Update

Well, I am feeling better.  I am sure seeing Prof would still bring tears, I think I am ok for now. I've been watching the delicate balancing act between Mr Atheist and the Griffin and I am glad Prof decided to break it off as he did. They waffle back and forth between affectionate friendship and their old "together" behavior. I, honestly couldn't speculate on how this will go south but go south it will.

As for the Jedi, he has finally found, THE ONE, and is therefore now ready to grow up. He has worked at least one day this week. I hope he will get in the habit of more than sporadic work, his new girl has a lot on his list.

Mad Sci is wonderful and supportive, as is his way. Winter's lower work load and reduced pay, coupled with a sudden change in my student loan payment have financially shaken us but we aren't going down.

I've come to the conclusion that it is time to get back to work on myself. As for my prospect, who has not yet earned a name for the blog, I am really thinking, for the first time, that I just want friends for a while rather than playmates. Another side effect of examining my behavior in this last relationship, I suppose. Or maybe it's that I follow my rules and don't really engage while coping with loss. We rarely talk. I see him briefly once a week, with little in the way of real communication, more sort of interest.

I am not so interested in chasing down a man's ego at this point so it's not really moving very quickly.

My friend, Lumberjack is having problems with getting scammed because of desperate loneliness. I have been trying to encourage him to change his approach. From online, late night chatting to actually taking a day off and doing something social he enjoys. He and his boys will be up for Thanksgiving.

We don't usually go to a lot of trouble for this one since we do Maybon as an FOC. But Mad Sci's folks are here and I have a couple of siblings here so we usually treat it as a family of source day. Griffin had to make a turkey and so we are hosting.

I am looking forward to the change in our family holidays this year. I have friends and family here we don't always have, and even though we will feel the loss of Prof, he will be  in our hearts.

Breaking up is hard to do

Well, it's official. I am down to one man again. Prof is gone. Sigh. I just wish it hadn't had to be angry. I did say some things that seemed condescending or could be seen as such and for that I can take responsibility, for that I am sorry. He is making an effort to eliminate me totally from his mind. No Facebook, no g+, no phone, no chance to explain myself. I hate that. But I do understand, if we were no longer happy it is the best decision for us both. I hope he goes on to find the peace and happiness I could not bring him.

Now my job is to just grieve and go on. Goodbye Prof. We have had fun, and learned a lot about ourselves I am sorry it had to be like this.

FOC update

You know how they say "Life is what happens while you are making plans"? Well, apparently, it's true for when you blog as well.

Prof and I have recently reexamined our relationship in light of some new information he has learned about himself and what he needs. We are stepping back from spending so much time together, to something a little more casual. We will still go forward together but he is no longer considering moving in with us. 

Honestly, this makes me sort of sad and also sort of relieved. Let me explain; I am sad because it has been very intense, these last couple of years. We have had many of those self knowledge explosions. I am relieved because with all the spiritual work I do I was beginning to feel a little threadbare. 

So, I will be taking the time I would have spent with him and redistribute it for myself for a while. I am also about to interview a new casual dating prospect. 

Prof's love interest found someone more interesting to her but she is making moves to get out of her loveless marriage in order to live her life on her terms.

Mr Atheist and the Griffin are now broken up. He, of course, is still trying to win her but she is having none of it. 

My good friend, Artemis, is battling cancer and we have been talking about making space for her if she needs us.

My young Jedi is lost between hopelessness and desire. He has had a couple of brief affairs while here but nothing really useful. He is in a big hurry to fall in love and get married. Little does he know that's where things get interesting. I have been trying to help him understand the value of providing for himself until Princess Charming comes so he knows he can do it without her if he has too. It is a comfort in a break up to know you have your own resources to fall to, if you need them.

Well that's the news this week. Now that I am disentangled I will try, dear readers, to be more diligent.

DOMA, poly saturation, and unicorn hunting

I am happy to hear that DOMA was overturned now my LGBT friends can have all the same rights from the feds as my hetero friends do, if married in a state where it's legal.

I heard a podcast recently which talked about how many is too many. For me I guess it would depend on direct contact. Who am I personally in relationship with. Three is currently my intimate limit. As far as metamours of the boys well as long as I didn't have to remember birthdays or anniversaries or kids names maybe a lot more. Really for me the sex isn't the important part so much now. Don't get me wrong I love sex but it is not essential to have it with another person as often. Intimacy for me is also about being heard and being able to be in someone else's confidence which I like very much. Having someone I can trust who will be honest not just complaisant. I agree with one commenter, if there are too many for a d&d game it's too many.

Unicorn hunting
In case you didn't know this is sort of offensive. Usually, it is a couple looking for a third person that they both have access to sexually or in relationship, where the third is expected to date both members of the couple but no one else. To me this always seems a little unreasonable to the third party. What if she likes the wife but not the husband or vice versa? And what if she meets someone outside the relationship that she wants to explore? Unicorn hunting implies a couple of things to me I don't like. One: the first preservation is of the couple and their stability in the relationship. They are usually in control of the situation. Two: calling someone a unicorn makes them an object without considering the whole person. Their needs are often labeled "drama" and overlooked. While it's not always true it does happen frequently and end badly.

Update

Wow has it been nearly a month since last I wrote? Well, here's the update. My daughter and her hubby have just had their new baby a lovely girl. normally people say things like: "I'm so proud of you...." whenever you accomplish something natural to human life that all or most humans do. I am not sure pride is the right feeling. I am happy that she is succeeding in pursuing what she thinks of as normal, as long as it makes her happy. As to being a grandmother .... meh. I don't know what to think. Mainly, it gives me someone to crochet toys and blankets for. I am happy for her, don't get me wrong, I am just not sure that celebrating a bodily function that promotes survival of an already huge species on an overtaxed planet is something to be proud of.

Prof had a recent doctor's appointment and we were really scared until the blood work came. It was one of those cases where the blood work says something different than the doctor's speculation. His cholesterol was down a hundred points and his blood-sugar A1C or whatever they call it was better. So my grief response was unwarranted, thank you very much.

Mad Science has been happily playing at the Foundry with a new play partner. We are trying to slim down expenses for savings, I am working on my christmas present list. My good friends are struggling right now with their relationship and I will be working on the film festival again this year. Not much news really.

Catching Up

I know I haven't written in a month pretty much exactly. Here is the news. I have so enjoyed having my son around that I worry that when he leaves that I will miss him more than I have a right to. Being quasi Buddhist the attachment thing can be a struggle sometimes. I know worrying about it isn't going to change the outcome but having a preference sets me up for disappointment. So I am determined to be in the moment.

Mr. Atheist and the Griffin have been having issues but I try not to be senseless and really pick sides if I can. They will work it out or they won't it is up to them.

Mad Science has dipped back into the kink world and had a good beating. Seeing the marks, left me feeling a tiny bit jealous. Here is one more thing I have given up that he now must find elsewhere. It suits my theory that no one person can be everything to another. Aaaand choosing what works for me, does mean I am taking care of myself but I still wonder how many of these things can a relationship take. But it is why we are poly, I suppose, not just for the intimacy but for all facets of relating.

I can be happy for him in his enjoyment and new friends but did need a little reassurance that he does love me. Having said that, I have to note that I am going to Profs for the week of wifery. We haven't seen each other much in the last two months because my car has no air conditioning and he hasn't had the money. Which has been stressful everything seems a bit unstable. The engineer kept him late making a lasagna for his folks and so I didn't get to see him the first day he arrived. Yesterday we all went to see Monsters University as a family. I felt like a queen surrounded by my guys Prof on one side, Mad Science on the other and the Jedi only a seat away.

It's also the first time since he's been here that I will be away from the Jedi for any length of time so that will feel odd.

All things considered things are great and I know rationally that nothing lasts forever but it is a good irritation to remind me to hold life lightly. I must remember that impermanence is real and grasping hold of things I want to keep, holds me back spiritually.

And now for something completely different

As I have nothing to rail against today and am in a particularly good mood I think I will keep it short and leave you with this to look at. And yes I made this, Link from Zelda is my next project. Have a great weekend everyone and do something fun like roll down a grassy hill or have a picnic.

The battle to be right

http://www.upworthy.com/wow-fox-newswoman-lays-epic-smackdown-on-fox-newsmen-for-obvious-and-blatant-misogyny

In our country there is and has long been a culture war. The loudest christians protest that because everyone is not of their same mind that they are somehow being persecuted. We are so far from lions and burnings at this point that it seems laughable. To pretend that this discomfort they feel, namely that they might lose their dominant place in societal governance, is persecution is a touch paranoid. The news just plays this on both sides of the issue.

I am not crazy about news coverage of any kind since most of it is biased toward the money that buys it. I also wonder how much of that crap is just made up for entertainment reasons. I happened on the above link and watched it. Ignore the headline because the footage says otherwise, this clip, rather than put the smackdown on anyone makes her look hysterical rather than rational. It is clear that the neither of these men take her seriously based on their smug expressions. The real problem here is that this is considered useful news. It isn't.

Secondly, the whole argument is ridiculous. There seems to be a trend in religious circles to want to use science as validation for their arguments while all the time maintaining that there is one right way that is unchanging for humans to live their lives. That isn't how nature works. Nature constantly changes and its denizens must adapt to survive.

Erick does talk about gender roles as a genetic thing and as for primitive hardwiring I do somewhat agree. There are very strong urges built into the human construct that guide our decisions. The problem is thinking that all humans are the same. A slight variation in  one person's gestation can make a huge difference in their likely success or failure. Consequently, saying all men should be breadwinners and all women should be stay at home moms isn't really applicable. So it isn't useful to try to force or legislate a state that clearly is not natural for everyone. Yes, two parent heterosexual families with dad making money and mom staying home do work. But to negate the possibility that other forms of family work well, is an injustice to free will and the individual's right to chose for themselves. It seems to me that often the argument is if you don't fit our idea of nature or science then you are an anomaly that must be forced to comform. This is on both sides of the argument.

Family, no matter how it is formatted, should ultimately produce happy useful people who contribute to the stability of society as a whole. That can only be really successful if each family gets to decide for themselves what works best for them. I am against the idea that any form is wrong just because it's formula doesn't meet the approval of prevailing religious opinion or federal mandate. If it harms no one and produces usefulness it should be left to the individual.

To call judgment fact as was done in this piece reminds me that we as humans can and will justify our own opinion right or wrong, useful or not. This really comes down to the idea of rightness. The duality that implies that there are only right and wrong ways no shades of gray that might also be as valid.

Parenting Revisited: Family Meeting

Ok a few posts back I mentioned that my son was coming to stay with us. He seems to feel at home and has most handily fitted himself to the rhythm of our lives. For him, Mad Science and Prof are dads #2 and #3 and our friends and family here have been loving and kind to him. He feels like he can be himself here and that is what I had hoped for.

We sat down and had family meeting last weekend and it was casual and straight forward. We talked about our hopes and our expectations. We discussed his goals in the long and short term, and with his input worked out a plan to help him get there.

This weekend he and Mad Science are going camping together and looking forward to the time alone. Watching them interact cemented my suspicions that Mad Science will be a great father/role model. It has been interesting for me to stand idly by and watch them form friendship together.

In other news my daughter and her husband are soon expecting a baby girl. She seems very happy with the arrangement and I am happy for her. We don't talk as much as I would like but I owe that to nerves on my part and busy-ness on hers.

The Atheist is off to work in Orlando for a month leaving The Griffin behind to care for the dog, the house, and to nurse the broken foot. His separation anxiety has caused some issues but I think once the change begins he will be fine again and appreciate his situation much more upon his return.

Prof will be down this weekend to keep me company while the guys are off bonding so I am also looking forward to a soft cushy weekend of snuggling and enjoying my new kindle. I hope everyone enjoys their holiday weekend.

Love and Romance

I know these last few blog entries make it seem that I think of marriage as a clinical legal decision, void of real feelings. I do think the object of marriage is a practical consideration, true. One can have marriage without love, and it work, just as readily as one can have love without marriage, and it work. I think both benefit from romance which, though often mistaken for it, is not love. I think the notion of whirlwind romance, sweet sentiment, and constant longing are part of a more romantic time and the pleasure of those who have the leisure to enjoy it. But that isn't love, that is a chemical response to someone else. 

Love, in my opinion, is bigger, deeper, and less conditional on the presence of the beloved. Real love remains untouched by circumstance or behavior. I posit that to be really in love has little to do with romantic feeling, although, one can have a kind of romance as well as love and marriage. I also think romance is a mere gateway to lasting love and successful marriage. A biological function that serves the purpose of putting people together. Just as fight or flight are protective measures meant to separate. Is it always right, that rush of emotion? Does it always act in our best interest? Hardly, but it's pushed on us as the penultimate. That where there is romance there should be love. Just as where there is love there must be marriage. I don't agree with either.

Some people move from gush to gush, romantically speaking, without ever giving real love a chance. New Relationship Energy which is the modern community's term for that rush of emotional energy on first connecting with someone is pretty much chemical, nature's way of saying; "Hey this is biologically attractive for mating, check it out." And it is temporary. NRE usually only lasts a year or two at most then as they say, the honeymoon is over. Some people expect love and marriage to be this high level of romantic tension but no one can maintain such dizzy heights indefinitely. So what is the point of romance then?

It serves a useful purpose for if we entered a relationship with eyes open we would too soon talk ourselves out of love altogether. Confronted immediately with someone's flaws, or expectations as they really are we might run and hide from love. It could be possible to say that romantic feeling is a way to get us to have sex more than to create relationships on. It would explain why women tend toward the alpha male jerk instead of the man she has so much in common with but feels no spark. I have long pondered that as a species we might be better off if we mated with useful genes and lived with those who were especially caring and tender with whom we connect more readily. There is a security in love that does not exist in romance. But having been so poisoned by the notion that romance is love we needlessly create crisis where there should be none. But the notion of breeding with studs and marrying our best friends seems more appalling than divorce. Not that studs aren't good providers or are somehow incapable of love is not an issue but they are more inclined to spread their seed readily, create sweeping feelings in the objects of their infatuation, and leave with the self assured knowledge that their work here is done. If we, as a culture, saw this as normal it would be a game changer. Slutty alpha males could be so with few social repercussions, women who wanted children but preferred security could mate and marry another with no social issues and children might be reared in a more stable environment. 

Sometimes a stud drops out of circulation in favor of love and marriage, sometimes the beta has all the genetic qualities a girl might want in her offspring, that too could be normal. But then, what of love. When I say it, I mean a strong bond of mutual contentment and benefit. To want to be with the person in spite of their flaws, mistakes, or odd behavior as well as the joys, admiration, and commonality. Love rises above gushing emotion. But there is a consolation, for long history with another in contented love, does sometimes give way to another kind of romantic feeling. The kind that you see in the long married elderly couple holding hands, or the wife who tenderly attends a husband, not out of servitude but as a gift to his happiness, or a man who sends flowers for no reason. Love is born of mutual respect and trust, romance, of mutual attraction. Though I have separated them here, I do believe it possible for love to evolve from the murk of romance. For it to emerge to form the arms and legs of service and tender contentment love requires. I, personally, prefer love over romance. Romance is exhausting and expensive. Love, however, is easy with the best match and marriage easier still with love. 

Our society anchors so much on spontaneous romantic feeling, it never gets around to telling us what happily-ever-after looks like. Maybe the mystery is intentional, maybe the thing we don't know about the fairy tale is that happily-ever-after is a daily individual choice rather than an automatic process. Love must grow because it is based on things that develop over time, trust, respect, compromise, honesty. None of which can or should be expected to just appear automatically. It takes consciousness and an unselfish maturity to grow love. Love is a child that must be nurtured and cared for attentively, romance is there or it isn't. Attraction is often instantaneous but cultivating love is an ongoing process of two steps forward and one step back, a thing infinitely more gratifying, unless of course you thrive on tension which is the medium of romance. 

Would I then abolish romance from the menu? By no means! I only wish it were not so readily mistaken as the end of the matter. I have no need to abolish what serves a purpose but neither do I feel it imperative to hold on to something beyond its usefulness.

Contract of Marriage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What being a dom taught me about being human.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something New: parenting revisited

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

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

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

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

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

Relationship Exit Interviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time for a Male Revolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Orgasm Gap

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case by case and face to face.

Jump point: http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2013/04/dont-use-mick-philpotts-case-as-stick.html

Ok, not everyone who practices non-monogamy is ethical. The publication of abuse cases, like the one sited in this article, demonizes a whole segment of the population. Just as the reputation of rapists demonizes ethical men, or obnoxious radical fundamentalists demonizes ethical religious people. They taint our willingness to examine each individual case without bias. When, are we as a society, going to realize that the complexity of human interaction can not and should not be generalized, boxed and sold to the public as the only property of a thing.

I can accept that there are abusive people in every form of relating, it is a property of being human, but I also know it is not the whole story. It's why I have chosen to try on so many types of living for myself so I would know, first hand. To automatically assume it is all the same, is a disservice to the thing you are discounting, based on one incident or worse, the loudest voice. For every dysfunctional monogamous relationship there are probably a great number that do work out well for its participants. For every crack pot radical there are thousands who feel that ethical stewardship of the planet doesn't include criminal behavior. Likewise, not every non-monogamous relationship is unethical in it's practice.

There is no real information to indicate that polygamy is subjugation of the independent identity of women involved, or that polyamory itself is not affirming for women. Certainly, just like in monogamy, there are domineering, abusive, self centered men and women but to say that all are good or bad, based on the childish narcissism of a few is ludicrous.

This man's practices reflect on him and those in thrall to him, not on the community as a whole. He paid a huge price for revenge, and had he seen his partners and their children as more than commodities, the cost might have been higher still. But in no way are his actions normal in the world of polyamory, they aren't even the norm for male centered polygamy. It isn't possible, there are too many variables for it to be true. Once we as a species stop boxing and generalizing we will be better off. Such limits on choices only makes us think less, experience the humanity of others less, and justifies all sorts of unethical behavior. If we devoted our time to seeing clearly case by case and face to face without baggage and judgement we would grow exponentially. Instead we choose the way of suffering, all because of the need to control the information we get as a means to maintain our own comfort and maintain the illusion of "rightness".

Bubble time March

Well, here I am on Wednesday in the middle of another fabo week of bubble time. It's been cold here and snowed a little but we haven't really done much but play Skyrim, Fallout, and Assassin's Creed and hanging out on the couch.  Bubble time is pretty much reality optional, as you know. We have ventured out a time or two. Saturday was the con. We only went to schmoosh Jennie Breeden who does one of my favorite comics The Devil's Panties. I also like her comic on filthyfigments.com called ID. I was totally cool while Prof. Geeked out and then once we got out of the dealer room with my autographed copies and a pic of us huddled up for the camera I squee'd like a school girl.  We did eat at my favorite restaurant HuHot and had an exchange of gifts. But mostly it's been eat, sleep, game, and have lucious sex. I must go back to work post Easter but for now things are comfy and lazy. I will post a pic of me and Jennie as soon as I get it back to my Mac baby.

Missing Mad Sci but it's a hazard, I always miss someone. Hope everyone has had a nice spring holiday be it the Solstice, Easter, or Spring Break!

Labels are for folders

If you read my posts you know I'm always trying to sort out my place in this crazy world. I also usually have a jump point so here it is: from Dan P. at Single Dad Laughing, I'm Just Me.

In my life I have been straight, lesbian, bi, christian, pagan, buddhist, atheist, kinky, vanilla, poly, a mom, a sister, a daughter, married, single, dating, divorced, pro birth, pro choice, for guns, pro corporal punishment, against big gov, against big business, anti church, and tons of other things, and that doesn't even cover my work life. The point is, that I believe what we call ourselves is about where we are in the moment. Labels are useful as an exploratory tool to help us identify who we are and that changes over time. It isn't that I wasn't any of those things. What I am now in no way negates what I have been. 

It's like dating. I don't know if anyone else does this, but when I go on a first date, I literally try on everything I own. My life is like that, I try on roles like clothes to see if it's where I am. Sometimes those things are a good fit, sometimes they are but only for a little while. I grow out of stuff sometimes.

Labeling is a problem in the sense that other people want to lock you into an identity and all it's baggage (theirs or yours) and then want to get snarky when things change. You are not true to their idea of who you are and how you are supposed to act according to them. They call names: slut, fag, sinner, cleptocrat, etc. Why? Because they want the people around them to be predictable, controllable? Possibly, I think it may have more to do with them not embarrassing themselves. Like the guy who finds himself attracted to a woman only to find she is not what he expected. He's now angry about false advertising. His body or emotions have betrayed him and so he questions himself but is angry at the other person.

We all want to believe we can read people, that somehow we would just know if the person across the table is a racist or a category 5 schizo but we don't always know. It really is best to get to know a person, each person, without labels. Labels are expectations. Expectations are pre-paid resentments. I know someone who says expectations are like masturbation in the end you are only screwing yourself.

So like Dan, I am just me. If I claim to be something, remember it is not the world shattering permanent disappointment you are expecting. Much like asking if this dress makes me look fat, I have to ask myself if this label makes me the person I want to be.

Pussy Cat, the Griffin, and the Moon Faced Girl

This is a post about women.

Pussy Cat, Mad Sci's love interest, has sort of given up on him for a bit to focus on me. We spent nearly four hours on the phone friday night talking about stuff but mostly her "great issue". I don't really have a problem with it myself, but she seemed to think that I could convince him to change. That's not really how this works for us, but I listened and tried to be as understanding as possible. I also offered every defense, not because I don't agree but because I felt defensive somehow. Some of this is about feeling pressured to do something for the sake of someone else I barely know and have a casual interest in. Some of this is that I don't much care for ultimatums and it feels like one. I did warn her I have issues with women who make themselves an authority in my life. I don't know how much I feel heard on this. I like her well enough but not enough to pursue her personally. I fear, she may be too much like me for a relationship to work well between us. She's a person with big plans and a bit of a hero complex. Not that those things are bad, I just don't require saving.

Speaking of not requiring saving, I went to my wellness visit which is now required by my employer group and my numbers were too high. Cholesterol, blood pressure though not yet catastrophic still higher than they should be. I also found that I was deficient in D and iron. So my decision to make lifestyle changes a month before the appointment was a good one, and I am happy to know that my instinct payed off, even before I had numbers to back it up. I'm saving myself here, in case you were wondering about the connection.

The Griffin, a woman I consider my equal and one of my dearest friends, has moved back into town after a year away. She has come back with Mr. Atheist and already there is trouble in paradise for them. Not issues I want to discuss here but I worry about their happiness. Having broken her foot the day they moved into their old apartment she is feeling a bit stressed even on the vicodin. She hobbled on crutches, what amounts to three blocks or so, to my house today because she was upset with Mr. A. I hope things work out to their highest good. But I sure am glad to have my playmate back.

The Moon Faced Girl, wife of the late Stone Cricket and a dear friend to me, notified me recently, that she might visit this month. I look forward to seeing her. I don't really know what to expect but there will be giggling for sure.

I have work this month, hooray! And there will be bubble time with Prof at the end of the month. It will be our 10th anniversary.  Ok the last bit wasn't about women but good enough. I hope everyone has a great month.

Legal Poly Marriage is not fiscally practical

The blogPoly Percolations: polyamory in the news had an interesting jump point about how legal poly marriage is never going to happen. This is Mistress Matisse's personal experience of course but it does raise the question: Is legal poly marriage fiscally practical?

Why I don't want the government involved in my poly marriage:

First off, government would have to define what polyamory and poly marriage really mean. By defining a thing, you limit it. This is not really what polyamory is all about. It takes the individual choice out of it. You'd have to limit it in some way which necessarily excludes some expressions of the relationship style. Why the limit? Because of taxes.

You would also have to work out things like custody, how to protect in cases of domestic violence and child abuse and how divorce would work. That would require a social shift in attitudes about such things.

We aren't a large movement with a lot of funding. It's not important to me to be recognized as married in the sense of benefits. What is important is that it isn't criminal. That I won't be arrested for living in a way that harms no one.

I am married on paper already and that solves the problem of legal benefits and in no way indicates a stronger bond emotionally to Prof or Mad Science. It does however determine where I live and where my fiscal responsibilities lie. In many ways this makes legal marriage a financial decision rather than an emotional one. This is not far from how marriage has been in the past. Once and still in some places marriage was an arranged alliance between families to increase status, wealth, power or to create peace between families. It benefitted the social structure of family more than the married couple even in cultures that support wives with more than one husband.

The last time there was a really significant legal look at equality in marriage was at the beginning of the women's suffrage movement the following laws came into being. Divorce was expensive and difficult to obtain, especially for women. Women were also denied custody, sovereignty over her own property, and person. She would be denied higher education and the only career she could hope for outside marriage were the low paying or degrading jobs exclusive to women at the time. Seamstress, Laundress, Governess, Nanny, Cook, Nurse or Sex Worker.

• 1839: Infants and Child Custody Act: women were allowed take custody of their children under the age of seven if divorced or separated. They could not take custody if they had been found to be adulterous. Before this law the father was immediately awarded custody and it did not depend on the reasons for divorce.
• 1857: Matrimonial Causes Act: allows divorce—but only in limited instances: Imposes matrimonial double standard: Permits men to divorce on grounds of adultery, but not women.
• 1857: Civil divorce was introduced in England: The process left the divorced pair either unable to remarry, or it declared their existing children as illegitimate.
• 1870: Married Women's Property Act: allowed for women to keep their earnings and even inherit personal property and money. Everything else still belonged to her husband if she had acquired it before or after marriage.
• 1882: a woman could finally keep all personal and real property that she had gotten before and during her marriage.
• 1883: Custody Acts: allowed for women to be awarded custody of children up to the age of 16 (Moore par.4-5).

What does this have to do with poly marriage? Well, a lot really. These laws were made to protect women and children from the male dominated ownership policy marriage had been. An arrangement that allowed men to have a wife for property and procreation and a mistress (or mister) for companionship and sex for pleasure with no legal consequences. Many anti-suffragists considered feminism to be damaging to women because they were weak minded, emotionally unstable, and frail bodied. They believed this would bring the end of the institution of marriage whose sole purpose was property and procreation. Homosexual marriage doesn't meet these requirements even though it is often monogamous in nature how much more then, does poly stand outside tradition? That is not to say that poly isn't practical in our economy, more income and more support for children is a good thing, and in many ways is another way to have the benefits of extended family life of the past. The battle about abortion and rape culture we are experiencing proves that we aren't ready as a society to accept the leap to non-monogamy for a while yet. 

I, for one, am content with my situation. I, however, have no children to support and could support myself if things went south across the board. The more variables the more complicated this issue becomes, though, infinite possibility is hard to legislate. It would be like say, a small corporation with the members of the family as the board of directors which is an image most people have problems with when talking about the business of having relationships and children.

Bubble time

Bubble time- is the chance to spend intense time with another person without more than necessary practical issues.

Over Valentine's weekend I got a chance for some bubble time with my spice, Prof. We hung out, ate, slept, had sex. This isn't reality. It doesn't care about taxes, or government or responsibilities beyond self care. It's about being fully with another person. We don't have the luxury of this often. There are too many things to be done, discussed and dealt with. Laundry, dishes, cooking, going to the doctor, working and the other stuff that are part of having a life that is fairly comfortable but sometimes you have to make time for a little escape with the people you love most. Time to just be with them, just to see them beyond their practical role in the relationship.

Mad Science and I could use a little of this bubble time and we will talk about that need and then go do it. It's a chance to reconnect with what you love and know about the person and discover how they have evolved since last you took a close look. Let's face it most of us, if we feel secure and comfortable in a relationship go on auto pilot. Sometime later we look up and realize the person we have been assuming was predictable and unchanging has done something we didn't expect, like fall out of love or out grow us spiritually. So I think it is necessary to come back and see who that person is and be part of their lives instead of making them accessories to ours. I think that is part of the reason traditional marriage is in trouble. We put on and take off people as it suits us rather than doing the work to change with a person as opposed to expecting them to always be there to meet whatever needs we have without regard for their lives as people.

A relationship involves some sacrifice and care. The partnership is like a vehicle that takes the lovers from goal to goal and must be maintained consciously. To go thirty years and never give your relationship a tune up is the reason relationships sink. People can outgrow one another when left alone too long. The idea of a long relationship is to grow together. Does that mean you have to be attached at the hip? Not really but it is important to check in, discuss and negotiate. So we turn off the machines and go camping, we read to each other, we watch things that move us and discuss them, we check-in a thousand different ways but sometimes we need to loaf on the couch and cuddle, or have deep discussions into the night over a bottle of wine, or take time to be children together and have an adventure. The point of relationship is not to become secure and homogenous it's to cause us to grow at a deeper level. We can't do that unless there is some change and we are aware of it. How can you spend bubble time with someone you care about? Do you talk to your kids and spend time with them individually? How about your siblings? Do you really know them? What about those in your intimate circle? When was the last time you had a girl's/guy's night out? When was the last time you listened to what your spouse was actually saying?

What? Responsible non monogamy has rules?

I know it seems hard to believe that poly people have rules. First, the whole point of becoming poly for me was to love responsibly. Otherwise, I was miserable with the idea that I couldn't love more than one person on an intimate level without being referred to as "the slutty selfish cheater". Ok, I still get called that. However today's jump point is about "polynormativity" more specifically about how poly is presented as always beginning with a hetero couple who have all these rules and hierarchy about how everyone is supposed to behave and how everyone in poly is young and photogenic and they all sleep together.
The problem with polynormativity. This is long but well worth a look.

We started out with rules as a couple but we haven't been just a couple in a long time. We are a triad who is pretty much poly fi but not strictly so. It's hard for a decent guy to get a date much less an awesome poly guy. So that's the only reason there are really any limits. Do we have rules? Sure, but just the one really and it is for the protection of the health of everyone involved. Safe, sane, consensual, and courteous. Because no one wants to wake up at 4 in the morning with a gun to their head or in the ER because Belinda couldn't stand not getting to stay with Mona on her saturday just because it was Maria's birthday.

Whining drama aside, the whole point of polyamory, and it's flexibility, was to explore love as a fluid dynamic rather than a static one. So as we develop trust and self confidence and as we mature, naturally things should change. I think part of the reason poly fails is because the rules don't change or don't include everyone in the discussion.

There were a lot of rules. I had to know before sex. There had to be a meeting if we were welcoming a new person because of course every new person was going to be a long term partner and we had to all get along. I had to be allowed veto power on a new person. You see the problem? My insecurity. There were a lot of things like that in the beginning. I have since learned to trust.

Sometimes rules are like the training wheels for trust. That is why kids have rules to follow until they prove that they can be responsible. Once we see a person can be responsible and trusted then the rules relax.

But do we have to have them? I don't know, all things being equal and no baggage not so much. I am just not sure we are ever going to find someone to love that doesn't have some kind of baggage and can act like a responsible adult right off the bat in a new situation.

Hierarchy? Maybe we have a little of that based solely on the distance between spice but we have gone a long way to help Prof feel as comfortable as an equal partner as we can. We value his opinion and needs as much as we do our own. We've been together a long time the three of us. Mad Science has the odd encounter. Prof pines for his love interest. I sometimes dream we had a car mechanic in the family. But all that aside, it was a process. I had to overcome jealousy, ownership, mistrust etc., because my experience led me to believe that those things where what love was about. It isn't. I actually show less love if I am trying to control the behavior for others for my comfort. Watch out codependents poly may not be right for you. But by giving it a chance, it did work and continues to. Would I like to see some things different? Sure. It would be nice to have all of us in proximity but I realize the game isn't done yet and you never know what will happen on an idle Thursday.

As for the media thing: Media trolls what sells and making poly look hetero-normative and slightly less scary than the reality of infinite possibility in infinite combinations can be useful, of course, they have to go with what sells.

LGBTQ: We have a transgendered person in our circle who I like very much. She presents as female and I treat her as female. If she was to become involved intimately with anyone in the triad she would be welcome. We personally haven't had direct experience with that. There is a lot of opening up to happen and a lot of exploration and experience to be had but it will come in time. Until then we roll as best we can, as our skills and self awareness develop, sometimes rules are necessary, sometimes not so much. The skill of living or loving for that matter is in flexibility and willingness to grow. Some people don't like change, those people maybe shouldn't be poly unless they can learn.

Honor and Gender

Here's the start point: What is Honor?

I enjoy the work of Brett McKay on his site The Art of Manliness while I don't agree with everything he says, much of it makes sense. But let's talk honor.

In the start point article he points out that honor is given by a peer group or superior based on the meeting of minimum standards, and new actions that support them. That it can be lost, must exist in an exclusive group of equals (horizontal honor), and that shame is an important part of the all or nothing game.

We view this, in modern times, as an adherence to some internal code of ethics, integrity, the keeping of one's word, behaving on the outside as one believes internally. Conviction and behavior that follows this. Unfortunately, this is not kept in check by any self monitoring awareness these days. Honor should include some element of respect for all things, and protection of the weak, rather than it's exploitation.

This brings us to the peculiar gender based honor system. A woman's honor stems from her person, bearing, charity and not least of which, fidelity and chastity, as judged by others. At least in bygone days, a woman's perceived honor depended a great deal on decent behavior by men and their view of her behavior. For women as property were judged like one's dogs or horses. A well behaved property meant that you were a person of honor. There are flaws in this argument that we will have to cover another time.

It's not so different now. As women we still bear the labels of shame because of rape, incest, abuse, and a lack of sovereignty in our physical person. We sought out the right to behave as men do, without the cost we normally incurred. The cost has not changed.

Once you seek equality by engaging in the competitive honor system of men you must show yourself equal in all things to men. Such a thing is asking an elephant to climb a tree. I'm not saying that there are not many women who are physically equal, or that there are not women who are not as staunch protectors, or financiers of family life. There are truly remarkable women who can perform feats of "manliness". However, it comes at a cost. Such behavior strips you of your femininity. Don't believe me? Think about the female boss who demands performance in the strictest sense, a ball buster. Or the woman who doesn't take excuses for bad behavior, the prude. How about the woman who says no. Bitch. Are these less damaging than slut, whore, nag or bluestocking? In truth, men are not easier on each other where a strict ethical code is in place but they take it as appropriate behavior for other men to behave this way. Whereas women in the same position, expecting the same things are greeted with derogatory back talk, and slandering gossip.

Historically, a woman's honor group has been other women and works best in the  cooperative rather than competitive. A grouping of women as part of a subset of a society who share as friends and family apart from the governess of men. I'm for honor systems, to a point but not so much along gender lines.

Shouldn't honor instead be adjusted as the definition of equality changes. Should we not include more people as equals based on new criteria? Should we not treat all living creatures with respect who honor the code? Our peer group should be all humanity, and the shame we accrue for violating the human code of honor should be regulated by self awareness as well as some external pressure. Should it mean our lives? I don't know. It depends on the severity of the infraction. If a person violates or kills should they be violated or killed? Is the goal of honor to weed out the bad or teach some lesson and civilize or raise the level of behavior to something more enlightened and harmonious? Or is honor outmoded?

The Fallacy of Fair

Today's jump point is an excellent article on fairness by David Noble, The Fallacy of Fairness.

He brings up some interesting ideas about fairness and balance I would like to explore in my own relationships. We are in a V, of which, I am the hinge. This means that the distribution of my time must be split between three people, myself, Prof, and Mad Science.

Should things be equal? This usually means I need to spend equal time with both partners? At least that is the expectation. Supposedly, to offset or avoid jealous feelings on the part of one or more of the people involved. Here are a few reasons things will never be truly fair or equal in our relationships.

1. I have a partner that lives three hours away. How much time I spend with him is contingent on technology and money. (my car, my computer, time to talk on the phone or skype).

2. They work full time jobs which makes their time limited. Down shift time is super important and cuts into real relationship interaction stuff, like sex, meaningful conversation, or just connection.

3. Level of need and contribution fluctuate as individuals change and grow or cycle through their normal stuff. For example: Illness. One may be sick and need extra care. By necessity that leaves out the others in some way, or when I hit bottom in my manic depression cycle, I am more vulnerable and require some special care. Maybe Mad Science has an important function I need to be present for, say he won inventor of the year or something, then I would choose to support him in this one off deal instead of celebrating a birthday with my friends.

So how do we cope? Well, we recognize that if our preferred person can not meet a need we have it is ok to ask someone else to help with that. We are all on the same side not in competition. Not all need is need, sometimes it is want packaged as need. We recognize need for what it is and want for what it is. Not all desire can be met as we would like, that is acceptable. When we need or want we ask. The worst that can happen is the other will say "No, I can't right now. Is there another way we can do this? Or another time?"

Also let me say that the idea of fairness embodies the idea of entitlement. Somehow things are supposed to be fair, I am owed a certain amount of your time because you are committed to me in some way. It's more of a monogamous body ownership idea but we were all raised this way so it's bound to bleed through, even if we think we've got it handled. We also tend to equate time with love. Not always true. Certainly, it is supposed that if you love someone you want to spend a great deal of your time together but it doesn't mean you are required to or that it is somehow to be expected. I mean that it isn't a measure of veracity of feeling. I may not be in physical proximity with my lover more than once a month but that does not mean I love him less. Time may equal money but love doesn't equal time. Love is a limitless expression, time is more of a commodity that must be managed with intention and an eye to harmony in one's life. There have been many complaints from women who feel their husbands are married to their jobs instead of them. Mismanaged time. This is not because a man doesn't love his wife necessarily but because provision is a more important an act of love than connection for some men. That would be ok if women and men saw love and it's expression the same ways, often they don't. So fair doesn't really exist for us. I rarely harbor so great a resentment as to stomp my pretty little feet claiming it isn't fair. I look at what I want and need and try to think practically about how to resolve the issue with as much eye to the happiness and security of the guys as I can but fair/equal doesn't feature in as much as. Do they feel secure in the relationship? Do they feel loved? Do I give them space to chose happiness over resentment? Do my choices do the same for me?

gender equality...Hah!

Ok. There is not really a jump point for today. I heard someone say something that harkened back to my mother and had to blog about it. The person said of a college aged child of theirs regarding sexual misconduct (to be clear, this was rape).

"You know how boys are. It was her fault for being too drunk at the party." This said by the Mother of the boy in question.

In my case it was..."Men are animals with insurmountable instincts we just let them do what they do and get on with our lives." My mother's words. She also told me "You are a woman you should know better." This creates an inherited social order where women are morally responsible for society, have to constantly protect themselves from harm, and see  being female as a liability.

The "boys will be boys" tripe has excused violence against anyone different than the person committing such injustice for a really long time. If I were a man I would be angry that someone automatically assumed I had no self control. Or worse intentionally gave me liberty to be something so socially suicidal as being a creepy stalker with entitlement issues that I would, as an adult, have to work hard to change.

How exactly did moral onus become a "woman's job"? Knowing rationally, that I can no more control or change the behavior of another person any more than I can magically become 5'8" and 120 lbs overnight. How then, is it ok to excuse rape, violence, or any other douchebaggery solely on the basis of gender, or race for that matter?

This attitude that violence and rape are inevitable means no one is safe from the ravages of male privilege. It causes problems for those who do have self control. I know a man who fought for custody of his daughter and because he was male didn't get it on the grounds that a) no man would willingly want to raise a child, b) that there was an increased risk of sexual abuse in a situation where a single father was raising a daughter, and c) that said person, being male didn't have the required parental instincts to properly raise a child. All of which, in this case, were totally unfounded.

It is truly sad that over half of our population is in fear of violence just for being unlucky enough not to be male and/or white. I'm not really hating on white men, because there are many good ones who don't exhibit a need to control everyone around them as their right. I am saying those who beat their wives, stalk innocent women, engage in revenge porn, abuse children, and are irresponsible in general give the rest a bad name. When 1 in 6 girls is raped before they finish high school either there are more men out there that believe the lie of privilege or the few sure get around.

The media historically has been no help here. When everything comes down to a battle of us vs them. Venus against Mars, as though we are a different species entirely, then there is going to be a conquer or surrender dynamic in male-female relationships. It is a sad commentary on our society when I look at a man in my space and automatically assess the possibility of violence and form an escape route as part of my daily life. Men don't have to do this unless they are gay or trans but "apparently" they aren't "real" men and therefore free game too. What is equally sad is that women perpetuate this as much as men do. The two examples above are just the tip of the iceberg of things that women tell their daughters. If this nonsense is allowed to continue we may as well begin self defense training and arming girls as early as 3.

"Sorry, no ballet Susi, you have to go to Judo instead and then the gun range, because men are beasts." really?

Then there is the sense that our sex is a liability. Don't believe me? Check this out. A man fires a woman, not because she has agreed to sexual congress, or has tried to file sexual harassment but because he is attracted to her and it may cause him to damage his marriage. How about women on the front lines? We can't have women on the front lines because the necessary segregation because of hygiene is impractical in a war situation. So you don't mind peeing next to a man but the idea of a woman relieving herself or showering nearby makes your heart beat fast? Gays weren't allowed in the military until recently for a similar reason. As if every gay man is attracted to straight homophobic tough guys and will therefore rape someone out in the field. What? How about the debate on maternity leave or sick days around the stressful days of the menstrual cycle, or birth control as part of insurance, or daycare? What about sick days taken for children who need cared for at home? All issues mean women cost more to employ and therefore deserve less pay. These same detractors complain about welfare too, which they feel is dominantly collected by single moms. I read a comment on a blog about this recently that indicated that if women weren't so weak and lazy maybe they would get paid more. What?

The bottom line is if society marginalizes women and keeps them in survival mode they don't have time to exercise greater levels of excellence thus perpetuating the myths that we are weak and unequal to the task of being considered real human beings with rights. It is also true for minorities and LGBTQ folks. It's how privilege maintains its status.

Some people will point to women in power, of the women in political or business power, I wonder how many of them were privileged in some way. Liberal parents and/or rich parents? How many of those women had to endure harassment or paid by de-feminizing themselves in some way? Or worse, using their femininity in debasing and degrading ways to get ahead? My sister has worked in the auto business for 15 years and has struggled with discrimination. She is pretty and once was very feminine but has had to "butch up" to keep from being harassed and to be taken seriously in spite of the fact that she is very intelligent, good at her job and is more knowledgeable about cars than many men she works with.

When we can stop being trained to feel ashamed of our very gender, and stop fearing for our lives and safety, maybe we will summon the will to have enough voice to stop violence against women. When men begin to see this as a human problem maybe the ones who aren't asshole will stand up to those who are on our behalf and join the fight instead of remaining silent for fear of being put in the "pussy whipped" camp.