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.