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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)