We finally, as of last night, have power again. Christmas day we returned from Mad Science's parents in the rain, the temperature dropping like a stone. It looked like the weather man was right, there might indeed be snow. As the day progressed each hour brought more frozen precipitation and finally snow. Around Five we were minding our own business hanging out when we the lights flickered, there was an explosion, and the lights went off then on again. Another explosion, off then on again, a third and off. Our only source of potential heat was the gas fireplace which was in bad need of repair so Mad Science rebuilt the gas burner and we had fire around midnight. We slept in the living room floor on the futon and it was a fitful restless night.
Determined not to let the cold beat us the next day he went in search of a natural gas heater to hook up to the gas cock where the repaired burner in the fireplace had been added. He returned home triumphant and the little thing heated the great room to a normal temperature and we slept much better on the next nights.
Thursday, I had a very brief visit from Prof who, after a difficult experience with his parents decided to go back home. His apartment had power and oddly, though north of us, no snow. The Engineer texted and extended help. And the Pussycat called and admonished us on safety issues.
Friday my nephews came and spent the day with me as the roads had cleared enough to put Mad Science back to work and my sister was still without power.
Saturday we decided to honor the promise to Mad Sci's bro and go see the Hobbit's first installment. We of course had to see it in 3d at 48p which I liked. It had a hyperreal feel like British television in the seventies. You know the video film at 29.9 fps. The 3d didn't make a lot of difference though many of us did duck flying debris at some points in the movie. I thought they treated it well in spite of the nagging purist criticism it had already received from our nit picky friends, it was very much the spirit of Tolkien.
Being in a great deal of pain after the day we had it was a relief to have power back on around supper time. I slept off and on while my body did it's important healing business and this morning is looking calm and normal again. Now it's time to reboot.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Monday, December 24, 2012
Getting caught with your mental pants down.
I recently came across a legal case in Iowa, I'm sure you know the one, where a dental assistant was fired for being "a threat to the bosses marriage". Here is the brief of the actual legal decision. http://www.iowacourts.gov/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20121221/11-1857.pdf
This woman worked for this man for 10 years and only in the last little while had the relationship become "dangerous". The wife (who felt threatened) also worked in the office. The man fired his assistant because he felt it responsible to remove a temptation that may, at some point in the future, cause him to violate the contract of his marriage. Jealousy wins again.
Now, you know how I feel about the exclusivity contract of paper marriage. But if you are going to agree to the terms of the contract, you must play by it's rules. His marriage was important enough to him to fire the woman he was tempted by, but not to refrain from unprofessional behavior. Rather than back off his attentions, and exhibit self control on his part, he allowed the jealousy of his wife and her insecurity to make the decision for him. Nothing had happened between the man and his assistant except a few unprofessional texts. Texts, that in any other case could have been grounds for sexual harassment, but she didn't feel harassed by him.
Though, I can see how a man could make this decision for the sake of supporting his end of the contract I am a little concerned about what this may mean for women in the workplace in the future.
First, let's address the double standard. Many places have a very specific dress codes for women, some places require makeup, heels, skirts, and adornments. I have met women who were fired after becoming overweight, because their personal appearance no longer fit the image the company wished to convey to the public. The message seems clear, "Be pretty, slightly sexy but not too sexy". While it can be said that some male run companies want to exploit sex appeal for profit there is also the increasing liability when it comes to potential harassment from male employees. There seems to be a fuzzy line about how much is too much.
Then, there is the is the Marriage Question. Do the married have a right to use the legal system to support feelings of insecurity, hearsay, rumor and supposition? Should such legal action be used as a preventative for possible infidelity. Will the supreme court in any state find it necessary to ban women from the workplace because some men can't control their urges? It's like blaming the raped for being raped rather than the rapist. Will one person's insecurity or emotional immaturity now dictate who is hired or fired? This totally let this man off the hook, firing someone HE found tempting made him look like some sort of hero, a champion of traditional marriage. But it does seem to ignore that it was he who initiated inappropriate contact. While she could have created a more solid boundary than mere silence you have to wonder what was going on really?
Is it now to be a crime to get caught with your mental pants down? And why is it up to women to uphold the moral platform of our society? Where are the men here? As spiritual head of household isn't that his job? I suppose in this case he did his job by firing the temptation but honestly why is she the one who has to suffer for something she hadn't even agreed to? If she made no advances and did nothing to suggest or encourage a sexual liaison why should she pay for his potential breech of contract. It does take two to have an affair after all. What's next burkahs?
This woman worked for this man for 10 years and only in the last little while had the relationship become "dangerous". The wife (who felt threatened) also worked in the office. The man fired his assistant because he felt it responsible to remove a temptation that may, at some point in the future, cause him to violate the contract of his marriage. Jealousy wins again.
Now, you know how I feel about the exclusivity contract of paper marriage. But if you are going to agree to the terms of the contract, you must play by it's rules. His marriage was important enough to him to fire the woman he was tempted by, but not to refrain from unprofessional behavior. Rather than back off his attentions, and exhibit self control on his part, he allowed the jealousy of his wife and her insecurity to make the decision for him. Nothing had happened between the man and his assistant except a few unprofessional texts. Texts, that in any other case could have been grounds for sexual harassment, but she didn't feel harassed by him.
Though, I can see how a man could make this decision for the sake of supporting his end of the contract I am a little concerned about what this may mean for women in the workplace in the future.
First, let's address the double standard. Many places have a very specific dress codes for women, some places require makeup, heels, skirts, and adornments. I have met women who were fired after becoming overweight, because their personal appearance no longer fit the image the company wished to convey to the public. The message seems clear, "Be pretty, slightly sexy but not too sexy". While it can be said that some male run companies want to exploit sex appeal for profit there is also the increasing liability when it comes to potential harassment from male employees. There seems to be a fuzzy line about how much is too much.
Then, there is the is the Marriage Question. Do the married have a right to use the legal system to support feelings of insecurity, hearsay, rumor and supposition? Should such legal action be used as a preventative for possible infidelity. Will the supreme court in any state find it necessary to ban women from the workplace because some men can't control their urges? It's like blaming the raped for being raped rather than the rapist. Will one person's insecurity or emotional immaturity now dictate who is hired or fired? This totally let this man off the hook, firing someone HE found tempting made him look like some sort of hero, a champion of traditional marriage. But it does seem to ignore that it was he who initiated inappropriate contact. While she could have created a more solid boundary than mere silence you have to wonder what was going on really?
Is it now to be a crime to get caught with your mental pants down? And why is it up to women to uphold the moral platform of our society? Where are the men here? As spiritual head of household isn't that his job? I suppose in this case he did his job by firing the temptation but honestly why is she the one who has to suffer for something she hadn't even agreed to? If she made no advances and did nothing to suggest or encourage a sexual liaison why should she pay for his potential breech of contract. It does take two to have an affair after all. What's next burkahs?
What's New Pussy Cat? or A New Girl in the FOC
First, I must apologize for such a long absence from blogging but I've been down with a terrible cold or flu and am just beginning to feel like doing more than sleeping. Secondly, Happy Holiday, Merry Christmas, Bright Yule, Happy Hanukkah and Blessed Kwanza.
I've told you that Mad Science has a new prospect right? She is intelligent, attractive, talented and well... seriously interviewing the crap out of us. Not that I wouldn't do the same, it is after all, important to know what you are getting into before you get into it. I've been honest about myself and my position. I've listened and asked for clarification but I have to admit to feeling a tiny bit overwhelmed.
Ok, mentally I know this is normal and that it will change, but there is some small part of me, you know the little part that has no sense of time, that wonders how long this interviewing process will take. I've made clear my position on the issue and now I just have to wait. I am happy for Mad Science, really, maybe a little jealous that his potential metamour is close by, while mine is not. But his happiness is important to me.
There is one other thing, I am a little concerned about, she has this one issue that could cause us to make some personal changes that might be quite expensive for the sake of her health. Changes that she feels would be better for us and our health as well. I have to wonder is it worth that?
All that aside I think the most disturbing thing about all this is not what the Pussycat is doing or how Mad Science is dealing with it but what is coming up for me.
I seem to be losing my mind, I fear. For the moment, I am rational enough to look at the little daycare of emotions that is mine, and see it for what it is. I feel a little angry that I'm not getting enough of Mad Science's quality time. I also wonder that she doesn't seem to understand that when we are having a date night that means we can't talk right now. There is a boundary issue we will have to learn to speak and stick by. There is fear that I will have to change some lifestyle things to suit her comfort. And of course, the fear that he will end what we have for her sake. Silly all of it. Most of it is unrealistic and without foundation but those feelings are what they are regardless of facts. It will take time to come to trust her as I trust my boys.
The truth is I trust Mad Science to make the best decision for the FOC and I will make compromises and adjust for myself as I see reasonable. Let's not be mistaken, I like the Pussycat and I think she would be a valuable asset to the family no matter the level of intimacy. I admire her staunch protection of her own health as a boundary but like many people who are very self championing sometimes the needs, desires and feelings of others may be overlooked all together. For now I will try to calm the childish notions within me and wait and see what happens. This is the first time since Moon-faced girl that I've had to deal with another woman this close up as metamour so we will see if I can make myself behave more sensibly.
In other news Prof is down visiting his family and I've had a couple of stolen days with him over the last week. He will stay with us after Christmas for a couple of days before he has to be back for work. So that has been comforting. I have to wonder what he will think of the new girl and how he will handle the interview process since he isn't a live-in member of the FOC.
I've told you that Mad Science has a new prospect right? She is intelligent, attractive, talented and well... seriously interviewing the crap out of us. Not that I wouldn't do the same, it is after all, important to know what you are getting into before you get into it. I've been honest about myself and my position. I've listened and asked for clarification but I have to admit to feeling a tiny bit overwhelmed.
Ok, mentally I know this is normal and that it will change, but there is some small part of me, you know the little part that has no sense of time, that wonders how long this interviewing process will take. I've made clear my position on the issue and now I just have to wait. I am happy for Mad Science, really, maybe a little jealous that his potential metamour is close by, while mine is not. But his happiness is important to me.
There is one other thing, I am a little concerned about, she has this one issue that could cause us to make some personal changes that might be quite expensive for the sake of her health. Changes that she feels would be better for us and our health as well. I have to wonder is it worth that?
All that aside I think the most disturbing thing about all this is not what the Pussycat is doing or how Mad Science is dealing with it but what is coming up for me.
I seem to be losing my mind, I fear. For the moment, I am rational enough to look at the little daycare of emotions that is mine, and see it for what it is. I feel a little angry that I'm not getting enough of Mad Science's quality time. I also wonder that she doesn't seem to understand that when we are having a date night that means we can't talk right now. There is a boundary issue we will have to learn to speak and stick by. There is fear that I will have to change some lifestyle things to suit her comfort. And of course, the fear that he will end what we have for her sake. Silly all of it. Most of it is unrealistic and without foundation but those feelings are what they are regardless of facts. It will take time to come to trust her as I trust my boys.
The truth is I trust Mad Science to make the best decision for the FOC and I will make compromises and adjust for myself as I see reasonable. Let's not be mistaken, I like the Pussycat and I think she would be a valuable asset to the family no matter the level of intimacy. I admire her staunch protection of her own health as a boundary but like many people who are very self championing sometimes the needs, desires and feelings of others may be overlooked all together. For now I will try to calm the childish notions within me and wait and see what happens. This is the first time since Moon-faced girl that I've had to deal with another woman this close up as metamour so we will see if I can make myself behave more sensibly.
In other news Prof is down visiting his family and I've had a couple of stolen days with him over the last week. He will stay with us after Christmas for a couple of days before he has to be back for work. So that has been comforting. I have to wonder what he will think of the new girl and how he will handle the interview process since he isn't a live-in member of the FOC.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
What's wrong with Just the way it is now?
Ok, I admit it. I am guilty of wanting to push something beyond it's current usefulness. I want the three of us to live under one roof or at the very least in the same town. It would be... convenient for me and arguably more convenient for them. The less I spend on travel, and the less traveling I must do the more time I have to spend with my guys. That said we had to talk this week.
I have said before I have a dreadful allergy to cats. Prof is a cat person, he has two. A week at his house is miserable for me without being so doped up I'm not really there. Prof is a single guy, who lives in an apartment, who has a skill set that would be useful in a number of settings but who stubbornly holds on to his sense of place, benefits of his job, and friends as reasons not to look for work closer or make the move. He admits he feels like a jerk about it when we discuss it. Though Mad Science and I are willing to move, given the right circumstances, we have a lot more to manage. Does the more heavily committed end of the FOC outweigh the needs and commitments of one person?
Honestly, no. But sometimes I feel insecure about the functionality of our current set up in the long term. Please note its been a decade, this has worked, changed and evolved over a decade and is still long distance. So I got thinking. Is it ok for that to be enough?
I asked Prof and he does like this set up, it works for him. He has all the comforts of bachelor life and married life. Though it's true he doesn't have me in proximity as much as he would like. That said he hasn't taken many steps to change that, either by finding someone else close that is available or to be here with me.
The question I really had to ask myself is: Is the end result of "marriage" the natural and only acceptable outcome for having an intimate relationship? Is my source family less family because we live far apart? No, if we want more contact or more time we just make plans for that. Is it less loving if we don't spend a ton of time together? We may not feel as close but we are still family and if one of us had a need for comfort there would be someone there for them. This is no less true in the FOC. If it is in our power we would do what must be done to support each other. Is living together necessary? Not as such. More convenient, yes. Essential, maybe not.
We all recognize our part in this. We cannot knowingly blame our unhappiness on another person. If I want a car sooner, I could get a part time job and make more money towards it. If Prof is unhappy with the situation, there are things he can do to ease the distress. Since the allergy thing is such a big health issue for me I am taking steps to adjust my treatment plan. Now that the shots are no longer working we will be discussing other options. Prof will be keeping his apartment cleaner and will be using the hepa filter more often as a way to help increase my comfort when visiting. Mad Science likes his bachelor time and consequently adds to the funds for trips. So we all observe what is discomforting and make compromises accordingly.
I also needed to know if Prof wanted more and what we could do if he did.
I have said before I have a dreadful allergy to cats. Prof is a cat person, he has two. A week at his house is miserable for me without being so doped up I'm not really there. Prof is a single guy, who lives in an apartment, who has a skill set that would be useful in a number of settings but who stubbornly holds on to his sense of place, benefits of his job, and friends as reasons not to look for work closer or make the move. He admits he feels like a jerk about it when we discuss it. Though Mad Science and I are willing to move, given the right circumstances, we have a lot more to manage. Does the more heavily committed end of the FOC outweigh the needs and commitments of one person?
Honestly, no. But sometimes I feel insecure about the functionality of our current set up in the long term. Please note its been a decade, this has worked, changed and evolved over a decade and is still long distance. So I got thinking. Is it ok for that to be enough?
I asked Prof and he does like this set up, it works for him. He has all the comforts of bachelor life and married life. Though it's true he doesn't have me in proximity as much as he would like. That said he hasn't taken many steps to change that, either by finding someone else close that is available or to be here with me.
The question I really had to ask myself is: Is the end result of "marriage" the natural and only acceptable outcome for having an intimate relationship? Is my source family less family because we live far apart? No, if we want more contact or more time we just make plans for that. Is it less loving if we don't spend a ton of time together? We may not feel as close but we are still family and if one of us had a need for comfort there would be someone there for them. This is no less true in the FOC. If it is in our power we would do what must be done to support each other. Is living together necessary? Not as such. More convenient, yes. Essential, maybe not.
We all recognize our part in this. We cannot knowingly blame our unhappiness on another person. If I want a car sooner, I could get a part time job and make more money towards it. If Prof is unhappy with the situation, there are things he can do to ease the distress. Since the allergy thing is such a big health issue for me I am taking steps to adjust my treatment plan. Now that the shots are no longer working we will be discussing other options. Prof will be keeping his apartment cleaner and will be using the hepa filter more often as a way to help increase my comfort when visiting. Mad Science likes his bachelor time and consequently adds to the funds for trips. So we all observe what is discomforting and make compromises accordingly.
I also needed to know if Prof wanted more and what we could do if he did.
Daddy Daughter date-night what's wrong with this picture
Ok I read this article. Dad's, you don't own your daughters on OXjane. It reminded me of the extreme end of this idea, father daughter incest. It also reminded me of the marque of the Chick-fil-a in my area which was hosting a Daddy-daughter date night and yes big D for daddy little d for daughter.
Don't such things as purity balls and date nights encourage and support ownership behaviors? Why date night and not outing? Dating implies some sexual tension an adult activity for the purpose of spousal or at least sexual partner interviews. Is that appropriate? I personally don't think so. It's too close to the line for me. For a man to truly believe that he has more right to make choices for his daughter regarding her sexuality and what she does with her body, than she does is wrong. I feel it's wrong for a mom to disparage anyone her son dates as "some slut trying to take away my baby".
Parenting isn't about ownership. It's responsibility is not to make mini-me carbon copies of oneself who ease your work burden, or pay your way or care for you later in life. Kids are people who are essentially on loan. The joy of parenthood should be watching someone you have nurtured be able to make it on their own and think and feel for themselves and succeed. Too many parents are worried about conformity to "traditional" ideas. Too worried about being "good" parents. I have children myself, which I did not raise because I was worried that my family curse would pass to them through my dysfunctional parenting. Not that I believed I owned and had a right to abuse them but that I knew I didn't have any useful skills and didn't want to damage them bumbling around for answers on responsible parenting.
Incest taught me that a man has a right to your body period. My mother's silence on this was complicit. I have since made my own responsible way of it but I started adulthood with a huge deficit in self respect and good sense which has taken many years to acquire.
As a young woman uncertain of what to do with her life, marriage seemed most likely and though I did not want children for the above stated reasons, I had them. I think lots of people find themselves in my position.
I do have to say that a solid father daughter relationship can be a good thing. And not everyone who feels the tension acts on it but it is a slippery slope. Ownership, to objectification, to abuse. It's not so far fetched when incest and emotional abuse are pretty prevalent.
Don't such things as purity balls and date nights encourage and support ownership behaviors? Why date night and not outing? Dating implies some sexual tension an adult activity for the purpose of spousal or at least sexual partner interviews. Is that appropriate? I personally don't think so. It's too close to the line for me. For a man to truly believe that he has more right to make choices for his daughter regarding her sexuality and what she does with her body, than she does is wrong. I feel it's wrong for a mom to disparage anyone her son dates as "some slut trying to take away my baby".
Parenting isn't about ownership. It's responsibility is not to make mini-me carbon copies of oneself who ease your work burden, or pay your way or care for you later in life. Kids are people who are essentially on loan. The joy of parenthood should be watching someone you have nurtured be able to make it on their own and think and feel for themselves and succeed. Too many parents are worried about conformity to "traditional" ideas. Too worried about being "good" parents. I have children myself, which I did not raise because I was worried that my family curse would pass to them through my dysfunctional parenting. Not that I believed I owned and had a right to abuse them but that I knew I didn't have any useful skills and didn't want to damage them bumbling around for answers on responsible parenting.
Incest taught me that a man has a right to your body period. My mother's silence on this was complicit. I have since made my own responsible way of it but I started adulthood with a huge deficit in self respect and good sense which has taken many years to acquire.
As a young woman uncertain of what to do with her life, marriage seemed most likely and though I did not want children for the above stated reasons, I had them. I think lots of people find themselves in my position.
I do have to say that a solid father daughter relationship can be a good thing. And not everyone who feels the tension acts on it but it is a slippery slope. Ownership, to objectification, to abuse. It's not so far fetched when incest and emotional abuse are pretty prevalent.
Censorship
For me, censorship is an individual choice not a societal responsibility. Censorship also has another side... privacy. I'll address both of those in a minute but first a word from the dictionary...
Censorship: The official practice of examining media with the purpose of finding and suppressing undesirable material.
Privacy: The state or condition of being free from being observed by other people.
In this context, to be seen is to be judged as ok or not. The ever present "they" will tell you it is meant to keep what "should" be private, private for the protection society and it's structure. I think maybe more often it is to protect some idea that if it isn't talked about, questioned and examined it doesn't have to be dealt with, or recognized. Why some things and not others? And who has the right to determine this for everyone. Is a coarse expletive dangerous or offensive in and of itself without some understood meaning? Or is it the meaning that is the problem? If I say fuck for no reason in particular without inflection, one only has it's implied meaning to go on. If I say FUCK!! when I am angry it means something different than if I were to scream it during sex. Is it offensive because sex and anger have no place in "polite society"? Or is it that there are more useful and less offensive words to get the point across? Why are some words offensive and others are not? Asparagus is a pretty innocuous word if we start screaming asparagus when angry or having sex won't it then, over time, become a "swear word"?
Censorship is the sense that we should somehow make society responsible for the safety and protection of our personal agenda and sensibilities. In other words, making the world a more comfortable place by allowing some other system to make choices about what is acceptable and then imposing this on everyone on our behalf. This then absolves us of the responsibility of making those choices actively for ourselves and our children in a situation by situation basis. The problem with this type of idea is that you then, have to force or coerce everyone to agree about what should be censored, who has the right to do that for you? Me? Definitely not.
Look at what is censored, swear words, notably, the misuse of the divine for the profane, and many topics related to sex and orientation and their expression, are considered sensible for censorship. What I find offensive may differ from what society finds generally offensive, for example, cruelty, and violence. The thing is, I don't have to watch those things that give me nightmares. Sufficiently warned of content, there are things I don't engage in. If I find myself uninformed and am caught by surprise I can turn it off, put it down, walk away, and move on. I don't have to ban slasher films because I don't feel ok with them for myself. I don't watch the news or tv in general for this reason.
I don't watch religious programing or affiliate with a group because I feel religion is and should be a private thing. I can't ban open practice of religion or shut down network television but there are those who would actively quell any expression of love.
A less political example, but one that particularly gets on my nerves, is the Walmart tantrum. Some of you are nodding, I know. The parent who will allow a three year old to be left two aisles away screaming but will stop children from laughing and cutting up. I can't stop the parent from behaving this way in the face of an out of control child but why should one state have preference over another? Because one is easier on those around them? I have left a theater because of a screaming baby. Is it wrong for the child to scream? No, babies cry. Can I expect a parent to remove themselves from a situation for the comfort of others? Not realistically, especially since there is a sense of elevated status from being a parent in our society such status that brings with it a sense of entitlement.
If censorship is meant to keep some things hidden from view then what about privacy.
Why are some things held private rather than public? Censorship of self is inherent in the concept. Why censor all or part of one's person for the comfort of others? Why is it so important to wave some kind of identity flag? Are we less private to force some universal acceptance even of things we ourselves would not choose?
Has our society been victim to so much secrecy in the past that now, nothing is held as private? Do we rail against observing such privacy because the stakes for "being seen and accepted" are now so high? Must we go to ever more radical ends to be seen and validated. And how much of that is about being seen as special or unique?
I've heard privacy touted as being about self respect. I can see this in some ways but is it really the reason? Could it be that it's about shame and control. There are just things it is deemed inconsiderate to others to share because it is shameful or embarrassing to the listener. A note here on personal respect and privacy. I personally believe that there are things that should be private, sex, some of my choices and the reasons for them, and my religion if I have one. These reflect personal ideals that really are no one's business and are therefore not subject to scrutiny and acceptance of others, all things being equal.
If I masturbate once a day it's not someone else's right to know or censor unless we have that arrangement between us. If I pray and meditate everyday it's between me and the power I subscribe to. My innermost thoughts are private. Why? Because a judgement of whether they are right or wrong is not up for debate. They are right or wrong for me, that is what privacy is for. My ideas and beliefs change periodically but less because of outside approval than because I have examined them for usefulness and adjusted as necessary but I am introspective not everyone is interested in such activity.
Some claim without censorship society would fall apart. I would say to those people to trust humanity and stop being so offended all the time. I also ask how much is that offense manufactured? How much of what we are "offended" by is how we really feel or pretense for others? How much of what is supposed to be censored is because it is censored rather than because it is right or useful?
Then there is the question of privacy and security. We, at least in America, have slowly by degrees given up our rights to privacy for the sake of the illusion of security. Like a frog who gently boils to death, we gradually sell ourselves out. Being frisked in the airport or being scanned in a machine to prove we are eligible to fly in a plane without risking the safety of other passengers. Many have railed against the indignity of it but still fly. Or when someone throws a rock through my window with slut written on it after I have clearly advertised my sexual behavior do I have a right to feel offended? It seems our whole problem is based on "see all of me and accept me" on one side and "shut up and we will leave you alone on the other". Always us vs them. So a happy medium, be responsible for your own choices, be considerate of yourself if not of others and don't wave a flag you aren't willing to go fight for, if you don't want to be judged don't share so much and extend to others the kindnesses you hope for yourself.
What should be seen? Well, injustice and abuse in the system, bigotry and prejudice of all kinds. The more we expose these things the more we have the ability, as a society, to make decisions and reinvent what is acceptable without right and wrong having to be in the control of the government or religion. Certainly, think anything you like, believe it if you must, but once that belief becomes an action that seeks to limit the behavior of another person especially if their behavior isn't harming you personally it is no longer useful to cohesive and harmonious living. You can't cry peace and use a baseball bat to achieve it. The truth is much that has become socially acceptable has disappeared from the offensive scale. Interracial marriage, once a great offense to some, is rarely talked about except in the most bigoted of circles. Kink in general is another place that seems to be gaining ground, marijuana use and alternative family structures will too. Soon it will only offend the most rigid religionist to see two men holding hands in public or shopping together with their children. Maybe one day war and violence will fall out of vogue in our society and there really can be peace.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Going with the flow: blood and sex
Ok, erogenous blog had a thing about this and since I was pretty political last week and haven't really talked about sex much, let's do something different.
What is the deal with blood and sex? Some folks happily will have sex while a woman is menstruating some will not. What I want to know is this; is the unwillingness about being blood shy or is it more the "unclean" taboo of this mighty miracle?
This was once a sacred time. One in which women were segregated, not because they were unclean but because they wielded a greater level of energy at this time. Such a state made them ripe for the insight that would help them bring greater peace, prosperity and healing to their people. Consequently, they were venerated and cared for gently to encourage the wisdom to flow.
With the advent of popular religions this has changed. A woman's bleed time is considered dirty, any suffering involved was a sign of our inferiority or weakness and therefore out, when it comes to sex. We are labeled bitches, we cry randomly, we are a bundles of nerves and get little sympathy, understanding or courtesy on the subject. So we don't talk about it, we hide any signs that this is happening, we feel ashamed somehow that our bodies do this amazing monthly remodel.
Since there is so much focus on romanticizing blood, as our culture is more and more enamored with vampiric themes, I wonder why it isn't more popular to have sex during menses. I always thought it would be useful (if a vampire) to just have women who cycle at different times and always have a supply without all the fussy scaring that gets your head removed and a stake through your heart. If that made you squeamish I'm sorry but why not? It's only blood.
Sex helps it start, helps it stop, and a flood of feel good endorphins makes the cramping go away for a little bit. Why do you think we want so much chocolate? We bought red towels and dark sheets especially for this sort of thing. Certainly, it can be messy at times but bodies, sheets and towels are totally washable, and if condoms work for anal sex why not this? So when asked, if you feel a little weirded out, be honest but be willing to try. You may find redwings are a good thing and it's only natural.
What is the deal with blood and sex? Some folks happily will have sex while a woman is menstruating some will not. What I want to know is this; is the unwillingness about being blood shy or is it more the "unclean" taboo of this mighty miracle?
This was once a sacred time. One in which women were segregated, not because they were unclean but because they wielded a greater level of energy at this time. Such a state made them ripe for the insight that would help them bring greater peace, prosperity and healing to their people. Consequently, they were venerated and cared for gently to encourage the wisdom to flow.
With the advent of popular religions this has changed. A woman's bleed time is considered dirty, any suffering involved was a sign of our inferiority or weakness and therefore out, when it comes to sex. We are labeled bitches, we cry randomly, we are a bundles of nerves and get little sympathy, understanding or courtesy on the subject. So we don't talk about it, we hide any signs that this is happening, we feel ashamed somehow that our bodies do this amazing monthly remodel.
Since there is so much focus on romanticizing blood, as our culture is more and more enamored with vampiric themes, I wonder why it isn't more popular to have sex during menses. I always thought it would be useful (if a vampire) to just have women who cycle at different times and always have a supply without all the fussy scaring that gets your head removed and a stake through your heart. If that made you squeamish I'm sorry but why not? It's only blood.
Sex helps it start, helps it stop, and a flood of feel good endorphins makes the cramping go away for a little bit. Why do you think we want so much chocolate? We bought red towels and dark sheets especially for this sort of thing. Certainly, it can be messy at times but bodies, sheets and towels are totally washable, and if condoms work for anal sex why not this? So when asked, if you feel a little weirded out, be honest but be willing to try. You may find redwings are a good thing and it's only natural.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Human is Human
I read the following link: Why is intelligence the measure of ultimate human worth?
Our government funded educational system doesn't really celebrate and encourage excellence, of course it wasn't designed to. The control is to shape people into compliant automatons who run the hamster wheel of work and consume and don't rock the boat more than they can afford to.
I will admit to railing about that loud stubborn minority of, narrow minded bigots who trot out their elitist ways, flailing to keep something that is just theirs, because they feel they are somehow most right. I find people who protect archaic memes to be off putting and less humane or less enlightened than those of us who are rational, intelligent and flexible. You see, I am guilty of their game, but backwards. I value intelligence, a lot. My own and intelligence in others. The world would be too boring if there weren't thoughtful discourse that constantly questions the rules of the game and my place in it. So it's time to question my position. Is my hate for what I perceive as willfully stupid people really justified? And do I have more right to truth than they do?
There are people who fear to turn themselves inside out for the sake of finding truth, maybe it's like polyamory, it isn't for everyone. There are people who never really question the beliefs they carry, or the traditions they practice. Does that make them less valuable and unworthy of my passionate defense? No. Not really. Everything serves a purpose and has value.
So, to focus on resolving this, I intend to thoughtfully entertain the points of view I find so horrible. I mean, to prove that acceptance is the answer. Can I listen quietly, without judgement and without allowing myself to check the "monster" box, thereby dehumanizing those I feel better than. Can I refrain from the very thing I accuse them of? Can I see their humanity beyond their ideas?
How can I cry freedom, freedom and still allow them the right to think, feel, and act, directly against it. I'm not saying I am going to stop advocating against injustice. I just want to look at what harm I may be causing by the attitude and desire to act directly against their freedom.
We talked about Feminism and the harm it does. It takes a lovely idea that women can be trusted to make decisions about their own lives then marginalizes those who use their right to choose, to let a man be their head, or stay home with their kids. There is a point when the fighting becomes so radical and so far from realistic that they just sound like 3 year olds having a tantrum about getting a smaller cookie. That's how the traditionalists sound when they whine about Marriage. They say "Marriage is our toy and you can't play with it or have one just like it cause our gods love us more." or When angry African Americans act like they own "Civil Rights" so no one else can use it. Or when we stand with our rainbow flags and signs long after the violence stops, crying about whatever it is we will be crying when that day comes.
Not to minimize the struggle, of any of these groups and not to say their jobs are finished but at some point we all have to look around and remember we are all human beings. At some point the ferocity of the struggle is less useful. We get so used to waving our flags and shouting our slogans, we don't know when we have won. And it is in this way that the intelligent and the less intelligent among us are equal. We all cry to be heard, to seem valuable, to belong, to be seen and recognized as fully human. With all our stubborn wrongness and messy process be want to know that we have a right to be here and that it is ok to be who we are, even when we are wrong and frightened.
Does that mean any one group has a right to snatch the rights of others away by their actions? Absolutely not. Does it mean we have a right to close the mouths of others for our comfort? No. But it does mean that maybe a realistic look at the fundamental demand is in order. What is real equality going to look like? Is it you getting more rights than me because your people have been more picked on? Is there entitlement attached? Then it isn't equality. It's letting go of fear and remembering that ideas don't make a person valuable. What makes a human human is that they are here presenting as homo sapiens. Since we are all sort of stuck here together we ought to fight less and listen more. A fundamentalist said that to me, maybe I should listen.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
The F word
I am not talking about my favorite expletive either, I am talking about feminism. The first thing that comes to mind are man hating female supremacists that want to make society a matriarchy. Ok, that is the extreme just as the "patriarchy" is seen as a strict male centered world where women are disrespected and treated like objects and property rather than people. They are opposites on the spectrum on this supposed battle of the sexes and hardly the reality.
I don't want to enter a pissing contest with men on a "who is more oppressed basis". We are equally oppressed by the same norms just in different ways.
My definition of feminism is less exclusionary. Feminism for me is about choice. Masculine-ism should be too. We should have the right to perform in a relationship based on actual skills and self recognized identity than on a norm that is not the "only acceptable" or average state. When gender ceases to be the primary indicator for role and skill set in our society we may be less stressed out by behavior models. There must be patience with humankind because there is a often a long adjustment period for society as a whole. A redefinition period where the majority must refashion what is acceptable and this must be done all together for those who identify as men, women, both or neither. We are people, with skills and abilities that compliment some one else's skills and abilities. The bundling of gender and behavior is a control mechanism to create a dominant order in a society and is oppressive to all sides.
There is also the hardwired physical evidence to consider. Science has adequately proven that primally speaking our bodies are made for different tasks. Women have more rods and cones in their eyes which detect more color variation. Anthropologically, it is assumed this is a mechanism to aid in the gathering of food. Many plants look alike and poison knowledge is essential to survival in a primal setting. Women also hear sound in a higher range than men, children in distress tend to emit high pitched sounds. Women experience cold in their extremities more, presumably because all the body heat is focused on the baby producing core of the body. Men tend to develop verbal language skills at a later time but rather than this being the bane of primal man it is essential in group hunting to be able to communicate in a minimalist non verbal way. Men tend to be stronger thanks to testosterone which also makes procreation more likely and defense more effective.
The body's are what they are, and evolution and adaptation are slow. We have socially grown out of a need for these basic reflexes with more sedentary jobs and less fight or flight living. But are we to ignore hardwired reflex? Doesn't that place more stress on us? Can we live and evolve bodily beyond what nature has wired us too? Then there are the anomalies the "98lb weakling" or the "russian female athlete". They are funny stereotypes certainly, but aren't we seeing more of these in places we didn't expect?
The things that make us male or female identified or presented go way beyond body style. Science has a lot to say about the hormonal baths received at certain times during gestation. Every person's experience varies. A missed hormonal trigger provides genetic variance and this presents differently. Could not sexual preference be evidence of this? And what about the heterosexual male who is weak of body and strong in social skills? Or the woman who is bodily strong and not attached to nurturing? Is he less of a blueprint man? Is she automatically a lesbian? Society's dominating tropes would have you think so.
Social science may give you a typical bell curve about who is male and who is female based on bodily presentment but you can't be so sure as to presume anymore. I think this upsets people. Nature doesn't stay in the box we put it in for easy management. Why would humans be any different?
The real problem of radical feminism and it's woman hating opposite is social. It is still trying to force competition rather than cooperation. We are compliments of each other along wired in and learned behavior not necessarily presentment. Isn't it time we were on the same side and isn't it time that we reevaluated why we need strict two gender behavior norms that exclude anomaly? In our fast paced world is the auto-pilot control really better than actively engaging another person as a person rather than a box of expected behaviors?
No wonder women are angry when they have to raise children on less than a man would make for the same job. No wonder men are angry when the rules of engagement change from woman to woman or based on what Cosmo says this month. When will we be ready to take responsibility for our own nature no matter how traditional or not rather than let the rules of overarching acceptability force us to be what we are not? And when will Equality stop being supremacy and go back to being equality?
I don't want to enter a pissing contest with men on a "who is more oppressed basis". We are equally oppressed by the same norms just in different ways.
My definition of feminism is less exclusionary. Feminism for me is about choice. Masculine-ism should be too. We should have the right to perform in a relationship based on actual skills and self recognized identity than on a norm that is not the "only acceptable" or average state. When gender ceases to be the primary indicator for role and skill set in our society we may be less stressed out by behavior models. There must be patience with humankind because there is a often a long adjustment period for society as a whole. A redefinition period where the majority must refashion what is acceptable and this must be done all together for those who identify as men, women, both or neither. We are people, with skills and abilities that compliment some one else's skills and abilities. The bundling of gender and behavior is a control mechanism to create a dominant order in a society and is oppressive to all sides.
There is also the hardwired physical evidence to consider. Science has adequately proven that primally speaking our bodies are made for different tasks. Women have more rods and cones in their eyes which detect more color variation. Anthropologically, it is assumed this is a mechanism to aid in the gathering of food. Many plants look alike and poison knowledge is essential to survival in a primal setting. Women also hear sound in a higher range than men, children in distress tend to emit high pitched sounds. Women experience cold in their extremities more, presumably because all the body heat is focused on the baby producing core of the body. Men tend to develop verbal language skills at a later time but rather than this being the bane of primal man it is essential in group hunting to be able to communicate in a minimalist non verbal way. Men tend to be stronger thanks to testosterone which also makes procreation more likely and defense more effective.
The body's are what they are, and evolution and adaptation are slow. We have socially grown out of a need for these basic reflexes with more sedentary jobs and less fight or flight living. But are we to ignore hardwired reflex? Doesn't that place more stress on us? Can we live and evolve bodily beyond what nature has wired us too? Then there are the anomalies the "98lb weakling" or the "russian female athlete". They are funny stereotypes certainly, but aren't we seeing more of these in places we didn't expect?
The things that make us male or female identified or presented go way beyond body style. Science has a lot to say about the hormonal baths received at certain times during gestation. Every person's experience varies. A missed hormonal trigger provides genetic variance and this presents differently. Could not sexual preference be evidence of this? And what about the heterosexual male who is weak of body and strong in social skills? Or the woman who is bodily strong and not attached to nurturing? Is he less of a blueprint man? Is she automatically a lesbian? Society's dominating tropes would have you think so.
Social science may give you a typical bell curve about who is male and who is female based on bodily presentment but you can't be so sure as to presume anymore. I think this upsets people. Nature doesn't stay in the box we put it in for easy management. Why would humans be any different?
The real problem of radical feminism and it's woman hating opposite is social. It is still trying to force competition rather than cooperation. We are compliments of each other along wired in and learned behavior not necessarily presentment. Isn't it time we were on the same side and isn't it time that we reevaluated why we need strict two gender behavior norms that exclude anomaly? In our fast paced world is the auto-pilot control really better than actively engaging another person as a person rather than a box of expected behaviors?
No wonder women are angry when they have to raise children on less than a man would make for the same job. No wonder men are angry when the rules of engagement change from woman to woman or based on what Cosmo says this month. When will we be ready to take responsibility for our own nature no matter how traditional or not rather than let the rules of overarching acceptability force us to be what we are not? And when will Equality stop being supremacy and go back to being equality?
A Woman's Shelf Life
I have had enough of this anti-feminist crap about a woman's shelf life. As if not being married with children by 40 is going to mean you had better like cats. Some of the comments I have been seeing disturb me. It is possible to be a desirable partner and not want kids or be unable to have kids. It is also possible to find desirable men who want someone over 20. Men don't have a shelf life based on their ability to reproduce why do women?
Being of childbearing ability no matter what your age can't be the only way men pick mates. Additionally, I have observed division of labor along gender typing lines, in lesbian and gay couples. So it's less about who wears the pants as, can this coupling compliment my strengths and weaknesses? I believe we sell men short by assuming they have only one need, to procreate.
Biologically, it is a strong urge and children benefit a great deal from a multi parent household regardless of gender, or number of parents. But to say that a woman's highest claim should be healthy children and a clean house is comparable to saying a man's whole value hinges on whether or not he is a successful provider. If children and wife were all men wanted why are there so many single mothers? I grew up believing that feminism meant choice and that a successful marriage meant that the spouse I choose would see me as a whole person, who is capable of healthy contribution to something greater than my self and my needs. For me that should not include a sell by date.
If a man wants me to defer to his every decision without discussion, and doesn't care to hear my point of view or feelings on a matter that affects me, I am little more than a slave that maintains his vision of a comfortable life for him and his offspring. I also believe that expecting a man to just follow my rules for his behavior without his input or agreement as objectionable. If we aren't in some accord regarding our treatment and expectations of each other it won't work. I am sure there are women out there that are ecstatic to not have to think for themselves and only do the job as defined by traditional standards, it does have an appeal. Not every woman can thrive there though.
Just as every man is not proficient in provision or physical protection of his family, nor is every woman going to be proficient in child bearing, rearing and domestic order. Should we expect that a man is no longer viable as a marriageable choice when he is no longer able to work? I prefer a dynamic interplay of honest feedback between partners over putting so much pressure on a man to think for me and hope that he will act in my best interest.
Such focus on traditional roles is a lot of pressure because we are talking about some ideal which may be different per person and relationship. There are authoritarian men who want total control of spouse and children and should locate a woman who is willing to play that part. There are also men who are open to more egalitarian forms of relationship but still follow traditional roles. It's about preference. I know many men who are better nurturers and women who are better providers.
My point is, can we socially recognize that successful relationships are composed of people who work together in relationship based on each one's ability to compliment the strengths and weaknesses of the other not what's between their legs and whether it functions as expected or not? What do you think?
Being of childbearing ability no matter what your age can't be the only way men pick mates. Additionally, I have observed division of labor along gender typing lines, in lesbian and gay couples. So it's less about who wears the pants as, can this coupling compliment my strengths and weaknesses? I believe we sell men short by assuming they have only one need, to procreate.
Biologically, it is a strong urge and children benefit a great deal from a multi parent household regardless of gender, or number of parents. But to say that a woman's highest claim should be healthy children and a clean house is comparable to saying a man's whole value hinges on whether or not he is a successful provider. If children and wife were all men wanted why are there so many single mothers? I grew up believing that feminism meant choice and that a successful marriage meant that the spouse I choose would see me as a whole person, who is capable of healthy contribution to something greater than my self and my needs. For me that should not include a sell by date.
If a man wants me to defer to his every decision without discussion, and doesn't care to hear my point of view or feelings on a matter that affects me, I am little more than a slave that maintains his vision of a comfortable life for him and his offspring. I also believe that expecting a man to just follow my rules for his behavior without his input or agreement as objectionable. If we aren't in some accord regarding our treatment and expectations of each other it won't work. I am sure there are women out there that are ecstatic to not have to think for themselves and only do the job as defined by traditional standards, it does have an appeal. Not every woman can thrive there though.
Just as every man is not proficient in provision or physical protection of his family, nor is every woman going to be proficient in child bearing, rearing and domestic order. Should we expect that a man is no longer viable as a marriageable choice when he is no longer able to work? I prefer a dynamic interplay of honest feedback between partners over putting so much pressure on a man to think for me and hope that he will act in my best interest.
Such focus on traditional roles is a lot of pressure because we are talking about some ideal which may be different per person and relationship. There are authoritarian men who want total control of spouse and children and should locate a woman who is willing to play that part. There are also men who are open to more egalitarian forms of relationship but still follow traditional roles. It's about preference. I know many men who are better nurturers and women who are better providers.
My point is, can we socially recognize that successful relationships are composed of people who work together in relationship based on each one's ability to compliment the strengths and weaknesses of the other not what's between their legs and whether it functions as expected or not? What do you think?
Monday, November 26, 2012
Is Kink the new normal and is it hurting us?
http://www.xojane.com/sex/when-did-kinky-become-the-new-normal-and-am-i-the-last-woman-on-the-world-having-vanilla-sex
The Redhead Bedhead has done it again she posted something provocative to think and write about. Read the article and come back.
Vanilla Sex is great. I love a session of full body contact lovemaking. I haven't always felt that way but I learned a lot about myself when I explored kink. Safe, Sane and Consensual is the kink mantra whether your thing is whips and chains or shouting and name calling or anything in between. A couple I know sees the Beaver Cleaver marriage as kink. She dresses retro at home and does all the cooking and cleaning and does pretty much what he wants in the bedroom. But that isn't where they came from. She used to be a research physicist and made a chunk of change, now she is a stay at home wife by choice. It's like normal right? Their experiment.
We started with BDSM and worked our way back to vanilla too. My parents had kink down, a little too much for my young eyes but kink wasn't whips and chains then it was orgies and poly and free love because they came from Beav's house ideal. So it's all about perspective right?
She does ask a question that I find interesting though. Is the pop focus on kink making man to woman violence a sexy thing? Of course we know that BDSM is consensual. It is even asked for and planned out. The sub is in control. Dom's control is an illusory state that can be revoked or stopped at any time. If it isn't it's not safe, sane or consensual, it's abusive violence.
But among the uninformed when they see images of violence does it translate effectively? Do the newly sexual feel pressure to perform such things? And will this view of kink lead to more violent behavior, by the violent, using kink as an excuse? Already there is a great deal of violence among partners and not just man to woman violence either. I wonder if, as a society, we see so much more violence and sex that is violent or bumbling and uninformed if we aren't confused about what healthy sex even is supposed to look like. Not saying that BDSM is unhealthy. I wonder if you just see the trappings and read badly written erotica on the subject do you really know how it works. Until you converse about it and sometimes experience it can you know?
I for one don't think kink is the new normal. I also think BDSM should be left to those willing to do the thoughtful research and respectful communication involved that make it useful and exciting.
I wonder if it's not part of our privacy disease. Many of us grew up with little or no good information about healthy sex. Add twisted media offerings and bad advice from our peers and you have an informational mess. There were so many taboo subjects as kids, maybe our generation says too much. Of course knowing you have choices is great but real honest conversation about dynamics and healthy handling of those things isn't really talked about. Sex is exciting, rules, for most of us, are not.
So what do you think? Is kink presented as an option with no more real world information about how it works and is that hurtful? Are are we just more violent?
The Redhead Bedhead has done it again she posted something provocative to think and write about. Read the article and come back.
Vanilla Sex is great. I love a session of full body contact lovemaking. I haven't always felt that way but I learned a lot about myself when I explored kink. Safe, Sane and Consensual is the kink mantra whether your thing is whips and chains or shouting and name calling or anything in between. A couple I know sees the Beaver Cleaver marriage as kink. She dresses retro at home and does all the cooking and cleaning and does pretty much what he wants in the bedroom. But that isn't where they came from. She used to be a research physicist and made a chunk of change, now she is a stay at home wife by choice. It's like normal right? Their experiment.
We started with BDSM and worked our way back to vanilla too. My parents had kink down, a little too much for my young eyes but kink wasn't whips and chains then it was orgies and poly and free love because they came from Beav's house ideal. So it's all about perspective right?
She does ask a question that I find interesting though. Is the pop focus on kink making man to woman violence a sexy thing? Of course we know that BDSM is consensual. It is even asked for and planned out. The sub is in control. Dom's control is an illusory state that can be revoked or stopped at any time. If it isn't it's not safe, sane or consensual, it's abusive violence.
But among the uninformed when they see images of violence does it translate effectively? Do the newly sexual feel pressure to perform such things? And will this view of kink lead to more violent behavior, by the violent, using kink as an excuse? Already there is a great deal of violence among partners and not just man to woman violence either. I wonder if, as a society, we see so much more violence and sex that is violent or bumbling and uninformed if we aren't confused about what healthy sex even is supposed to look like. Not saying that BDSM is unhealthy. I wonder if you just see the trappings and read badly written erotica on the subject do you really know how it works. Until you converse about it and sometimes experience it can you know?
I for one don't think kink is the new normal. I also think BDSM should be left to those willing to do the thoughtful research and respectful communication involved that make it useful and exciting.
I wonder if it's not part of our privacy disease. Many of us grew up with little or no good information about healthy sex. Add twisted media offerings and bad advice from our peers and you have an informational mess. There were so many taboo subjects as kids, maybe our generation says too much. Of course knowing you have choices is great but real honest conversation about dynamics and healthy handling of those things isn't really talked about. Sex is exciting, rules, for most of us, are not.
So what do you think? Is kink presented as an option with no more real world information about how it works and is that hurtful? Are are we just more violent?
Friday, November 23, 2012
Excuses Are Just Petrified Would
I am trying to stop making excuses beyond yes and no. You know what I mean when someone says: "Why didn't you call me?" or "Can you come to this event?"
It's always "No, because X." "I was going to but.... Why isn't it good enough to just say yes, or no. Sometimes the "good reason" is because time alone was more important than time together. That should be ok. Why isn't it?
"Because it was something I thought I wanted to do or didn't want to do." should be enough when probed. I shouldn't have to lay out some laundry list of lame acceptable items. I was too sick, too tired, too broke. I also shouldn't have to go into why I don't like to hang out with some people some times or in some situations. Those reasons are my business and not open for discussion until I am in a better state of mind.
I wonder if this is primarily a girl problem, part of the programing. We must have excuses so we sound more busy than we are, or apologetic and sensitive perhaps, I'm not at all sure I sound any better making excuses. Their feelings aren't my business if the delivery is done with kindness I've done what I could for me and them.
What do you say? Can you take a simple yes or no without asking why?
It's always "No, because X." "I was going to but.... Why isn't it good enough to just say yes, or no. Sometimes the "good reason" is because time alone was more important than time together. That should be ok. Why isn't it?
"Because it was something I thought I wanted to do or didn't want to do." should be enough when probed. I shouldn't have to lay out some laundry list of lame acceptable items. I was too sick, too tired, too broke. I also shouldn't have to go into why I don't like to hang out with some people some times or in some situations. Those reasons are my business and not open for discussion until I am in a better state of mind.
I wonder if this is primarily a girl problem, part of the programing. We must have excuses so we sound more busy than we are, or apologetic and sensitive perhaps, I'm not at all sure I sound any better making excuses. Their feelings aren't my business if the delivery is done with kindness I've done what I could for me and them.
What do you say? Can you take a simple yes or no without asking why?
Thursday, November 22, 2012
A little thank you goes a long way.
As it's thanksgiving here in the States I thought I would talk a little about thank you in our poly pond. Thank you is more than just a thing you say when you get what you want. It isn't an auto response when getting your way. A real honest thank you is a moment of appreciation of another person for something they have done. I can clean house for myself all day but it makes the job easier if Mad Sci or Prof say they appreciate it whether it's directly said or that grateful sigh of comfort when they come into a clean space.
Gratitude is also active at my house. Mad Sci shows it by building stuff or doing a load of laundry or dishes. I show it by getting up a little early and fixing him some cocoa or breakfast. I may make a special effort text little love notes during the day. In daily life it's so easy to tell instead of ask and to acknowledge rather than thank. A tiny thing that makes a huge impact. So the next time you see someone do something nice, even if it's not for you, thank them.
I must go to my source families house and thank them by eating the lovely food they have worked so hard to prepare. Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
Gratitude is also active at my house. Mad Sci shows it by building stuff or doing a load of laundry or dishes. I show it by getting up a little early and fixing him some cocoa or breakfast. I may make a special effort text little love notes during the day. In daily life it's so easy to tell instead of ask and to acknowledge rather than thank. A tiny thing that makes a huge impact. So the next time you see someone do something nice, even if it's not for you, thank them.
I must go to my source families house and thank them by eating the lovely food they have worked so hard to prepare. Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Tease vs Slut
Redhead Bedhead had a great video about the Psychology of Slut on her site. http://www.redheadbedhead.com/thoughts-on-the-psychology-of-slut/
You can check out her article and the video at the link above. I just want to add my two cents here.
The problem with slut shaming is it's about control. Just another way to put women and girls in small boxes to keep us predictable and knowable. If a man enjoys a healthy active sex life he is celebrated as a stud. The problem is slut shaming does have some impact on us. What happens is we feel we have to hide our needs, enjoyment, and control of our sexual lives. We in essence become the public service for slutty men, the container for a man's needs, which is where good married girls have lived historically and that's abuse by the way. Way to share your suffering girls! If you don't chose to speak up for your needs, say no when you mean no, tease but don't deliver, have sex when you don't want to, never initiate, and don't care for your contraceptive and disease control needs you are as much a slave to desire as you claim we are. The problem is, you don't enjoy it.
Another problem with the label is it supports some strange idea that if we like sex as women, we will and do sleep with any and all comers, that's not true. It is also assumed we all have low self esteem for some reason or were sexually abused as children. I will admit it does happen and I myself have been there but it isn't always the case. And being slutty does not mean being raped is deserved. Rape is forced subjugation not sex. Real men can control themselves because they live from a place of personal power rather than having to steal it from women.
Why is it that women are supposed to be the moral center of the universe or the greatest evil ever? Why are there no shades of gray? We are human and to be worshiped (vilification is sometimes a jealous reluctant worship) at either extreme is exhausting and not realistic to our needs. We are either your fuck buddy or your mother. Why can't I be a pie baking, house keeping, condom toting hottie with soccer practice pick up in an hour so lets get moving? And just who are all these studs sleeping with? Women who want to have sex and are confident in their desire and actually enjoy and engage.
It's time women were all on the same side again. Sex is good. Science has proven it's many mental and physical health benefits. Done properly sex can be a spiritual experience. Not if you are laying there thinking "I wish he would hurry up." They take what they can get because we let them but if we asked for what we wanted, and began to enjoy sex more I bet men would enjoy it more too. Sex is the most intimate way to engage with another person why not be really present. So teases of the world, the moral standard, please remember next time your sexual needs go unmet think of me. I get it, I enjoy it, and I don't feel a bit guilty.
You can check out her article and the video at the link above. I just want to add my two cents here.
The problem with slut shaming is it's about control. Just another way to put women and girls in small boxes to keep us predictable and knowable. If a man enjoys a healthy active sex life he is celebrated as a stud. The problem is slut shaming does have some impact on us. What happens is we feel we have to hide our needs, enjoyment, and control of our sexual lives. We in essence become the public service for slutty men, the container for a man's needs, which is where good married girls have lived historically and that's abuse by the way. Way to share your suffering girls! If you don't chose to speak up for your needs, say no when you mean no, tease but don't deliver, have sex when you don't want to, never initiate, and don't care for your contraceptive and disease control needs you are as much a slave to desire as you claim we are. The problem is, you don't enjoy it.
Another problem with the label is it supports some strange idea that if we like sex as women, we will and do sleep with any and all comers, that's not true. It is also assumed we all have low self esteem for some reason or were sexually abused as children. I will admit it does happen and I myself have been there but it isn't always the case. And being slutty does not mean being raped is deserved. Rape is forced subjugation not sex. Real men can control themselves because they live from a place of personal power rather than having to steal it from women.
Why is it that women are supposed to be the moral center of the universe or the greatest evil ever? Why are there no shades of gray? We are human and to be worshiped (vilification is sometimes a jealous reluctant worship) at either extreme is exhausting and not realistic to our needs. We are either your fuck buddy or your mother. Why can't I be a pie baking, house keeping, condom toting hottie with soccer practice pick up in an hour so lets get moving? And just who are all these studs sleeping with? Women who want to have sex and are confident in their desire and actually enjoy and engage.
It's time women were all on the same side again. Sex is good. Science has proven it's many mental and physical health benefits. Done properly sex can be a spiritual experience. Not if you are laying there thinking "I wish he would hurry up." They take what they can get because we let them but if we asked for what we wanted, and began to enjoy sex more I bet men would enjoy it more too. Sex is the most intimate way to engage with another person why not be really present. So teases of the world, the moral standard, please remember next time your sexual needs go unmet think of me. I get it, I enjoy it, and I don't feel a bit guilty.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Is monogamy mandatory?
Ok this morning a post on facebook caught my attention. Madatory Monogamy
Doesn't Work Either?
I think the title is maybe not a match for the content but Jasmine does posit an interesting theory in it's title. Is our society really still about monogamy as the only viable choice?
I think, in a lot of ways the "marriage = one man+ one woman" movement is trying to remind us that it is
I do see a lot of LGBTQ folks offended by poly. I had a gay friend say poly was trying to socially 'one up' LGBTQ and take away their right to be equal in society by distracting from the issue. He seemed to think that their way was more right because it was monogamous.
So is the two partner system the most right, and therefore, the only way? Well, if you are asking me the answer would be no. But I do think that society at large will be a long time coming around to this one.
For the moment heterosexual monogamy IS mandatory if you want the 1400 legal rights bestowed on heterosexual taxpayers. Those are privileges, legal recourse for spouses, that they haven't always had, to protect mothers, fathers and children from the less than honest among us. NOT a god given mandate.
That is part of what the fighting is about with LGBTQ and polyamory. That somehow loving committed relationships should all be treated equally in the eyes of the civil law. That difference in orientation should be protected by the civil system to prevent injustice, abuse, and violences current elitists seem to think they can engage in with impunity. Everyone has the right to love. Not everyone has the right to enjoy the privileges of financial and social benefit of marriage. Should that be limited to monogamy of any stripe?
It does come down to morals, but historically what is moral is subjective and it is about what is agreed to for the sake of peace. There was a time when women could not get adequate medical care because they were expendables, property. A time when a man could divorce a woman because she was barren. A time when children could be forced to work off their parents debts. The danger of closing the pandora's box of bestowing blessings on women and children and people of different colors, creeds, abilities and orientations is that we will go back to, injustice for all but the richest. Those would be dark days my friends. Should it be mandatory to be monogamous to get the basic human privileges of security and safety? I say no.
Mandatory monogamy doesn't work for everyone. Just as trying to force people to be same sex oriented or polyamorous would not work. Awareness is what saves us from the frightening unknown. A thing we look to science to support. Diversity in life is what makes it so wonderful and as science speaks on these subjects all but the most crippled will look back and wonder what all the fighting was about.
Doesn't Work Either?
I think the title is maybe not a match for the content but Jasmine does posit an interesting theory in it's title. Is our society really still about monogamy as the only viable choice?
I think, in a lot of ways the "marriage = one man+ one woman" movement is trying to remind us that it is
I do see a lot of LGBTQ folks offended by poly. I had a gay friend say poly was trying to socially 'one up' LGBTQ and take away their right to be equal in society by distracting from the issue. He seemed to think that their way was more right because it was monogamous.
So is the two partner system the most right, and therefore, the only way? Well, if you are asking me the answer would be no. But I do think that society at large will be a long time coming around to this one.
For the moment heterosexual monogamy IS mandatory if you want the 1400 legal rights bestowed on heterosexual taxpayers. Those are privileges, legal recourse for spouses, that they haven't always had, to protect mothers, fathers and children from the less than honest among us. NOT a god given mandate.
That is part of what the fighting is about with LGBTQ and polyamory. That somehow loving committed relationships should all be treated equally in the eyes of the civil law. That difference in orientation should be protected by the civil system to prevent injustice, abuse, and violences current elitists seem to think they can engage in with impunity. Everyone has the right to love. Not everyone has the right to enjoy the privileges of financial and social benefit of marriage. Should that be limited to monogamy of any stripe?
It does come down to morals, but historically what is moral is subjective and it is about what is agreed to for the sake of peace. There was a time when women could not get adequate medical care because they were expendables, property. A time when a man could divorce a woman because she was barren. A time when children could be forced to work off their parents debts. The danger of closing the pandora's box of bestowing blessings on women and children and people of different colors, creeds, abilities and orientations is that we will go back to, injustice for all but the richest. Those would be dark days my friends. Should it be mandatory to be monogamous to get the basic human privileges of security and safety? I say no.
Mandatory monogamy doesn't work for everyone. Just as trying to force people to be same sex oriented or polyamorous would not work. Awareness is what saves us from the frightening unknown. A thing we look to science to support. Diversity in life is what makes it so wonderful and as science speaks on these subjects all but the most crippled will look back and wonder what all the fighting was about.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
In Sickness and in Health
I know in this digital age it seems silly to not blog for a week but I've been battling a cold this week and haven't felt like typing. Xbox yes, typing, not so much. But being sick is a great subject for a blog in the poly life so, here goes.
Remember those days when your aunt or grandma would come stay with you to help your mom out when she was pregnant or sick? No? It maybe happens more in southern families who are matriarchal. But I grew up believing that is what family did, they lent each other a hand when they were down. When we marry we still hear "in sickness and in health". It's one of those things we all feel comforted by, knowing we are important enough to be cared for when we feel like crap.
Over the last couple of weeks Prof has been battling a high fever. I have not been able to get to him to comfort him. The thing is I know realistically there is nothing I can do to solve the problem and I know he is a man and can take care of himself. (Alright girls no laughing.) I do know that my company would cheer him and a little happiness and laughter go a long way toward getting better. This was hard long distance for me because I was afraid to call for fear of catching him napping, which he needs, but I know he wanted to hear my voice. He called and said so. And apparently not even his local friends looked in on him. Either they were too busy or too afraid of catching something they didn't have sick days for.
The Engineer drove a long way with her husband's permission to look in on him for me which I very much appreciated. Stupid car. I can't wait till we have enough saved up to buy a decent car so I can travel when needed again. As yet we still don't really even know what is wrong with him, he's had a number of diagnosis, a couple runs of antibiotics but still they are guessing. Here's hoping he feels better soon. If you are reading send your happy thoughts and/or nice prayers his way.
Remember those days when your aunt or grandma would come stay with you to help your mom out when she was pregnant or sick? No? It maybe happens more in southern families who are matriarchal. But I grew up believing that is what family did, they lent each other a hand when they were down. When we marry we still hear "in sickness and in health". It's one of those things we all feel comforted by, knowing we are important enough to be cared for when we feel like crap.
Over the last couple of weeks Prof has been battling a high fever. I have not been able to get to him to comfort him. The thing is I know realistically there is nothing I can do to solve the problem and I know he is a man and can take care of himself. (Alright girls no laughing.) I do know that my company would cheer him and a little happiness and laughter go a long way toward getting better. This was hard long distance for me because I was afraid to call for fear of catching him napping, which he needs, but I know he wanted to hear my voice. He called and said so. And apparently not even his local friends looked in on him. Either they were too busy or too afraid of catching something they didn't have sick days for.
The Engineer drove a long way with her husband's permission to look in on him for me which I very much appreciated. Stupid car. I can't wait till we have enough saved up to buy a decent car so I can travel when needed again. As yet we still don't really even know what is wrong with him, he's had a number of diagnosis, a couple runs of antibiotics but still they are guessing. Here's hoping he feels better soon. If you are reading send your happy thoughts and/or nice prayers his way.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Happiness in a burning building: How to date the doomed?
I listened to Minx's Polyweekly podcast this week about how to date someone in a doomed long term relationship check it out. http://polyweekly.com/2012/10/pw-339-dating-someone-in-a-doomed-relationship/
We currently have this issue in the FOC. Mad Science, Prof and I are fine, don't worry, but Prof is interested in someone whose "relationshop" is going bankrupt and about to downsize, maybe. So this is what he is doing:
Being a supportive friend. Allowing her time to make her decisions. Making them cheat proof by limiting alone time. And if it does go pear shaped he is prepared to follow the sanity rule. Wait, until she is again sane and allow her to make a decision based on post grief, rather than rushing into another relationship to avoid it.
The one thing our set up supports is NOT being homewreckers. We don't play unless everyone knows and is cool. There are plenty of people in the pond and so there is no sense in taking someone's traditional family life and screwing it up. This doesn't happen alone of course but to be the fuel for someone else's leaving with some vague promise of a better relationship isn't really fair.
But there is a better question here. If they aren't having sex is it still a poly relationship?
I love many people and have relationships with many people I don't have sex with. 3D Dino and I have a mutually beneficial relationship that is mostly intellectual. Would we have sex if the circumstances were different? Possibly, but I do love him. I find him mentally stimulating and enjoy talking to him, debating with him and being probed by him in a mental way. He makes me ask questions I might otherwise miss myself. I like that it adds value to my life.
Griffin and I have discussed sex and though the thought is delightful I prefer her to remain my best friend. Do I love her? Yes. Is she part of my FOC? Yes. Poly isn't just about sex. It's about having the ability to love more intimately with more people. To us the most intimate thing you can do is listen, accept, and be supportive. You can fuck anyone without feelings or commitment but real love is about mutual respect, interest, and consideration for another person. So is he in a poly relationship with the Engineer? I think so, because he does all those things for her. Are they happy in this burning building? To some extent because there is comfort and satisfaction of mutual support and respect. Will it stay this way? He isn't holding his breath for her to leave her hubby but no situation is static, who knows what it will become.
We currently have this issue in the FOC. Mad Science, Prof and I are fine, don't worry, but Prof is interested in someone whose "relationshop" is going bankrupt and about to downsize, maybe. So this is what he is doing:
Being a supportive friend. Allowing her time to make her decisions. Making them cheat proof by limiting alone time. And if it does go pear shaped he is prepared to follow the sanity rule. Wait, until she is again sane and allow her to make a decision based on post grief, rather than rushing into another relationship to avoid it.
The one thing our set up supports is NOT being homewreckers. We don't play unless everyone knows and is cool. There are plenty of people in the pond and so there is no sense in taking someone's traditional family life and screwing it up. This doesn't happen alone of course but to be the fuel for someone else's leaving with some vague promise of a better relationship isn't really fair.
But there is a better question here. If they aren't having sex is it still a poly relationship?
I love many people and have relationships with many people I don't have sex with. 3D Dino and I have a mutually beneficial relationship that is mostly intellectual. Would we have sex if the circumstances were different? Possibly, but I do love him. I find him mentally stimulating and enjoy talking to him, debating with him and being probed by him in a mental way. He makes me ask questions I might otherwise miss myself. I like that it adds value to my life.
Griffin and I have discussed sex and though the thought is delightful I prefer her to remain my best friend. Do I love her? Yes. Is she part of my FOC? Yes. Poly isn't just about sex. It's about having the ability to love more intimately with more people. To us the most intimate thing you can do is listen, accept, and be supportive. You can fuck anyone without feelings or commitment but real love is about mutual respect, interest, and consideration for another person. So is he in a poly relationship with the Engineer? I think so, because he does all those things for her. Are they happy in this burning building? To some extent because there is comfort and satisfaction of mutual support and respect. Will it stay this way? He isn't holding his breath for her to leave her hubby but no situation is static, who knows what it will become.
Blame Canada?
I was reading one of my favorite blogs poly percolations poly in the news when I saw this brightly colored poster. If you will link in and read the article you will see that it is about the safe spaces project in some Canadian schools. I won't really talk much about that, more about the backlash so, go, read the article and come back. I'll be here....
Ok, so my first let me say; "Go Canada!" for presenting positive relationship styles imagery. Second, what the crap is up with people? Do they not know this is going on? I mean poly and LGBTQ are here and have been throughout history why are you getting so bent out of shape about it. Apparently, it's not ok for kids to know that there are lots of different types of family structures.
If we defined family as a micro-political structure for the nurturing, protection, and provision for all family members which aids personal growth for productive citizenship in the society in which it lives and for the transmitting of useful values and mores. We would be a lot better off.
Oh, our kids can't know about poly and LGBTQ because they might think that it is ok to roll with your natural feelings. I posit this is because parents don't really talk with kids about these issues and don't really want to, so if we can make society's imagery match our values we don't have to worry so much. It's not going to happen. As long as there is a stigma, often supported by religion, to having gay, lesbian, bi, transgender, queer or poly kids there will be this sort of backlash.
Gone are the days of tightly closeted lives to maintain the lie that there is only one way to live happily and functionally. Look, if you want to protect kids there must be awareness that all of us have things we like and things we don't like and it's ok to be different. If you don't know ask, if you are confused by your feelings talk to someone who gets it. As long as having LGBTQ or poly kids frightens the crap out of parents this sort of stuff will keep being an issue. You can't legislate morality it must be lived and we now live in a global community in which tolerance is more useful than tight protection of intimate values that actively take away the rights of others.
We have already proved that what kids see is important in developing their values. At least in America we see so much violence in our media and it has become the go to solution for more people. School shootings, public violence, and rape are all on the rise, why? Because we are powerless and violence makes us feel more powerful. Why are we powerless? Because it isn't ok to be who we are. Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on, and thereby expand what is more useful?
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Romance and Finance
Hey everyone, I am back from a week of timeshare wifery and wanted to say hey. Thanks to one of my readers who pointed out the font was hard to read. The week away was pretty normal (not near so much bubble time which is good and bad I suppose.) I am now officially addicted to Skyrim. Which brings me to today's topic: Romance and Finance.
In this economy how can one afford to be poly? I mean if you're dating obviously someone is paying for that and in our case it's no different. We are feeling out our options. This last week I discovered that if I pay for gas, contribute to groceries, and pay for going out a couple of times or entertainment I usually run about 200 bux. Fortunately, Prof is in driving distance. This is lots cheaper than renting a room for the weekend but still sort of more than our winter budget allows for. So we are looking at ways to prioritize and budget for time together without Mad Science having to pay for my timeshare wifery once a month. This is tricky, if I go back to work I will have to have something flexible that pays enough to support my habits.
For now we have agreed to not do one week a month until finances get more liquid for Prof and I. This was an issue that sort of snuck up on me and until we tried a week of wifery I had no idea how it would play. In the interest of fairness if Prof drives I pay and vice/versa but is it right to ask Mad Science to give me "go away" money?
I don't know what the solution to this will look like just yet but I will keep you posted.
In this economy how can one afford to be poly? I mean if you're dating obviously someone is paying for that and in our case it's no different. We are feeling out our options. This last week I discovered that if I pay for gas, contribute to groceries, and pay for going out a couple of times or entertainment I usually run about 200 bux. Fortunately, Prof is in driving distance. This is lots cheaper than renting a room for the weekend but still sort of more than our winter budget allows for. So we are looking at ways to prioritize and budget for time together without Mad Science having to pay for my timeshare wifery once a month. This is tricky, if I go back to work I will have to have something flexible that pays enough to support my habits.
For now we have agreed to not do one week a month until finances get more liquid for Prof and I. This was an issue that sort of snuck up on me and until we tried a week of wifery I had no idea how it would play. In the interest of fairness if Prof drives I pay and vice/versa but is it right to ask Mad Science to give me "go away" money?
I don't know what the solution to this will look like just yet but I will keep you posted.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
comments
Hey, my stats say people are reading my blog. I would love to know what you think, engage me, question me, criticize me, just be kind.
Monogamy: how it is more than you think.
I recently read an article on monogamy. Here http://www.successfulnonmonogamy.com/the-four-monogamies/
So based on this info how do I see these four types of monogamy and how do they affect my poly life?
Sexual Monogamy: This is the main thing people may think of. You've heard me talk about marriage being a purchase of exclusive body rights this is really sort of implied in the commitment. However, there are a lot of poly people I know that have no penis rules meaning a wife can be with other women but not other men. I also know people who have fluid monogamy where sex is fine as long as there is no exchange of fluids, in some cases, this can even go down to no kissing and no oral sex without a dental dam.
We have a papers only fluid rule. When someone calls for testing like when a new person is brought in we all test out. We have found that everyone is pretty honest and takes the time to respect the other folks in the family by doing a little advance notice. For example, I know that Mad Science is going to get laid Beltane weekend. I mean who can resist Pan right? But in that case he packs prophylactics.
The author also puts out the idea that sex itself be defined as well. Is oral or manual sex still considered sex? What about communal masturbation? Or Anal sex? Phone sex? All ways to give and receive pleasure. We feel that all are sex. So that works out for us. I had a lover whose wife would allow him to please other people as long as he kept his pants on. So everyone has their rules. Knowing those is helpful when contemplating having sex with the attached.
Emotional Monogamy: "It's ok as long as I'm the only one you love." I could assume that this is Love like I'm married to you and I'm the only person you can feel married to. Honestly, as our author points out there are so many different ways to be emotionally attached to someone else there has to be a clear definition. For us I love my guys equally but in different ways and for different reasons. I have more history with one than the other but I can't say I would definitely choose one over the other. I would have to be in that situation and examine the pros and cons at that time.
Social Monogamy: "Even if we aren't monogamous in other ways, I want people to think we are." To me this doesn't matter so much. I mean I guess if I met with his family I would be socially monogamous in that case. Perhaps in my neighborhood or if I had PTA. For me social monogamy is like showing a unified front for people who don't matter and have no business in our private lives. So it makes sense. I had a monogamous friend who allowed her husband to have sex on business trips out of town but they had what she called a "don't shit in your bed" rule. When he was home, he was to behave as though monogamous.
Activity Monogamy: The secret handshake for the relationship. For example a special vacation spot or restaurant, song, or ritual. Mad Science and I like to camp, Prof doesn't care to camp. Cricket and I loved to go to Hot Springs together it was our thing. My baby sister and I have little inside jokes that other people don't get. It's part of the thing that makes it great to have many loves in my life whether I'm sleeping with them or not.
So based on this info how do I see these four types of monogamy and how do they affect my poly life?
Sexual Monogamy: This is the main thing people may think of. You've heard me talk about marriage being a purchase of exclusive body rights this is really sort of implied in the commitment. However, there are a lot of poly people I know that have no penis rules meaning a wife can be with other women but not other men. I also know people who have fluid monogamy where sex is fine as long as there is no exchange of fluids, in some cases, this can even go down to no kissing and no oral sex without a dental dam.
We have a papers only fluid rule. When someone calls for testing like when a new person is brought in we all test out. We have found that everyone is pretty honest and takes the time to respect the other folks in the family by doing a little advance notice. For example, I know that Mad Science is going to get laid Beltane weekend. I mean who can resist Pan right? But in that case he packs prophylactics.
The author also puts out the idea that sex itself be defined as well. Is oral or manual sex still considered sex? What about communal masturbation? Or Anal sex? Phone sex? All ways to give and receive pleasure. We feel that all are sex. So that works out for us. I had a lover whose wife would allow him to please other people as long as he kept his pants on. So everyone has their rules. Knowing those is helpful when contemplating having sex with the attached.
Emotional Monogamy: "It's ok as long as I'm the only one you love." I could assume that this is Love like I'm married to you and I'm the only person you can feel married to. Honestly, as our author points out there are so many different ways to be emotionally attached to someone else there has to be a clear definition. For us I love my guys equally but in different ways and for different reasons. I have more history with one than the other but I can't say I would definitely choose one over the other. I would have to be in that situation and examine the pros and cons at that time.
Social Monogamy: "Even if we aren't monogamous in other ways, I want people to think we are." To me this doesn't matter so much. I mean I guess if I met with his family I would be socially monogamous in that case. Perhaps in my neighborhood or if I had PTA. For me social monogamy is like showing a unified front for people who don't matter and have no business in our private lives. So it makes sense. I had a monogamous friend who allowed her husband to have sex on business trips out of town but they had what she called a "don't shit in your bed" rule. When he was home, he was to behave as though monogamous.
Activity Monogamy: The secret handshake for the relationship. For example a special vacation spot or restaurant, song, or ritual. Mad Science and I like to camp, Prof doesn't care to camp. Cricket and I loved to go to Hot Springs together it was our thing. My baby sister and I have little inside jokes that other people don't get. It's part of the thing that makes it great to have many loves in my life whether I'm sleeping with them or not.
Judged: What do I say when it happens?
I have been witness to some pretty awful statements about my person. Everything from,
"You know you are going to hell, right?" to "Social rules are in place to weed out deviant freaks like you. You should probably just kill yourself and make it easier on the rest of us." Frequently, what I meet isn't that vicious or hateful and I can't say I am always gracious or kind in return.
For me useful response is much easier when I think of judgmental people in the following ways:
"You know you are going to hell, right?" to "Social rules are in place to weed out deviant freaks like you. You should probably just kill yourself and make it easier on the rest of us." Frequently, what I meet isn't that vicious or hateful and I can't say I am always gracious or kind in return.
For me useful response is much easier when I think of judgmental people in the following ways:
- Human beings are notorious for being resistant to anything that falls outside their understanding and comfort zone.
- Often people speak out of ignorance of the topic at hand. Either they assume my husband is somehow "pimping me out" or that I am somehow a sex addict and that is all poly could possibly be about.
- People often speak out of their own feelings, emotions, and experiences about how things should be or how they would themselves behave.
- Opinions are only frozen ideas not the identity of the whole person, a person who doesn't realize they can thaw those ideas and change them is then crippled by those limits.
- Opinion is not law. If I take an opinion to heart as a deep rejection there are a couple of reasons why. Either I am uncomfortable with the "rightness" of my choices and feel this person may be correct or that I am under threat of some sort of later violence from this person. I take their ideas about my life and compare them to what my experience says is true. I am very aware that not every behavior is useful in the long term. If I limit love by saying poly is the only way I can live I am just as guilty as those who say that marriage is only one man and one woman at one time. Love has no limits but my expression of love may change based on what is useful at a time.
- Not all people who criticize polyamory are ignorant, wrong, or frightened. They may have tried it and failed for some reason and are concerned about my happiness.
- Everyone is broken, we are all just a bunch of bozo's on the bus who are doing the best we can in the confines of our experience and understanding. No one has the market on what is best for themselves much less anyone else.
- Everyone has a right to their opinion, I can thank them for sharing and take that information and let it eat me or I can deal with it. What I do with it is not their business. I don't get poly points for winning people over. It is not my job to change their minds.
- Also if I can't take the abuse I should not wave my flag. No one agrees with everything I do nor should I expect acceptance even from the most enlightened.
If we are to ever see a change in universal thinking in the direction of tolerance we must be mindful of how tolerant we ourselves are. Bashing bible thumping narrow minded bigots is as intolerant a position. It may be true, but how does telling them that become less violent or more useful to my case? Does it make me angry? Yes. Do I deal with it in my internal life? Yes. Does it give me any right to act out against another human being? No, not unless they are committing an action that takes away my right to choose.
Out or Not why should I care?
Ok, So recently it was coming out day. A lot of people in the LGBTQ community and polyamory community have a hard time with coming out especially to the people close to them. I wanted to talk a little about my experience. When I told my mom I was bisexual she looked me straight in the face and said: "You are not! You are just saying that to hurt me." She did not speak to me for a while. It sort of hurt my feelings but at the same time those few months of silence were the first time in my life I felt I could breathe. When she died I felt the same way. I was sad but had felt so oppressed by her hold on me and my guilt every time I would say I was done with her that I stayed enmeshed in that relationship. I miss the good times with her but I am sorry that she never accepted me as a whole person. We never had a good relationship anyway, so it would have made no difference if I had not come out. I don't regret telling her.
Mad Science's family handled it rather well when we told them we were poly. We had come to the conclusion that though our sexual proclivities were, in fact, none of their business we felt that because we were living with them at the time and they saw our comings and goings and thought them odd. (i.e. I traveled with male partners without Mad Science and we had sleepovers in our part of the house etc.) That they should out of respect be told. That is how we approached it. We still have a pretty good relationship with them and now that we are in our own house we don't share much of our lives except when it directly affects them.
Since I have worked for my FIL so long I am consequently out at work. Mad Science didn't see how it was their business at work so he is not.
Prof is out at work and among friends but lives so far from his parents that he didn't really worry about them finding out by accident and for many years said nothing about it. Recently, he told his mom but not the rest of his family. They have kept many small secrets over the years, none of them bad really, just they trusted each individual to speak for themselves and consequently felt his mother could be trusted. We agonized with him over this decision for what seemed many months. She asked many questions and found a place of contentment in it even if she didn't like or fully understand his choice. The rest of his family he did not trust to over react and so they haven't been told.
My kids, who are grown, know and are unaffected by it. As for my siblings they are also unaffected by it as far as I can tell. Prof has been to a family event and no one really asked any inconvenient questions.
I had a friend ask me Out or Not why should I care?
To some extent I agree with this. My sexual conduct is no one's business but it's more than just sex. It's a long term relationship with two people. Two people I love deeply. They are part of the happiness and joy and part of the sorrow and frustration of my life sometimes. Having someone outside the FOC that gets that is important to me. If I need to talk through an issue before I bring it up to the guys, I need to be certain I am seeing it clearly. So there must be someone not involved directly that I can confide in, who will call me on my bullshit when I am about to make waves for less useful reasons. Someone, I can show the commitment ring to or shop for birthday gifts with, who gets how important it is. When we lost the Cricket a few years ago there was no one but the FOC who knew how much I loved him. I wasn't the wife and therefore received no sympathetic looks or comfort for my loss. Moonfaced Girl was there but she had her kids and her own grief to look after. We took point and handled things for them pushing our own grief aside but when the dust had cleared I had no one to turn to while I was trying to cope with the loss. I miss him every day but as a secondary it was hard. So coming out is about being allowed to be all of what we are with the people we love most, who share our history, and our triumphs and sorrows. I can't pretend to be like everyone else when I am not, but that doesn't mean I don't need the same love, kindness and understanding that "normal" people need. So if you are faced with someone who wants to come out, even if you don't agree with their choice, love the person if you can and let them be who they are. They do that for you when you tell them that they are wrong, why can't you do it for them?
Mad Science's family handled it rather well when we told them we were poly. We had come to the conclusion that though our sexual proclivities were, in fact, none of their business we felt that because we were living with them at the time and they saw our comings and goings and thought them odd. (i.e. I traveled with male partners without Mad Science and we had sleepovers in our part of the house etc.) That they should out of respect be told. That is how we approached it. We still have a pretty good relationship with them and now that we are in our own house we don't share much of our lives except when it directly affects them.
Since I have worked for my FIL so long I am consequently out at work. Mad Science didn't see how it was their business at work so he is not.
Prof is out at work and among friends but lives so far from his parents that he didn't really worry about them finding out by accident and for many years said nothing about it. Recently, he told his mom but not the rest of his family. They have kept many small secrets over the years, none of them bad really, just they trusted each individual to speak for themselves and consequently felt his mother could be trusted. We agonized with him over this decision for what seemed many months. She asked many questions and found a place of contentment in it even if she didn't like or fully understand his choice. The rest of his family he did not trust to over react and so they haven't been told.
My kids, who are grown, know and are unaffected by it. As for my siblings they are also unaffected by it as far as I can tell. Prof has been to a family event and no one really asked any inconvenient questions.
I had a friend ask me Out or Not why should I care?
To some extent I agree with this. My sexual conduct is no one's business but it's more than just sex. It's a long term relationship with two people. Two people I love deeply. They are part of the happiness and joy and part of the sorrow and frustration of my life sometimes. Having someone outside the FOC that gets that is important to me. If I need to talk through an issue before I bring it up to the guys, I need to be certain I am seeing it clearly. So there must be someone not involved directly that I can confide in, who will call me on my bullshit when I am about to make waves for less useful reasons. Someone, I can show the commitment ring to or shop for birthday gifts with, who gets how important it is. When we lost the Cricket a few years ago there was no one but the FOC who knew how much I loved him. I wasn't the wife and therefore received no sympathetic looks or comfort for my loss. Moonfaced Girl was there but she had her kids and her own grief to look after. We took point and handled things for them pushing our own grief aside but when the dust had cleared I had no one to turn to while I was trying to cope with the loss. I miss him every day but as a secondary it was hard. So coming out is about being allowed to be all of what we are with the people we love most, who share our history, and our triumphs and sorrows. I can't pretend to be like everyone else when I am not, but that doesn't mean I don't need the same love, kindness and understanding that "normal" people need. So if you are faced with someone who wants to come out, even if you don't agree with their choice, love the person if you can and let them be who they are. They do that for you when you tell them that they are wrong, why can't you do it for them?
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Natural Marriage?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8cQCi4ehXkg
This propaganda pissed me off.
This propaganda pissed me off.
Let's set the facts straight shall we?
Here are the stats: 1st divorce 41%-51%, 2nd divorce 60-67%, 3rd divorce 73-74%. Children of divorce are 4 times more likely to be divorced than those kids who grow up in non divorce families. Looks like serial monogamy is more of a threat.
Making pedophilia and incest synonymous to gay marriage is like saying a fish is a bicycle.
"Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147)."
Dr. Carole Jenny reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children’s hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in only 2 of the 269 cases in which an adult molester could be identified, less than 1percent of the cases. (Jenny et al., 1994).
Groth and Birnbaum (1978) found that none of the 175 adult males in their sample – all of whom were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child – had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation.
from http://wearemichigan.com/reference/childabuse.html with bibliography.
|
Natural Marriage Stabilizes and perpetuates society:
Creates Children: heterosexual intercourse is no longer the only way to create children less costly perhaps but not the only way.
Best raises children: "Overall results of research suggests that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents." Meezan, William and Rauch, Jonathan. Gay Marriage, Same-sex Parenting, and America's Children. The Future of Children Vol. 15 No. 2 Marriage and Child Wellbeing (Autumn 2005) p. 102
Protects Women:
1 in 6 currently married women report violence by their spouses.
1/2 of previously married women report violence by a partner.
3/4 of women who experience violence by a past partner endure repeated assaults, 41% on more than 10 occasions.
a woman is more likely to be killed by her spouse than by a stranger.
Almost one-third of female homicide victims that are reported in police records are killed by an intimate partner.
In 70-80% of intimate partner homicides, no matter which partner was killed, the man physically abused the woman before the murder.
Less than one-fifth of victims reporting an injury from intimate partner violence sought medical treatment following the injury.
Intimate partner violence results in more than 18.5 million mental health care visits each year. http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViolenceFactSheet(National).pdf
Civilizes Men: First the definition of Civilize is to bring a place or people to a stage of social, cultural, or moral development considered to be more advanced. (More advanced than what?) If one in six married women report violence by their spouses how are men more civilized?
Secondly if, in fact, marriage is causal to less crime would it not make sense to say the same sex long term commitment might not also logically reduce crime as well?
Reduces Crime, poverty, and welfare- which reduces government spending and deficits.
While this is generally true it is not always the case. Many of the crimes committed by married men and or women are often unreported such as incest and battery. So it's not really fair to say that they commit fewer crimes, when 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 3 boys are sexually abused many by their own family.
It benefits everyone. Even those who do not choose to marry.
All non-married people, including homosexuals, tend to pay more in taxes than married heterosexuals. Women in general make less money on the dollar as men and therefore single mother families are more likely to require welfare, housing assistance and daycare vouchers.
Many hate crimes specifically against gays are committed by upstanding fundamentalist, married heterosexual males. So that blows the single people benefit from natural marriage even if they don't marry.
It's not as much bigotry as elitism. People under the idea that their way is the only way or best way are elitists and as such justify violence to anyone and any system that does not agree with their way of thinking. There are as many as 1400 marriage rights handed to heterosexual taxpayers in this country. Don't loving committed same sex relationships deserve the same rights? If they don't, these privileges granted to heterosexual marriage should be withdrawn. I would rather give up mine, than allow the inequity to continue?
Fighting vs P/S communication
I recently told someone that in 13+ years my partner and I have never had a fight. They seemed duly impressed but then asked me how that happens.
First, it helps to note that normally in an unhealthy relationship if there is no fighting it is because one person suppresses expression of their opinion out of fear, a sense of pointlessness (I'm not going to be heard anyway or It won't make any difference), or because they feel their opinion so frequently matches their partner's that there is no reason to "rock the boat".
Fighting is often an escalated response to some perceived or actual injustice in the relationship. It is often directly proportional to the amount of resentment one or both of the people have and not always what the fight is actually about. It's about baggage.
Changing the game on this is about unpacking your mental suitcase and not letting the load you have carried interfere with the loving, and kind dynamic you want to maintain. My feelings are not as important as the relationship and what it provides me in the long run. Does harboring such feelings support our goals in the relationship?
The negative feelings of resentment, anger and fear can be summed up this way... Resentment is not getting my way in the past,
Anger is not getting my way in the present,
and Fear is not getting my way in the future.
So how does one go about not fighting? P/S or problem/solution communication.
In a normal non-functional argument what is happening is toxic venting. It's as if you are actually saying, "I feel this way and you ought to know that you are responsible for those feelings." This is unrealistic. It also places the person on the defensive to find ways in which you are not meeting their needs as a defense, or justification for their action or inaction.
Here are our guidelines for a productive argument:
Know the problem: If I pop off some sarcastic remark about some little thing Mad Science or Prof has done that is a signpost that there is something I need to deal with.
Usually it is because I had an expectation that was unrealistic, and often unvoiced.
There are three things I know for a fact:
1.) I can not change another person's actions by any act, word, or inclination on my part.
2.) An unspoken need is an unmet need.
3.) No one can guess my needs and fulfill them 100% of the time.
So then the problem is what ever I expected from some action I committed to, the desire for my partner to be telepathic, or a sense of a short transaction.
Sometimes a fight is because I haven't dealt with this in another situation with a person outside our relationship, like the teller at the bank.
I am angry/fearful/hurt/sad etc., because _____.
Knowing my part: I find when I am experiencing a negative emotion there is a reason and usually it's me. This is a problem because? I expected too much? I failed to negotiate for something? Am I choosing to feel this way for some other reason and it is bleeding into my relationship? Do I just want to be angry? Sometimes, I do. It's ok sometimes being angry gives me the energy to do something about a problem. It's a lot easier to defuse the need to argue if I know that I had some part in the problem. Sometimes it stops right there with me. Once I look at and deal with the feeling it stops.
This is a problem to me because_________.
Allow the other person to take responsibility for their part: This one is tricky because it is the place disagreements become personal. Here is an example of how we do this.
The situation: I felt lonely and bored because Mad Science spent most of the weekend away from home and I didn't get any significant time with him.
My Part: I did approve the weekend away when he asked me if it was a problem. Then I chose to feel crappy. It could have stopped there but I had been withdrawn when interacting with him so I needed to talk about it with him.
I stated the problem: I feel upset because I don't feel connected to you. I think it is because I expected more quality time since we had so little quantity time together this weekend. I don't want to go away next weekend unless we have this resolved. I realize that I have not been available emotionally this last week and I am feeling sort of needy this weekend. (I am talking about my feelings, and taking responsibility for my part. Then I shut up. No accusations, no making him responsible for my feelings.)
Allowing him to take responsibility for his part:
He says: I don't really feel connected to you either, after work I have been really tired and this weekend I just needed to hang out with the guys.
Solution: He says: "How can we feel more connected this week before you go on your trip?"
I say: we could cuddle in bed and watch some tv, or we could play cards, go bowling, or engage in a discussion about what is on our minds (work, politics, our current projects etc.)
He says: what about cuddling and tv?
I say: Ok. The disagreement is over without raising a voice or calling names.
This works for everything, granted some things take longer to work out. But rather than let the recurring feeling of helplessness get out of hand we talk about it again and reaffirm the longterm solution.
For example: We have been living sort of slim for a long time now in order to be debt free. This is frustrating because there are a lot of things we like to do we can't afford. But rather than me accusing him of not paying enough on bills fast enough or of him accusing me of being lazy and not having a job. I look at my options. I could get a job. We could negotiate some mad money or a date night, we can have a creative challenge to see who can come up with a fun and free way to feel "richer", and this, coupled with a decided action helps soften the blow of a stretch of time without. It is also good to have some kind of tangible time table for such things or to think about what we will have money to do and what we can do with it later. In other words why waiting is worth it.
Making Amends and gratitude: This is the icing on the solution. If I had thrown a fit about being lonely (I admit it sometimes happens). We would need to make amends for anything we did that was hurtful or implied that the other person was responsible for how we reacted. But whether there was acting out or not it is always helpful to say: Thank you, I appreciate you taking time out to help me through this.
And remember not everything that bothers you, a left off toothpaste cap, or laundry on the floor is worth fighting about. Acceptance that a person is who they are is mostly enough to cover this. If it bothers me but not them I need to take the action, put the cap on the paste or pick up the clothes. If it doesn't bother them not to, why am I trying to change them so it does?
That's how we do it. I am sure there are other ways what's your story?
First, it helps to note that normally in an unhealthy relationship if there is no fighting it is because one person suppresses expression of their opinion out of fear, a sense of pointlessness (I'm not going to be heard anyway or It won't make any difference), or because they feel their opinion so frequently matches their partner's that there is no reason to "rock the boat".
Fighting is often an escalated response to some perceived or actual injustice in the relationship. It is often directly proportional to the amount of resentment one or both of the people have and not always what the fight is actually about. It's about baggage.
Changing the game on this is about unpacking your mental suitcase and not letting the load you have carried interfere with the loving, and kind dynamic you want to maintain. My feelings are not as important as the relationship and what it provides me in the long run. Does harboring such feelings support our goals in the relationship?
The negative feelings of resentment, anger and fear can be summed up this way... Resentment is not getting my way in the past,
Anger is not getting my way in the present,
and Fear is not getting my way in the future.
So how does one go about not fighting? P/S or problem/solution communication.
In a normal non-functional argument what is happening is toxic venting. It's as if you are actually saying, "I feel this way and you ought to know that you are responsible for those feelings." This is unrealistic. It also places the person on the defensive to find ways in which you are not meeting their needs as a defense, or justification for their action or inaction.
Here are our guidelines for a productive argument:
Know the problem: If I pop off some sarcastic remark about some little thing Mad Science or Prof has done that is a signpost that there is something I need to deal with.
Usually it is because I had an expectation that was unrealistic, and often unvoiced.
There are three things I know for a fact:
1.) I can not change another person's actions by any act, word, or inclination on my part.
2.) An unspoken need is an unmet need.
3.) No one can guess my needs and fulfill them 100% of the time.
So then the problem is what ever I expected from some action I committed to, the desire for my partner to be telepathic, or a sense of a short transaction.
Sometimes a fight is because I haven't dealt with this in another situation with a person outside our relationship, like the teller at the bank.
I am angry/fearful/hurt/sad etc., because _____.
Knowing my part: I find when I am experiencing a negative emotion there is a reason and usually it's me. This is a problem because? I expected too much? I failed to negotiate for something? Am I choosing to feel this way for some other reason and it is bleeding into my relationship? Do I just want to be angry? Sometimes, I do. It's ok sometimes being angry gives me the energy to do something about a problem. It's a lot easier to defuse the need to argue if I know that I had some part in the problem. Sometimes it stops right there with me. Once I look at and deal with the feeling it stops.
This is a problem to me because_________.
Allow the other person to take responsibility for their part: This one is tricky because it is the place disagreements become personal. Here is an example of how we do this.
The situation: I felt lonely and bored because Mad Science spent most of the weekend away from home and I didn't get any significant time with him.
My Part: I did approve the weekend away when he asked me if it was a problem. Then I chose to feel crappy. It could have stopped there but I had been withdrawn when interacting with him so I needed to talk about it with him.
I stated the problem: I feel upset because I don't feel connected to you. I think it is because I expected more quality time since we had so little quantity time together this weekend. I don't want to go away next weekend unless we have this resolved. I realize that I have not been available emotionally this last week and I am feeling sort of needy this weekend. (I am talking about my feelings, and taking responsibility for my part. Then I shut up. No accusations, no making him responsible for my feelings.)
Allowing him to take responsibility for his part:
He says: I don't really feel connected to you either, after work I have been really tired and this weekend I just needed to hang out with the guys.
Solution: He says: "How can we feel more connected this week before you go on your trip?"
I say: we could cuddle in bed and watch some tv, or we could play cards, go bowling, or engage in a discussion about what is on our minds (work, politics, our current projects etc.)
He says: what about cuddling and tv?
I say: Ok. The disagreement is over without raising a voice or calling names.
This works for everything, granted some things take longer to work out. But rather than let the recurring feeling of helplessness get out of hand we talk about it again and reaffirm the longterm solution.
For example: We have been living sort of slim for a long time now in order to be debt free. This is frustrating because there are a lot of things we like to do we can't afford. But rather than me accusing him of not paying enough on bills fast enough or of him accusing me of being lazy and not having a job. I look at my options. I could get a job. We could negotiate some mad money or a date night, we can have a creative challenge to see who can come up with a fun and free way to feel "richer", and this, coupled with a decided action helps soften the blow of a stretch of time without. It is also good to have some kind of tangible time table for such things or to think about what we will have money to do and what we can do with it later. In other words why waiting is worth it.
Making Amends and gratitude: This is the icing on the solution. If I had thrown a fit about being lonely (I admit it sometimes happens). We would need to make amends for anything we did that was hurtful or implied that the other person was responsible for how we reacted. But whether there was acting out or not it is always helpful to say: Thank you, I appreciate you taking time out to help me through this.
And remember not everything that bothers you, a left off toothpaste cap, or laundry on the floor is worth fighting about. Acceptance that a person is who they are is mostly enough to cover this. If it bothers me but not them I need to take the action, put the cap on the paste or pick up the clothes. If it doesn't bother them not to, why am I trying to change them so it does?
That's how we do it. I am sure there are other ways what's your story?
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Long Distance Relationship
I have said in my intro post that Prof and I have been in a long distance relationship for nine years. Many folks say that LDR doesn't work. I say I can see that. Our relationship has lasted, I think, because the urgency was dialed back at the beginning and has slowly increased over time.
The first few years we were pretty casual. I would come in the spring and we would hang out for a week and then talk and email the rest of the time. This was to give him some space to date other people because I wasn't what he thought he was looking for. He wanted to marry and have a family and that wasn't what I wanted. I was already married and was unable and unwilling to have any more children. I did give him a lot of space. If he said he was dating someone I was totally hands off until he gave me the green light. I am incredibly patient when I want to be.
After that I would come twice a year for a long visit and if he was down to see his folks he would pop by and see us. Soon, it became pretty apparent that what we wanted was changing.
In 2008 I introduced him to my sisters at Thanksgiving. Well, I had told them beforehand what was going on and we did do the intro on the down low to keep it low drama in front of the other relatives. As far as most everyone knew we were friends.
For a couple of years things grew in intensity until my mentors asked the question I dreaded. Is this relationship harming your growth or your marriage? I needed to be sure of the answer so I asked myself the question and we stopped being intimate and did very little communication for about 6 months. Additionally, my timing sucked, I told him right before our anniversary trip, boy was that dumb. It wasn't the year I had promised but it was enough for me to know that I was miserable without him in my life. We got back together and it took a little while for things to get back to normal. I had broken trust by giving him an ultimatum on a non negotiated decision. I have learned my lesson and we talk about every decision that affects him and our relationship. Last year we talked about spending more time together still and made a solid commitment to see each other for four days every month.
This year, very recently, in fact, we negotiated 1 week a month on his turf. Our desire eventually is to live in the same town and then maybe the same house. For now this isn't possible because they boys love their jobs so much and we have debt that needs cleared. We are making progress.
I guess, I make it sound easy enough, but there is always the possibility that it will fall apart because someone "falls out of love" or finds someone who won't share or something. I never believed this would be a permanent thing, I would like it to be, but people are unpredictable and love is best worn lightly, else you will strangle the life out of it. Most people can't consciously live under that sort of tension I am surprised we do it sometimes.
The two things that help us most are, that we know it will change, and that we negotiate and communicate often to change with it. I know there will always be a desire for comfort and conformity tugging at him and this life polyamorous is not always comfortable things sort of change as we go. But I love him enough to stick it out and see where it will go. It if turns out just to have been the sex all this time, I can live with that. If we live together in harmony for many more years, I can live with that too. If nothing else, I have had a great time and will have a good friend out of the deal. LDR doesn't work? Maybe but how permanent is any relationship really?
The first few years we were pretty casual. I would come in the spring and we would hang out for a week and then talk and email the rest of the time. This was to give him some space to date other people because I wasn't what he thought he was looking for. He wanted to marry and have a family and that wasn't what I wanted. I was already married and was unable and unwilling to have any more children. I did give him a lot of space. If he said he was dating someone I was totally hands off until he gave me the green light. I am incredibly patient when I want to be.
After that I would come twice a year for a long visit and if he was down to see his folks he would pop by and see us. Soon, it became pretty apparent that what we wanted was changing.
In 2008 I introduced him to my sisters at Thanksgiving. Well, I had told them beforehand what was going on and we did do the intro on the down low to keep it low drama in front of the other relatives. As far as most everyone knew we were friends.
For a couple of years things grew in intensity until my mentors asked the question I dreaded. Is this relationship harming your growth or your marriage? I needed to be sure of the answer so I asked myself the question and we stopped being intimate and did very little communication for about 6 months. Additionally, my timing sucked, I told him right before our anniversary trip, boy was that dumb. It wasn't the year I had promised but it was enough for me to know that I was miserable without him in my life. We got back together and it took a little while for things to get back to normal. I had broken trust by giving him an ultimatum on a non negotiated decision. I have learned my lesson and we talk about every decision that affects him and our relationship. Last year we talked about spending more time together still and made a solid commitment to see each other for four days every month.
This year, very recently, in fact, we negotiated 1 week a month on his turf. Our desire eventually is to live in the same town and then maybe the same house. For now this isn't possible because they boys love their jobs so much and we have debt that needs cleared. We are making progress.
I guess, I make it sound easy enough, but there is always the possibility that it will fall apart because someone "falls out of love" or finds someone who won't share or something. I never believed this would be a permanent thing, I would like it to be, but people are unpredictable and love is best worn lightly, else you will strangle the life out of it. Most people can't consciously live under that sort of tension I am surprised we do it sometimes.
The two things that help us most are, that we know it will change, and that we negotiate and communicate often to change with it. I know there will always be a desire for comfort and conformity tugging at him and this life polyamorous is not always comfortable things sort of change as we go. But I love him enough to stick it out and see where it will go. It if turns out just to have been the sex all this time, I can live with that. If we live together in harmony for many more years, I can live with that too. If nothing else, I have had a great time and will have a good friend out of the deal. LDR doesn't work? Maybe but how permanent is any relationship really?
Monday, October 8, 2012
Attention Whore
Ok, someone finally said it to me. Someone outside my usual life has called me a selfish little slut, an attention whore. Sigh. This doesn't offend me so much as it puzzles me.
First off, let's look at my life. I stay at home and cook and clean and provide comfort, my choice. I do have friends outside my romantic triad but people are busy. When it comes to the guys, both men are inclined to "decompress" after a long day which means possibly hours of gaming/scifi. During which time I get no attention, if you have gamers you know what I mean. Now in what way does this scenario make me an attention whore? I actually spend more time alone than with either of the guys. My preference is time in peace and quiet, but when someone is here, I like to engage in a little conversation that goes beyond "Hi, how was your day?"
Secondly, what is wrong with wanting to be seen and heard? I have a friend who had threatened suicide. A relative of hers said she did it for attention and didn't really mean it. I also have a friend who is a mom who is super busy and her three year old acts out. She's just doing it for attention. Since when did the desire to feel connection with another person become unreasonable? I like a little intellectual stimulation. The girl who wanted to kill herself was in pain and needed a little check in with reality, namely that she was going to get through the pain and it would be ok. The three year old is a kid, kids need attention to feel loved to develop a strong sense of worthiness. What is wrong with that?
If we spent more time paying attention perhaps many of the wrongs done would stop.
Now let's talk about the selfish part. Seen as above I do get what I want. I don't have to work at the moment, I have plenty of peace and quiet for contemplation, and I am loved. Intellectual discourse isn't selfish, the exchange of ideas and feelings is mutually beneficial. It strengthens connection and satisfies a need both people have. We aren't even talking about sex here (of which I get plenty, also mutually beneficial I might add).
The slut part I totally agree with though. ;P Have a super Monday everyone and for pete's sake pay attention to someone today!
First off, let's look at my life. I stay at home and cook and clean and provide comfort, my choice. I do have friends outside my romantic triad but people are busy. When it comes to the guys, both men are inclined to "decompress" after a long day which means possibly hours of gaming/scifi. During which time I get no attention, if you have gamers you know what I mean. Now in what way does this scenario make me an attention whore? I actually spend more time alone than with either of the guys. My preference is time in peace and quiet, but when someone is here, I like to engage in a little conversation that goes beyond "Hi, how was your day?"
Secondly, what is wrong with wanting to be seen and heard? I have a friend who had threatened suicide. A relative of hers said she did it for attention and didn't really mean it. I also have a friend who is a mom who is super busy and her three year old acts out. She's just doing it for attention. Since when did the desire to feel connection with another person become unreasonable? I like a little intellectual stimulation. The girl who wanted to kill herself was in pain and needed a little check in with reality, namely that she was going to get through the pain and it would be ok. The three year old is a kid, kids need attention to feel loved to develop a strong sense of worthiness. What is wrong with that?
If we spent more time paying attention perhaps many of the wrongs done would stop.
Now let's talk about the selfish part. Seen as above I do get what I want. I don't have to work at the moment, I have plenty of peace and quiet for contemplation, and I am loved. Intellectual discourse isn't selfish, the exchange of ideas and feelings is mutually beneficial. It strengthens connection and satisfies a need both people have. We aren't even talking about sex here (of which I get plenty, also mutually beneficial I might add).
The slut part I totally agree with though. ;P Have a super Monday everyone and for pete's sake pay attention to someone today!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)