One of the various things I read online these days is Ask Polly, an advice column. Advice columns frequently amuse me, and I go through phases of reading them and not - mostly depending on the balance of how many of them recently have amused me vs. have disturbed or upset me. Just yesterday, though, was this one:
http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/02/ask-polly-how-do-i-stop-hating-myself.html
It's one I identify with. There are any number of differences, of course, but the core of his problem - self-acceptance - is my biggest battle and frequently the biggest problem of kinky people. It's not really too hard to understand why, either; after all, accepting one's being divorced or accepting one's being a vegetarian is easy - your friends, your family, your coworkers will all support you. Being kinky is sortof like being gay in this respect; some people people will love and support you anyway, some people will turn against you because of it, and some people - maybe most people - are happier never knowing. There's nothing wrong with being kinky, and yet it's hard to convince yourself of that when the world around you tries hard to convince you otherwise.
It could be worse; most of us can pass as norms. Many of us come across as eccentric or weird, but we can get by in everyday life. That's not true of all of us - some of us are stuck between being miserable and denying ourselves, or being excluded and even arrested. Some of us need help to avoid being a statistic - and a depressing statistic at that.
There are resources out there, and one of the most useful is the Kink-Aware Professional's Directory. It's not perfect and it's not complete, but it's a good starting point - and sometimes, the people on that list are the difference between freedom and jail time... Or life and death.
Even if you aren't kinky, remember how much the kinky people in your life need your support, your love, and - above all else - your acceptance.
Showing posts with label Problems. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Problems. Show all posts
2015/02/13
2015/01/19
Other concerns in regard to kids in light of things
As Mike touched on last week, there is something inherently problematic about being a parent and kinky or in a non-standard relationship. He expressed his concerns about not knowing exactly where to start on explaining his/our life, and if he should even do so in the first place.
To be honest, I have concerns as well, but in a completely different realm.
Let's look at the facts: Mike's son is being raised by four parents:
-a conservative Christian lesbian mother
-her butch lesbian wife
-a kinky sadist poly demisexual father
-and me, an open-minded pansexual mildly kinky chronic masturbator (or something)
So my first question in regards to my stepson would have to be, "What if he grows up to be kind of normal?"
My second question would be something along the lines of, "who is going to guide him when it comes to being an average boy when he hits puberty?"
By all accounts, it seems likely he will turn into the average cis-gendered straight boy in a few years. He already seems to have a fondness for ladies, and he's just, you know, a boy. My worry is that he won't have a good basis for understanding how to appreciate his body, his sexuality, and not grow up in the dark about how this whole thing works and how to be safe.
Mike said his ex-wife gave their son "the talk" a few years ago, but we don't know exactly what that means. Did she give him the technical overview and then tack on the "and God doesn't want you to do this until you're married" bit at the end? When he hits puberty, is she going to teach him that masturbation is wrong and he is a monster if he does it?
He takes after his father in a lot of ways, so maybe sex won't be a thing that even occurs to him to care about. But if he does, it seems I had the closest to a "standard teen-boy libido" of everyone currently parenting the boy. So I guess, of everything, I'm not worried he'll find out about how his father and I are, but that he won't understand that there are healthy and unhealthy ways to show one's inherent sexuality and some people have odd ideas about what that means. I don't want him to grow up ashamed of his desires (assuming they don't end up being destructive to himself or others, which, statistically, is probably unlikely) and I don't want him to be unjustifiably conflicted over having desires in the first place, regardless of how "normal" they are or aren't.
The last thing this world needs is more people who don't know how to treat themselves and others. I still believe that most of us are trying our best on any given day (sometimes, as my mom likes to point out, our best kind of sucks), but there's sometimes only so much we can do with the information we are given in the first place.
To be honest, I have concerns as well, but in a completely different realm.
Let's look at the facts: Mike's son is being raised by four parents:
-a conservative Christian lesbian mother
-her butch lesbian wife
-a kinky sadist poly demisexual father
-and me, an open-minded pansexual mildly kinky chronic masturbator (or something)
So my first question in regards to my stepson would have to be, "What if he grows up to be kind of normal?"
My second question would be something along the lines of, "who is going to guide him when it comes to being an average boy when he hits puberty?"
By all accounts, it seems likely he will turn into the average cis-gendered straight boy in a few years. He already seems to have a fondness for ladies, and he's just, you know, a boy. My worry is that he won't have a good basis for understanding how to appreciate his body, his sexuality, and not grow up in the dark about how this whole thing works and how to be safe.
Mike said his ex-wife gave their son "the talk" a few years ago, but we don't know exactly what that means. Did she give him the technical overview and then tack on the "and God doesn't want you to do this until you're married" bit at the end? When he hits puberty, is she going to teach him that masturbation is wrong and he is a monster if he does it?
He takes after his father in a lot of ways, so maybe sex won't be a thing that even occurs to him to care about. But if he does, it seems I had the closest to a "standard teen-boy libido" of everyone currently parenting the boy. So I guess, of everything, I'm not worried he'll find out about how his father and I are, but that he won't understand that there are healthy and unhealthy ways to show one's inherent sexuality and some people have odd ideas about what that means. I don't want him to grow up ashamed of his desires (assuming they don't end up being destructive to himself or others, which, statistically, is probably unlikely) and I don't want him to be unjustifiably conflicted over having desires in the first place, regardless of how "normal" they are or aren't.
The last thing this world needs is more people who don't know how to treat themselves and others. I still believe that most of us are trying our best on any given day (sometimes, as my mom likes to point out, our best kind of sucks), but there's sometimes only so much we can do with the information we are given in the first place.
2015/01/13
Going the Wrong Direction
I don't remember exactly where I found this, but I saw this article late last week:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30735673
This article upset me a great deal in several ways. The most obvious one is the way they just lump any non-mainstream social behaviour into "mental disorders" and then pile up laws against it. It's just so... Alien to me. I understand that one of my myriad problems are that sometimes I just have a hard time relating to points of view that are too far alien to mine; and this is just one of those cases. It amazes me that in this day and age so many countries are willing to impose their own morality in the form of laws outlawing any lifestyle too far different from your own.
Of course, my own country - by adoption if not by birth - is not much better some days. South Dakota's ban on gay marriage was ruled unconstitutional just a few short hours ago, making it the 36th state to allow gay marriage. The 36th. With every single federal court case going in favour of gay marriage, you'd think that the states would see the writing on the wall and accept the inevitable, but instead all too many of them are fighting tooth and nail. It's taken decades to get this far, and the rearguard action from the conservatives on this particular losing battle is as pathetic as it is arrogant. Soon they'll turn back to their other remaining legal forms bigotry and things will settle down for another period of slow progress before another major hump gets crossed.
The line that upset me the most, though, actually wasn't the new law, or the way kink was lumped in with "other mental disorders". The piece that upset me the most was that the Russian Psychiatric Association didn't voice concern because it was asinine and based on something that wasn't reality; he voiced concern because, with the new law, people would avoid seeking psychiatric help.
It's been a stressful couple of weeks for me, with a number of things going on at work, at home, and in my personal life... But this really pushed my buttons. It isn't normally easy for me to get angry, but this really did push me over the edge.
Whatever. I'll see y'all in a few days - hopefully far more calm. And in the meantime, I'll proudly remember that me and my wife and almost every last one of my friends now cannot get a driver's license in Russia.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30735673
This article upset me a great deal in several ways. The most obvious one is the way they just lump any non-mainstream social behaviour into "mental disorders" and then pile up laws against it. It's just so... Alien to me. I understand that one of my myriad problems are that sometimes I just have a hard time relating to points of view that are too far alien to mine; and this is just one of those cases. It amazes me that in this day and age so many countries are willing to impose their own morality in the form of laws outlawing any lifestyle too far different from your own.
Of course, my own country - by adoption if not by birth - is not much better some days. South Dakota's ban on gay marriage was ruled unconstitutional just a few short hours ago, making it the 36th state to allow gay marriage. The 36th. With every single federal court case going in favour of gay marriage, you'd think that the states would see the writing on the wall and accept the inevitable, but instead all too many of them are fighting tooth and nail. It's taken decades to get this far, and the rearguard action from the conservatives on this particular losing battle is as pathetic as it is arrogant. Soon they'll turn back to their other remaining legal forms bigotry and things will settle down for another period of slow progress before another major hump gets crossed.
The line that upset me the most, though, actually wasn't the new law, or the way kink was lumped in with "other mental disorders". The piece that upset me the most was that the Russian Psychiatric Association didn't voice concern because it was asinine and based on something that wasn't reality; he voiced concern because, with the new law, people would avoid seeking psychiatric help.
It's been a stressful couple of weeks for me, with a number of things going on at work, at home, and in my personal life... But this really pushed my buttons. It isn't normally easy for me to get angry, but this really did push me over the edge.
Whatever. I'll see y'all in a few days - hopefully far more calm. And in the meantime, I'll proudly remember that me and my wife and almost every last one of my friends now cannot get a driver's license in Russia.
2014/12/26
I was listening to the Savage Lovecast - as I am wont to do when a new episode comes out. This week's, #426, was a live Christmas episode recorded at the Neptune Theatre in Seattle with special guests Rachel Lark and Derek Sheen, and it was a lot less serious and more fun than most. Still, they had their typical phone calls, all across the board. One was from a girl talking about her boyfriend and her boyfriend's other girlfriend and what to do at the holidays, which I very well may come back to in the near future for a post... But the one that really struck a nerve and that I'm going to talk about today, however far off my normal beaten path it is, was a mother who called in to ask something about her daughter. The problem was that here daughter is uncertain about her gender identity, and the mother called up the Lovecast to ask what the best way to ask "What gender she was that day". Rachel Lark's advice amounted to "stay gender-neutral and avoid the subject as hard you can".
...Both of these bothered me a great deal, and one of the easiest ways to explain why is to tell you Derek Sheen's answer: that the mother was asking the wrong question... And instead she should be teaching her daughter that gender isn't a binary. The problem here isn't "figuring out what gender the daughter is that day"; the problem is the mindset that there's only two choices... And someone who hasn't chosen one of them isn't okay.
This is a problem all over the spectrum, and it's one I tend to worry about more in my day-to-day life as it applies to sexuality. This directly relates to things like the Kinsey scale - after all, I'm something like a 0 or a 1 but know people all over the range. It's hard enough to convince some people that there's more than one option in sexuality; convincing them there's two - heterosexuality and homosexuality - is impossible with the bigoted. Convincing people there's a whole spectrum including homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, pansexuals, and everything else? It's... An uphill fight, shall we say.
And gender... Gender is harder. Gender is fixed by biology, right? Of course it is! You're assigned a gender at birth and it never changes... Except for all those little differences. Like people born with genetic gender disorders - XXX, XXY, XYY, XXYY, XXXX, XXXXX... But far more subtle and far more insidious are those people whose gender doesn't match their body.
It's not as simple as some people who are born male but identify female or some people who are born female but identify male; it's about people, no matter their biological gender, who don't fit society's rules. It's about people who don't know what they are... They just know they aren't a male or a female.
I know where I fit on these spectrums... Most people really do. But not everyone does. And this poor girl, even with her mother's good intentions, is being set up to be confused and depressed and conflicted and lost.
...Both of these bothered me a great deal, and one of the easiest ways to explain why is to tell you Derek Sheen's answer: that the mother was asking the wrong question... And instead she should be teaching her daughter that gender isn't a binary. The problem here isn't "figuring out what gender the daughter is that day"; the problem is the mindset that there's only two choices... And someone who hasn't chosen one of them isn't okay.
This is a problem all over the spectrum, and it's one I tend to worry about more in my day-to-day life as it applies to sexuality. This directly relates to things like the Kinsey scale - after all, I'm something like a 0 or a 1 but know people all over the range. It's hard enough to convince some people that there's more than one option in sexuality; convincing them there's two - heterosexuality and homosexuality - is impossible with the bigoted. Convincing people there's a whole spectrum including homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, pansexuals, and everything else? It's... An uphill fight, shall we say.
And gender... Gender is harder. Gender is fixed by biology, right? Of course it is! You're assigned a gender at birth and it never changes... Except for all those little differences. Like people born with genetic gender disorders - XXX, XXY, XYY, XXYY, XXXX, XXXXX... But far more subtle and far more insidious are those people whose gender doesn't match their body.
It's not as simple as some people who are born male but identify female or some people who are born female but identify male; it's about people, no matter their biological gender, who don't fit society's rules. It's about people who don't know what they are... They just know they aren't a male or a female.
I know where I fit on these spectrums... Most people really do. But not everyone does. And this poor girl, even with her mother's good intentions, is being set up to be confused and depressed and conflicted and lost.
2014/12/25
Somewhere between "oops" and "ooh noooooo"
So, it's Christmas. Good ol' December 25th. I'm not a fan, but a lot of people are, so let's not dwell on that.
What today's date also means is that I'm basically a hair's breadth away from being 31 years old. I've changed a lot over the past few years (a lot of it for the better, I'd say), and one thing I thought I had gotten over was my ability to completely and utterly embarrass myself to the point of not being able to replay the situation over and over in my head until I collapse. It's useless in terms of damage control and it isn't particularly kind to my mental state, but I had managed to lose that part of myself a while ago.
At least, I thought I had.
Last week, late in the evening, Mike's exwife stopped by to grab something their son had left at our place. Our place, the tiny mess. Our place, where you enter in the living room and can see my command center of a computer in its entirety, the monitors readable at a step or two from the door.
On the main screen was Facebook, and in the corner was a conversation with my friend Rex. In that conversation was the phrase "whenever Mike starts talking to new people on OkCupid."
Fuck.
So the exwife came into the apartment, took a few steps toward the table/desk we spend most of our time at, and, I fear, read the conversation. The one that points toward a non-standard relationship. The type of relationship she has hinted at being unacceptable and worth hauling his ass into court over in the hopes of taking his parental rights away.
Nope, that panicky embarrassment is still there, front and center.
Fuck.
I tried to figure out if coming out to people about my sexuality and facing rejection was worse than accidentally coming out as poly/open to a potentially hostile woman whose existence in our lives is dictated by the existence of the stepson I adore beyond reason. Maybe it's the fact that I'm now half a lifetime away from the days I admitted I "like girls," but this actually feels more painful. The harassment back then was awful, but this? This potentially carries more weight.
Mike's response to the situation was, initially "fuck her" (not literally) and that, if it came up, we would deal with it. He didn't blame me or say I fucked up (that's all me), and his feeling was, if she says anything, he has no problem pointing out that she shouldn't have been reading my screen, regardless of it being out in plain view.
Meanwhile, I'm just hoping it doesn't come up. I spend enough time feeling alienated in terms of being able to talk to people about how our relationship works that I don't need someone to know who will ultimately have a problem with it -- more than the average person does to begin with, I guess.
What's fun is that I'm totally in favor of people just being out and open about their sexuality and their relationships. But because I'm still not comfortable with the perception of certain flavors of relationships, it keeps me from actually engaging the part of myself that is polyamorous and bisexual. I'll admit to being a total wimp and taking the easy way out and hiding in the appearance of heteronormativity, sticking to admitting ladycrushes to my husband and a few friends and playing loops of sexy-girl-time in my head when the situation warrants it.
Standard stuff, I guess, for most married people. It just makes me feel like a fraud.
Ultimately, the panic has lessened enough that I can function again, but I'm still afraid. Thankfully we will be out of this apartment soon and you can be damn sure I will be hiding my computer screen better in the next place.
What today's date also means is that I'm basically a hair's breadth away from being 31 years old. I've changed a lot over the past few years (a lot of it for the better, I'd say), and one thing I thought I had gotten over was my ability to completely and utterly embarrass myself to the point of not being able to replay the situation over and over in my head until I collapse. It's useless in terms of damage control and it isn't particularly kind to my mental state, but I had managed to lose that part of myself a while ago.
At least, I thought I had.
Last week, late in the evening, Mike's exwife stopped by to grab something their son had left at our place. Our place, the tiny mess. Our place, where you enter in the living room and can see my command center of a computer in its entirety, the monitors readable at a step or two from the door.
On the main screen was Facebook, and in the corner was a conversation with my friend Rex. In that conversation was the phrase "whenever Mike starts talking to new people on OkCupid."
Fuck.
So the exwife came into the apartment, took a few steps toward the table/desk we spend most of our time at, and, I fear, read the conversation. The one that points toward a non-standard relationship. The type of relationship she has hinted at being unacceptable and worth hauling his ass into court over in the hopes of taking his parental rights away.
Nope, that panicky embarrassment is still there, front and center.
Fuck.
I tried to figure out if coming out to people about my sexuality and facing rejection was worse than accidentally coming out as poly/open to a potentially hostile woman whose existence in our lives is dictated by the existence of the stepson I adore beyond reason. Maybe it's the fact that I'm now half a lifetime away from the days I admitted I "like girls," but this actually feels more painful. The harassment back then was awful, but this? This potentially carries more weight.
Mike's response to the situation was, initially "fuck her" (not literally) and that, if it came up, we would deal with it. He didn't blame me or say I fucked up (that's all me), and his feeling was, if she says anything, he has no problem pointing out that she shouldn't have been reading my screen, regardless of it being out in plain view.
Meanwhile, I'm just hoping it doesn't come up. I spend enough time feeling alienated in terms of being able to talk to people about how our relationship works that I don't need someone to know who will ultimately have a problem with it -- more than the average person does to begin with, I guess.
What's fun is that I'm totally in favor of people just being out and open about their sexuality and their relationships. But because I'm still not comfortable with the perception of certain flavors of relationships, it keeps me from actually engaging the part of myself that is polyamorous and bisexual. I'll admit to being a total wimp and taking the easy way out and hiding in the appearance of heteronormativity, sticking to admitting ladycrushes to my husband and a few friends and playing loops of sexy-girl-time in my head when the situation warrants it.
Standard stuff, I guess, for most married people. It just makes me feel like a fraud.
Ultimately, the panic has lessened enough that I can function again, but I'm still afraid. Thankfully we will be out of this apartment soon and you can be damn sure I will be hiding my computer screen better in the next place.
2014/12/09
The Past Is... Well, Something.
I'll be honest and say I don't remember the last time I mentioned Sunshine, my former sub. She's popped up here and there in the blog, but I hadn't actually talked to her in more than a month and a half - since October 17th - until today. She sent me an e-mail yesterday saying she'd seen one of my old messages while going through her mailbox and wanted to say hello.
We didn't part on the best of terms. She was, in fact, incredibly upset at me. I had told her I was not prepared to take her as a submissive; she felt betrayed; I was not in a mood to deal with the additional stress in my life; and she stopped talking to me. I'm not about to go back and analyze what happened. I could go into a lot more detail justifying my side of it, but it just doesn't matter - I was not willing to handle the way she was acting, she took exception to my deciding that and how I presented it, and there's not much more to it.
So we talked a bit today. She explained part of why she acted that way, told me she doesn't want to not talk to me forever... And then she asked me what had happened to our contract, the copies of which I had when we stopped talking. She had demanded of me, at the time, to send them back or destroy them, and I'd never responded to her; and she wanted to know what had happened.
What had happened is that I'd totally ignored her. Both copies are still in my correspondence in my bedroom. There are two very good reasons why I still have them.
The first isn't complicated; they're memories to me. I value my past a great deal. There are huge swathes of it which are sad, unpleasant, or extremely painful... And yet it's very important to me. I don't always like everything about myself, but I'm proud of who I've become. My past is a part of me, and every terrible event, every memory that makes me sad or cry or ache also brought me closer to who I am today and the place I am in life right now. I keep a lot of small things like that because of the memories they evoke, and I have no interest in losing that small tangible connection to my past.
The second is both very simple and far more complicated; those contracts are proof, tangible proof, of both of our involvement in case a... Problem arises. It's a sad truth, but there is enormous precedent for D/s relationships to end badly. It's a terrible idea to get into any such relationship if the people involved don't trust each other; but as my marriage proves beyond any reasonable doubt, you can go into a situation in good faith and absolute trust and still have it end far worse than you could possibly imagine. A contract written in no uncertain terms involving a discussion of BDSM, signed by her, in an envelope addressed in her hand and return-addressed to her, is about as strong a defense of at least original consent as you can have without multiple witnesses to support you.
I don't even mean defense necessarily against a legal dispute - an accusation of rape or assault, though obviously that's a concern; I mean just as much defense against the accusations of a loved one (a husband, a boyfriend, whatever)... Or against her.
My assumption, when she asked if I had, was that she was afraid I'd use the contract against her; and though I never would use it against her, it's not an unreasonable fear in general. She says, rather, that she asked at the time because she "didn't want me to have the part of her heart she put into it".
I can understand; that's part of why I kept them... And I'd do it again.
We didn't part on the best of terms. She was, in fact, incredibly upset at me. I had told her I was not prepared to take her as a submissive; she felt betrayed; I was not in a mood to deal with the additional stress in my life; and she stopped talking to me. I'm not about to go back and analyze what happened. I could go into a lot more detail justifying my side of it, but it just doesn't matter - I was not willing to handle the way she was acting, she took exception to my deciding that and how I presented it, and there's not much more to it.
So we talked a bit today. She explained part of why she acted that way, told me she doesn't want to not talk to me forever... And then she asked me what had happened to our contract, the copies of which I had when we stopped talking. She had demanded of me, at the time, to send them back or destroy them, and I'd never responded to her; and she wanted to know what had happened.
What had happened is that I'd totally ignored her. Both copies are still in my correspondence in my bedroom. There are two very good reasons why I still have them.
The first isn't complicated; they're memories to me. I value my past a great deal. There are huge swathes of it which are sad, unpleasant, or extremely painful... And yet it's very important to me. I don't always like everything about myself, but I'm proud of who I've become. My past is a part of me, and every terrible event, every memory that makes me sad or cry or ache also brought me closer to who I am today and the place I am in life right now. I keep a lot of small things like that because of the memories they evoke, and I have no interest in losing that small tangible connection to my past.
The second is both very simple and far more complicated; those contracts are proof, tangible proof, of both of our involvement in case a... Problem arises. It's a sad truth, but there is enormous precedent for D/s relationships to end badly. It's a terrible idea to get into any such relationship if the people involved don't trust each other; but as my marriage proves beyond any reasonable doubt, you can go into a situation in good faith and absolute trust and still have it end far worse than you could possibly imagine. A contract written in no uncertain terms involving a discussion of BDSM, signed by her, in an envelope addressed in her hand and return-addressed to her, is about as strong a defense of at least original consent as you can have without multiple witnesses to support you.
I don't even mean defense necessarily against a legal dispute - an accusation of rape or assault, though obviously that's a concern; I mean just as much defense against the accusations of a loved one (a husband, a boyfriend, whatever)... Or against her.
My assumption, when she asked if I had, was that she was afraid I'd use the contract against her; and though I never would use it against her, it's not an unreasonable fear in general. She says, rather, that she asked at the time because she "didn't want me to have the part of her heart she put into it".
I can understand; that's part of why I kept them... And I'd do it again.
2014/12/02
A Little Bit Backwards
There've been a number of times I've listened to a Savage Lovecast and gotten an idea from it. I mean, he does advice and news day in and day out and it's hard to go through one of his podcasts without hearing something I feel is worth commenting on. This time, though, it was the other way around; I started writing about a topic and then listened to a Savage Lovecast that talked about the same topic. It was a funny turnaround, and almost made me feel like I should change it... Which I suppose doesn't make much sense. But either way.
I spent last week visiting family. Quite a lot of people did; it was, after all, Thanksgiving week. I mean, the day before Thanksgiving is one of the busiest travel days of the year (apparently its being the busiest is a myth? It's still in the top ten) as people scurry to their parents' or childrens' or siblings' or in-laws' houses to eat to much and watch ridiculous things on TV (If you're curious, we watched a bunch of Cutthroat Kitchen; turns out I'm a sucker for Alton Brown.). You play games, you talk, you reminisce, you argue and get grumpy over stupid things... All the things families do.
Thanksgiving is really the beginning of what is the biggest family season for a lot of people. There's Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Boxing Day, New Years, make-up or alternate holidays for split families, various school breaks, massive amounts of shopping... It's not uncommon for this time of year to be the only time you see more distant family members. The thing is, though, that you don't have just one family. Everyone has the family they're born into, but there's also the family you choose... And when the two groups aren't out to each other, that can bring conflict.
Most people have a chosen family separate from their biological family, even if that isn't how they define it. It consists of their friends, significant others and loved ones - the people they surround themselves with intentionally. Another term people use is "intentional families", but it really amounts to the same thing; the people you choose rather than the people you were handed.
The biggest conflict comes, like I said, when the two groups aren't entirely aware of each other. The common scenario is when you haven't come out as non-straight, and haven't introduced your family to the fact that your significant other is the same sex as you. Coming out as gay or lesbian or bi to your family can be traumatic; and yet from my own (probably selfish) point of view, coming out as poly or - the horror - kinky is easily as bad if not worse.
I mean, Ash and I currently do not have a third, and yet what if we did? What if I did have a slave who I did not want to leave behind? I was having a conversation with Persephone the other day about what I want out of a submissive, and the comment that stuck in my mind was that I don't want someone bound to me by a collar; I want someone who loves their collar because they love me. And it may be totally alien to someone who doesn't feel the same way, but that type of situation isn't one where I would want to leave my sub - part of my family - when I went somewhere for the holidays.
It's complicated, of course, by their family. With my family I could, if I needed to, bring along a sub or a girlfriend as a "friend", and whether or not my parents were suspicious they would at least not say much. With Ash's family, I suspect it'd be rather harder; I can't think of a graceful way to bring a friend along with most of them, though we probably could if we talked fast enough. And with this hypothetical sub's family... Unless they were remarkably open-minded, unless you're out to them, it would be hard to explain her bringing a *married couple* with her to her family at the holidays.
Honestly, in some cases there's just no good answer; no matter how it's handled someone is going to be uncomfortable or upset. Some families will turn it into a choice - your give family or your intentional family - and that choice is never good. It's not fair to you or your loved ones. To me, it comes back to that they are trying to love you for who they want you to be, not necessarily who you are; and that's an unsustainable situation in the long run. Dan Savage's advice is always, when you aren't dependent on them, simply tell them the truth; give them the ultimatum that they can either love you for who you are or hate you for not being who they wanted you to be. I agree with the advice... But it's scary. And it's advice that, for better or for worse, I haven't followed as of yet.
In this season, though, remember your families - both of them - and take comfort in them as best you can. My families - my given family and my chosen family - are both small... And I regret that most days. I miss them, and they should not be taken for granted... No matter how much stress they cause.
I spent last week visiting family. Quite a lot of people did; it was, after all, Thanksgiving week. I mean, the day before Thanksgiving is one of the busiest travel days of the year (apparently its being the busiest is a myth? It's still in the top ten) as people scurry to their parents' or childrens' or siblings' or in-laws' houses to eat to much and watch ridiculous things on TV (If you're curious, we watched a bunch of Cutthroat Kitchen; turns out I'm a sucker for Alton Brown.). You play games, you talk, you reminisce, you argue and get grumpy over stupid things... All the things families do.
Thanksgiving is really the beginning of what is the biggest family season for a lot of people. There's Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Boxing Day, New Years, make-up or alternate holidays for split families, various school breaks, massive amounts of shopping... It's not uncommon for this time of year to be the only time you see more distant family members. The thing is, though, that you don't have just one family. Everyone has the family they're born into, but there's also the family you choose... And when the two groups aren't out to each other, that can bring conflict.
Most people have a chosen family separate from their biological family, even if that isn't how they define it. It consists of their friends, significant others and loved ones - the people they surround themselves with intentionally. Another term people use is "intentional families", but it really amounts to the same thing; the people you choose rather than the people you were handed.
The biggest conflict comes, like I said, when the two groups aren't entirely aware of each other. The common scenario is when you haven't come out as non-straight, and haven't introduced your family to the fact that your significant other is the same sex as you. Coming out as gay or lesbian or bi to your family can be traumatic; and yet from my own (probably selfish) point of view, coming out as poly or - the horror - kinky is easily as bad if not worse.
I mean, Ash and I currently do not have a third, and yet what if we did? What if I did have a slave who I did not want to leave behind? I was having a conversation with Persephone the other day about what I want out of a submissive, and the comment that stuck in my mind was that I don't want someone bound to me by a collar; I want someone who loves their collar because they love me. And it may be totally alien to someone who doesn't feel the same way, but that type of situation isn't one where I would want to leave my sub - part of my family - when I went somewhere for the holidays.
It's complicated, of course, by their family. With my family I could, if I needed to, bring along a sub or a girlfriend as a "friend", and whether or not my parents were suspicious they would at least not say much. With Ash's family, I suspect it'd be rather harder; I can't think of a graceful way to bring a friend along with most of them, though we probably could if we talked fast enough. And with this hypothetical sub's family... Unless they were remarkably open-minded, unless you're out to them, it would be hard to explain her bringing a *married couple* with her to her family at the holidays.
Honestly, in some cases there's just no good answer; no matter how it's handled someone is going to be uncomfortable or upset. Some families will turn it into a choice - your give family or your intentional family - and that choice is never good. It's not fair to you or your loved ones. To me, it comes back to that they are trying to love you for who they want you to be, not necessarily who you are; and that's an unsustainable situation in the long run. Dan Savage's advice is always, when you aren't dependent on them, simply tell them the truth; give them the ultimatum that they can either love you for who you are or hate you for not being who they wanted you to be. I agree with the advice... But it's scary. And it's advice that, for better or for worse, I haven't followed as of yet.
In this season, though, remember your families - both of them - and take comfort in them as best you can. My families - my given family and my chosen family - are both small... And I regret that most days. I miss them, and they should not be taken for granted... No matter how much stress they cause.
2014/11/24
Maybe It's Rhetorical?
There's this movie trope, which I'm sure most people are familiar with -- the main character, in a beaten down moment, will find themselves inundated with the sound of voices repeating something over and over that perfectly describes the moment at hand. For me, when I'm having an off or bad day, the phrase that ricochets back and forth is, "So why are you even with him? Even with him? With him? Him?" (My mind has an echo, don't mind me.)
It's such a strange phrase given the circumstance of Mike and my relationship, and it's almost invariable said to me by men -- men, who, for the most part, are hoping to land a spot in my pants if things go right. Never mind the fact that I'm in a relationship with a structure that allows me to talk to other people in an otherwise questionable manner. The question haunts me though, as does the implication behind it.
How do you explain to someone *why* you're with someone when your sex drives and interests don't match? How do I say, "everything else is almost perfect for the most part" without sounding like I'm lying or over-exaggerating? How do I make someone understand that sex is important, but not necessarily in this particular relationship? It's such a strange concept to most people.
There's a part of me that is bothered simply because I don't think I would be questioned if I was a guy complaining that my partner/spouse/FWB didn't put out enough. We are raised with the idea that men "only want one thing" and women always have headaches. So not only is it strange to them that *I'm* the one complaining, but the situation itself flies in the face of our societal understanding of women's sexuality.
What's worse is the follow-up to this question, which is usually something along the lines of, "what kind of man can't satisfy you?" This presupposes two things: that Mike isn't "man enough" because he doesn't constantly think with his penis, and two, that it can't be that my sex drive *is* actually pretty far out there (I mean, what kind of pervert must I be if I can't be satisfied by a mere man?!). This line of conversation is actually a serious deal-breaker for me, for a number of reasons.
I can understand that being a secondary for a partnered person is difficult for single people. I have no problem with that. But if I'm going to step away from my primary relationship to give time to someone else, I want them to be respectful of my primary relationship (the same way I want Mike's partners to be respectful of me and I aim to be supportive and encouraging of their relationships as well). If they can't appreciate that I'm not being completely closed off from them despite being married, then I won't even give them the opportunity to be asked "why are you even with her?" from any of THEIR friends.
The second issue I have with the conversation is that I don't appreciate not being taken at my word. I understand we live in a world where a lot of people "put their best foot forward," but I'm too lazy and tired to dick people around like that. If someone presents themselves a specific way, I expect that to be authentic. When I say "I've never dated someone who could exhaust my sex drive," I'm not saying it to brag or titillate anyone. It's simply a fact (one I will explain at a later date, since it's not as straight forward a fact as it sounds, though it's still true), but I get a wink and a nod and a pat on the head -- "suuuuure, sweetie...uh-huh, I believe you..." -- and I'm not into age play, so being treated like an immature child makes me angry.
Sex and intimacy are important to me, and yes, being married to someone who doesn't have the same ideas regarding physical contact is often difficult and frustrating on both sides. But that isn't the end-all-be-all -- I'd rather have the companionship, the similar interests, compatible parenting styles, the laughs, the respect...even if, in the end, we never have standard penis-in-vagina intercourse ever again. I have my toys, I have my options...and I have a husband who makes me laugh and doesn't mind that I find other people attractive.
At the base of it, I'm not sure how anyone would question it. Why would I *not* be with him? I can have my cake and eat it too, more or less. I have a good man at home who loves me enough to say I can go get my needs met elsewhere as needed. Maybe I should just assume that people question it because they're jealous of how awesome my situation is. It's not appreciated, but I can't really blame them.
'Haters gonna hate,' I guess?
It's such a strange phrase given the circumstance of Mike and my relationship, and it's almost invariable said to me by men -- men, who, for the most part, are hoping to land a spot in my pants if things go right. Never mind the fact that I'm in a relationship with a structure that allows me to talk to other people in an otherwise questionable manner. The question haunts me though, as does the implication behind it.
How do you explain to someone *why* you're with someone when your sex drives and interests don't match? How do I say, "everything else is almost perfect for the most part" without sounding like I'm lying or over-exaggerating? How do I make someone understand that sex is important, but not necessarily in this particular relationship? It's such a strange concept to most people.
There's a part of me that is bothered simply because I don't think I would be questioned if I was a guy complaining that my partner/spouse/FWB didn't put out enough. We are raised with the idea that men "only want one thing" and women always have headaches. So not only is it strange to them that *I'm* the one complaining, but the situation itself flies in the face of our societal understanding of women's sexuality.
What's worse is the follow-up to this question, which is usually something along the lines of, "what kind of man can't satisfy you?" This presupposes two things: that Mike isn't "man enough" because he doesn't constantly think with his penis, and two, that it can't be that my sex drive *is* actually pretty far out there (I mean, what kind of pervert must I be if I can't be satisfied by a mere man?!). This line of conversation is actually a serious deal-breaker for me, for a number of reasons.
I can understand that being a secondary for a partnered person is difficult for single people. I have no problem with that. But if I'm going to step away from my primary relationship to give time to someone else, I want them to be respectful of my primary relationship (the same way I want Mike's partners to be respectful of me and I aim to be supportive and encouraging of their relationships as well). If they can't appreciate that I'm not being completely closed off from them despite being married, then I won't even give them the opportunity to be asked "why are you even with her?" from any of THEIR friends.
The second issue I have with the conversation is that I don't appreciate not being taken at my word. I understand we live in a world where a lot of people "put their best foot forward," but I'm too lazy and tired to dick people around like that. If someone presents themselves a specific way, I expect that to be authentic. When I say "I've never dated someone who could exhaust my sex drive," I'm not saying it to brag or titillate anyone. It's simply a fact (one I will explain at a later date, since it's not as straight forward a fact as it sounds, though it's still true), but I get a wink and a nod and a pat on the head -- "suuuuure, sweetie...uh-huh, I believe you..." -- and I'm not into age play, so being treated like an immature child makes me angry.
Sex and intimacy are important to me, and yes, being married to someone who doesn't have the same ideas regarding physical contact is often difficult and frustrating on both sides. But that isn't the end-all-be-all -- I'd rather have the companionship, the similar interests, compatible parenting styles, the laughs, the respect...even if, in the end, we never have standard penis-in-vagina intercourse ever again. I have my toys, I have my options...and I have a husband who makes me laugh and doesn't mind that I find other people attractive.
At the base of it, I'm not sure how anyone would question it. Why would I *not* be with him? I can have my cake and eat it too, more or less. I have a good man at home who loves me enough to say I can go get my needs met elsewhere as needed. Maybe I should just assume that people question it because they're jealous of how awesome my situation is. It's not appreciated, but I can't really blame them.
'Haters gonna hate,' I guess?
2014/11/14
While True, It's Not the Whole Story
Hello Dan; I am a mid-40s male in the midwest. I have just been told by my 12-year-old daughter her mom has told her that the reason that her mom and I divorced is that I cheated on her. While that is true it does not tell the whole story...
That was the first couple of sentences of a caller's message on the Savage Lovecast this week. It's from episode 420; check it out here (I recommend the podcast in general, not just the ones I comment on). It's not the first time I've heard it... And it struck very close to home. This is a person who was with his wife for a number of years; a marriage that turned into a sexless, possibly emotionally abusive relationship. There was cheating, a divorce, and then he married the person he cheated with; and his ex, the mother of his daughter, has explicitly fingered that and him to be the reason their marriage fell apart.
This struck me for two reasons - first, because of how much it reminded me of our own marriage; and second, because of how close-to-home it strikes me relative to my ex's threats around my son. And the guy's problem, while I sympathize and identify with it, isn't the most important part of the podcast, not the part most worth listening to; Dan's response is.
I don't think I've talked about it directly before, but my marriage ended in an incredibly ugly way. There were accusations of cheating, actual cheating, yelling, arguments, suicide attempts, a mental hospital, a coming out as bisexual (which to this day I still don't know whether it was honest) followed - two years later - by a coming out as lesbian, and an enormous amount of pain. I'll never know with certainty how much of our marriage was her lying to herself and how much was her lying to me; I do have a pretty good idea how much of it was her using me to get what she wanted at my expense even after she no longer loved me or wanted to be with me. And yet with all this, with all this history, she still felt virtuous in threatening to take my kinks to a judge and trying to have my son taken away - because in her mind, I was a monster, and therefore it was natural to assume everyone else would agree. And the really damning part? Most of them would.
You asked me, how do you convince her you're not a monster? You don't be a monster.It's hard enough presenting my lifestyle to adults. It's hard enough trying to make them understand there's nothing wrong with me because of my interest in pain, or blood, or bondage, or domination and submission. It's hard enough trying to make them understand there's nothing wrong with me because of the fact I don't use monogamy as a natural rest state and am honest enough to sometimes say that out loud.
What most people seem to forget is that in these cases, most of the time, we're not the bad guys; all too often we're the victims. It's easy to condemn us because we're different; it's easy to condemn us because our minds don't run in quite the same circles as everyone else. It's worse because we're open about it sometimes, even proud of it... It's worse when we aren't ashamed, because we're accused of flaunting it or "spreading our disease".
The best defense you have against this is education. When your children are 8, or 12? No, this isn't a conversation you should be having, at least in the specific sense; they shouldn't know all about your sex life. But when they're 16, 18, 20? When your parents are the ones? Your siblings? Yes - they should know. They should know the truth about the kinks, about the interests, about the fact that there's nothing wrong with being poly or dominant or masochistic or anything else. This won't be any easier with kink than it is with homosexuality; some people are just bigoted and no amount of logic or truth will sway that. And sometimes, they should know that the ones their bigotry and ignorance are hurting are their family.
I'm terrified of talking to my parents about it, because they are bigoted and set in their ways; I'm not scared of telling my sister or my cousins any more, because they're much more supportive of the.. Different and minorities (...and, well, because we already told my one cousin we're poly anyway). And I'm scared of telling my son, but I actually don't think it'll go badly. I don't particularly care if he grows up being straight or gay or bi or pansexual; vanilla or kinky or whatever. He has a shot at being brought up without the kindof of narrow-minded bigotry that poisons too much of our culture and leads to me being labelled a monster.
The real monster in this situation is ignorance... And it's not something you'll ever escape. It's something you simply have to pick your battles and stand you ground and be proud of who you are.
2014/11/04
Sometimes It's Hard to Tell
Some of you may have heard of Jian Ghomeshi; many of you probably haven't, or at least not before the last few weeks. He is a broadcast personality, and generally a celebrity in some circles. Not in the US, particularly, but that's okay; I doubt many Canadians care much about US broadcast personalities after all. He's an author, a musician, and - to listen to what's been in the news recent - a pervert.
Now don't get me wrong; I don't say that as a pejorative. One of my dearest friends from the late 90s has been proudly calling me - and herself - a pervert for as long as I've known her. Some people, myself included, see being a pervert as something more like a badge of honour. I don't hold his being a pervert - my term, not his - against him. Being involved in BDSM, sadomasochistic sex, is not only fine - it's what I do. What I do hold against him is the allegations that his sadism crossed the line into abuse and assault.
On October 26th the CBC announced that he was being fired, and the reason was the three women who came forwards and claimed he had assaulted them. Not "he's a filthy pervert"; not "oh my god, why do they let monsters with his kinks out on the street"; but "this man assaulted us in a non-consensual manner". Jian immediately came back and announced a law suit against his former employer, claiming wrongful firing and that the allegations are totally groundless. The discussion has been loud on both sides - one side championing the groundless persecution of an innocent man, however kinky or "perverted", and the either espousing the egregious abuse of innocent women by a vicious monster.
I don't know the entire situation, which isn't surprising. I've read a lot about it, but it's one of those cases where we may never know the entire truth. There are people with an agenda against him, because of personal reasons or just because they don't agree with his lifestyle. In this case... I tend to believe the women. There's a lot written out there, including dozens of news articles and specialist pieces - including several blog entries by Dan Savage (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/10/27/prominent-cbc-radio-host-claims-he-was-fired-for-consensual-bdsm-sex) - but my favourites are these two pieces. The first is "Poor Persecuted Pervert?" by sex columnist Andrea Zanin:
https://sexgeek.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/poor-persecuted-pervert/
and the second is one I actually found through Zanin's Twitter feed, a Facebook entry by someone who knew Ghomeshi personally:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1491910081073780&id=1387461484851974
This one, I'll actually quote here, as it summarizes a lot of my thoughts as to why he probably should be convicted:
I'll be honest; this situation is my own personal nightmare. I know the only thing that stands between me, or many other sadists, and the actuality of the accusations against Jian is a conscience. An unwillingness to do something non-consensually that, with consent, is a turn-on. A forced perspective on the potential consequences, the side effects, the things that can - and do - go wrong for people with my interests every day. The risks - physical, mental, societal, familial, and legal. The knowledge that there are people out there who would happily take the things I'm interested in and condemn me for them, even if they believed that I never have and never will carry them out with someone who hasn't agreed to them... And use them to end my life as I know it. It doesn't matter if there's a conviction; this is the type of thing that loses people jobs, friends and family. My ex-wife, even though she willingly participated in BDSM at times, has explicitly threatened me with taking these accusations to court to convince a judge to take my son away.
It's... Terrifying. It's unfair, grossly unfair... And it's a terrible way to live. But the worst part is, it isn't completely unjustified. The worst part is knowing there are people who do the things that they say "Us Perverts" do. There are people who commit assault and rape and murder and try to hide behind their kinks. People who show through their actions that the best way for the world to handle us is to treat us as the monsters the conservatives try to claim we are. The best way to fight them is to live your life right; to throw their accusations back in their teeth by being the honest, worthy people we're capable of being.
Living well is the best revenge... But some days, living honestly is the only poor weapon we have in what can seem like a sea of anger and hate.
Now don't get me wrong; I don't say that as a pejorative. One of my dearest friends from the late 90s has been proudly calling me - and herself - a pervert for as long as I've known her. Some people, myself included, see being a pervert as something more like a badge of honour. I don't hold his being a pervert - my term, not his - against him. Being involved in BDSM, sadomasochistic sex, is not only fine - it's what I do. What I do hold against him is the allegations that his sadism crossed the line into abuse and assault.
On October 26th the CBC announced that he was being fired, and the reason was the three women who came forwards and claimed he had assaulted them. Not "he's a filthy pervert"; not "oh my god, why do they let monsters with his kinks out on the street"; but "this man assaulted us in a non-consensual manner". Jian immediately came back and announced a law suit against his former employer, claiming wrongful firing and that the allegations are totally groundless. The discussion has been loud on both sides - one side championing the groundless persecution of an innocent man, however kinky or "perverted", and the either espousing the egregious abuse of innocent women by a vicious monster.
I don't know the entire situation, which isn't surprising. I've read a lot about it, but it's one of those cases where we may never know the entire truth. There are people with an agenda against him, because of personal reasons or just because they don't agree with his lifestyle. In this case... I tend to believe the women. There's a lot written out there, including dozens of news articles and specialist pieces - including several blog entries by Dan Savage (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/10/27/prominent-cbc-radio-host-claims-he-was-fired-for-consensual-bdsm-sex) - but my favourites are these two pieces. The first is "Poor Persecuted Pervert?" by sex columnist Andrea Zanin:
https://sexgeek.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/poor-persecuted-pervert/
and the second is one I actually found through Zanin's Twitter feed, a Facebook entry by someone who knew Ghomeshi personally:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1491910081073780&id=1387461484851974
This one, I'll actually quote here, as it summarizes a lot of my thoughts as to why he probably should be convicted:
I was challenged by a friend to say something about the recent allegations against Jian Ghomeshi.
Jian is my friend. I have appeared twice on Q. But there is no grey area here. Three women have been beaten by Jian Ghomeshi.
I have sat with Jian over drinks and discussed our respective anxiety disorders. We have been photographed hugging on camera.
Just ten days ago, I helped him find musicians for his father’s funeral. Three women have said that Jian beat them without their consent.
“We will never really know what happened.” Yes we do. Jian beat, at the very least, three women. Three women said so. “They were jilted exes.” Maybe so. They were beaten by Jian.
“They were freelance writers looking to get ahead.” Three women were beaten by Jian Ghomeshi.
At no point here will I ever give my friend Jian’s version of the truth more creedence than the version of the truth offered up by three women. Anonymity does not mean these women do not exist.
“They were engaged in BDSM role-play.” This: this is something I need to talk about.
The beauty of BDSM relationships is that the power is always in the hands of the sub. BDSM and choke play is a subversion of male violence.
To hear that anybody has been abusing the BDSM power relationship for the purpose of engaging in non-consensual violence-against-women is horrifying.
That is not the point of BDSM. BDSM is in fact about the exact opposite thing. It is about repurposing acts of violence into creating a power dynamic of fucking EQUALITY.
As for the rest. I have seen my Facebook feed littered with comments about how “for years we’ve known Jian to be a shady character.”
I too have heard endless rumours that he’s been a bad date, and have heard stories of shadiness and strange behaviour.
I have heard about his ridiculous pick-up lines and have (to my shame) tittered about them with my friends. But I have never heard, until today, that Jian Ghomeshi beats women.
I am skeptical of arts reporting. I am skeptical of Canadian journalism. I am sensitive toward shaming of people who are so-called sexual deviants.
But let’s be clear. Whether the court decides that predatory men are punished or exonerated does not silence the voices of the victims. It does not make victims liars.
Whether our culture continues to celebrate the works of predatory men is another issue. It does not silence the voices of the victims.
Jian Ghomeshi is my friend, and Jian Ghomeshi beats women. How our friendship will continue remains to be seen.
I'll be honest; this situation is my own personal nightmare. I know the only thing that stands between me, or many other sadists, and the actuality of the accusations against Jian is a conscience. An unwillingness to do something non-consensually that, with consent, is a turn-on. A forced perspective on the potential consequences, the side effects, the things that can - and do - go wrong for people with my interests every day. The risks - physical, mental, societal, familial, and legal. The knowledge that there are people out there who would happily take the things I'm interested in and condemn me for them, even if they believed that I never have and never will carry them out with someone who hasn't agreed to them... And use them to end my life as I know it. It doesn't matter if there's a conviction; this is the type of thing that loses people jobs, friends and family. My ex-wife, even though she willingly participated in BDSM at times, has explicitly threatened me with taking these accusations to court to convince a judge to take my son away.
It's... Terrifying. It's unfair, grossly unfair... And it's a terrible way to live. But the worst part is, it isn't completely unjustified. The worst part is knowing there are people who do the things that they say "Us Perverts" do. There are people who commit assault and rape and murder and try to hide behind their kinks. People who show through their actions that the best way for the world to handle us is to treat us as the monsters the conservatives try to claim we are. The best way to fight them is to live your life right; to throw their accusations back in their teeth by being the honest, worthy people we're capable of being.
Living well is the best revenge... But some days, living honestly is the only poor weapon we have in what can seem like a sea of anger and hate.
2014/10/31
A Lesbian by Any Other Name...
So this is a very long article, and I suspect it'd be copyright infringement to copy it here, so I won't - I'll just link to it. However, I encourage you to go read this:
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/29/im_a_lesbian_marrying_a_man/
It's an article by a self-identified lesbian who fell in love with, married, and - apparently - is having kids with a man. What I consider the most important aspects can be summed up with this paragraph here:
When I first read it, it actually reminded me a lot of Ash. She's a high-sex-drive low-romantic-drive borderline vanilla girl (I suspect she'll disagree with that in part, but I'll leave an in-depth analysis of Ash, her self-perception, and my perception of her for another day), and I'm a high-romantic-drive low-sex-drive anything-but-vanilla demisexual guy. Most people who I've tried to explain our relationship with gave me some version of "...And why exactly are the two of you together?" It's not even that I can't understand where they're coming from; it's that they're basing their reaction on a totally different standard than our relationship is based on. Ash knows it's okay if she wants to get sex somewhere else, and is mostly okay with the conversations she has with some of her old... Acquaintances and the sex we do have. For my part, she encourages me to find an outlet for my dominant and sadistic sides, and tries not to push me if she thinks she's going too far over my own sex drive. It's not perfect - I've never seen a relationship that was - but it's open, honest, and in every other way we mesh far better than most people seem to realize.
There's a quote I found recently on a Tumblr feed I follow:
The important take-away, to me, is simply this: she identifies as a lesbian, because as a rule she's attracted to women. That's not something someone else can argue, because it's her own identity. The fact that, arguably, her relationship conflicts with that self-identity isn't self-deception or malicious manipulation of the people around her; it's narrow-mindedness on the friends, family, and internet trolls who are giving her grief. If her husband is her home, the place where she's comfortable, it doesn't change whether or not she sees herself as a lesbian... Only whether she's married to a woman.
People seem to get so worked up at someone else who doesn't quite meet their own definition of some term when they claim it. I've seen discussions online where someone says "I'm asexual but occasionally enjoy sex with my partner" or "I enjoy sex, I just have no sex drive" and promptly gets jumped on by the AVEN definition nazis. I mean, in all fairness, those occasions are few and far between (the asexual/demisexual community is one of the more inclusive and accepting ones I've ever encountered), but it's much more common in the gay and bisexual communities.
Not everyone agrees with your definition on everything; get over it. My definition of "dominant" disagrees with 95% of all other self-identified dominants; my definition of submissive, since I don't actually identify that way and such am less invested in it, is far broader. My definition of "sadist" is not the same as that of every other self-identified sadist I've talked to. My definition of "asexual" is not the same as every other self-identified demisexual I've talked to... And that's okay, really.
I have to admit, I find the comments on this article more than a little depressing. People flipped out on EJ - the author - and ranted on and on about how she's giving lesbians a bad name, and fooling herself; that she's bi in denial, was never a lesbian, and this is the reason why people say lesbians don't actually exist. EJ's attitude isn't single-handedly defeating all lesbian process; those who disagree with or try to fight "lesbian culture" would do so with some other thin excuse if this one weren't available. All they're doing is excluding her in their own heads, from their narrow little worlds.
Ash, when she read it, came away with a totally different reaction, and I'll leave you with this comment that summarizes her view nicely:
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/29/im_a_lesbian_marrying_a_man/
It's an article by a self-identified lesbian who fell in love with, married, and - apparently - is having kids with a man. What I consider the most important aspects can be summed up with this paragraph here:
I know plenty of people who identify as bisexual; I am not. The term simply doesn’t apply. I am not, as a rule, attracted to men. I simply fell in love with this person and didn’t hold his gender against him. That won’t change because of our vows, any more than my eye color will. My fundamental coordinates are unaltered.
When I first read it, it actually reminded me a lot of Ash. She's a high-sex-drive low-romantic-drive borderline vanilla girl (I suspect she'll disagree with that in part, but I'll leave an in-depth analysis of Ash, her self-perception, and my perception of her for another day), and I'm a high-romantic-drive low-sex-drive anything-but-vanilla demisexual guy. Most people who I've tried to explain our relationship with gave me some version of "...And why exactly are the two of you together?" It's not even that I can't understand where they're coming from; it's that they're basing their reaction on a totally different standard than our relationship is based on. Ash knows it's okay if she wants to get sex somewhere else, and is mostly okay with the conversations she has with some of her old... Acquaintances and the sex we do have. For my part, she encourages me to find an outlet for my dominant and sadistic sides, and tries not to push me if she thinks she's going too far over my own sex drive. It's not perfect - I've never seen a relationship that was - but it's open, honest, and in every other way we mesh far better than most people seem to realize.
There's a quote I found recently on a Tumblr feed I follow:
Being able to find someone you click with so naturally is the best feeling ever. You feel like you’ve been best friends you’re[sic] whole life, it feels like you’re coming home. You’re so comfortable with them. Maybe that’s what a soulmate is. Not someone who shares every single thing in common with you, but someone who feels like home.
The important take-away, to me, is simply this: she identifies as a lesbian, because as a rule she's attracted to women. That's not something someone else can argue, because it's her own identity. The fact that, arguably, her relationship conflicts with that self-identity isn't self-deception or malicious manipulation of the people around her; it's narrow-mindedness on the friends, family, and internet trolls who are giving her grief. If her husband is her home, the place where she's comfortable, it doesn't change whether or not she sees herself as a lesbian... Only whether she's married to a woman.
People seem to get so worked up at someone else who doesn't quite meet their own definition of some term when they claim it. I've seen discussions online where someone says "I'm asexual but occasionally enjoy sex with my partner" or "I enjoy sex, I just have no sex drive" and promptly gets jumped on by the AVEN definition nazis. I mean, in all fairness, those occasions are few and far between (the asexual/demisexual community is one of the more inclusive and accepting ones I've ever encountered), but it's much more common in the gay and bisexual communities.
Not everyone agrees with your definition on everything; get over it. My definition of "dominant" disagrees with 95% of all other self-identified dominants; my definition of submissive, since I don't actually identify that way and such am less invested in it, is far broader. My definition of "sadist" is not the same as that of every other self-identified sadist I've talked to. My definition of "asexual" is not the same as every other self-identified demisexual I've talked to... And that's okay, really.
I have to admit, I find the comments on this article more than a little depressing. People flipped out on EJ - the author - and ranted on and on about how she's giving lesbians a bad name, and fooling herself; that she's bi in denial, was never a lesbian, and this is the reason why people say lesbians don't actually exist. EJ's attitude isn't single-handedly defeating all lesbian process; those who disagree with or try to fight "lesbian culture" would do so with some other thin excuse if this one weren't available. All they're doing is excluding her in their own heads, from their narrow little worlds.
Ash, when she read it, came away with a totally different reaction, and I'll leave you with this comment that summarizes her view nicely:
Max the CommunistAug 16, 2014
@Lauremcln @Max the Communist "She can't make herself leave little Italy." Frankly, my concern is more than some fuss over her personal identity and whether it fits the purity codes of the lesbian and gay male communities. What if the real problem is that she can't make little Italy NOT leave her?
In other words, even if it may seem to her lesbian and gay friends that she can pass as straight now and that her life is on easy street from here on out, what if EJ is suffering from loss of community that is dear to her and recognition that the gender of her partner has changed but her values as a lesbian, not to mention her sexual attraction to women, have not changed? She still wants to belong, she still wants to participate, she still wants to be regarded as a person still engaged in LGBTQ struggle and culture--not as a traitor or a sell-out, accusations that some gays and lesbians hurl quite frequently at bisexuals. Accusations and attitudes that EJ herself may have held (and may still hold?) against bisexuals.
She doesn't want the "bisexual demotion" because a terrible cost comes with the bisexual demotion--the loss of regard and respect and the feeling of a community having your back and understanding your sexuality and/or gender, even if the homo/bi/tranphobic mainstream does not.
The cost that accompanies biphobia from the gay and lesbian community is real. National studies of bisexual health disparities show rates of depression, anxiety, self-harm and suicidality (contemplating suicide) are higher for bisexuals than they are for their straight, gay and lesbian counterparts. Not only that, but smaller studies than national samples have shown that even those people within the LGBTQ community who think of themselves as "mostly gay" or "mostly lesbian" have rates of depression, anxiety, etc., greater than those identifying as lesbian/gay and on par with the depression, etc., levels of bisexuals.
You've probably taken a gander at the dearth of negative comments from some lesbians on this thread. That's just the tip of the iceberg. And it's negativity and rejection that has to be taken seriously for its destructive impact on the mental health of the groups it targets.
Cisgender non-monosexual people in opposite sex relationships may not have the easy ride that lesbian/gay culture thinks we do. We may be in heterosexual culture, but not of it, and therefore feel more isolated and disempowered than ever before within a mainstream culture that has greater power to erase us than the lesbian and gay counterculture does. Furthermore, I have come across various bisexuals who have met with discrimination, such as being fired when coming out/being outed at work, even when they were in long-term relationships/married with the opposite sex. So the days of EJ never running into anti-queer discrimination are not over, especially if she outs herself continually--as she does in this article--even though she is currently married to a man.
2014/10/24
2014/10/17
The Space in the Middle
I used to be incredibly homphobic, which occasionally - when it comes to mind - I'm still ashamed of. My parents are unfortunately rather more homophobic than I (even then, let alone now) and it's very easy to sortof default to their beliefs when you never stop and think about it; and the first time I was ever actually confronted with it and forced to consider it was graduate school, after I'd moved out. Even after that, for my marriage and divorce, I had an odd and kindof silly dichotomy internalized; the idea of a bisexual (primarily female, of course, since I'm not attracted to men) was totally okay with me, but the idea of a homosexual (male or female) bothered me. This stupidity on my part proceeded to not be helped by my now-ex-wife; I spent longer than I probably should have associating my pain caused by (and hatred towards) her with the fact that she was gay, not the fact that she was just a selfish bitch.
Since then I like to think I've come a long way. I spent a lot of time reading on sexuality in its various forms, and as I moved away from my ex and my parents my circle of friends has drifted far more to the less vanilla (e.g. more accepting) side. It's easy to keep up that kindof prejudice in isolation; it's much harder to do so when actually exposed to the people you're demonizing, and you realize that they're just as loving and human and normal (or not!) as everyone else.
The realization I've made more recently - in just the last couple of years - is that my misunderstanding was much more basic; relationship and sexual preference is not a dichotomy, no matter how much people want to make it look that way sometimes; it's a spectrum. Or really, it's multiple spectra, all crammed together in a confusing mass that makes me occasionally amazed it works at all. At the very least, though, there are four separate but related spectra: sexual preference, relationship preference, sexual drive and relationship drive.
Sexual preference is the one that most people are familiar with. I'm a fan of the Kinsey scale myself (I'm somewhere around a 0 or 1), as it pretty well captures my views on it. I know some people object to it based on the bisexual/pansexual differentiation, but I don't think it necessarily excludes it; the argument for bi vs. pan seems to be more based on gender duality vs. gender spectrum, and - for the moment at least - I'd prefer to acknowledge it's not a closed discussion and move away from it.
Relationship preference spectrum is something I never seriously considered until relatively recently, but now that I have I'm a big fan of the concept. You can arguably also say there's a third one here - "friendship preference spectrum" separate from "relationship/romance preference spectrum" - but I don't personally differentiate strongly enough to call them different things. Of course that could be an artifact of my own nature; I don't particularly differentiate between friends and girlfriends, either, for the most part... So I'm sure someone'll read this and call me out on it. Either way, your relationship preference is just as real as your sexual preference. Some folks interact most well with the same sex (homoromantic) and some with the opposite sex (heteroromantic), while some really work fine with both (bi/panromantic).
The other two I mentioned, of course, are drives - sex drive and romantic drive, or the sexual/asexual and romantic/aromantic spectra. For one reason or another (and I've gone into this in a previous post) some people
simply don't have the same drive for it. Obviously, if you're low on the spectrum you're going to fall into the asexual/demisexual/greysexual area; but it's sometimes not that simple. The nature of the interactions between your positions on the various spectra can put you in an unenviable - and confusing - spot.
What I mean here is that those spectra, unfortunately, aren't necessarily tied to each other and that can lead to a number of conflicts. A simple example - someone with a very high sex drive but a very low romantic drive. This is the person your mother warns you about - someone who isn't interested in a relationship, isn't interested in friendship, but has a strong need to fulfill their sexual drive. And the thing is, this is actually a large group of people; it covers people who are just totally uninterested in friendship or romance, but also could cover people with severe anxiety, medical problems or other conditions that make friendships and relationships problematic or undesired by the person in question.
I think, though, that a far worse situation is something where their sex drive is high and romance drive is high, but their relationship spectra are in sharp opposition - homosexual and heteroromantic or heterosexual and homoromantic. Friends are a part of most peoples' lives... But someone who is romantically attracted to men while sexually attracted to women really has the worst part of both worlds. It can be exceptionally difficult to built a sexual relationship around one sex when you have trouble relating romantically to them - and in the two cases I know of who I'd classify in this situation, they ended up dealing with it by essentially trying to become asexual. No matter how high their sex drive was, their sexual interests conflicted so much with the rest of their relationships that they only way they were able to really handle it was by suppressing it.
And me? On the sexual spectrum, I'm essentially all the way over on the "hetero" side. For sex drive? Pretty low - down near the bottom. For romantic drive? Very high - that's what I do. And for romantic spectrum? I'm still trying to figure it out, but somewhere in the middle.
Since then I like to think I've come a long way. I spent a lot of time reading on sexuality in its various forms, and as I moved away from my ex and my parents my circle of friends has drifted far more to the less vanilla (e.g. more accepting) side. It's easy to keep up that kindof prejudice in isolation; it's much harder to do so when actually exposed to the people you're demonizing, and you realize that they're just as loving and human and normal (or not!) as everyone else.
The realization I've made more recently - in just the last couple of years - is that my misunderstanding was much more basic; relationship and sexual preference is not a dichotomy, no matter how much people want to make it look that way sometimes; it's a spectrum. Or really, it's multiple spectra, all crammed together in a confusing mass that makes me occasionally amazed it works at all. At the very least, though, there are four separate but related spectra: sexual preference, relationship preference, sexual drive and relationship drive.
Sexual preference is the one that most people are familiar with. I'm a fan of the Kinsey scale myself (I'm somewhere around a 0 or 1), as it pretty well captures my views on it. I know some people object to it based on the bisexual/pansexual differentiation, but I don't think it necessarily excludes it; the argument for bi vs. pan seems to be more based on gender duality vs. gender spectrum, and - for the moment at least - I'd prefer to acknowledge it's not a closed discussion and move away from it.
Relationship preference spectrum is something I never seriously considered until relatively recently, but now that I have I'm a big fan of the concept. You can arguably also say there's a third one here - "friendship preference spectrum" separate from "relationship/romance preference spectrum" - but I don't personally differentiate strongly enough to call them different things. Of course that could be an artifact of my own nature; I don't particularly differentiate between friends and girlfriends, either, for the most part... So I'm sure someone'll read this and call me out on it. Either way, your relationship preference is just as real as your sexual preference. Some folks interact most well with the same sex (homoromantic) and some with the opposite sex (heteroromantic), while some really work fine with both (bi/panromantic).
The other two I mentioned, of course, are drives - sex drive and romantic drive, or the sexual/asexual and romantic/aromantic spectra. For one reason or another (and I've gone into this in a previous post) some people
simply don't have the same drive for it. Obviously, if you're low on the spectrum you're going to fall into the asexual/demisexual/greysexual area; but it's sometimes not that simple. The nature of the interactions between your positions on the various spectra can put you in an unenviable - and confusing - spot.
What I mean here is that those spectra, unfortunately, aren't necessarily tied to each other and that can lead to a number of conflicts. A simple example - someone with a very high sex drive but a very low romantic drive. This is the person your mother warns you about - someone who isn't interested in a relationship, isn't interested in friendship, but has a strong need to fulfill their sexual drive. And the thing is, this is actually a large group of people; it covers people who are just totally uninterested in friendship or romance, but also could cover people with severe anxiety, medical problems or other conditions that make friendships and relationships problematic or undesired by the person in question.
I think, though, that a far worse situation is something where their sex drive is high and romance drive is high, but their relationship spectra are in sharp opposition - homosexual and heteroromantic or heterosexual and homoromantic. Friends are a part of most peoples' lives... But someone who is romantically attracted to men while sexually attracted to women really has the worst part of both worlds. It can be exceptionally difficult to built a sexual relationship around one sex when you have trouble relating romantically to them - and in the two cases I know of who I'd classify in this situation, they ended up dealing with it by essentially trying to become asexual. No matter how high their sex drive was, their sexual interests conflicted so much with the rest of their relationships that they only way they were able to really handle it was by suppressing it.
And me? On the sexual spectrum, I'm essentially all the way over on the "hetero" side. For sex drive? Pretty low - down near the bottom. For romantic drive? Very high - that's what I do. And for romantic spectrum? I'm still trying to figure it out, but somewhere in the middle.
2014/10/03
Harriet the Spy has been around for plenty long - according to Wikipedia it was first published in 1964, well before I was born - but I've never read it. I spent more of my time reading action and science fiction and fantasy instead. Still, I ran across the following quote the other day and I liked it very much:
I certainly can understand the idea of making people nervous; I've spent most of my life doing so. It's not just my kinks, either; after all, I spent most of my life keeping them mostly hidden. I've been an outsider for most of my life. I was a math geek, a nerd, a theatre and music geek; I didn't play sports, I didn't hang out with the popular kids, and I was far more likely to be found playing Magic: The Gathering or with my nose in a book than "hanging out". Once I started understanding my kinks and exploring them - talking to people about them - there were a couple of blunders that *could* have been much worse; I was lucky not to have been outed to my entire school. I have a habit of being quiet and then very blunt; I understand people and read them well, but I make some people uncomfortable because I'm not often willing to lie to them. None of this made me popular, and I paid that cost - the cost of being myself, and spending time on the things and people that were important to me ostracized me for a decade in school.
It's very easy to look at that and say "Well, your problems are so juvenile!" And to some extent, of course they are - they started when I was 10 or less. That doesn't mean they aren't still true, even worse in some cases.
I mentioned this quote to my friend and coworker Ace, and her response was:
You’re an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it’s gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. Stay true to who you are and accept the cost.
- Harriet the Spy, “Be Yourself”
I certainly can understand the idea of making people nervous; I've spent most of my life doing so. It's not just my kinks, either; after all, I spent most of my life keeping them mostly hidden. I've been an outsider for most of my life. I was a math geek, a nerd, a theatre and music geek; I didn't play sports, I didn't hang out with the popular kids, and I was far more likely to be found playing Magic: The Gathering or with my nose in a book than "hanging out". Once I started understanding my kinks and exploring them - talking to people about them - there were a couple of blunders that *could* have been much worse; I was lucky not to have been outed to my entire school. I have a habit of being quiet and then very blunt; I understand people and read them well, but I make some people uncomfortable because I'm not often willing to lie to them. None of this made me popular, and I paid that cost - the cost of being myself, and spending time on the things and people that were important to me ostracized me for a decade in school.
It's very easy to look at that and say "Well, your problems are so juvenile!" And to some extent, of course they are - they started when I was 10 or less. That doesn't mean they aren't still true, even worse in some cases.
I mentioned this quote to my friend and coworker Ace, and her response was:
You know, it's something I really wish I heard when I was younger. Not that I didn't hear a variety of terms like that just that I didn't "hear" that. Stay true to who you are. I was always told I didn't fit in and I needed to.
I've touched on this before... But being yourself, when society can be so hostile and not hiding your kinks or your interests seems so dangerous, can be scary. But building a good life as someone you aren't isn't actually building a good life - it's building a lie. Keep that in mind.
2014/10/02
Bonus Link!
I liked this, especially since it related back to one of my recent posts. Enjoy!
http://cinematicsymphony.tumblr.com/post/98998038935/bodysexgender-thisisaurlbytheblackkeys-true
http://cinematicsymphony.tumblr.com/post/98998038935/bodysexgender-thisisaurlbytheblackkeys-true
2014/09/19
Personally, I Prefer Strawberry
In response to Tuesday's video, Ash was chatting about flavours of asexuality. Saying you're "asexual" can be a vague statement. There are plenty of other videos on YouTube - I've watched several, but they aren't hard to find - as well as various posts on Fetlife, on the AVEN forums, on blogs, and all sorts of other places talking about peoples specific forms of asexuality. I feel occasionally like a broken record with the "well, it depends..." line, but there really is a range of asexual flavours. Merriam-Webster (who would have thunk I'd use a dictionary in my blog?) defines asexual - for the relevant choice at least - as simply "devoid of sexuality". It can actually be referring directly to the person, or indirectly to them through their relationship preference; both would fit here.
Please note that, for purposes of this article, I'm lumping asexuals, demisexuals, "grey-A"s, and others on the asexuality spectrum together under the blanket term "asexual"; the discussion applies equally to all. After all, I self-identify as demi-sexual - I enjoy blow jobs and sucking nipples occasionally too much to be asexual - but it's simpler to use the one term than repeatedly trying to call them all out. I only ask you to temporarily forgive my laziness.
All the technical aspects aside... From my point of view asexuals really break down into four categories:
This isn't an exact science; for my own sake, I know I happen to fit into two of these - I have an unusually low sex drive, and a significant amount of the sex drive I have is tightly tied or channeled into my sadistic tendencies. Let's just hit on these each quickly, however.
Unsurprisingly the majority of asexuals seem to be those with little or no sex drive. Detractors and disbelievers frequently point out that diminished sex drive can be a medical problem; it's a side effect of some anti-depressants, for example, and can also be a symptom of hormone imbalances. There's nothing that says, however, that anyone who's perfectly healthy must therefore have a sex drive. Noone blinks at two people with sex drives at different levels, one above average and one below average... There's no particular reason why, when it reaches a certain level, it has to magically become a different animal; their sex drive is simply low enough to cause disinterest.
In a lot of ways this is both the hardest flavour to handle and also the biggest cause of many of asexuality's problems. Other flavours have a reason that's easy to latch onto; this flavour, that reason is simply "...Meh." The idea of romantic attraction without sexual attraction is too alien to most of the population; the lack of any graspable reason behind it just overwhelms peoples' little minds.
The second flavour I called out is actually the most rare from my experience and research - those who don't feel any attraction at all, making sexuality sortof superfluous or a purely logical/practical matter. This is the category where aromantic asexuals commonly fall (not to make too many generalizations - aromantics can be asexual as well). Sex simply loses context if you don't have relationships at all in a form where it's relevant - either recreationally or procreationally.
The third flavour are those where their sex drive exists, but is not aimed in the same direction as everyone else's. In my own case - and this has caused me no end of trouble over the years - my sex drive is actually far more closely linked to my sadism than it is to... Well... Sex. This category can include a lot of asexual fetishists and kinksters, which I suppose is true of me as well; if your arousal is too closely linked to that fetish or kink, either there can be real physical issues with staying aroused during vanilla sex, or the sex itself is simply... Not interesting. This can be upsetting for people to try and deal with, both the asexual in question and their prospective partner, and frequently requires some work and negotiation for both (or all, to be fair) of the people involved to get what they want and need. It's all too easy to end up being seen (or seeing yourself) as broken, rather than just... Different. Having someone to support you through that type of attitude is critical.
The last flavour I tend to consider is those who have specific aversions to sex, regardless of their sex drive or anything else. This can be almost anything from all over the board. Some people find genitals or sex icky and disgusting; some people find it embarassing for any number of reasons. Aversion to sex can be the result of trauma, physical or psychological - the result of injury, surgery, sexual assault, or something else. Severe vulvodynia or other medical conditions can make sex simply impossible because of the level of discomfort or pain caused.
The biggest problem with this category is that most asexuals falling into it have the aversion thrust on them by something outside their control, and it's very easy to see them as victims. Other people may very well see them that way, but the asexual may see themselves that way as well. It's critical to have a clear understanding of how it affects them and reacting accordingly. Most importantly understand that whether or not it's self-inflicted or just bad luck and fate, whether it's something they're in treatment for or something where treatment is impossible or simply doesn't apply, whether they're comfortable with it themselves or whether they see themselves as a victim, take them seriously. If the aversion is strong enough for them to overcome all their social conditioning in favour of sex... It's real, even if you think it's only real to them.
Whatever the flavour and whatever the cause, the most important aspect is that the people in question self-identify that way. It's not necessarily the product of anything being wrong; it's not necessarily a problem; it's not necessarily something that needs to be fixed... Sometimes it's just the way they are.
As an interesting footnote to close out, New York refers to asexuality directly in law: the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act (SONDA) specifically calls out "heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or asexuality, whether actual or perceived" as protected sexual orientations. It was the first (not the only; Vermont apparently added it later) US legislation I was able to find referring to asexuality, though Wikipedia calls out Brazil as protecting asexuality through law since 1999. I'm not 100% sure I agree with their classification - based on personal experience I don't think asexuality is the same type of descriptor as hetero-, homo-, bi-, or pansexual; you can be asexual but heteroromantic, or asexual and panromantic, or whatever. Either way, it's nice to know it gets some official recognition and - more importantly - protection.
Please note that, for purposes of this article, I'm lumping asexuals, demisexuals, "grey-A"s, and others on the asexuality spectrum together under the blanket term "asexual"; the discussion applies equally to all. After all, I self-identify as demi-sexual - I enjoy blow jobs and sucking nipples occasionally too much to be asexual - but it's simpler to use the one term than repeatedly trying to call them all out. I only ask you to temporarily forgive my laziness.
All the technical aspects aside... From my point of view asexuals really break down into four categories:
- Those who have low or no sex drive.
- Those who feel little or no attraction, thus having no sexual objects regardless of sex drive.
- Those who have a sex drive, but channel it into some other act than intercourse or target of affection other than humans.
- Those who have a sex drive, but avoid sex due to aversion of one sort or another.
This isn't an exact science; for my own sake, I know I happen to fit into two of these - I have an unusually low sex drive, and a significant amount of the sex drive I have is tightly tied or channeled into my sadistic tendencies. Let's just hit on these each quickly, however.
Unsurprisingly the majority of asexuals seem to be those with little or no sex drive. Detractors and disbelievers frequently point out that diminished sex drive can be a medical problem; it's a side effect of some anti-depressants, for example, and can also be a symptom of hormone imbalances. There's nothing that says, however, that anyone who's perfectly healthy must therefore have a sex drive. Noone blinks at two people with sex drives at different levels, one above average and one below average... There's no particular reason why, when it reaches a certain level, it has to magically become a different animal; their sex drive is simply low enough to cause disinterest.
In a lot of ways this is both the hardest flavour to handle and also the biggest cause of many of asexuality's problems. Other flavours have a reason that's easy to latch onto; this flavour, that reason is simply "...Meh." The idea of romantic attraction without sexual attraction is too alien to most of the population; the lack of any graspable reason behind it just overwhelms peoples' little minds.
The second flavour I called out is actually the most rare from my experience and research - those who don't feel any attraction at all, making sexuality sortof superfluous or a purely logical/practical matter. This is the category where aromantic asexuals commonly fall (not to make too many generalizations - aromantics can be asexual as well). Sex simply loses context if you don't have relationships at all in a form where it's relevant - either recreationally or procreationally.
The third flavour are those where their sex drive exists, but is not aimed in the same direction as everyone else's. In my own case - and this has caused me no end of trouble over the years - my sex drive is actually far more closely linked to my sadism than it is to... Well... Sex. This category can include a lot of asexual fetishists and kinksters, which I suppose is true of me as well; if your arousal is too closely linked to that fetish or kink, either there can be real physical issues with staying aroused during vanilla sex, or the sex itself is simply... Not interesting. This can be upsetting for people to try and deal with, both the asexual in question and their prospective partner, and frequently requires some work and negotiation for both (or all, to be fair) of the people involved to get what they want and need. It's all too easy to end up being seen (or seeing yourself) as broken, rather than just... Different. Having someone to support you through that type of attitude is critical.
The last flavour I tend to consider is those who have specific aversions to sex, regardless of their sex drive or anything else. This can be almost anything from all over the board. Some people find genitals or sex icky and disgusting; some people find it embarassing for any number of reasons. Aversion to sex can be the result of trauma, physical or psychological - the result of injury, surgery, sexual assault, or something else. Severe vulvodynia or other medical conditions can make sex simply impossible because of the level of discomfort or pain caused.
The biggest problem with this category is that most asexuals falling into it have the aversion thrust on them by something outside their control, and it's very easy to see them as victims. Other people may very well see them that way, but the asexual may see themselves that way as well. It's critical to have a clear understanding of how it affects them and reacting accordingly. Most importantly understand that whether or not it's self-inflicted or just bad luck and fate, whether it's something they're in treatment for or something where treatment is impossible or simply doesn't apply, whether they're comfortable with it themselves or whether they see themselves as a victim, take them seriously. If the aversion is strong enough for them to overcome all their social conditioning in favour of sex... It's real, even if you think it's only real to them.
Whatever the flavour and whatever the cause, the most important aspect is that the people in question self-identify that way. It's not necessarily the product of anything being wrong; it's not necessarily a problem; it's not necessarily something that needs to be fixed... Sometimes it's just the way they are.
As an interesting footnote to close out, New York refers to asexuality directly in law: the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act (SONDA) specifically calls out "heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or asexuality, whether actual or perceived" as protected sexual orientations. It was the first (not the only; Vermont apparently added it later) US legislation I was able to find referring to asexuality, though Wikipedia calls out Brazil as protecting asexuality through law since 1999. I'm not 100% sure I agree with their classification - based on personal experience I don't think asexuality is the same type of descriptor as hetero-, homo-, bi-, or pansexual; you can be asexual but heteroromantic, or asexual and panromantic, or whatever. Either way, it's nice to know it gets some official recognition and - more importantly - protection.
2014/09/12
Out in the Open
Folsom Street Fair is coming up in a few days. It's one of those events that fascinates me; I've never been to it, and I suspect I wouldn't actually enjoy it a huge amount, but I'm so intrigued that I want to go some year - just for the experience.
A lot of people are really upset by it, of course. Even in San Francisco, some people consider Folsom over-the-top. I suppose of anywhere in the country, SF may be the most accepting place they could find... I shudder to think the types of riots it may start in the south. Still, Folsom gets protests, and it shouldn't really surprise anyone.
Kink frequently has a terrible reputation in society in general, and there are a lot of reasons for it... Not the least of which is that it can be incredibly scary. There's a lot to be scared of. Just in the area of BDSM, there's loss of control; loss of privacy; pain, embarrassment, harassment, belittlement, discomfort, pain, and god only knows what else. More generally there's lack of tolerance or acceptance from society at large - a lot of people just aren't okay with the out-of-the-ordinary relationships that kinksters revel in.
Part of it is that kink is so often perceived to as not subtle. Either it's totally invisible, or so up-in-your-face that it scares you. That isn't true, of course; it's just that when it's not in-your-face most people don't notice it. A person in a collar and on a leash? Everyone on the street sees it, and most of them would be uncomfortable (at least on most streets). A person walking up the street with clamps on their body somewhere, or a butt plug in, or even more subtly heeling to their master? Most people would simply never notice. And that's an issue; subtle kink isn't recognized because it doesn't look like kink, while unsubtle kink is frequently more than a little obnoxious to those who aren't involved - or at least aren't interested.
Of course a huge part of this disconnect is the basic assumption society makes that anything that isn't obviously different therefore isn't different. This is what happens to bisexual folks all the time; a bisexual male married to a female is assumed to be straight, while a bisexual male married to a male is assumed to be gay... Even though it's never more than just an assumption. Similarly, anything that isn't obviously kinky is assumed to not be kinky... Even though often enough that isn't the case.
So when is it okay to be open about your kinks in public? And the answer is, of course, "it depends". What's totally acceptable in San Francisco at Folsom Street Fair could be totally unacceptable at a church in Cincinnati on a Sunday morning. Or anywhere near children. I mean, is it okay to go around in public with your sub or slave on a leash? It's legal, everywhere that I know of, but that doesn't mean it's okay. Many people won't appreciate it - won't appreciate having that world thrown in their face like that.
It's always going to come down to the area you're in and just how far you're pushing things. NYC cops still have to be reminded not to arrest topless women, even though it's legal. Something which is inherently legal can still cause you a great deal of trouble, with the police or otherwise - and honestly it's the "otherwise" that should scare most people. Like I discussed a bit back in the "poly and kids" area, letting the community around you know your actual lifestyle can get you - and your family - excluded and ostracized.
And there's definitely real danger here. What may seem innocent to you really may be private - even if that "privacy" is out in the open - and it's not fair to include other people in your private lives without their consent. Consent is a major piece of kink in general, and strangers on the street haven't given theirs. There's always a thrill to public play - some people enjoy it, some people don't - but that thrill is almost exclusively for the people involved. Mothers doing their grocery shopping mostly just don't want their afternoons interrupted, whatever the interruption may be... And some of them would be truly upset by a mostly-naked, bondage-leather-clad guy or girl on the street. Possibly most of them.
This is really a lot of empathy, and that can be incredibly hard. However much they don't want to hear it, most people aren't particularly empathetic, because it's hard to put yourself in someone else's position and see things how they might see it. Because it's hard to strip away all your preconceptions and assumptions and load yourself up with theirs.
If you're ever in doubt, just don't go public - or when you do, make sure it's subtle... As in "people don't notice it or can deny it in their own heads if they do". There are plenty of ways to exert ownership or control in public without being quite as blatant as most people would be in private - and it's far less likely to upset the muggles. It isn't so different from public displays of affection; in fact, really, it is public displays of affection... Just in ways normals may not recognize as affectionate rather than abusive.
And that, of course, is the real key. A person who sees a couple making out on the street probably won't do much. They may be vaguely offended by its being in public, but it's something they understand. If they're conservative and see two men kissing (read: homophobic), really, they're not upset that it's a couple making out; they're upset that they can't comprehend the couple who is making out isn't heterosexual - doesn't fit into their own world view. And seeing a Dom(me) leading their sub down the street on a leash... It's not affection; it's abuse.
So when in doubt, don't; you may not agree with their worldview, but everyone is entitled to their own. And then just be sneakier about how to get away with it. Instead of a collar, teach your sub to heel; instead of giving oral commands, teach them subtler hand commands or other signals. Make a game out of it. There's plenty of ways to kink in public without scaring the muggles!
A lot of people are really upset by it, of course. Even in San Francisco, some people consider Folsom over-the-top. I suppose of anywhere in the country, SF may be the most accepting place they could find... I shudder to think the types of riots it may start in the south. Still, Folsom gets protests, and it shouldn't really surprise anyone.
Kink frequently has a terrible reputation in society in general, and there are a lot of reasons for it... Not the least of which is that it can be incredibly scary. There's a lot to be scared of. Just in the area of BDSM, there's loss of control; loss of privacy; pain, embarrassment, harassment, belittlement, discomfort, pain, and god only knows what else. More generally there's lack of tolerance or acceptance from society at large - a lot of people just aren't okay with the out-of-the-ordinary relationships that kinksters revel in.
Part of it is that kink is so often perceived to as not subtle. Either it's totally invisible, or so up-in-your-face that it scares you. That isn't true, of course; it's just that when it's not in-your-face most people don't notice it. A person in a collar and on a leash? Everyone on the street sees it, and most of them would be uncomfortable (at least on most streets). A person walking up the street with clamps on their body somewhere, or a butt plug in, or even more subtly heeling to their master? Most people would simply never notice. And that's an issue; subtle kink isn't recognized because it doesn't look like kink, while unsubtle kink is frequently more than a little obnoxious to those who aren't involved - or at least aren't interested.
Of course a huge part of this disconnect is the basic assumption society makes that anything that isn't obviously different therefore isn't different. This is what happens to bisexual folks all the time; a bisexual male married to a female is assumed to be straight, while a bisexual male married to a male is assumed to be gay... Even though it's never more than just an assumption. Similarly, anything that isn't obviously kinky is assumed to not be kinky... Even though often enough that isn't the case.
So when is it okay to be open about your kinks in public? And the answer is, of course, "it depends". What's totally acceptable in San Francisco at Folsom Street Fair could be totally unacceptable at a church in Cincinnati on a Sunday morning. Or anywhere near children. I mean, is it okay to go around in public with your sub or slave on a leash? It's legal, everywhere that I know of, but that doesn't mean it's okay. Many people won't appreciate it - won't appreciate having that world thrown in their face like that.
It's always going to come down to the area you're in and just how far you're pushing things. NYC cops still have to be reminded not to arrest topless women, even though it's legal. Something which is inherently legal can still cause you a great deal of trouble, with the police or otherwise - and honestly it's the "otherwise" that should scare most people. Like I discussed a bit back in the "poly and kids" area, letting the community around you know your actual lifestyle can get you - and your family - excluded and ostracized.
And there's definitely real danger here. What may seem innocent to you really may be private - even if that "privacy" is out in the open - and it's not fair to include other people in your private lives without their consent. Consent is a major piece of kink in general, and strangers on the street haven't given theirs. There's always a thrill to public play - some people enjoy it, some people don't - but that thrill is almost exclusively for the people involved. Mothers doing their grocery shopping mostly just don't want their afternoons interrupted, whatever the interruption may be... And some of them would be truly upset by a mostly-naked, bondage-leather-clad guy or girl on the street. Possibly most of them.
This is really a lot of empathy, and that can be incredibly hard. However much they don't want to hear it, most people aren't particularly empathetic, because it's hard to put yourself in someone else's position and see things how they might see it. Because it's hard to strip away all your preconceptions and assumptions and load yourself up with theirs.
If you're ever in doubt, just don't go public - or when you do, make sure it's subtle... As in "people don't notice it or can deny it in their own heads if they do". There are plenty of ways to exert ownership or control in public without being quite as blatant as most people would be in private - and it's far less likely to upset the muggles. It isn't so different from public displays of affection; in fact, really, it is public displays of affection... Just in ways normals may not recognize as affectionate rather than abusive.
And that, of course, is the real key. A person who sees a couple making out on the street probably won't do much. They may be vaguely offended by its being in public, but it's something they understand. If they're conservative and see two men kissing (read: homophobic), really, they're not upset that it's a couple making out; they're upset that they can't comprehend the couple who is making out isn't heterosexual - doesn't fit into their own world view. And seeing a Dom(me) leading their sub down the street on a leash... It's not affection; it's abuse.
So when in doubt, don't; you may not agree with their worldview, but everyone is entitled to their own. And then just be sneakier about how to get away with it. Instead of a collar, teach your sub to heel; instead of giving oral commands, teach them subtler hand commands or other signals. Make a game out of it. There's plenty of ways to kink in public without scaring the muggles!
2014/09/09
Now you see it...
One of my coworkers and friends - let's call her Ace - was told last night by her girlfriend - let's call her Gwen - of three years that she wanted to break up because they were "sexually incompatible". Ace was not... Traditionally upset; but it's the first time I'd ever say that she looked shaky. It was strange to me because this was a couple who started dating very close to the time Ash and I did - if I remember right their first sortof-date was two days after ours - and they'd been talking about forever at one point. More than one point.
Granted I know the situation purely from Ace's point of view, but from her side it was almost a total surprise. They agree they're extremely compatible in almost every way. The only place Ace - or, according to her, Gwen - thinks they aren't compatible is in their sex drive; that is, Gwen would love to have sex every day, while Ace has a much lower interest. They'd been having some trouble a few weeks back due to an argument around being open or closed; or, more specifically, Gwen wanted to be open and announced she was going to be - with or without Ace... Leaving Ace defensive and confused and upset. They talked through it and agreed to work on it and ways they could satisfy both of them... But the fact that they aren't compatible sexually is the reason Gwen gave, and because she thought they were working on that, it took Ace totally by surprise.
So... There's a lot of aspects to this situation here, and I don't want to dig into all of them here; some of the details really aren't mine to share... But what it did make me think about was how little Ace trusts Gwen right now. A month ago, that would have been entirely untrue; but their interactions have just sortof led Ace to the point where she doesn't know what to believe. Several weeks ago she felt like she was being given an ultimatum; then she felt like she was being cheated on; then she felt like Gwen was looking for an excuse to get Ace to break up with her. Several weeks later, I'm forced to wonder if that thought back then was the right one - that Gwen was looking to find a way to force Ace to be the bad gal instead of her, and eventually just gave up and pulled the trigger when it turned out Ace was too much in love to actually do so.
Unfortunately, we'll probably never be 100% sure how much of this is truth and how much of it is lies and how much is just something we don't know about. It's worse for Ace, obviously, being the one in the situation; but I'm close enough to her to worry and sympathize and agonize of it as well.
By the time I separated from my ex-wife, any semblance of trust we had once had was totally shattered. She had managed to convince herself of several key things about me that weren't true (mostly, that I was cheating on her); and in return she lied to be me about being gay, cheated on me for more than half our marriage, and left me with years of doubt replacing what had previously just been trust and love. It's fascinating to me, looking back over it, how trust - or the lack thereof - changes your perceptions of past acts, both by you and towards (against?) you.
Unsurprisingly, I have a lot of regrets relating to my marriage; mostly around the possibility of having been naive. I don't know yet whether Ace will regret her relationship with Gwen, or at least aspects of it. Probably the better question is "how much", not "if", because it's human nature to regret things that could have been better - even if we don't know so until after the fact.
In some ways this has very much shaped my attitude towards new kinky (well, more to the point, new Dom/sub) relationships. It's much easier to ignore the risk and ignore the possibility of things going wrong and turning against you; but it's much safer not to trust. Unfortunately, any type of relationship - kinky relationships far more than most - desperately need trust to be functional and healthy.
The most basic building block of that trust is always going to be communication; I've hit on it before, and I'll continue to harp on it probably for the entire life of this blog. A more basic thing, though - and the moral of today's post - is to remember that you aren't the only person in your relationships. Whatever the power dynamic, however many corners there are in your love polygon, no matter what you do in the privacy of your home... Everyone else in the relationship is just as much a human as you are. Everyone else is just as much prone to being scared, or being angry, or feeling cheated, or feeling sad... Or not wanting to be the bad guy. Always remember that - think about what you're about to do from the other side. Once someone loses their trust in you, it's too late to get it back.
Granted I know the situation purely from Ace's point of view, but from her side it was almost a total surprise. They agree they're extremely compatible in almost every way. The only place Ace - or, according to her, Gwen - thinks they aren't compatible is in their sex drive; that is, Gwen would love to have sex every day, while Ace has a much lower interest. They'd been having some trouble a few weeks back due to an argument around being open or closed; or, more specifically, Gwen wanted to be open and announced she was going to be - with or without Ace... Leaving Ace defensive and confused and upset. They talked through it and agreed to work on it and ways they could satisfy both of them... But the fact that they aren't compatible sexually is the reason Gwen gave, and because she thought they were working on that, it took Ace totally by surprise.
So... There's a lot of aspects to this situation here, and I don't want to dig into all of them here; some of the details really aren't mine to share... But what it did make me think about was how little Ace trusts Gwen right now. A month ago, that would have been entirely untrue; but their interactions have just sortof led Ace to the point where she doesn't know what to believe. Several weeks ago she felt like she was being given an ultimatum; then she felt like she was being cheated on; then she felt like Gwen was looking for an excuse to get Ace to break up with her. Several weeks later, I'm forced to wonder if that thought back then was the right one - that Gwen was looking to find a way to force Ace to be the bad gal instead of her, and eventually just gave up and pulled the trigger when it turned out Ace was too much in love to actually do so.
Unfortunately, we'll probably never be 100% sure how much of this is truth and how much of it is lies and how much is just something we don't know about. It's worse for Ace, obviously, being the one in the situation; but I'm close enough to her to worry and sympathize and agonize of it as well.
By the time I separated from my ex-wife, any semblance of trust we had once had was totally shattered. She had managed to convince herself of several key things about me that weren't true (mostly, that I was cheating on her); and in return she lied to be me about being gay, cheated on me for more than half our marriage, and left me with years of doubt replacing what had previously just been trust and love. It's fascinating to me, looking back over it, how trust - or the lack thereof - changes your perceptions of past acts, both by you and towards (against?) you.
Unsurprisingly, I have a lot of regrets relating to my marriage; mostly around the possibility of having been naive. I don't know yet whether Ace will regret her relationship with Gwen, or at least aspects of it. Probably the better question is "how much", not "if", because it's human nature to regret things that could have been better - even if we don't know so until after the fact.
In some ways this has very much shaped my attitude towards new kinky (well, more to the point, new Dom/sub) relationships. It's much easier to ignore the risk and ignore the possibility of things going wrong and turning against you; but it's much safer not to trust. Unfortunately, any type of relationship - kinky relationships far more than most - desperately need trust to be functional and healthy.
The most basic building block of that trust is always going to be communication; I've hit on it before, and I'll continue to harp on it probably for the entire life of this blog. A more basic thing, though - and the moral of today's post - is to remember that you aren't the only person in your relationships. Whatever the power dynamic, however many corners there are in your love polygon, no matter what you do in the privacy of your home... Everyone else in the relationship is just as much a human as you are. Everyone else is just as much prone to being scared, or being angry, or feeling cheated, or feeling sad... Or not wanting to be the bad guy. Always remember that - think about what you're about to do from the other side. Once someone loses their trust in you, it's too late to get it back.
2014/08/29
Friday Rant - Polygamy Et Al
In a news article that couldn't have been better timed if I'd planned it:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/polygamy-is-legal-in-utah-for-now
A Utah judge ruled that the law making polygamy illegal in Utah was unconstitutional. This has been around for a while and this is actually the conclusion of an appeal, not the original judgement. See here:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56894145-78/utah-polygamy-waddoups-ruling.html.csp
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/14/justice/utah-polygamy-law/
...Well, actually, it's not quite that simple. It isn't "Polygamy"; it's cohabitation. The judge struck it down because, essentially, there are already laws to prosecute bigamy; there are already laws to prosecute abuses inflicted on partners, especially under-age partners, in certain forms of polygamous marriages (the famous "marrying 14- and 15-year-old girls to 50+-year-old religious leaders" thing which has gotten some Mormon sects a lot of bad press); and Utah does not prosecute adultery or adulterous cohabitation... So prosecuting "religious cohabitation" when no other crimes have been committed is unconstitutional. It's an interesting spin from part of the media on what, underneath, is really a decision based around religious discrimination.
According to Wikipedia (and who doesn't trust the Oracle? *cough*) there are now three states that have anti-cohabitation laws - Mississippi, Florida, and Michigan - and there's some level of expectation that if/when they're challenged they're going to be struck down due to various precedents. When it comes down to it, though, these laws are ones that are generally totally ignored except in particular cases; Utah in particular was famous for totally ignoring their cohabitation law in the case of couples and only using it to threaten polyamorous families - such as the "Sister Wives" case in the original link. It's all part of the same prejudice - the idea that a coupled relationship is "normal", even when it's technically in violation of the law. The total lack of acceptance... But worse, the totally *unthinking* lack of acceptance. It's not even an active discrimination on most cases; it's just the blithe assumption that since it's abnormal it can't be accepted.
I mentioned when I linked the video this week I was going to refer back to it; so let me tie it in here. Right near the beginning at 1:17 is a woman (one of their experts - even re-watching it, I didn't catch her name) talking about BDSM "pretty much being about kinky sex". At 32:35, Hudsy Hawn talks about how important it is to "Let yourself go and role-play." The video was specifically referring to BDSM and power exchange, but the same general attitude is endemic to all of kink - whether it be BDSM, poly relationships, asexuality, or something else. If it's not something you personally believe in or understand, all too often it's "fantasy" or "make-believe"... And frankly, this is an attitude that drives me frigging crazy. Do some people get involved in kink, BDSM, Poly, or something else as "play"? As just something to fool around with? Absolutely. I'm even willing to go so far as to say most people involved feel that way. But even in the video it contradicts itself - one of the couples there are a permanent, married, 24/7 Dom/sub relationship complete with negotiated contract. Parts of their relationship - that contract - may not be protected by law, but that doesn't make it "not real".
It's not just BDSM. Too many people look at poly or open relationships and just call it "cheating" or "unworkable" or "selfish" or "a phase". Too many people look at asexual relationships and say "Oh, if they don't want sex they don't want a relationship, they just want a friend"... When what's really going on is that they have every bit as much desire to be loved, wanted, protected, held close as any other person - they just can't relate to what most people assume about relationships.
Funnily enough, this is the root of my single large disagreement with Dan Savage. He constantly refers to BDSM as "Cops and Robbers for adults with their pants off", which - as I said above - is true enough (in a glib sense) for most BDSM relationships but totally discounts a significant minority of the culture. Similarly he frequently discounts asexual folk because to him the sexual relationship is the center of the relationship, and so a missing sexual relationship means the more general relationship is almost invalid from the start. For someone who's so open, so - to use his term - GGG about almost everything, it's such a strange blind spot to me.
It's astounding to me the blind spots that people don't seem to see they have. Even many of my most progressive friends and family, who are rabidly in favour of freedom for same-sex marriage and gay adoption and all sorts of similar things - just get skeeved out by the idea of either a coupled relationship with a demi- or asexual partner... Or a permanent, committed relationship with more than two members... Or a permanent D/s relationship.
It doesn't help that something like a permanent D/s relationship is very hard to enshrine in law, and rightfully so. Asexual relationships are - for the most part - already supported by law; not having sex, or having a modified sex life, isn't normally a cause for the relationship being invalidated or ignored. Poly relationships are essentially totally unsupported in Western civilization; unless the relationship is a monogamous couple it's either ignored or banned. Many of the same problems found here by same-sex couples apply to multiple partnerships, just in a slightly stranger way; if Ash and I did end up in a relationship with a third, if we settled into a family with someone else, and I ended up in the hospital or - god forbid - dead, Ash would be the only one with any rights or protections. If a poly triangle has a child, two of them are the legal parents as well as the biological parents - and the third If the same family decides to adopt a child, it's actually one couple that is adopting the child and the third has no rights at all... And the fact there's a third adult in the house may be looked at seriously askance when being interviewed for the adoption. Poly legal issues really are directly parallel, with only a fraction of the attention.
A D/s relationship, though, is usually a formalization of removing part of someone's rights - and I doubt there's any viable way to enshrine that into law without offering significant risk of abuse... If we're ever able to make it past the revulsion most people have when you bring up "no, I don't just mean for play - like, for real." One thing that Ash has brought up with me is that when you start talking submissives, start talking long-term permanent Master/slave relationships, the only real comparison most people have had is the looming spectre of slavery that still even these days hangs over race relations in the US; forced sexual slavery of women being trafficked around the world; and, these days, the 50 Shades trilogy which enshrines an abusive relationship in the trappings of BDSM and tries to make it sexy. None of them are very positive examples... But they're the only examples too many people have.
This has been a very rough week for me. I know I'm essentially just very deep in my own head, but it's been very difficult to shake off a lot of depression, and a big chunk of it is centered around this discussion. People who are okay with BDSM may not be okay with poly or demisexual; people who are okay with poly may not be okay with BDSM or demisexual; people who are fine with demisexual may be totally freaked out by BDSM or poly; and very few of any of them are okay with my limits surrounding my ex-wife and the trouble it will inevitable cause me if I'm fully open about most of this. Just that look of disgust, or that dreaded "...Oh, I see" when you're talking to them... Or even just that sympathetic look when they're trying to explain why you're wrong and assuming you don't understand them when really you understand them perfectly well and are just exhausted of being patronized. It's very easy to fall into despair and fear at never finding someone who can look at you and meet your needs and fit into your life and never give you that look... Of never finding a place where you feel like you fit in because you're just a little bit too far over the edge for anyone around you to ever be comfortable with you, or for you to be comfortable with yourself.
When it comes down to it I know it's just fear and not rational, but I don't have an answer to this one except to keep the faith.
I'll let you know how it goes.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/polygamy-is-legal-in-utah-for-now
A Utah judge ruled that the law making polygamy illegal in Utah was unconstitutional. This has been around for a while and this is actually the conclusion of an appeal, not the original judgement. See here:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56894145-78/utah-polygamy-waddoups-ruling.html.csp
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/14/justice/utah-polygamy-law/
...Well, actually, it's not quite that simple. It isn't "Polygamy"; it's cohabitation. The judge struck it down because, essentially, there are already laws to prosecute bigamy; there are already laws to prosecute abuses inflicted on partners, especially under-age partners, in certain forms of polygamous marriages (the famous "marrying 14- and 15-year-old girls to 50+-year-old religious leaders" thing which has gotten some Mormon sects a lot of bad press); and Utah does not prosecute adultery or adulterous cohabitation... So prosecuting "religious cohabitation" when no other crimes have been committed is unconstitutional. It's an interesting spin from part of the media on what, underneath, is really a decision based around religious discrimination.
According to Wikipedia (and who doesn't trust the Oracle? *cough*) there are now three states that have anti-cohabitation laws - Mississippi, Florida, and Michigan - and there's some level of expectation that if/when they're challenged they're going to be struck down due to various precedents. When it comes down to it, though, these laws are ones that are generally totally ignored except in particular cases; Utah in particular was famous for totally ignoring their cohabitation law in the case of couples and only using it to threaten polyamorous families - such as the "Sister Wives" case in the original link. It's all part of the same prejudice - the idea that a coupled relationship is "normal", even when it's technically in violation of the law. The total lack of acceptance... But worse, the totally *unthinking* lack of acceptance. It's not even an active discrimination on most cases; it's just the blithe assumption that since it's abnormal it can't be accepted.
I mentioned when I linked the video this week I was going to refer back to it; so let me tie it in here. Right near the beginning at 1:17 is a woman (one of their experts - even re-watching it, I didn't catch her name) talking about BDSM "pretty much being about kinky sex". At 32:35, Hudsy Hawn talks about how important it is to "Let yourself go and role-play." The video was specifically referring to BDSM and power exchange, but the same general attitude is endemic to all of kink - whether it be BDSM, poly relationships, asexuality, or something else. If it's not something you personally believe in or understand, all too often it's "fantasy" or "make-believe"... And frankly, this is an attitude that drives me frigging crazy. Do some people get involved in kink, BDSM, Poly, or something else as "play"? As just something to fool around with? Absolutely. I'm even willing to go so far as to say most people involved feel that way. But even in the video it contradicts itself - one of the couples there are a permanent, married, 24/7 Dom/sub relationship complete with negotiated contract. Parts of their relationship - that contract - may not be protected by law, but that doesn't make it "not real".
It's not just BDSM. Too many people look at poly or open relationships and just call it "cheating" or "unworkable" or "selfish" or "a phase". Too many people look at asexual relationships and say "Oh, if they don't want sex they don't want a relationship, they just want a friend"... When what's really going on is that they have every bit as much desire to be loved, wanted, protected, held close as any other person - they just can't relate to what most people assume about relationships.
Funnily enough, this is the root of my single large disagreement with Dan Savage. He constantly refers to BDSM as "Cops and Robbers for adults with their pants off", which - as I said above - is true enough (in a glib sense) for most BDSM relationships but totally discounts a significant minority of the culture. Similarly he frequently discounts asexual folk because to him the sexual relationship is the center of the relationship, and so a missing sexual relationship means the more general relationship is almost invalid from the start. For someone who's so open, so - to use his term - GGG about almost everything, it's such a strange blind spot to me.
It's astounding to me the blind spots that people don't seem to see they have. Even many of my most progressive friends and family, who are rabidly in favour of freedom for same-sex marriage and gay adoption and all sorts of similar things - just get skeeved out by the idea of either a coupled relationship with a demi- or asexual partner... Or a permanent, committed relationship with more than two members... Or a permanent D/s relationship.
It doesn't help that something like a permanent D/s relationship is very hard to enshrine in law, and rightfully so. Asexual relationships are - for the most part - already supported by law; not having sex, or having a modified sex life, isn't normally a cause for the relationship being invalidated or ignored. Poly relationships are essentially totally unsupported in Western civilization; unless the relationship is a monogamous couple it's either ignored or banned. Many of the same problems found here by same-sex couples apply to multiple partnerships, just in a slightly stranger way; if Ash and I did end up in a relationship with a third, if we settled into a family with someone else, and I ended up in the hospital or - god forbid - dead, Ash would be the only one with any rights or protections. If a poly triangle has a child, two of them are the legal parents as well as the biological parents - and the third If the same family decides to adopt a child, it's actually one couple that is adopting the child and the third has no rights at all... And the fact there's a third adult in the house may be looked at seriously askance when being interviewed for the adoption. Poly legal issues really are directly parallel, with only a fraction of the attention.
A D/s relationship, though, is usually a formalization of removing part of someone's rights - and I doubt there's any viable way to enshrine that into law without offering significant risk of abuse... If we're ever able to make it past the revulsion most people have when you bring up "no, I don't just mean for play - like, for real." One thing that Ash has brought up with me is that when you start talking submissives, start talking long-term permanent Master/slave relationships, the only real comparison most people have had is the looming spectre of slavery that still even these days hangs over race relations in the US; forced sexual slavery of women being trafficked around the world; and, these days, the 50 Shades trilogy which enshrines an abusive relationship in the trappings of BDSM and tries to make it sexy. None of them are very positive examples... But they're the only examples too many people have.
This has been a very rough week for me. I know I'm essentially just very deep in my own head, but it's been very difficult to shake off a lot of depression, and a big chunk of it is centered around this discussion. People who are okay with BDSM may not be okay with poly or demisexual; people who are okay with poly may not be okay with BDSM or demisexual; people who are fine with demisexual may be totally freaked out by BDSM or poly; and very few of any of them are okay with my limits surrounding my ex-wife and the trouble it will inevitable cause me if I'm fully open about most of this. Just that look of disgust, or that dreaded "...Oh, I see" when you're talking to them... Or even just that sympathetic look when they're trying to explain why you're wrong and assuming you don't understand them when really you understand them perfectly well and are just exhausted of being patronized. It's very easy to fall into despair and fear at never finding someone who can look at you and meet your needs and fit into your life and never give you that look... Of never finding a place where you feel like you fit in because you're just a little bit too far over the edge for anyone around you to ever be comfortable with you, or for you to be comfortable with yourself.
When it comes down to it I know it's just fear and not rational, but I don't have an answer to this one except to keep the faith.
I'll let you know how it goes.
2014/08/12
The Dark Side of Poly
Jealousy is one of the most endemic human conditions you'll ever encounter; it frequently astounds me how much so. I've been more or less held hostage by past girlfriends (and my ex-wife), being forced to disassociate from female friends in order to preserve my relationship. It's astounding what you can be convinced makes sense by someone you're attracted to or invested in, especially when you're insecure and confronted by the handicap of a confused or mistaken sexual identity.
I really have very little idea how much this happens to other people outside my immediate experience, but it's been endemic to one degree or another in my own relationship history and that of the people I grew up with. The worst was my ex-wife - about whom I could, were I feeling unusually masochistic that day, go on for hours - but it's happened with numerous other girlfriends as well, on dozens of individual occasions. So many people live in a haze of restrictions and problems and jealousy, and it's so normal in our relationship that half they time they don't even realize it.
Being poly doesn't really solve any of those issues - unsurprisingly, it makes them worse for all sorts of reasons. A lot of glib comments about poly folk having it great and lots of sex and no problems and... It's all so crazy. And for today, I thought I'd address a few of them.
The biggest one, unsurprisingly, is jealousy; and this is honestly the one that stops more people than anything else from being in open relationships. It can be difficult to see the person you're with be with someone else. The reaction from many folk when confronted by the idea of their partner being with other people is "Why am I not good enough for them?"... A question which is sure to start a fun conversation.
The problem here, of course, is that sometimes that *is* the answer; but that's less of an indictment than it may at first appear. It's... Hard to find someone who will meet all your needs. Not just because compromise is a major part of relationships; but more simply because so many people have partially or wholly conflicting needs. There's nothing wrong with getting parts of your needs met by different people... Until jealousy kicks in and those people conflict with each *other*.
Unfortunately, in many cases there's going to be very little you can do about this. Most jealousy is - at its heart - the product of insecurity, so sometimes this can be resolved simply by proving the person's fear is unfounded. This isn't always a viable option, though - sometimes the insecurity is too deeply seated.
Never forget that this type is feeling is valid. One of the biggest problems I've encountered with poly folk in the past is the idea that everyone either is or should be poly. You'd think that with the level of intolerance poly practitioners meet in some areas, they'd be more accepting in their own right - less intolerant of *monogamous* folk.
Poly isn't for everyone. Some people (some tiny minority) really do find a perfect partner who meets all their needs... And of the vast majority where that isn't true, many do find a partner they're perfectly content compromising for. Relationships, partnering, is compromise; you're sharing your life with someone else, and it won't always be exactly what you wanted or assumed. Maybe the person's unwillingness or discomfort with being in a poly relationship is insecurity; or jealousy; or fear; or possessiveness; or discouraging past experience; or social conditioning; or any of a number of other possible things. No matter how invalid it may be *in your own mind*, remember that it's valid *to them*. You have the right to disagree - hopefully respectfully - and discuss it, even try to sway them to your point of view... But they have the right not to change their minds.
Monogamous folks, whatever the reason they choose to be that way, have every much as right to be monogamous as poly folk do to be polygamous. Failing to respect that is just sad hypocrasy.
Beyond those emotions, however, there are still other problems with poly relationships; and the next biggest one is the sheer amount of work it takes. Relationships take *work*. You have to put effort into maintaining all of your relationships. Depending on the exact nature of those relationships, maybe it's not hard; having one primary partner and a large number of tertiary partners is perfectly viable, for example. Partners who lean towards being purely sexual or activity-based relationships rather than emotionally attached partners tends to take less effort - just time. The more involved you are with your partners, however, the more of an investment you have in the person, the more thinly spread you become having multiple partners.
This isn't really something you necessarily need to fix; it's more accurate to say that this helps shape your relationships. I'm not currently dating anyone; but when I am dating someone it eats up time. I spend time talking with them, texting them, concentrating on them, actually physically going out with them, just as I do with Ash. Of course for me and my occasionally-confusing demisexual nature the line isn't quite so clearly defined (my motivations and relationships are just different than most), but the same applies to any polygamous person with their own quirks and differences.
Communication in a poly relationship, of course, gets far more complicated. It's bad enough trying to keep abreast of everything when you only have one primary partner; trying to give that level of attention to two primary partners (or a primary and one or more secondary partners) is far more complicated.
The last big downside I'll mention is that being in a poly relationship - even if, or especially if, you're the monogamous partner of a poly person rather than directly poly yourself - imposes entirely new problems on you that you may never encounter in another relationship. Things like dealing with the downside of your husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend's "NRE" (New Relationship Energy, the rush they get when they get a new girlfriend/boyfriend), or dealing with their significant other's breakup.
Break-ups can be exceptionally ugly in poly relationships depending on exactly how it falls out. With a couple or monogamous pair, if there's a breakup, there's normally no really complicated emotional entanglements to sort out. It may be painful, the two of you may not agree... But once the decision for the relationship to dissolve is made, it only *directly* affects the two of you. In a poly relationship, the possibility exists for a relationship to *partially* dissolve, and this gets incredibly complicated incredibly quickly. If my three fake poly folk Alfred, Bobby and Christine are in a relationship, and Alfred and Bobby decide to cut off their ties... What happens? Does it transition from a triad to a V? Does either Alfred or Bobby leave entirely, changing the threesome into a couple? What if Christine's relationships with both men are still strong - does it convert to a vee? Does the entire relationship end and dissolve entirely? You end up in a situation where your relationship with a single person is intimately tied to your relationship with someone else, and they can affect each other in ways monogamous folk are not confronted with.
When it comes down to it, this category isn't really drastically different from things you may encounter with your friends and family; being poly just drags it into relationships in a way that doesn't happen to monogamous folk. It's the same problems, but more... Intimate and possibly intense. New wrinkles on the same issues you've always had.
The summary here, of course, is that being polygamous (successfully and fairly, at least) isn't easy; it's work, it's difficult, and it's not for everyone. Never forget your communication, never forget the feelings of the people you're with, and never forget they have a right to those feelings! If you make sure everyone's needs are being met, it'll work out. Just never forget that some days, "working out and meeting everyone's needs" means breaking up, if your needs indicate another partner or poly relationship, while their needs exclude it. Be honest with yourselves, address it carefully but directly, and you'll find a place that's best for both of you.
I really have very little idea how much this happens to other people outside my immediate experience, but it's been endemic to one degree or another in my own relationship history and that of the people I grew up with. The worst was my ex-wife - about whom I could, were I feeling unusually masochistic that day, go on for hours - but it's happened with numerous other girlfriends as well, on dozens of individual occasions. So many people live in a haze of restrictions and problems and jealousy, and it's so normal in our relationship that half they time they don't even realize it.
Being poly doesn't really solve any of those issues - unsurprisingly, it makes them worse for all sorts of reasons. A lot of glib comments about poly folk having it great and lots of sex and no problems and... It's all so crazy. And for today, I thought I'd address a few of them.
The biggest one, unsurprisingly, is jealousy; and this is honestly the one that stops more people than anything else from being in open relationships. It can be difficult to see the person you're with be with someone else. The reaction from many folk when confronted by the idea of their partner being with other people is "Why am I not good enough for them?"... A question which is sure to start a fun conversation.
The problem here, of course, is that sometimes that *is* the answer; but that's less of an indictment than it may at first appear. It's... Hard to find someone who will meet all your needs. Not just because compromise is a major part of relationships; but more simply because so many people have partially or wholly conflicting needs. There's nothing wrong with getting parts of your needs met by different people... Until jealousy kicks in and those people conflict with each *other*.
Unfortunately, in many cases there's going to be very little you can do about this. Most jealousy is - at its heart - the product of insecurity, so sometimes this can be resolved simply by proving the person's fear is unfounded. This isn't always a viable option, though - sometimes the insecurity is too deeply seated.
Never forget that this type is feeling is valid. One of the biggest problems I've encountered with poly folk in the past is the idea that everyone either is or should be poly. You'd think that with the level of intolerance poly practitioners meet in some areas, they'd be more accepting in their own right - less intolerant of *monogamous* folk.
Poly isn't for everyone. Some people (some tiny minority) really do find a perfect partner who meets all their needs... And of the vast majority where that isn't true, many do find a partner they're perfectly content compromising for. Relationships, partnering, is compromise; you're sharing your life with someone else, and it won't always be exactly what you wanted or assumed. Maybe the person's unwillingness or discomfort with being in a poly relationship is insecurity; or jealousy; or fear; or possessiveness; or discouraging past experience; or social conditioning; or any of a number of other possible things. No matter how invalid it may be *in your own mind*, remember that it's valid *to them*. You have the right to disagree - hopefully respectfully - and discuss it, even try to sway them to your point of view... But they have the right not to change their minds.
Monogamous folks, whatever the reason they choose to be that way, have every much as right to be monogamous as poly folk do to be polygamous. Failing to respect that is just sad hypocrasy.
Beyond those emotions, however, there are still other problems with poly relationships; and the next biggest one is the sheer amount of work it takes. Relationships take *work*. You have to put effort into maintaining all of your relationships. Depending on the exact nature of those relationships, maybe it's not hard; having one primary partner and a large number of tertiary partners is perfectly viable, for example. Partners who lean towards being purely sexual or activity-based relationships rather than emotionally attached partners tends to take less effort - just time. The more involved you are with your partners, however, the more of an investment you have in the person, the more thinly spread you become having multiple partners.
This isn't really something you necessarily need to fix; it's more accurate to say that this helps shape your relationships. I'm not currently dating anyone; but when I am dating someone it eats up time. I spend time talking with them, texting them, concentrating on them, actually physically going out with them, just as I do with Ash. Of course for me and my occasionally-confusing demisexual nature the line isn't quite so clearly defined (my motivations and relationships are just different than most), but the same applies to any polygamous person with their own quirks and differences.
Communication in a poly relationship, of course, gets far more complicated. It's bad enough trying to keep abreast of everything when you only have one primary partner; trying to give that level of attention to two primary partners (or a primary and one or more secondary partners) is far more complicated.
The last big downside I'll mention is that being in a poly relationship - even if, or especially if, you're the monogamous partner of a poly person rather than directly poly yourself - imposes entirely new problems on you that you may never encounter in another relationship. Things like dealing with the downside of your husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend's "NRE" (New Relationship Energy, the rush they get when they get a new girlfriend/boyfriend), or dealing with their significant other's breakup.
Break-ups can be exceptionally ugly in poly relationships depending on exactly how it falls out. With a couple or monogamous pair, if there's a breakup, there's normally no really complicated emotional entanglements to sort out. It may be painful, the two of you may not agree... But once the decision for the relationship to dissolve is made, it only *directly* affects the two of you. In a poly relationship, the possibility exists for a relationship to *partially* dissolve, and this gets incredibly complicated incredibly quickly. If my three fake poly folk Alfred, Bobby and Christine are in a relationship, and Alfred and Bobby decide to cut off their ties... What happens? Does it transition from a triad to a V? Does either Alfred or Bobby leave entirely, changing the threesome into a couple? What if Christine's relationships with both men are still strong - does it convert to a vee? Does the entire relationship end and dissolve entirely? You end up in a situation where your relationship with a single person is intimately tied to your relationship with someone else, and they can affect each other in ways monogamous folk are not confronted with.
When it comes down to it, this category isn't really drastically different from things you may encounter with your friends and family; being poly just drags it into relationships in a way that doesn't happen to monogamous folk. It's the same problems, but more... Intimate and possibly intense. New wrinkles on the same issues you've always had.
The summary here, of course, is that being polygamous (successfully and fairly, at least) isn't easy; it's work, it's difficult, and it's not for everyone. Never forget your communication, never forget the feelings of the people you're with, and never forget they have a right to those feelings! If you make sure everyone's needs are being met, it'll work out. Just never forget that some days, "working out and meeting everyone's needs" means breaking up, if your needs indicate another partner or poly relationship, while their needs exclude it. Be honest with yourselves, address it carefully but directly, and you'll find a place that's best for both of you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)