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. 

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Blame Canada?

Canada's Safe Spaces program to bust gender preference violence meets opposition

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?