering them for myself. I've also done this with other relationships and those answers led me to better self care, less codependency and clearer communication including listening with more detachment and empathy.

I approach disagreement more from the place of service to the relationship, rather than with blame and manipulation to get my way. Another interesting use of this exercise has been that if I journal my answers to each failed relationship (friendship, family, intimate or business) I can often see a pattern of behavior or expectation on my part that needs to change. Acceptance has been huge for me. Can I accept that no matter how understanding and honest I am there are people in the world who simply aren't there? And can I accept that I don't have to have relationships with those people? Just as I don't believe there is only one compatible person to have any kind of relationship with me I don't believe there is a need to be in relationship with just everyone. That doesn't give me license to be unpleasant or unkind to someone but it does mean that I don't have to get my feelings hurt when I behave as kindly as I can and am met with useless behavior from another person.

Time for a Male Revolution

Today's Jump Point is an article by Charlie Glickman about men's emotions and how we subvert their emotional expression through shame and coddling.

I am all for men being more than the boxed in, emotionally repressed, work-a-holic, steadfast soldier hyper sexual beings. Admittedly, women think of themselves as emotional gate keepers. How it can be expressed, when is the right time, what I will hear and interpret and what I won't.

The media doesn't help either. Men are often shown as incompetent bumbling fathers, old fat beer swilling football junkies. Sometimes it's the gun toting hero or the psychotic bad guy, the Alpha Male asshole or the weak beta who wails about being friend-zoned. None of those images would sound appealing to me if I were a man trying to find my place in the world.

But I see behavior in women that makes me cringe when I hear it. "Girl, I don't see how you put up with silence? If he doesn't talk I make him." or "How could you let him run around like that don't you have control of your man?"

I run the emotional ball a lot around here, I often instigate emotional check-ins. I want more feedback voluntarily. I ask most of the questions and work out what they are feeling until I can repeat it and they say "Yep that sums it up." I have heard a lot of men say: I don't know how I feel about this. That's ok, we explore it.

Prof and Mad Science have their emotional hangups like anyone but getting them to communicate them beyond what appears pragmatic can be tricky. It isn't my job to make them do it but it is information that makes them whole people. Men are not sextoys or ATMs they are people with feelings, ideas, dreams, things that go way beyond the cardboard cutouts we often see as "manly behavior."

During the women's lib movement's beginnings, it was about being allowed to redefine what being a woman meant to the individual woman and changing the idea that a woman wasn't just a sperm catching, house keeping, baby machine that was owned by a man. Maybe it's time we give men credit as human beings and allow them the range of experience we have had to make happen.

They shouldn't be fighting us, dear feminists, they want what we want. A chance to discover and explore what it means to be human without all the restrictive roles that society has placed on them. This is about men redefining manliness for themselves and changing the socially acceptable norms.

The more we say, boys will be boys, or men should be this way, not that way, the more disservice we do them. So remember when you wave your flag think about ways you apply the stereotypes to the men around you. What assumptions about their intentions do you make? Are you automatically presuming them guilty of being anti-you? Must we criminalize every man based on those that behave badly?

The Orgasm Gap

Jump point: The Orgasm Gap: The Real Reason Women Get Off Less Often Than Men and How to Fix It by Lisa Wade

Ok, I won't dispute the facts that orgasm is more rare in women that men when we are talking about penile penetration. Lots of women don't orgasm this way. I rarely do. But to assert that it's totally social conditioning and that this somehow makes men the enemy here is bullshit, in my opinion. Also it is useful to remember that these are young people we are talking about. Even with the prevalence of porn and more useful education, sex and pleasure have a learning curve that requires maturity, self knowledge, and experimentation.

I won't deny that there is a segment of the population who is very focused on the man's orgasm, whether in an attempt to buy long term security in the relationship or because a woman doesn't feel she deserves to have them, but it is probably far from the norm and doesn't have to be that way.

Society has long said that women aren't as sexual, that once in a stable relationship sexual gratification seems to wane in favor of other types of enjoyment but not one of these things is universally true. Why would some cultures use women's vast sexual craving to justify genital mutilation? It does so more, out of the pain of having sex and the fear of being treated badly, abused, or even killed. I would say that would be motivation to become averse to sex. For that matter why would we mutilate men's genitals if it weren't at least hoped that it would curb their sexual cravings or improve their health? It does neither. 

There are so many factors to orgasm for me, most of them mental/emotional as well as physical. Am I distracted? Did I leave the stove on? Do I feel safe? Can this guy be trusted? Are my needs and desires are considered? Is this about him or us? Do I look stupid when I come? Is this sexual encounter moving too fast? Does this "yes" mean I want this to happen or am I meeting a need of his even though I am not interested? Are we in a longterm commitment? Honestly, if you want to go cultural on this issue I have to wonder how the expectation and desire for commitment affect the feelings of trust? 

Think about what a woman has to consider in order to have sex. Trust is huge. If I get pregnant will there be any help from this guy? Are we compatible enough to pull this off long term? If my needs aren't important here in bed, will they be any place else? 

The jump article puts us in danger of applying the competitive model to sex which should be in all ways cooperative. It's about pleasure, connection and the sacred experience it is. It's not fair to assume that most men don't care about a woman's pleasure, or that in having more experience a man should "know" what to do. As a person I must communicate what works for me even if that means changing direction en route. 

As for the one shot hook up, if women don't expect to orgasm why in the hell are they doing it? If we aren't getting what we need we must be creative, and communicative and actually talk about sex outside the act itself. Why aren't men having multiples? Is it because they are bodily incapable? I assure you, from my experience, that this is not true. Yet we rarely talk about this. What about men who just want to cuddle? Believe it or not they are out there. Men also need some foreplay, at least in the age group I have sex in. To just assume every man thinks about sex constantly is an injustice. Some do, but not all. Also to assume that every man orgasms with vaginal as first choice is also unfair. Some really do prefer oral, anal, or manual sex. 

Personally, I get what I need more often than not but it takes comfort with my partners, honesty in my communication, and experimentation sometimes, to find what works today. I have a choice to believe what I want and though I do still hold on to ideas about sex that don't serve me, I do choose to take responsibility for my pleasure.